The Chemtrail Hoax

a reply to: TerryDon79

You do apparently have severe comprehension problems. I have said multiple times why I believe chemtrails exist.
Why do you edit so many of your posts, is it to difficult for you to get it right the first time? Maybe if you slowed down and didn't try to post so fast, you wouldn't have to edit so many comments. Just a thought.

a reply to: DerekB

So no evidence then?

I edit my posts for numerous reasons. That's why there's an edit button.

a reply to: TerryDon79

No edits on this one! Great job! See, just slow down and keep it short, less edits needed.

a reply to: DerekB

Not sure what that post has to do with you posting evidence of chemtrails.

Is the reason you're not posting any evidence because they don't exist, therefore there's no evidence of them?

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: network dude

LOL I'm not failing to understand anything, I was using 30000 ft in general, I didn't say it has to be exact.
I will get pics and video next time I see themy under cumulus clouds. Will you accept they are chemtrails if clearly under cumulus clouds or will you just argue cloud definitions like others have done?

If you can prove the altitude, you will have the smoking gun proof. I and every other person on the planet will be in awe. yes, it's that amazing. What likely happened, is you don't fully understand what you were looking at. While that's not a crime at all, refusing to look at facts is not going to help you understand things in the future.

I am being 100% sincere when I say this to you: "learning about contrails, cirrus clouds, weather, and the relationship they have with each other will show you all you need to know in understanding this subject. I realize you would have to do a little work to gain this knowledge. But if you put in this much effort into the topic, I can't see what it would hurt. Unless you are in the camp that anything I tell you is from a "shill" and can't be trusted. I am not feeding you anything, only pointing you in the direction real tangible facts exist."

a reply to: network dude

Would a cumulus cloud being clearly above a trail be proof that it's a chemtrail or would you just argue the cloud type? I have clearly done research or I wouldn't know what debunkers have problems with, such as debunkers refusing to acknowledge the numerous orb ufo's seen around chemtrails. The ufo's are clearly not bugs as any honest and trained observer knows.

a reply to: DerekB

A photo of a contrail only proves it's a contrail.

Show some evidence of chemtrails. You say you've done "research" so there must have been some evidence that convinced you.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I claimed to believe chemtrails for a couple of reasons which you obviously can't comprehend. If you slowed down to read, you may comprehend, but you would rather fly through posting as fast as possible so that you have to edit most of your comments. Most all of you debunkers run away from acknowledging the chemtrail orb ufo's, like this one.

www.youtube.com...

I guess it is normal for you debunkers to see ufo orbs firing things into plane engine condensation. lmao What a joke! Must be one of those funny "bugs" a few ft. away from the lens.

a reply to: DerekB

Nice rant, but I didn't see any evidence of chemtrails.

Show us evidence of chemtrails. Even the hoaxers make pretend evidence. Surely you have something more than a photo of a contrail?

a reply to: TerryDon79

So you believe the orb ufo's are firing into engine condensation trails? Nice theory lmao
Or do you believe that those are just bugs firing things into the trails?

a reply to: DerekB

Again, what's that got to do with posting evidence of chemtrails?

You like to dodge the issue of evidence, don't you?

If I ask nicely will you show some evidence?

a reply to: TerryDon79

I think it's pretty good evidence of chemtrails to see orb ufo's firing things into them. I see no reason for orb ufo's to fire things into normal engine condensation. That and the fact that most all of the debunkers REFUSE to acknowledge the orb ufo's exist and are highly active around chemtrails.
Evidence, evidence, you are starting to sound like, dare I say, metabunk shills. The metabunk shills like to ask for evidence, then argue the definition of evidence because all evidence is subjective and all evidence can be argued. Just like some won't acknowledge different cloud types, we can't even agree on a cumulus cloud.

a reply to: DerekB

Again, no evidence.

The video you're referencing is a hoax.

PLEASE show some evidence?

Is that better?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Lmao, that is how the metabunk shills evidence works, they just get to say "It's a hoax" without providing evidence, while requiring their opposition to provide evidence for every single claim.
How about you provide evidence that the video is a hoax.

a reply to: DerekB

Still not seeing any evidence, even though I asked nicely.

I think you don't have any and just got taken in by the big pushers like Dane Wiggington. You know that guy? He's the one who fakes information and photos and uses it as "evidence".

a reply to: TerryDon79

He can't. The argument is always the same with chemtrail folks. No proof. They are the judge. They believe.
It's a shame because this OP is one of the best at laying out the fallacy and I don't even think it even gets read.

Denying Ignorance is too exhausting when minds are closed. Only hope is that if they stick around long enough they will educate themselves and safe the foolishness.

I jumped off...

a reply to: howmuch4another

I know he can't. That's why I keep asking.

Chemtrails and UFOs have turned into a religion. It's all based on faith.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Lol you want to talk about faith? Faith is denying the ufo orbs exist when there is numerous video evidence. My belief doesn't require faith to observe what I see in a video and to know that it's not "bugs".
You keep asking for "evidence" that you can't define because that is what your debunker handbook tells you to do when you can't explain something. Just remember, keep your replies short so that you don't have to edit all of them. lol
That was nice faith in how you claimed the video was a hoax, but have no "evidence" of why it's a hoax.

a reply to: DerekB

Videos of blurry bugs and planes are only UFOs until they're identified as blurry bugs and planes. You know? Like your videos.

So it's not about faith, yet you can't provide any evidence of chemtrails existing?

All Praise The Chemtrails God!

originally posted by: DerekB
a reply to: network dude

Would a cumulus cloud being clearly above a trail be proof that it's a chemtrail or would you just argue the cloud type? I have clearly done research or I wouldn't know what debunkers have problems with, such as debunkers refusing to acknowledge the numerous orb ufo's seen around chemtrails. The ufo's are clearly not bugs as any honest and trained observer knows.

I won't comment on the UFO aspect of your question.

But with regard to the cloud type, if you can clearly identify the cloud type, and you can clearly see the trail is below the cloud, I'd say that would be good proof. I am sure the weather experts could verify things to the point a good discussion could be had.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see something new and not bull# brought into this debate. Problem is, we keep getting lies, spoofs, and garbage. Bring something amazing and we will see where it goes.