Chemtrails? , page 4

tsurfer2000h

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:55 PM

link

reply to post by Komodo

yes they are~! They're commonly called Aerial Weather Manipulation Residue trails...IE. Chemtrails; because they are using chemicals in gaseous form to stall a national or perhaps a global draught..

Well I must say this is the first I have ever heard chemtrails called Aerial Weather Manipulation Residue,but that still doesn't make them real, but if you have some information to show otherwise please share...

Komodo

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:59 PM

link

reply to post by flyswatter

Sure thing, bud. You just come right on out here and show me proof that those are NOT chemtrails, and I'll eat my hat.

Komodo

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:03 PM

link

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Komodo

yes they are~! They're commonly called Aerial Weather Manipulation Residue trails...IE. Chemtrails; because they are using chemicals in gaseous form to stall a national or perhaps a global draught..

Well I must say this is the first I have ever heard chemtrails called Aerial Weather Manipulation Residue,but that still doesn't make them real, but if you have some information to show otherwise please share...

yes..

tons of it on ATS

flyswatter

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:04 PM

link

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by flyswatter

Sure thing, bud. You just come right on out here and show me proof that those are NOT chemtrails, and I'll eat my hat.

Sorry sir, it doesnt work that way. There's decades of proof and study of persistent and non-persistent contrails. The "chemtrails" do not have decades of study or any proof.

The chemtrailers are playing the part of the accuser, and the contrailers are the defendants. The burden of proof is on the accusers, not those that have already been proving their belief for decades.

ScatterBrain

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:17 PM

link

reply to post by MountainLaurel

I am just going to give you stars for this topic and your comments because I already studied this myself, and I am with you on your conclusion. We already went through on this subject on this website, you can post the research pertaining to some of the experiments being done etc. and people will still say it's not true. *sigh.

ScatterBrain

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:17 PM

link

reply to post by MountainLaurel

I am just going to give you stars for this topic and your comments because I already studied this myself, and I am with you on your conclusion. We already went through on this subject on this website, you can post the research pertaining to some of the experiments being done etc. and people will still say it's not true. *sigh.

Komodo

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:30 PM

link

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by flyswatter

Sure thing, bud. You just come right on out here and show me proof that those are NOT chemtrails, and I'll eat my hat.

Sorry sir, it doesnt work that way. There's decades of proof and study of persistent and non-persistent contrails. The "chemtrails" do not have decades of study or any proof.

The chemtrailers are playing the part of the accuser, and the contrailers are the defendants. The burden of proof is on the accusers, not those that have already been proving their belief for decades.

sure it does...

you just need to research ATS a bit more..

defcon5

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:32 PM

link

Originally posted by ScatterBrain
We already went through on this subject on this website, you can post the research pertaining to some of the experiments being done etc. and people will still say it's not true. *sigh.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Yes, we've been going through it for a while now. I've been dealing with this topic since 2004, when I started here.

It generally goes about the same way each time. Someone posts some pictures of contrails, yet has no evidence that they are anything but contrails. A bunch of people who have worked in related industry post facts, and attempt to explain that they are seeing contrails. These posts are promptly ignored, and a second round of unscientific speculation is thrown back in the other direction. This continues on for several volleys, until side “A” finally gets argued into a corner where their theory is shown to be untrue, at which point they start calling the other side disinformant agents, paid shills, or debunkers.... On a good day we can achieve this while still on the first page of the thread.

Once cornered, side “A” immediately stops posting in the thread, and almost as quickly starts a new thread with... A bunch of pictures of contrails...

Rinse and repeat for the last 8 years...

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

tsurfer2000h

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:42 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

On a good day we can achieve this while still on the first page of the thread.

And on a really good day it can happen within the first five posts....

seabhac-rua

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:47 PM

link

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
There are far to many abnormalities in these Chemtrails for them to be passed off as Contrails, and for people to just disregard the obviousness of what is going on above our own heads is extremely sad. Dont worry about all the negative feedback that you will encounter when telling people about Chemtrails. You will soon realise there three types of people in this world, those who seem to be able to realise something is not right and are more aware of what really goes on around them! Those who either dont care and just want to stay in their own little bubble where everything in the world is okay and nothing will ever effect them! Finaly those that are unable to believe anything that may seem far fetched, unexplainable or paranormal. They seem to think that Man kind knows everything and that everything in the mainstream is correct. They forget that once we thought the world was flat, and that only 70 years ago it was insane to think that man would play golf on the moon. Most of all they fail to realise that throughout the last 100 years our governments have lied and deceived the public on countless cases of chemical biological testing that has been carried out on the public. I see clearly the same thing happening here with whatever it is they are spraying, be it Geoengineering and Solar Radiation Management, or some crazy mad mans idea of control I dont know!

Just stay true what you see, your eyes dont lie! Do not get angry at those who ridicule you, just feel sorry that they are so blind to truth!

Chemtrails I have filmed!

There's another kind of person you didn't mention, the kind who evaluates the evidence for and against and makes up their own mind, such a person can see chemtrails are at best a myth. I don't fail to realize any of the things you point out, I don't follow what the mainstream says, I do have an open and alert mind, I do look at both sides of an argument, I don't see any solid evidence for chemtrails, but I see plenty of people buying into the chemtrail thing without asking questions, oh yeah they all think they're 'awake' and whatnot, but if they are challenged or a flaw in their logic is pointed out, as it should be, then they're all up in arms about naysayers and 'paid disinfo agents'......bunch of ignorants.

edit on 2-7-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

Aloysius the Gaul

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:19 PM

link

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by flyswatter

Sure thing, bud. You just come right on out here and show me proof that those are NOT chemtrails, and I'll eat my hat.

No evidence, no samples from them, no strange materials being loaded onto aircraft, no systems on aircraft for spraying, no whistleblowers, no bills of sale, no pilots or engineers saying what they did to make it happen, no weight and balance calculations, no fuel samples showing anything other than what is supposed to be there.

In short, not one single piece of credible evidence saying it is true.

That is called evidence of absence - if there were "chemtrails" there would be a massive amount of evidence relatively easy to obtain.

I don't expect you to now consume your headwear - I expect you to blather on something about I haven't proved they aren't there, etc - continue with the appropriately titled argument from ignorance you have constructed for yourself, but at least you now have no excuse for ignorance......continuing with it is entirely your own fault.

flyswatter

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:35 PM

link

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by flyswatter

Sure thing, bud. You just come right on out here and show me proof that those are NOT chemtrails, and I'll eat my hat.

Sorry sir, it doesnt work that way. There's decades of proof and study of persistent and non-persistent contrails. The "chemtrails" do not have decades of study or any proof.

The chemtrailers are playing the part of the accuser, and the contrailers are the defendants. The burden of proof is on the accusers, not those that have already been proving their belief for decades.

sure it does...

you just need to research ATS a bit more..

I am sorry to hear you feel that way, but ATS is not my bible.

Do us all a favor here ... go away for a bit. Take some flying lessons, grab a few chemists and/or material sciences experts, and tote their educated arses up into the sky.

Bring us some evidence or go play in the special sandbox with the likes of Alex Jones.

waynos

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:53 AM

link

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by libertytoall

in a word ..

yes they are~! They're commonly called Aerial Weather Manipulation Residue trails...IE. Chemtrails; because they are using chemicals in gaseous form to stall a national or perhaps a global draught..

just say'n

Well not THAT commonly, because I've never heard the term before, despite 8 years membership of ATS. I await your sources with interest