Weather Channel Founder Debunks Chemtrails

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by coven83
reply to post by Uncinus

 

And here is another article that refers to a symposium in Belgium in 2010. Are all of the scientists that attended this symposium and agreed that these events are taking place not credible?

coto2.wordpress.com...

Its like I said before, their are just certain people and certain conspiracies that these people wont believe until their beloved government admits to them. At which point its to late to do anything to prevent them or change the current course of action.

That is "Case Orange" - also rubbish - so much rubbish in fact that the "scientists" who "wrote" it didn't put their names to it!

I wonder who they were??

And linking to your own thread on a user generated content web site is proof of nothing.

Thats like saying this is proof obama was born in Kenya. (which he might of been but it proves nothing)

en.wikipedia.org...
But I do love a good debate

Originally posted by coven83

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by coven83
reply to post by Uncinus

 

And here is another article that refers to a symposium in Belgium in 2010. Are all of the scientists that attended this symposium and agreed that these events are taking place not credible?

coto2.wordpress.com...

Its like I said before, their are just certain people and certain conspiracies that these people wont believe until their beloved government admits to them. At which point its to late to do anything to prevent them or change the current course of action.

That is "Case Orange" - also rubbish - so much rubbish in fact that the "scientists" who "wrote" it didn't put their names to it!

I wonder who they were??

And linking to your own thread on a user generated content web site is proof of nothing.

It's not my thread.

but regardless of that - did you "bother" to read the actual conversation on there, or was it just that I posted in it and you don't like me therefore it's not worth the effort to read?

Thats like saying this is proof obama was born in Kenya. (which he might of been but it proves nothing)

en.wikipedia.org...

See that is the difference between you and me - I looked at the content of that and am pretty sure it is rubbish becaise of plenty of other information that is available. As far as I can see you didn't bother to look at any content - either of Case Orange or of the thread I linked to which discussed its inadequacies.

Did you actually read eth Case Orange report? I read the whole of it, and decided it was rubbish because of its actual content. Not because it says chemtrails exist, not because the "Scientists" who "wrote" it didn't bother to put their names to it, not because it isn't peer reviewed, and not because it purports to be "science" and fails miserably to follow the basic principles of scientific research.

I think it is rubbish because it was so easy to see that the content and conclusions do not stack up.

If you can show me a report that says that chemtrails exist and the content and conclusions DO stack up then that would probably change my mind.

I await such a report with considerable anticipation.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Yes I did actually read the whole of the thread. I call it your thread not because you started it but because you took it over, in a good way. I have no like or dislike for you considering I don't know you I would not snap to such a decision. Just the opposite I applaud your study of the subject and your being able to draw your own conclusion independent of the many trolls who inject false info into an otherwise good debate.

I will continue to seek evidence and except it for what it is, as I am sure you will.

reply to post by coven83

 

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Yes I did actually read the whole of the thread.

Including all of Lee Harvey Oswald's stuff?? did you understand any of that??!!

I call it your thread not because you started it but because you took it over, in a good way.

I made 13 of the 373 posts - mostly in the first 4 pages and a few in the last 3 - out of 10 pages - hardly taking over - although thank you for hte "in a good way comment".

I have no like or dislike for you considering I don't know you I would not snap to such a decision. Just the opposite I applaud your study of the subject and your being able to draw your own conclusion independent of the many trolls who inject false info into an otherwise good debate.

So then why dis it because it is "my" thread ratther than say why you think the content is wrong??

You asked if the scientists who wrote the report are credible or not - I linked to a thread where a lot of reasons are given why they are not credible - and indeed pointed out that none of them actually put their names to it so we don't even know if they are "scientists" or not, nor what their areas of expertise are if they are!

Have you read the whole Case Orange report?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Not in its entirety as I just came upon it recently. But it is on my "to read list", which sadly has grown instead of shrank lately.

reply to post by coven83


Unfortunately I was editing and adding to my previous reply as you were writing yours - sorry about hat.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

NEVER be sorry about hat. Hat is very snappy, and totally covers up your bald spot!

reply to post by stanguilles7


I don't have one of those.

Bald spots that is.

Hey did you hear the one about bald men - those with a bald spot in front are thinkers. those with a bald spot at back are great lovers. those with a balsd sport going from front to back just think they are great lovers.

reply to post by Uncinus


Uncinus you deserve way more stars and flags for this post, don't worry though, I am now in a position to help the cause, if you ever need anything, just call on me. BTW your avatar is suggestively HOT!

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I love the big lie at 4.19 in the video,
it is not exhaust emissions, it is not carbon dioxide.

It's not? Can you prove this?

Condensation exhaust is a proven fact.

I know its not,
you prove to me there is no chemicals in a contrail.
So you are willing to close the doors on the aircraft hanger, start the planes engines, and breath the fumes,
and prove me wrong.
Please don't.
I may disagree with you,
but do not want to see you die over it.

edit on 23-6-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)

You missed the point. He isn't saying there are no chemicals in a contrail. He isn't saying the jet exhaust isn't there. The point (which has been made repeatedly on here in the past) is that the VISIBLE trail is due to water vapour. Only water vapour results in a trail you can SEE. When the conditions for contrails do not exist and there is no visible trail, the jet exhaust plume is still present in exactly the same concentration. I do not find it credible that you have not seen or do not understand this, you are an intelligent guy, if perhaps misguided.