Chemtrail Tanker Air Show For The Skeptics

page: 29
51
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
To sum: what you have stated are excuses. The solutions are simple and well known. Life would be better and the militaries would no longer have to fend off chemtrail claims.


Not even remotely true. Chemtrail supporters don't believe in reality or science so taking the time and money to design planes to not create contrails will just cause the chemtrail hoaxers to start asking what new, secret, invisible chemical they're being sprayed with.




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by luxordelphi
To sum: what you have stated are excuses. The solutions are simple and well known. Life would be better and the militaries would no longer have to fend off chemtrail claims.


Not even remotely true. Chemtrail supporters don't believe in reality or science so taking the time and money to design planes to not create contrails will just cause the chemtrail hoaxers to start asking what new, secret, invisible chemical they're being sprayed with.


Indeed, one of the chemtrail promoters, Russ Tanner, had this to say during a bit of contrail dry spell:

globalskywatch.com...


Those spraying chemtrails would like nothing more than for you to believe that short, non-persistent plumes coming out of jets are harmless contrails.

If they convince you of this, then, when upgrades in equipment allow them to spray chemtrails which produce only short, non-persistent plumes, you will be convinced that they are perfectly harmless.

These upgrades in equipment are already occurring. Non-persistent chemtrails are now appearing all over the world.

But that's not the end of the story. Now, people in many areas are reporting no visible chemtrails at all. Have they gone away? No. They have only gone high-altitude.

I have personally witnessed this change from:

(1) persistent chemtrails, to
(2) non-persistent chemtrails, to
(3) non-visible (high-altitude) chemtrails,

and because I have a sensitive sense of smell and taste, I have an important story to tell.


Russ runs GlobalSkywatch.com, a chemtrail promotion site, and also sell a variety of chemtrail cures on herballure.com



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




Now all you have to do is prove that contrails are toxic.


Really. I'm not sure you're capable of having a serious discussion about outrageously persistent contrails versus chemtrails. That contrails, of any type, or, jet exhaust, for that matter, are toxic, is not disputed. Prove me wrong but, in the meantime, go to the back of the class.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 




Also that link you provided is to help push the What in the World are they Spraying video which has been thoroughly debunked here...


Just because the mob says
doesn't debunk anything. If you want to rehash that thread that you linked, why not post in it? I'm starting to think that you're just a hanger-on, hanging onto Phage's shirt, while he uses sound-bite 'science' in order to give you an opportunity to think you actually understand something.

A conspiracy, an actual conspiracy, doesn't get into the light of day without a lot of work and a lot of courage.

I've been using sound-bite chat in this thread. It's hard to combat, isn't it?, but the other choice, an actual understanding of the depth of the conspiracy, is not for the social feint of heart.



And just a little info for you APN is not a legit news source here in Atlanta it is just like any other blog on the internet.


So that's an interesting statement. Care to list some legitimate news sources? P.S.: Kardashian's are off-topic in a chemtrail thread.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 




Not even remotely true. Chemtrail supporters don't believe in reality or science so taking the time and money to design planes to not create contrails will just cause the chemtrail hoaxers to start asking what new, secret, invisible chemical they're being sprayed with.


The opposite is true. Chemtrail investigators and researchers don't agree on much but they do agree that the pop science of outrageously persistent contrails is in opposition to observation. Part of the philosophy of internet forums is to create crowd agreement, in other words, to rule the mob. Marketers call this 'smart crowds' in order to sell advertising and advertisers eat it up.

You need to agree with the crowd and you need to feel that you are 'smart' for doing that and you need to feel that the opposition is somehow looney and retarded. None of these scenarios have any observable proof. A government or a military can use these same principles to curtail serious investigation. Unfortunately, today, governments and militaries and corporations abuse their power through threats toward any individual who starts making too much sense.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 




Russ runs GlobalSkywatch.com, a chemtrail promotion site, and also sell a variety of chemtrail cures on herballure.com


Addressing jet cirrus is difficult without lidar, which the average Joe & Jane don't have access to. The bulk of cirrus, whether natural or jet, is invisible to the naked eye. It obscures the stars and makes them dim but during the day, it really just makes the sky kind of a gray-blue without any perceptible clouds.

Why is it that you feel someone addressing this issue is just being difficult? Just because you have not studied your subject, but instead, parrot information, doesn't mean that others have not studied.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Uncinus
 




Russ runs GlobalSkywatch.com, a chemtrail promotion site, and also sell a variety of chemtrail cures on herballure.com


Addressing jet cirrus is difficult without lidar, which the average Joe & Jane don't have access to. The bulk of cirrus, whether natural or jet, is invisible to the naked eye. It obscures the stars and makes them dim but during the day, it really just makes the sky kind of a gray-blue without any perceptible clouds.


But Tanner is not talking about sub-visible cirrus. He's talking about the trails behind jets. When there was a time when the weather was not conducive to them forming, then he assumed they were now spraying something invisible.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Chemtrail investigators and researchers don't agree on much but they do agree that the pop science of outrageously persistent contrails is in opposition to observation.


Pop science? How is hundreds, maybe thousands, of publish peer-reviewed papers considered "pop science".

Is there ANY science that says this persistence is "outrageous"? Can you quote a single paper?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Really. I'm not sure you're capable of having a serious discussion about outrageously persistent contrails versus chemtrails. That contrails, of any type, or, jet exhaust, for that matter, are toxic, is not disputed. Prove me wrong but, in the meantime, go to the back of the class.


Indulge me. Where is your evidence that contrails are toxic?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by luxordelphi
 



Really. I'm not sure you're capable of having a serious discussion about outrageously persistent contrails versus chemtrails. That contrails, of any type, or, jet exhaust, for that matter, are toxic, is not disputed. Prove me wrong but, in the meantime, go to the back of the class.


Indulge me. Where is your evidence that contrails are toxic?


Um...he's right - of course they are toxic - they are engine exhaust, containing large amounts of CO, CO2, NOx, SOx - all such exhaust is toxic - it's not really a matter of discussion.

Of course if you mean JUST contrails and not the associated other combustion products, then as water ice they aer exactly as toxic as any other water ice - you can drown in it you know!




edit on 22-7-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





I'm starting to think that you're just a hanger-on, hanging onto Phage's shirt, while he uses sound-bite 'science' in order to give you an opportunity to think you actually understand something.


Well I guess you figured me out...I am just hanging on Phages shirt waiting for him to post to get my motivation.


Do you really want to get into a discussion on people who don't understand things properly.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





I've been using sound-bite chat in this thread. It's hard to combat, isn't it?, but the other choice, an actual understanding of the depth of the conspiracy, is not for the social feint of heart.


I'm sorry,but what in the world are you talking about?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 




But Tanner is not talking about sub-visible cirrus. He's talking about the trails behind jets. When there was a time when the weather was not conducive to them forming, then he assumed they were now spraying something invisible.


I read his article. I didn't see anything about weather in it. He mentioned that, from what he had observed, things had been one way for a number of years and then became another way for a number of years. What does that have to do with weather?

He seems to be able to use his senses to make a clear differentiation between jet emissions and chemtrails, regardless of whether they are visible or not.

I don't think it's our place to deride the gifts that others have that we may not share.

I don't think you're even close to talking about anything I was talking about. Please don't try to involve me in your personal vendetta's.



Pop science? How is hundreds, maybe thousands, of publish peer-reviewed papers considered "pop science".


You just don't get it. An outrageously persistent contrail is a very rare event. An event, that with today's technology, never needs to happen. The hundreds of papers describe chemtrail events. Those events are everyday. That makes for a lot of experiments to catalogue and study. Nationalizing health care in the U.S. will help with these studies as far as health effects that the population experiences from these experiments.

All of the above is pop 'science.' It's for popular consumption. Its' premise has no basis in observation. It uses words that have no meaning in a real world context: persistent contrail. There was a military need to eliminate this rare event, which has been done.



Is there ANY science that says this persistence is "outrageous"? Can you quote a single paper?


You don't think that the pictures that are put up in this forum almost daily showing the sky grids etc. are outrageous? I do. But I'm not going to worry because NASA tells me that I won't really see this unless I'm on the eastern seaboard. So I must be in some kind of other dimension - right? That makes a lot of sense.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Um...he's right - of course they are toxic - they are engine exhaust, containing large amounts of CO, CO2, NOx, SOx - all such exhaust is toxic - it's not really a matter of discussion.

Of course if you mean JUST contrails and not the associated other combustion products, then as water ice they aer exactly as toxic as any other water ice - you can drown in it you know!


Exactly my point.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by luxordelphi


Pop science? How is hundreds, maybe thousands, of publish peer-reviewed papers considered "pop science".


You just don't get it. An outrageously persistent contrail is a very rare event. An event, that with today's technology, never needs to happen. The hundreds of papers describe chemtrail events. Those events are everyday. That makes for a lot of experiments to catalogue and study. Nationalizing health care in the U.S. will help with these studies as far as health effects that the population experiences from these experiments.

All of the above is pop 'science.' It's for popular consumption. Its' premise has no basis in observation. It uses words that have no meaning in a real world context: persistent contrail. There was a military need to eliminate this rare event, which has been done.



Is there ANY science that says this persistence is "outrageous"? Can you quote a single paper?


You don't think that the pictures that are put up in this forum almost daily showing the sky grids etc. are outrageous? I do. But I'm not going to worry because NASA tells me that I won't really see this unless I'm on the eastern seaboard. So I must be in some kind of other dimension - right? That makes a lot of sense.


You keep saying they are rare, but offer no evidence. Your evidence that they are rare seems to consist of you seeing them a lot???

All of history and science says they are not very rare. In 1969 they were said to create the cirrus cover 30-40 days a year. In 1963, in "A Colour Guide to Clouds", they were described as "often [the contrail] may last for hours". There are many, many sources that say it is not rare, that it happens quite frequently, dating back to the 1940s.

contrailscience.com...

Explain why you think they are very rare.





new topics
top topics
 
51
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join