A Challenge to Chemtrail Believers - Explain this 1969 Issue of Popular Science:

page: 36
69
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
 

how do i know hese a time travler?
just one possible explanation, perhaps you could check with your 'handler'?
edit on 13-10-2012 by lastword because: i added something to my 'one liner'




posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by lastword
reply to post by nancyliedersdeaddog
 

how do i know hese a time travler?
just one possible explanation, perhaps you could check with your 'handler'?
edit on 13-10-2012 by lastword because: i added something to my 'one liner'

alright? someone needs to take their medication!



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
took 'medication'... ahhhh. now, back to the subject at hand. i did some research on the good doctor and it turns out that, no, he is not [likely] a time traveller. he was [now deceased] a highly esteemed researcher and director for the HAO high altitude observatory. www.hao.ucar.edu... . they investigate, among other things, how the sun affects the earth's weather.www2.ucar.edu... . wow, after reading that link, for the life of me, i can't possibly understand how reflecting solar radiation by spraying mass amounts of supposed chemicals [or naturally forming water vapor] from aircraft which spread out into large, refletive banks of cirrus clouds, as everybody on this site attests to, would have any effect on the planet or it's population. en.wikipedia.org... i would like to thank the op of this thread for bringing his long secreted info to light. you are a blessing to all of us who want to understand the chemtrailers agenda.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by lastword
 


There has been a lot published about the effect of Cirrus cloud on climate - eg check out this google scholar search - as you can see even on the 1st page there are studies on eth subject going back to 1979

AFAIK the cirrus cools (reflecting some sunlight) and warm (reflecting some infra-red radiation into space from earth)!! Whichever is the major contributer depends on all sorts of things that it seems we do not fully understand yet (makeup of the cloud, relationship to other clouds, etc.)

fortunately lots of people are also looking at how any atmosheric aerosol form of solare radiation management might affect "life as we know it" - you might find this a good overview - 20 reasons why geoengineering might not be a good idea - it is a 1mb pdf

edit on 14-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Uncinus

I met and know the son of the man in charge of chem-trail spraying in Texas and Arizona. He is the only man that I have ever encountered that has three citizenship's; Dutch, South African, and American. Chem-trail spraying is real and Lockheed-martin manufactures the parts attached to large jets for the purpose of spraying. . .and for the purpose of Weather modification! When I asked him about the risk of metals being sprayed in the atmosphere he laughed and said " don't worry about it because it dissipates and disperses." . . .sigh



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: wakeup444

Sounds like you maybe spoke to a cloud seeder and your imagination did the rest. Unless you can substantiate the "chemtrail" part of your post.

As for "Lockheed Martin manufactures the parts attached to large jets".....etc. can you elaborate on that, because again, it looks like you may have been told something but not quite understood it.

Unless his son is taking the piss out of you of course, that's another possibility.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Could this be the thing you are thinking of? Fire fighting and pest control with a C-130?


www.lockheedmartin.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Uncinus

heres a great chemtrail video its very real



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: snalesnot

What is it about your video that is new evidence? Please offer a bit of information about it.
An hour is a long time to spend on an unknown.



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: snalesnot

That video is a great example of obfuscation, or throwing plenty of mud at a wall to see if any of it sticks. Unfortunately the source you used, Tankerenemy, is so comprehensively proven to be a hoaxer that his material is banned from ATS so your video may disappear.

I'm sorry that you believed in a proven hoaxer. Some of the things this source was banned for are even in that very video.
edit on 4-1-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: snalesnot




heres a great chemtrail video its very real


From a great liar.

It's real alright...really wrong.

Here you go concerning tankerenemy videos...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 4-1-2015 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: snalesnot

Here you go I want to present you with a little of tankerenemy's video that he claims is real and then show you how wrong he is...

Here you go...



And here is what he says about the video...


A pilot shots a chemical plane from his cockpit: the video shows an aircraft that spread chemtrails over Canada from the nozzles. The footage is the irrefutable proof of a chemical and clandestine operation that a bold pilot offers to the public in order to demonstrate that chemtrails are real.


Now from the person who actually made the video...




This is the original unadulterated video that started all the fuss. It is completely authentic and no camera tricks were used. It is simply a couple of KC-10's in formation and the audio you hear is just us poking fun at all the "chemtrail" conspiratorists. I knew when I shot the video that this would be catnip for all the conspiratorists out there. Yeah, the contrails have an odd way of "starting" and "stopping" but that is easily explained with physics. It's no different than the lenticular clouds that form over a mountain or the fog that flows from an open freezer. So, stop being so gullible, kids. There are truely bad things in the world but this isn't one of them!


Now as you can see tankerenemy is blatantly lying anout the video above, something he has done in the video you posted.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Back to the original post and actual topic of the thread here:


originally posted by: Uncinus
Chemtrail believers claim that persistent contrails are a new thing, and they call the persistent trails "chemtrails". They also claims [sic] that contrails don't last a long time, and they certainly don't spread out and cause cirrus clouds and overcast skies. They also claim the chemtrails started in the late 1990s.

And yet, here's an issue of Popular Science, from 1969, 43 years ago...

So if contrails did this 43 years ago...Why the mantra of "contrails fade away, chemtrails persist and spread"? Clearly contrails quite frequently persist and spread, at least according to the science of 43 years ago.


Yet ANOTHER non sequitur argument in an attempt to "debunk" so-called chemtrail conspiracy theory. Here's the argument in short hand:

Claim A: It has been known for 43 years that jet exhaust at altitudes of 30, 000 and 40, 000 feet can form expanding cirrus clouds.
Evidence: Popular Science article, May 1969
Conclusions: The contrails we see today that persist and spread are nothing new

Why does the initial premise not follow logically within the context of the attempt to "debunk" so-called chemtrail conspiracy theory:

1. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed 43 years ago says nothing about the chemical constituents of the jet exhaust then or now.

2. The fact that Popular Science indicates why persistent contrails could be observed in 1969 does not mean what you see in the sky similarly spreading out is the same exact phenomenon.

3. The fact that persistent contrails could be observed and explained in 1969 does nothing to "debunk" that there can be additional chemicals being sprayed along with the jet exhaust 43 years later.

4. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed as early as 1969 does not mean the sheer amount of persistent contrails observed today do not pose a serious hazard.

5. The fact that persistent contrails were phenomenon that scientists were aware of even as early as 1969 is no evidence whatsoever that scientists, corporations, or the government and military would never think of experimenting and using this method to disperse either a)many more persistent contrails, or b) contrails that have an altered chemical composition, for whatever purposes they deem fit, including geoengineering, even to the extent that there is a negative impact on the public's health.

Why are people resorting to arguments that amount to logical fallacies in a viscous effort to "debunk" chemtrail conspiracy theory? -- A RHETORICAL question. DO NOT REPLY.

edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:58:12 -0600201512312 by Petros312 because: correction



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312


4. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed as early as 1969 does not mean the sheer amount of persistent contrails observed today do not pose a serious hazard.

5. The fact that persistent contrails were phenomenon that scientists were aware of even as early as 1969 is no evidence whatsoever that scientists, corporations, or the government and military would never think of experimenting and using this method to disperse either a)many more persistent contrails, or b) contrails that have an altered chemical composition, for whatever purposes they deem fit, including geoengineering, even to the extent that there is a negative impact on the public's health.



Fine, but do you have any hard evidence that they do pose a serious hazard and that governments are experimenting and using contrails as a cover story for those experiments?

I mean, the evil "PTB" could be putting drugs in my Oreo Cookies that make me more susceptible to mind control, that doesn't mean that they are.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312
One of the oft repeated argiuments "for" chemtrails is that things were not eth same before some time - usually the mid 1990's.

The 1969 article debunks that claim.

Certainly it does not speak to the composition of trails now - it cannot do so.

But saying it does not do so is just another form of argument from ignorance - tryingto shift the burden of proof to make people prove things don't exist.

contrails then and now look exactly the same - if you think they are somehow different now then it is up to you to provide the evidence to support that statement - or it will be rightly brushed off as baseless assertion. If you do provide some supporting evidence then you can expect the evidence to be examined - and if it does not support your contention then people will say so.

And so far there is not one single piece of evidence that chemtrails exist that has withstood any scrutiny - all of them are bunk, or even deliberate lies.

And no even that does not show that chemtrails don't exist - what it does show is that there is no reason to suppose that they do exist in the first place.

by all means be the first person to provide evidence that is not rubbish.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Petros312
... saying it does not do so is just another form of argument from ignorance - tryingto shift the burden of proof to make people prove things don't exist.


No, Mr. Stalker. Everything I say does not qualify as an "argument from ignorance," and this point is nothing but a red herring, as I'm sure your mandatory reply to this post will be as well. I am not shifting any burden of proof to anyone, no matter what you think you know about accusing people of logical fallacies (a typical distraction in most cases). The 5 points I outlined above are the reasons why you cannot LOGICALLY make the argument based on evidence like the appearance of persistent jet exhaust as early as 1969. Nothing I said above, including the argument presented in the first post being typically non sequitur, is "debunking" anything associated with chemtrail conspiracy theory.

Someone who states that persistent condensation trails expanding into cirrus clouds was observed as early as 1969 cannot use this evidence to support any of the following:

1. The chemical constituents of the jet exhaust then or now.

2. that the expansion of the jet trail into cirrus clouds is the same exact phenomenon.

3. that there are no additional chemicals being sprayed along with the jet exhaust.

4. that the increase in the amount of persistent contrails observed today do not pose a serious hazard.

Debunkers want to believe that if in 1969 persistent contrails expanded into cirrus clouds, THUS all 4 points above are also non-issues.

This thread is about one topic: Chemtrail conspiracy theorists who believe that jet exhaust never expanded into cirrus clouds until about 1990 are wrong. What I pointed out is the LIMITATIONS of using the evidence presented (a magazine article from 1969) and what it can or cannot tell you. Of course, this leads to anti-conspiracy theorists to pounce accusing me of providing either a) no evidence of chemtrail conspiracy, and now b) a logical fallacy even though I pointed out the logical fallacy already presented.

I stuck to the topic. Did you?



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Fine, but do you have any hard evidence that they do pose a serious hazard and that governments are experimenting and using contrails as a cover story for those experiments?

I mean, the evil "PTB" could be putting drugs in my Oreo Cookies that make me more susceptible to mind control, that doesn't mean that they are.


I stuck to the topic of this thread, which is that chemtrail conspiracy theorists who believe that jet exhaust never expanded into cirrus clouds until about 1990 are wrong. What I pointed out is the LIMITATIONS of using the evidence presented (a magazine article from 1969) and what it can or cannot tell you. Of course, this leads to anti-conspiracy theorists to pounce accusing me of providing either a) no evidence of chemtrail conspiracy, and now b) a logical fallacy even though I pointed out the logical fallacy already presented.

I stuck to the topic of the thread. Did you?



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I mean, the evil "PTB" could be putting drugs in my Oreo Cookies that make me more susceptible to mind control, that doesn't mean that they are.


Just an aside: www.chemistryislife.com...

If you put this kind of processed garbage into your body, your mind WILL be more susceptible to control, and it's telling that this is the kind of garbage that advertisements tell caring moms to feed their kids.

Go ahead. Ask me what evidence exists that indicates eating orea cookies can be hazardous to a person's health.

This post was off topic, as an aside, only to make the point that a) what is and what is not a "hazard" is not always obvious, and b) people with poor diets are more susceptible to being controlled. It's not appropriate that someone is trying to put these two situations into the same category:

1. the corporate run government is putting drugs in oreo cookies to control my mind

2. the corporate run government may be carrying out experiments using aerosol sprays that may be harming certain people.



edit on -06:00America/Chicago28Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:27:31 -0600201531312 by Petros312 because: Clarification



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Petros312

I stuck to the topic of this thread, which is that chemtrail conspiracy theorists who believe that jet exhaust never expanded into cirrus clouds until about 1990 are wrong. What I pointed out is the LIMITATIONS of using the evidence presented (a magazine article from 1969) and what it can or cannot tell you. Of course, this leads to anti-conspiracy theorists to pounce accusing me of providing either a) no evidence of chemtrail conspiracy, and now b) a logical fallacy even though I pointed out the logical fallacy already presented.


but what you have said is not a logical fallacy at all, and this is not what you argued in your previous post

In your previous post you said that it was a logical fallacy because:

1. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed 43 years ago says nothing about the chemical constituents of the jet exhaust then or now.

2. The fact that Popular Science indicates why persistent contrails could be observed in 1969 does not mean what you see in the sky similarly spreading out is the same exact phenomenon.

3. The fact that persistent contrails could be observed and explained in 1969 does nothing to "debunk" that there can be additional chemicals being sprayed along with the jet exhaust 43 years later.

4. The fact that persistent contrails were noticed as early as 1969 does not mean the sheer amount of persistent contrails observed today do not pose a serious hazard.

5. The fact that persistent contrails were phenomenon that scientists were aware of even as early as 1969 is no evidence whatsoever that scientists, corporations, or the government and military would never think of experimenting and using this method to disperse either a)many more persistent contrails, or b) contrails that have an altered chemical composition, for whatever purposes they deem fit, including geoengineering, even to the extent that there is a negative impact on the public's health.


you argued that photos of contrails from 1969 do not show what the chemicals are that are in "chemtrails" today (paraphrasing) - all 5 of your points above concentrate on the chemical makeup - not whether contrails can expand into clouds in 1969 thus showing that het idea that contrails never expanded into clouds before [whenever] is wrong.


I stuck to the topic of the thread.


no you didn't - you did not argue anything about "chemtrail conspiracy theorists who believe that jet exhaust never expanded into cirrus clouds until about 1990 are wrong".

And having had that pointed out to you, you are now changing your entire argument - without bothering to actually offer any new evidence or acknowledge that your attempt at gaining het "moral high ground" by "sticking to the OP" is a figment of your imagination.

edit on 11-2-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tags



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312

Yeah I'd make an obligatory reply - if there was anything there that made some sense.......but you're just descending to meaningless word soup now - I can read the words, but there's no meaning in the sentences!






top topics



 
69
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join