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

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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.

No. Not exactly. Your statement is only that of a hardcore empiricist who demands immediate observable evidence to believe something may exist, much like an atheist who says, "show me God and I'll believe God exists."

An argument from ignorance draws a conclusion based on lack of evidence without considering all possibilities. ABOVE , I am stating the possibilities that can still be present despite the evidence presented that persistent contrails were observed in 1969. And if you think otherwise, i.e., that I am drawing a conclusion, then state what exactly the conclusion is.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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.

So you're also a fan of stating the obvious to make it look like you know something? The reason it's so hard for you to accept that what looks the same may not be the same is because you want certainty, and as I said, the point is that you cannot be certain when it comes to whether or not what looks the same is the same phenomenon. If you think these two phenomenon are the same (an assertion), i.e., the cirrus clouds that were formed by persistent contrails in 1969 are exactly the same clouds being formed 42 years later by jet airplane exhaust, then the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the evidence of it. Of course, you will not see me asking for such evidence because, unlike you, I realize that all assertions do not need to have empirical evidence for support -- particularly when evidence would be impossible to obtain (e.g., measuring the chemical found in the air in 1969 after persistent contrails were in a location and comparing this with a measurement of the chemicals found in the air after persistent contrails are found in a given location today). It doesn't make your case any more convincing when you ask for empirical evidence of a type that is impossible to obtain.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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.

--You can't make it any more clear that you simply have the agenda of a crusade against chemtrail conspiracy theory. Nobody should be trusting the biased information of such a person.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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.

--Same argument is being used by atheists to support there is no God. When it comes to data, you cannot always gather what data hardcore empiricists demand. It doesn't mean there's no evidence. The evidence that you seem to demand is not obtainable. Thus, you choose not to believe. The unbiased among us know it's better to be agnostics. As I said before, in these times it is not unreasonable to be suspicious. However, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what exactly is that firm conclusion I came to? I have a hypothesis, and I have yet to see enough evidence to cancel it as a null.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
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!

And in this thread all you have done is confound A) a claim that was "debunked" regarding the appearance of expanding cirrus clouds from jet exhaust that occurred prior to 1990 with B) "debunking" all claims made by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. That's like the use of deliberate confusion just to convince the world that there is no conspiracy, no experimenting, and no issue associated with what chemtrail conspiracy theorists are saying.

Your claims about what is or is not "meaningless word soup" are baseless and rude.

originally posted by: Petros312


No. Not exactly. Your statement is only that of a hardcore empiricist who demands immediate observable evidence to believe something may exist, much like an atheist who says, "show me God and I'll believe God exists."

Not at all - I am moer than happy to accept reasonable evidence that god (or chemtrails exist) - the point is that the evidence needs to reasonable - not just hearsay and baseless assertion.

An argument from ignorance draws a conclusion based on lack of evidence without considering all possibilities.

nope - it has nothing to do with that at all. and argument from ignorance is nothing more than saying "well you can't prove it isn't true...." - you should look up what something actually is before you try to tell peole what it is!!

I am stating the possibilities that can still be present despite the evidence presented that persistent contrails were observed in 1969. And if you think otherwise, i.e., that I am drawing a conclusion, then state what exactly the conclusion is.

and as I pointed out several times, the observations from 1969 say nothing at all about the chemical content of trails across the sky - I completely agree.

However I also point out that there is no reason to suppose that there IS anything different about the trails that form today - they look the same, they are made the same way, they behave the same way, and there is no actual evidence they are anything else.

Your argument from ignorance amounts to the same as pointing out that they might be unicorn farts because we can't prove that they are not unicorn farts.

Ergo your position is just drivel.

Why not try to use science instead of attacking people that shoot down your claims.

ATS

Persistent contrails are a phenomena that requires specific parameters to occur. That is verifiable.

That they create cirrus clouds is interesting however. I cannot tell if they mean that all contrails create cirrus clouds or just the persistent variety.

a reply to: Petros312

Why so many words to say so little?

Go back to this post www.abovetopsecret.com... where you quoted the OP, utterly failed to comprehend the point, and then began this non sequitur tirade.

originally posted by: Uncinus
So if contrails did this 43 years ago, and back then they were doing it for 30 to 40 days of the year, then why do some people insist that this is something new? 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.

How thick a brick does one need to be to not get his point? So yeah, you're off topic.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Your argument from ignorance amounts to the same as pointing out that they might be unicorn farts because we can't prove that they are not unicorn farts.

Ergo your position is just drivel.

Your major intention is to discredit anyone who shows some limitation in interpreting the kind of evidence being presented that supposedly "debunks" all that is said by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. What I first posted is a simple exercise, not an "argument from the ignorance" or any other type of logical fallacy. My initial post ABOVE, which someone was obviously threatened by, was:

a) on topic
b) mentioned the limitations in what the evidence presented in this first post of this thread can and cannot be used for
c) made no hard conclusion about chemtrail conspiracy theory in general
d) contains no logical fallacies

Yet, it was attacked by the same "debunkers." Again, I'm led to believe there's another agenda here that has nothing to do with an unbiased understanding of what is happening in the skies. The agenda is to discredit anyone who sounds like they just might be a chemtrail conspiracy theorist, and over and over again demand from these people that they provide evidence that is impossible to obtain.

Now, the thread devolves into a flame war...

a reply to: Petros312

you saying you were on topic is like "What in the World are they Spraying" saying chemtrails exist - baseless assertion.

In the mean time I'm off chasing unicorn farts.......

a reply to: Petros312

Yet, it was attacked by the same "debunkers." Again, I'm led to believe there's another agenda here that has nothing to do with an unbiased understanding of what is happening in the skies.

These tired lines lead me to believe someone has a drawer full of puppets.

PX: Still not here.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Your argument from ignorance amounts to the same as pointing out that they might be unicorn farts because we can't prove that they are not unicorn farts.

Ergo your position is just drivel.

Your major intention is to discredit anyone who shows some limitation in interpreting the kind of evidence being presented that supposedly "debunks" all that is said by chemtrail conspiracy theorists. It's a simple exercise, not an "argument from the ignorance" or any other type of logical fallacy. My initial post ABOVE, which someone was obviously threatened by, was:

a) on topic
b) mentioned the limitations in what the evidence presented in this first post of thread can and cannot be used for
c) made no hard conclusion about chemtrail conspiracy theory in general
d) contains no logical fallacies

Yet, it was attacked by the same "debunkers." Again, I'm led to believe there's another agenda here that has nothing to do with an unbiased understanding of what is happening in the skies. The agenda is to discredit anyone who sounds like they just might be a chemtrail conspiracy theorist, and over and over again demand from these people that they provide evidence that is impossible to obtain.

Not impossible, you could use ice core samples, soil samples, take samples from bones from modern humans and compare those to their ancestors and so on. Look up Claire Patterson and see how its done, he played a huge part in banning Leaded gasoline. It is hard to argue with real science.

originally posted by: Petros312
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.

This post is clearly on topic, I even summarized the basic argument in the first OP, and it's nothing but a lame distraction to say otherwise. There are simply anti-conspiracy theorists here who want to discredit anyone who demonstrates the limits to how certain evidence pertains to chemtrail conspiracy. Simple as that.

originally posted by: anton74
Why not try to use science instead of attacking people that shoot down your claims.

ATS

This is ridiculous. It IS part of the scientific method to highlight the limitations of any evidence presented to support a claim. It's part of an UNBIASED approach, but I can see several people here are threatened by an unbiased approach.

a reply to: Petros312

The quoted post is not on topic - it does nothing to address the OP claim that contrail photos from 1969 debunk the idea that persistent contrails only started some time later - usually some time in the 1990's is mentioned.

Here is het pertinent question from the OP:

So if contrails did this 43 years ago, and back then they were doing it for 30 to 40 days of the year, then why do some people insist that this is something new? 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.

This has nothing to do with the chemical content, nothing to do with whether they are a hazard - it is a simple point of evidence that debunks 1 claim - that persistent contrails are something new.

You have addressed a number of other points - some of which are perfectly valid - but those are not actually "sticking to the OP" as you are apparently trying to make yourself appear as a martyr for doing..

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: anton74
Why not try to use science instead of attacking people that shoot down your claims.

ATS

This is ridiculous. It IS part of the scientific method to highlight the limitations of any evidence presented to support a claim.

The claim is that chemtrails are real and the evidence is so limited that it is non-existent therefore you are correct. Why not just pay someone in a lab to forge some tests to help prove chemtrails are real?

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: anton74
Why not try to use science instead of attacking people that shoot down your claims.

ATS

This is ridiculous. It IS part of the scientific method to highlight the limitations of any evidence presented to support a claim. It's part of an UNBIASED approach, but I can see several people here are threatened by an unbiased approach.

Limitations are to be acknowledged and kept in mind should further evidence become available - but where there is sufficient evidence to form a conclusion that is all they are.

When further (or indeed ANY) evidence of chemtrails becomes available we can revisit the limitations.

Until then there is no reason to think that anything along the lines of het putative chemtrails actually exists in the first place.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Petros312

The quoted post is not on topic -

The empirical evidence is clearly against you:

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

That's the topic from the very first post. Why don't you stop with the lame distractions already?

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
Limitations are to be acknowledged and kept in mind should further evidence become available - but where there is sufficient evidence to form a conclusion that is all they are.

When further (or indeed ANY) evidence of chemtrails becomes available we can revisit the limitations.

Until then there is no reason to think that anything along the lines of het putative chemtrails actually exists in the first place.

You don't get to dictate what can or cannot be posted as limitations in understanding the presented evidence.

a reply to: Petros312

What is the source of this "Empirical evidence" :

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

Are those not your words?

a reply to: Petros312

I didn't try to limit what might be a limitation.

I did point out that your "limitations" do not actually address the OP.

a reply to: Petros312

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

Except of course that's not actually what the OP says.

the OP says that the is a claim that persistent contrails never used to exist - that they are something new.

the OP points out that persistent contrails were around in 1969.

therefore the claim that persistent contrails are new is false.

All you following points are trying to change the topic from the very, very simple claim in het OP.

such obfuscation and misdirection is typical of people who believe chemtrails exist - without any actual evidence they have to invent nonsense and play with smoke and mirrors.