Why DON'T I Believe?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by waynos
 


Your almost funny if you weren't such a deception artist. Show me 7 days in succession photographs from the 1950's in the same area of overhead sky these contrails u claim were there and I will send you a check and I am putting it on the board for all to see. but you can't produce it cause it never existed then. and wartime photos don't count.


That's quite an interesting challenge.
But for your point, the sad fact is, that in the 1950s, there was very little public air service and some other commercial/military transport. Many newly formed commercial airline companies were just beginning to cross the English Channel, if that's a sign.
So the number of planes in the air in the 1950's is NO where near what it is today.
Therefore your challenge is very unrealistic.....and I think you know that.
edit on 30-7-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by rootbranch2012
 


Another excuse.. The facts are that contrails chemtrails don't have to exist in the skies at all. its a fact that persistent contrails are something that can be eliminated instantly but they are not due to the fact that the govt and perptraitors behind them WANT THEM.. I can prove that. so tell me why?
edit on 30-7-2012 by CherubBaby because: typo


Here'ya go baby, from the 1950's....







posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Maybe because you've not researched?

Government and scientific papers have already been published on geo-engineering and weather modification.

I don't understand how this is still up for debate?!

Maybe geo-engineering IS going on.

However, those white trails in the sky could still simply be contrails (because they look and act like contrails). To say "I believe geo-engineering is happening; therefore, those white trails in the sky must be part of it" is not a valid argument.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by waynos
 


Your almost funny if you weren't such a deception artist. Show me 7 days in succession photographs from the 1950's in the same area of overhead sky these contrails u claim were there and I will send you a check and I am putting it on the board for all to see. but you can't produce it cause it never existed then. and wartime photos don't count.


That's quite an interesting challenge.
But for your point, the sad fact is, that in the 1950s, there was very little public air service and some other commercial/military transport. Many newly formed commercial airline companies were just beginning to cross the English Channel, if that's a sign.
So the number of planes in the air in the 1950's is NO where near what it is today.
Therefore your challenge is very unrealistic.....and I think you know that.
edit on 30-7-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: (no reason given)


It's also highly unrealistic because people were not quite so snap-happy in the 1950s. I'd bet you can't find "succession photographs from the 1950's in the same area of overhead sky" showing ANYTHING.

It's hard enough to find that kind of thing from 2012, when the volume of photos you can find is approximately 100,000 times as great.

A notable exception:



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
in 1955....film cameras were usually "Rollfilm 620" or "120" types....35mm SLR's reportedly came into popular effect in the '50's with this camera....




...hand wound camera.
edit on 30-7-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: bird scratch



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
....so if I presented a challenge...."find 100 pics as a time'lapse" in 1955 that shows a "dog jumping thru a hoop"...that would be nearly impossible to find..
But does the lack of finding such an event prove that the act was impossible ? Can't dogs jump through hoops, even 70 years ago ? Sure they can (could).
Just because there is little photographic data suggesting contrails existed long ago...is not evidence that it did not exist, especially when it was described in text, at the time, scientifically, and was a known principle of combustion engines at high altitude by scientists world-wide.

edit on 30-7-2012 by EyeDontKnow because: buuuuurp...



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by EyeDontKnow
 


There's exactly as much photographic evidence of contrails as you would expect, statistically speaking.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
I think the only way to become convinced of anything is to personally experience. So, the next time you see strange streaks of white and silver in the sky emanating from aircraft, lie down directly underneath them for a few hours and breathe deeply. Then report here on your findings.


I did that Sunday, and I can report normal operation after several hours laying around doing f-all under a long white streak in the sky.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by waynos
 


Show me 7 days in succession photographs from the 1950's in the same area of overhead sky these contrails u claim were there and I will send you a check and I am putting it on the board for all to see.


I've got a better challenge - show me 1 verifiable chemical analysis of a chemtrail from any time in which they are supposed to have existed (which AFAIK is roughly the mid-late 1990's onwards but I'm prepared to be flexible about that).



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Maybe because you've not researched?

Government and scientific papers have already been published on geo-engineering and weather modification.



What has that got to do with chemtrails? Chemtrails are a specific thing.

Geoingineering proposals and clous seeding are to chemtrails what tanks and armoured cars are to secret faster than light spacecraft.



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Aye, I'm not aware of any geoeingeering proposal that would produce anything visible from the ground, let alone something that looks and acts like contrails - unless the proposal was to produce more contrails in order to create globa warming?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
And so 12 hours on and there is still no reason for me to believe in chemtrails added to the thread, some of the replies from believers are even incoherent, so maybe drugs are needed? Who knows.

The replies to the various challenges already make for robust responses, so it would be facile for me to repeat them, contrary to opinion in some quarters I've done my research, looked at it dispassionately, even posted some of it on here, and still think the only reason there is to believe in chemtrails is a lack of knowledge combined with a hefty dose of paranoia.

when all the purported evidence is bogus, or depends on you making a leap of faith to make it fit because it actually doesn't show anything like what is being claimed, when all your own research supports contrails as a reasonable and probable explanation, in the absence of anything else that isn't plucked out of your imagination. When the only real sources of pro-chemtrail information have to be dredged up from the likes of known fantasists like Alex Jones, Cliff Carnicorn and, possibly most comical of all, Tanker Enemy, amongst others, while not one single meteorologist or aviation professional takes the idea seriously at all, then only a moron would STILL fall for it, in my opinion.

Havent some of you got it yet?

When you insist that contrails cannot persist (or can be easily prevented)

When you claim cloud seeding is the same thing as an airliner contrail

When you post pictures that are immediately, and ACCURATELY debunked as showing something else

When you say that the scientific explanations involving air traffic and engine technology dont make sense.

When you say that 'Looking up' is enough proof for you

You dont look like an enlightened free thinker, not in the slightest.

And when you accuse me and others of being paid guvmint disinfo shills it merely underlines that your case has fallen apart and you have nothing of worth to offer.

look at this correspondance in the link below

Flight

The letter from H L Greenshields, Sub-Lieut, RNVR, accurately talks about water droplets forming and even mentions a rainbow effect, referred to by a previous correspondent, which is something else chemtrailers have previously wet their collective pants over.

This was in August 1940 when the effect really was little understood. Arent you a tad embarrassed at your ignorance compared to someone who wrote about it 72 years ago? Or do you still believe spraying started in the 1990s like Carnicorn tells you to think?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
I think the only way to become convinced of anything is to personally experience. So, the next time you see strange streaks of white and silver in the sky emanating from aircraft, lie down directly underneath them for a few hours and breathe deeply. Then report here on your findings.




quoted 4 truth



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by rootbranch2012
I think the only way to become convinced of anything is to personally experience. So, the next time you see strange streaks of white and silver in the sky emanating from aircraft, lie down directly underneath them for a few hours and breathe deeply. Then report here on your findings.




quoted 4 truth


Pretty much everyone in the US is under a persistent trail some time during the year, often on many days.

Their findings? Life as normal. No ill-effects from the trails.

So what exactly is the truth you are quoting that for?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


the ones you try so hard to deny
be rrrrrright back with my own list

mmmkay


There seems little plausible reason - if any - to doubt that chemtrails are deliberately produced, and not normal contrails.

Unsurprisingly, however, though, there are those who seek to oppose the assertions of those who contend that chemtrails are abnormal, and should be stopped. Apparently calculatedly, they term themselves "debunkers", to inculcate the perception that concern over chemtrails is, more than "misguided", an out-and-out hoax or fraud! Indeed, a number of them have used the term "hoax" in describing the concern over chemtrails - evidently suggesting that those who address the issue are actually pulling a prank on themselves - and even accused some who pursue the issue of doing it purely for personal profit.

As if someone choosing to try to make a profit off a situation suddenly makes that situation not exist.

Many have tried to hawk fake nostrums to eliminate the symptoms of the common cold, but that doesn't make the common cold nonexistent. Moreover, the "debunkers" regularly tout the software, Flight Explorer, to "identify" aircraft using routes where chemtrails form. Not only do they, apparently, wish to negate the existence of chemtrails by simply calling them contrails, they seem to want to convince the public that they arise from innocuous, harmless aircraft simply because unidentified, unverified information a piece of software displays on a screen says it does.

They try to "counsel" people against using the guidance of their eyes and their common sense in chemtrails; they, instead, apparently, want them to blindly obey "the official story".

Indeed, such faulty "reasoning", coupled with an attitude of guile and contempt, seems universally to characterize the chemtrail debunkers.

As their own "explanation" of the phenomenon, they carp the common line that "under certain precise conditions of temperature, pressure and humidity, water vapor from jet exhaust will act as the nuclei for condensation of water in the air around the jet" The preciseness of the conditions, evidently, is intended to "explain" why all jet trails are not the elongated, long lasting sight that chemtrails are. But, within at least the last year, days with chemtrails constitute no less than about a third of the entire year! In many cases, we woke up to already hazed over skies, indicating that chemtrailing had been done before dawn, or deformed, but elongated, wispy clouds would be present in the sky, indicating that chemtrails had been laid elsewhere, and drifted to where we were. As a result, chemtrail days constitute no less than one third, and, sometimes, no less than 40%, of the days! Far from a "precise" set of circumstances.

If you add in the fact that, even after chemtrails may have passed, persistent haze can remain in the upper atmosphere, turning the sky a sickish white, or limiting the blueness of the natural sky that is permitted to show through, you have that no more than two or three genuinely blue sky days are permitted per month, anymore! Chemtrail opponents list this as one of their primary complaints with chemtrails, as well, the simple fact that they are being systematically robbed of their blue sky.

Only a few decades ago, summer could guarantee weeks worth of clear, blue days. Now, to have just one is an event, at least in the Northeast. During the past summer, in Northern New Jersey, there haven't been more than five or six days, all told, that were bright blue.

Nor is this an insignificant thing. Substituting bright blue days with heavily overcast, low-hanging skies, or persistent mists, instead of the kind of rain that will clear a sky of haze, produces a listless even despondent atmosphere. Over time, it can depress individuals and even sap them of initiative.

Experiments during the Seventies and Eighties, in fact, suggested that certain colors can promote certain types of responses. Pink was found, in some, to have a calming effect; brown and orange were found to stimulate appetite; and bright, light blue was found to promote imagination. Isolation cells in a number of jails, as a result of this, were painted pink, and the prevalence of browns, oranges and reds in the color schemes of fast food restaurants, during the Eighties, is testament to an evident unscrupulousness in their "marketing" tactics! Withholding clear skies from the populace seems, also, targeted at controlling the people's initiative and foresight.

Someone in government, it appears, doesn't want the people to think for themselves about what they see going on around them.

As reliable as the provability of tenuousness in the debunkers, "arguments" - and the eminent apparent danger in chemtrailing - is the debunkers, coming up with yet other attempts, at discrediting those who oppose chemtrails.

They couldn't deny the existence of days when huge numbers of chemtrails clutter the skies, because innumerable photographs to the contrary exist. If that wasn't the case, there is little doubt they would try to utterly and baldly deny their existence, altogether. Initially, though, they did, apparently, try the wheeze that "aircraft exhaust can,t alter the environment"! That has since been overturned by a number of studies indicating that, at the very least, the obscuring effect of normal contrails was enough to lower the earth's temperature by at least 1º Fahrenheit.

Equally as determinedly posited was the assertion that, even if long, environmentally-altering trails were being laid, it wasn't deliberate. Countering that is the revelation that numerous patents and proposals for using aircraft to affect weather have been filed, in the past few years alone! "Cloud seeding" is the least of the methods; preventing global warming was a major goal of many. Recently, too, even the military published a proposal to the effect of using weather control in wartime as a "force multiplier" against enemy troops. They termed their proposal "Owning the Weather by 2025"

In the face of these demonstrations of their evidently patent falsehood in opposing chemtrail followers, debunkers have taken up the line that, even though jet exhaust can affect the environment, and even though there are plans to utilize that to control the weather, jets never release anything other than normal exhaust into the air. In the recent past, however, CNN aired a report of military planes, among other things, releasing egg whites into the air to test radar methods for, putatively, tracking drug planes! It is questionable what aspect of the situation the debunkers will attempt to attack next.

And the debunkers have shown every determination to oppose suspicion about and examination of chemtrails as much as would be necessary to end questioning about them! They have taken out whole websites devoted to opposing chemtrail suspicions; they have even launched mirror sites of websites, to provide as much a saturation of the internet with their evident propaganda as possible! They run the gamut from an individual that calls themself "ChickieDeb", and identifies themself as "a housewife from Indiana" - ChickieDeb being one of those who launched three websites devoted to debunking - to an organization given the frankly questionable name "New Mexicans for Science and Reason - suggesting they see "science" and "reason" to be two totally separate and unrelated things.

Jay Reynolds, who seems proud to oppose the assertion that chemtrails are not normal contrails, and who also sponsored three separate sites to mirror his assertions, likewise states, on his website: "the real state of things that agrees with facts and reality." Meaning, presumably, that, for Mr. Reynolds, "facts" and "reality" are two totally separate and unrelated things. Before struggling to oppose investigation into chemtrails, the debunkers, it appears, should attempt developing a pose that doesn't come across as that of an incompetent poseur.

The nature of the debunkers, refutations, however, is consistent with the stock in trade of those without a leg to stand on. Pre-eminent among their "tools" is out-and-out derision. Jay Reynolds titles his mirror sites "Contrails or Trails-CON?" One of the devotees of chemtrail examination, William Thomas, he terms a "snakeoil salesman".

On ChickieDeb's site, cdebsjournal.topcities.com/Rhaltitude.htm, she quotes Jay Reynolds as characterizing those who mobilize the movement to study chemtrails as "X-file wackos", and ChickieDeb openly agrees. Larry Lawson, whom ChickieDeb identifies as a "chemtrail perpetrator", is also referred to, by her, as a "pipsqueak".

On the same page, incidentally, ChickieDeb condemns "religious fundamentalists", like she models Mr. Lawson to be, who "think that God is unable to take care of things by Himself". ChickieDeb seems of the opinion that people should just sit still and do nothing, leave it all to God - or whatever she tries to pass off as a deity - to do things in the world. She seems intent on coercing others into a willing complacence and disinterest in taking action in the world. The title of another of her websites devoted, apparently, to deceiving people about the reality of chemtrails is "DO YOU WANT TO STOP BEING AFRAID?"

Apparently she couldn,t be happier if everyone agreed not to be concerned about what is being done to their environment, and just let their rights and interests be run roughshod over! Even an atheist would accept that God would not have created man just to sit and watch the world; a purpose for creating man was so that man could do things and not leave it to God to "take care of things by Himself". Having people stand up for themselves, however, seems anathema to what ChickieDeb has in mind for them.

The debunkers seem never at a loss for disparaging names to call those who seem to threaten the government secret they work so hard to hide, or a boundless store of contempt for others.

The evident attempt to vilify suspicion of chemtrails is also a commonplace on debunkers, websites. ChickieDeb titles at least one of her mirror sites, worldzone.net/international.checkiedeb, "CHEMTRAIL HOAX - The Best Kept Secret In the World". On that site, ChickieDeb gives space to an article by Jay Reynolds, entitled "HOW TO RUN A CHEMTRAIL SCARE FOR FUN AND PROFIT". On one of the pages on one of ChickieDeb,s mirror sites, www.worldzone.net/international/chickiedeb/cgi/col2.shtml, chemtrail opponents are belittled for accusing debunkers of not using logic, yet it is said, of them, that "they refuse to recognize logic and rationale".

***
A phenomenon that chemtrail followers also point to to indicate the suspicious nature of the trails is what is termed the "on and off switch". Often, when chemtrails appear overhead, there will be a space in the trail, where what seems to be aerial spraying was turned off, for a time, then turned back on.
This does not happen, ever, for conventional contrails. Planes forming the short tails of contrail fog behind them do not go through periods when the cloud will disappear; the clouds themselves, even though they last for a short time, do not show spaces in them. Debunkers, unsurprisingly, dismiss these claims, insisting that there is nothing in the breaks in chemtrails that indicate anything out of what they term the usual.

Tellingly, though, actual addresses of the issue of the "on off switch" are rare on debunker websites. In fact, only one site, www22.brinkster.com/Seawana/Conspiracies/Chemtrails.asp, which boasts the title, "The Way of the Dodo", actually devotes any real space to an attempted "explanation" of chemtrail breaks.

In characteristically contemptuous and insulting fashion, the section begins, "Ah yes. These rare photos are a favorite among the believers." The originator of the site, who identifies himself as Skip Ernst, describes "the neanderthals running" spray operations as having "mistakenly turned off the spray for a few moments".

"Can you believe the government has hired a bunch of bumbling idiots to perform their top secrets operations?", Mr. Ernst adds, mockingly.

He posits that the breaks are caused by jets having "simply passed through a pocket of air where contrails" - carefully, he doesn,t refer to them as "chemtrails"! - "will not form. The air could be too warm or too dry to form the ice crystals which make a contrail visible."

It is eminently unlikely, if not patently impossible, that air that high up would be so warm, to begin with. The jets that form chemtrails typically fly at at least three miles high. Even if it was too warm, a trail, of sorts, of water vapor would be likely, following the jet. And, even if the air were very dry, a trace of the ice crystals from the jet engines, that supposedly form the "seed" for the chemtrail, should be visible, and it is not.

And that is leaving aside, entirely, the fact that there is little reason to believe that an isolated, tiny, patch of air could be so radically different from the overwhelming mass of air around it! If an area of warm or dry air were to intrude, it is likely that it would be no time before the rest of the air around it would bring it into equilibrium.

More than that, though, Mr. Ernst, will have to explain how it is possible for chemtrails with breaks, supposedly caused by differing air masses, to occur in close proximity to chemtrails with no breaks!
"I'll leave it at that and let you be the judge", he concludes archly.

If he's telling the absolute, incontrovertible truth, which he pretends to be, then he would be able to call it that! He wouldn't have to leave it to the reader to "be the judge".

That, in itself, all but brands the material on the Seawana site utterly untrustworthy.

Source:Debunking Chemtrail Debunkers The Government's Quisling Shills educate-yourself.org...
edit on 30-7-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added additional info



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


You really think that's all correct?

You can't see anything wrong there? Science wise?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


You really think that's all correct?

You can't see anything wrong there? Science wise?



aaaaaawwwwwwww shucks

why dont you take me by the hand and explain it all in detail, point by point?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


What, again?

You've already been led to the water several times, it's up to you to choose to take a drink instead of just saying neigh.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


You really think that's all correct?

You can't see anything wrong there? Science wise?



aaaaaawwwwwwww shucks

why dont you take me by the hand and explain it all in detail, point by point?



I just want to know if you think it's all correct. Or are you just putting up a random collection of claims that you think is 50% true? or 10%
edit on 31-7-2012 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join