chemtrails cast shadow on google earth?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 


You could do yourself some favours too. Chemtrails IS in the Oxford dictionaries, US, World English, had you looked. Also the visible trails are a result of mostly the forming of ice crystals, something outside of the plane. What is contained in any trail will have residues from inside the plane. Some of the cocktail is not fully understood.
edit on 11-3-2013 by smurfy because: Text.




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMediator
With so many new, invented words coming out everyday I always found deadly suspicious that the now common word chemtrail isn't in any dictionary. Just that fact enhances the chemtrails conspiracy even more.

So, because there's no physical or scientific evidence to even make up this new word, you're suspicious that a new word that has no basis to even exist, isn't in the dictionary yet?
Now that is hilarious.



Originally posted by theMediator
The same thing yet, I don't exhale burnt petroleum. So it's not the same thing.

But what you're physically seeing is the same thing: water vapor, whether you breathe it out, whether it comes out of your car's exhaust, or whether it comes out of a jet engine. It's still water vapor.

And water vapor at the altitudes that planes fly at sometimes turn into clouds, because that's what clouds are made of: frozen water vapor.



Originally posted by theMediator
This thread is about plane emissions causing shadows in google earth pictures not if chemtrails exist or not.

Busted!

You're not a good mediator then, because this thread is about "chemtrails" casting shadows in Google Earth. And since there's no such thing as "chemtrails", me and a few others are trying to explain to those lacking in the science department that these are normal, every-day contrails in the Google Earth image.



Originally posted by theMediator
You debating against me this way wasn't very productive imo.

Well, that's why it's your opinion. It was productive to other readers, though.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by TriForce
And theres no evidence that says that some "contrails" arent chemtrail sprays.

Every single trail in the sky is a contrail. That's the word that was created and chosen for those trails. If you want to make up words and call those trails anything other than contrails, you have to first get some physical evidence, and some scientific evidence.

Since there is neither, the word doesn't exist, and neither does the suggested theory.






Personally I dont really care one way or another, its just the arrogance of some people that try and absolutely say that something isnt happening, when you no more know the truth than the people that believe that chemicals are being sprayed.
As if you know even 1% of what the government, NASA, or some possibly unknown Black Ops organization does, about the same as I and 99% of the rest of the world.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by smurfy
The popular form is derived in exactly the same way as the word contrails was formed.

The word "chemtrail" is neither popular, nor proper. It's a made-up word by the few fear-mongerers left who keep peddling the "chemtrail" disinformation.



Originally posted by smurfy
Nobody seems to mind too much about talking the science of contrails

That's because the science of contrails is a known and proven science. We know how they are formed, and how they can persist or not.



Originally posted by smurfy


but when it comes to chemtrails, all of a sudden there is no science, when in fact there is.

There never has been any repeatable, provable science. Ever. Has anyone gone up and tried to capture the "spray" from a "chemtrail" to examine the particles in a lab? Has anyone gotten any swabs of objects that sit outside all day and night under the "heavily sprayed" skies to see what's being "sprayed"?

If you have some repeatable, provable science showing that some contrails are "chemtrails", then please post it for us. We've been waiting for years for real scientific evidence of "chemtrails".

What are you waiting for?






Didn't read my post very much did you? Your'e a very naughty boy


I did say that you were correct in that you cannot tell a contrail from a chemtrail, and since chemtrail is in the Oxford dictionaries it is now a word, just like contrails, and formed in exactly the same way eg; condensation trails......Contrails. Chemical trails..... Chemtrails. Both are probably nuns, sorry nouns



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by clairvoyantrose
How did I know Phage was going to be one of the first posters here?


Because he's a reliable source of information and chemtrails are bunk?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TriForce

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by TriForce
And theres no evidence that says that some "contrails" arent chemtrail sprays.

Every single trail in the sky is a contrail. That's the word that was created and chosen for those trails. If you want to make up words and call those trails anything other than contrails, you have to first get some physical evidence, and some scientific evidence.

Since there is neither, the word doesn't exist, and neither does the suggested theory.






Personally I dont really care one way or another, its just the arrogance of some people that try and absolutely say that something isnt happening, when you no more know the truth than the people that believe that chemicals are being sprayed.
As if you know even 1% of what the government, NASA, or some possibly unknown Black Ops organization does, about the same as I and 99% of the rest of the world.


Don't say things like that, it's far too truthful. Some people might be offended by the idea that spraying chemicals from the air actually happened, and that it could have been you and me, and that we didn't know, and all the while we just wanted a pint and a smoke, shame on you! Cheers Smurfy,



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by theMediator
With so many new, invented words coming out everyday I always found deadly suspicious that the now common word chemtrail isn't in any dictionary. Just that fact enhances the chemtrails conspiracy even more.

So, because there's no physical or scientific evidence to even make up this new word, you're suspicious that a new word that has no basis to even exist, isn't in the dictionary yet?
Now that is hilarious.


Why did you not include the last sentence in that paragraph you quoted me?


Originally posted by theMediator
I mean, Santa Claus is in the dictionary.


You are debating against a changed sentence;

Santa Claus is a word in the dictionary
There is no physical evidence, no scientific evidence yet it's in the dictionary.

Anyway, have a nice day. You clearly aren't a good person to have an intelligent discussion with.
edit on 11-3-2013 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
I did say that you were correct in that you cannot tell a contrail from a chemtrail

Then how come there are still a handful of people substituting the non-word "chemtrail" for the real word "contrail"? There are still a few people claiming to be able to see the difference when there is no difference to be seen.



Originally posted by smurfy
and since chemtrail is in the Oxford dictionaries it is now a word

The Oxford dictionary isn't the be-all, end-all to dictionaries. In fact, Oxford has very few rules on adding words to their dictionary. Other dictionaries are far more stringent:








Not one single other dictionary has touched the non-existent, made-up word known as "chemtrail". Therefore, it's not a word. You would think as many years that the word "chemtrail" has been made up, some other dictionaries would've added it, but that's not the case.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


IMO it is irrelevant whther the word is in any given dictionary or not - that is jsut a measure of how common its useage is - no dictionary has the "power" to sday what is or isnt' a word.

dictionary or not - there is stil no actual evidence chemtrails exist, and everything that gets described as a chemtrail looks and bheaves exactly liek a contrail.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by theMediator
Santa Claus is a word in the dictionary
There is no physical evidence, no scientific evidence yet it's in the dictionary.

Actually, there is. Santa Claus was derived from the Dutch figure called Sinterklaas, who is also known as the Christian bishop and gift-giver known as Saint Nicholas.

So, while there is no real Santa Claus today, the tradition of gift-giving that still goes on today is derived from a real person who did exist, and who enjoyed gift-giving himself.

Santa Claus has plenty of real history for his existence in the dictionary. There's no basis at all for the word "chemtrail".



edit on 11-3-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by clairvoyantrose
How did I know Phage was going to be one of the first posters here?


Because he's a reliable source of information and chemtrails are bunk?


Meh! I'm not so sure that Phage has said Chemtrails are bunk, he may be sceptical, I don't really know, that's an entirely different matter. I do know however that Phage will investigate something as far as he, or is as possible can be taken, that is something we all need to do. But don't insult him with that statement.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

Considering the propensity of "chemtrailers" to "move the goalposts" when trying to justify their claims that "chemtrails" are real, I feel that the Oxford Dictionary's definition might be quite useful in further debates:

Definition of chemtrail

noun

a visible trail left in the sky by an aircraft and believed by some to consist of chemical or biological agents released as part of a covert operation, rather than the condensed water of a vapour trail:

conspiracy theorists have been going wild with speculation over the nature and purpose of chemtrails


See ya,
Milt



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by theMediator
Santa Claus is a word in the dictionary
There is no physical evidence, no scientific evidence yet it's in the dictionary.



There's no basis at all for the word "chemtrail".



edit on 11-3-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)


Why is there not?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I would say because the word was only coined as a buzzword by the likes of Will Thomas And his cohorts as a means to promote sales of their cures without any actual, tangible, reason to say that chemtrails were being sprayed.

Geo-engineering is not chemtrails. Chemtrails are merely misidentified contrails, they do not require a second name.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


IMO it is irrelevant whther the word is in any given dictionary or not - that is jsut a measure of how common its useage is - no dictionary has the "power" to sday what is or isnt' a word.

dictionary or not - there is stil no actual evidence chemtrails exist, and everything that gets described as a chemtrail looks and bheaves exactly liek a contrail.



I give you a star for that, much better than chemtrails/Chemtrails are bunk.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by theMediator
Santa Claus is a word in the dictionary
There is no physical evidence, no scientific evidence yet it's in the dictionary.

There's no basis at all for the word "chemtrail".

Why is there not?

Seriously?


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
there is stil no actual evidence chemtrails exist,


Originally posted by Phage
there is no evidence that "chemtrails" are anything other than contrails.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
There never has been any repeatable, provable science. Ever. Has anyone gone up and tried to capture the "spray" from a "chemtrail" to examine the particles in a lab? Has anyone gotten any swabs of objects that sit outside all day and night under the "heavily sprayed" skies to see what's being "sprayed"?

If you have some repeatable, provable science showing that some contrails are "chemtrails", then please post it for us. We've been waiting for years for real scientific evidence of "chemtrails".

What are you waiting for?


Originally posted by Clairaudience
There is no such thing as "chemtrails". They are called contrails.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


dictionary or not - there is stil no actual evidence chemtrails exist, and everything that gets described as a chemtrail looks and bheaves exactly liek a contrail.



I give you a star for that, much better than chemtrails/Chemtrails are bunk.


It is the same thing.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by smurfy
 


I would say because the word was only coined as a buzzword by the likes of Will Thomas And his cohorts as a means to promote sales of their cures without any actual, tangible, reason to say that chemtrails were being sprayed.

Geo-engineering is not chemtrails. Chemtrails are merely misidentified contrails, they do not require a second name.


The expression Chemtrails was used "Quotes En Quote" on the Art Bell show prior to the Will Thomas book's release however, the first sentence in part is probably correct, the rest is as intangible as hearsay.
Second sentence, yet you too gave them a second name, "merely misidentified contrails" in your opinion, all the while their are multiple patents which clearly describe a use in geoengineering, and military uses. More is needed.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
their are multiple patents which clearly describe a use in geoengineering,

Geo-engineering has nothing to do with contrails or "chemtrails", lines in the sky, aircraft engine exhaust, or anything visible in the sky caused by jet engines.





edit on 11-3-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: sp



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

The expression Chemtrails was used "Quotes En Quote" on the Art Bell show prior to the Will Thomas book's release however, the first sentence in part is probably correct, the rest is as intangible as hearsay.


I knew there were others involved and I too had heard of Art Bell coining the term but forgot his name so I said the 'the likes of' to indicate that early group of claimants, thank you for the clarification, the rest is my opinion.



Second sentence, yet you too gave them a second name, "merely misidentified contrails" in your opinion,


No I didn't. That's a statement, not a name. You know, as in contrails that have been misidentified.


all the while their are multiple patents which clearly describe a use in geoengineering, and military uses. More is needed.


Now here is something I've been on about this week already. Patents show only that someone had an idea and registered it. It is proof of nothing more than that and there are also many many idiotic patents about, such as for time machines etc so, as far as evidence goes, it might be a pointer, but is fairly weak in and of itself. Most patents in the cut and paste lists that get posted from time to time are actually nothing at all to do with 'chemtrails' and include things for crop spraying, cloud seeding and other types of operation that are also unrelated. Are we supposed to think that because SOMETHING can and has been sprayed from aircraft then CHEMTRAILS must be? That is nothing more than a leap of faith, and this theory demands too many of those to be credible.

Going further, there are the geo-engineering reports that surface on here in the form of original source pdf's, as opposed to cherry picked snippets on chemtrail sites. I do not doubt the validity of those at all.

Here is my problem with them, not one of the reports has, so far as I have seen, described GE aerial operations as resulting in thick, visible, spreading white clouds at 20-40,000ft. The most recent one I read, sourced by MagicWand 67(apologies if there is an error with the name) even goes so far as to describe only three aircraft in existence, in flying condition, on the planet that might even be capable of this operation (at 70,000ft) and one of those is too small (report claim, not mine). Another type it named as potentially capable is an elderly prototype that is completely unflyable. I am aware of one other type that may be capable that the report missed (the Myasischev Mya-55) but this too was only built in tiny numbers and may not even be flying anymore (I must look this up).

So even the feasibility reports appear to lean more towards there being no chemtrails in our skies, only contrails.





top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join