chemtrails cast shadow on google earth?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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 cause by jet engines.

Do you mean like this then?
www.washingtonpost.com...

reply to post by smurfy


I guess he does, and I would concur given that it was a dump into the sea and not a high jet contrail. Why do you think it involved aerial spraying?

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by smurfy

 

I guess he does, and I would concur given that it was a dump into the sea and not a high jet contrail. Why do you think it involved aerial spraying?

Well thanks for your thoughts, it can get so lonely here and these things can get so convoluted at times, but the point I was trying to make all along is that there is no definitive way of making a simple Contrail into a Chemtrail, or vice versa, and while both are very much more complicated than it says on the tin, aircraft exhausts are not so innocent on their own. I don't think in this case it was aerial spraying per se, just another example of what can be done with aircraft whatever, without anyone having a clue.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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 cause by jet engines.

Do you mean like this then?
www.washingtonpost.com...

nothing to do with aircraft at all.

and I note that since there is no regulation of geoengineering this activity apepars to be perfectly legal.

However when any regulation is suggested "chemmies" either refuse to discuss it in any meaningful way - eg see this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

or scream and shout that it is more evidence showing that "it" is happening - eg www.abovetopsecret.com...

so which do you prefer - an unregulated international high seas where anything can be done, or regulation of geoengineering that admits that it is possible?

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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 cause by jet engines.

Do you mean like this then?
www.washingtonpost.com...

nothing to do with aircraft at all.

and I note that since there is no regulation of geoengineering this activity apepars to be perfectly legal.

However when any regulation is suggested "chemmies" either refuse to discuss it in any meaningful way - eg see this thread - www.abovetopsecret.com...

or scream and shout that it is more evidence showing that "it" is happening - eg www.abovetopsecret.com...

so which do you prefer - an unregulated international high seas where anything can be done, or regulation of geoengineering that admits that it is possible?

WTF are you rattling on about?

Originally posted by smurfy

www.washingtonpost.com...

WTF are you rattling on about?

the link you posted.

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?

Ok.. I want to know..
What are his sources for his "reliable" information?
Yea, he is undoubtedly a smart dude and everyone is always looking to him for answers but what are his qualifications? What is his profession?
Whats his background?

reply to post by TriForce


dont' know off hand.

however it is the quality of his info that is more important - his comes from sources that you can check for yourself.

Whether he has a PhD in rocket science or a certificate in street sweeping doesn't affect that.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by TriForce

 

dont' know off hand.

however it is the quality of his info that is more important - his comes from sources that you can check for yourself.

Whether he has a PhD in rocket science or a certificate in street sweeping doesn't affect that.

So, pretty much everyone else here is required to "provide a source," except Phage?

reply to post by TriForce


Everyone, including Phage is required to supply sources, which he routinely does. You are not required to show expert qualifications in whatever subject however. And people that post sources that you can verify on your own, tend to get more trust over time.

Originally posted by TriForce

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by TriForce

 

however it is the quality of his info that is more important - his comes from sources that you can check for yourself.

So, pretty much everyone else here is required to "provide a source," except Phage?

Which part of "his comes from sources that you can check for yourself" did you not comprehend?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TriForce

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by TriForce

 

however it is the quality of his info that is more important - his comes from sources that you can check for yourself.

So, pretty much everyone else here is required to "provide a source," except Phage?

Which part of "his comes from sources that you can check for yourself" did you not comprehend?

And which part of "everyone else is supposed to provide sources and not be expected to look for themselves" did you not understand?
Thats all I ever see on this site.."Wheres your source huh? im not looking it up" blah blah whatever. Just because im not all over phages D*** like everyone else, you get all smartassy.. lol

reply to post by TriForce


When someone provides a source I usually go read it, and then judge for myself whether it's trustworthy, unless it's one that I've read repeatedly, or I can tell from the quote that's used. In several people's case, Phage included, their knowledge, and their sources have always been accurate, so I tend to take their word more than others, but even with them there are times when I go do my own research into something they said to try to verify it.

Double post

reply to post by TriForce


He didn't say look for themselves, he said check for themselves. As in reading the source that has been provided. Whereas as two chemtrail believers have REFUSED to provide sources for their claims when I have asked for it just this week. And they wonder why we don't believe them

PS. Whoever has pm'ed me, I not ignoring you but the iPhone doesn't display pm's, I'll have a read when I get home

For the record, I dont mind searching for things myself, I actually prefer it and get tired of seeing people constantly say "source or stfu" or whatever.
I just dont like the double standards on this site.
Personally, I have looked into this "chemtrail" theory myself and I do believe there is something going on, probably for some type of weather manipulation.
I wont even bother arguing with people about it because from reading this and other threads, all they will say is "Chemtrails do not exist, every trail is a contrail and youre stupid to believe otherwise" or something like that.
Can I prove that some trails that are made have chemicals in them? nope.
Can they prove that every trail that is made is nothing but condensation? nope
However, they arent required to prove it but people that believe are required to prove it.
Thats what I mean when I mentioned their arrogance in my first post.
So whatever. How about this?
Ill believe whatever I want to believe and if I want to participate in a thread about it with others that believe, thats my right.
You guys can believe what you want to believe but dont come into a thread and try and tell people how stupid they are or whatever and expect to be treated with any type of respect.

reply to post by TriForce


Then we expect the same from chemtrail believers. I've cone into a thread, and posted politely and respectfully, with links and information to back it up, only to be told "Oh look, it's the first shill! I should have known they'd be here soon." You want to talk double standards, then fine, let's hold everyone to the same standard. You can't sit here and say that only the skeptics are rude and disrespectful when I can find tons of evidence of believers being just as bad or worse.

reply to post by TriForce

However, they arent required to prove it but people that believe are required to prove it. Thats what I mean when I mentioned their arrogance in my first post. So whatever. How about this? Ill believe whatever I want to believe and if I want to participate in a thread about it with others that believe, thats my right. You guys can believe what you want to believe but dont come into a thread and try and tell people how stupid they are or whatever and expect to be treated with any type of respect.

Believe, believe, believe. Do posters understand what beliefs are, it seems many do not


Science is what allows one to have knowledge of subjects,

Instead of asking more questions or saying I do not understand the science being put forth lets make a boogey man to blame.

Because that's all a boogey man requires is someones belief and fear and the boogey man becomes a real way for people to fool others and make a living out of it.

Beliefs belong in theological and philosophical discussions where most things being discussed can be metaphorical.

reply to post by TriForce


Of course looking things up for yourself is a good thing. However, if someone is making a new claim about a known and understood thing, is it not reasonable to expect them to provide contextual support for the claim?

Someone telling me, for example, to 'try doing my own research' on a subject I've studied for 40 years is not a substitute for evidencing their claim, as happened on another thread