Are ( Chemtrail ) deniers victims of Deception?

How hard is it to have a really good Thread here (ATS) about Aerial Geo Engineering Without it turning to chemtrails don’t exist, prove it, that scientist has no common sense, their science is crap. Our science is all we have, blah, blah, blah.

Most would agree... If you can or can’t provide proof and/or evidence does NOT mean something does or does not exist OR is happening, common sense for most of us.

These deniers are merely people.
They have no more power than any other man.
They have weakness and these can be used against them. They need you.
Some weaknesses are obvious and simple, others are well hidden.
They will not tolerate others disputing or denying their attempt for high ground.
They must win at all cost even if they have to gang up on one post as they do.
You are a means for them to feed their egos and some to keep their families feed.

Here is what I consider worth investigating into, STUFF coming out every where. Below is an interesting bit of info, it’s a must see.


It is more likely some are a victim of the deception than a party to it but not all. If they are your enemy, you can turn them into a friend and vice versa, but unlikely, don’t forget the unlikely.

reply to post by fireyaguns


And as I replied to you in the other thread (which I notice you completely ignored), those are flap hinges. Almost all large aircraft have them, with a few exceptions.

Since you prefer videos and claim pictures don't prove anything:

reply to post by Zaphod58


No, need to prove me right or wrong. We see very clearly the stuff from that plane is more than you say it is.

Thanks for commenting

The inverse of that question: "Are ( Chemtrail ) deniers victims of Deception?" is also pertinent.

Are Chemtrail believers victims of self deception?

It's a fringe topic. It's going to attract nutters on both sides of the fence.

Doomporn is a popular commodity. People just can't get enough of it, and like any drug, there's addicts that entirely abuse their fixation on any specific favored flavor of Doomporn.

In the case of this argument, you've got your Chemtrailers, and those who feel otherwise.

Due the social convention for the popularity of doomporn, chances are higher that Chemtrails, as trifling shaky as all the supposedly reported evidence is, is largely an artifact of the mental masturbation of doomporners fixated on and abusing their fix on this particular flavor of doom.

meh.

Aerodynamic contrails are a well known phenomena that have been captured in the OP video.

Aerodynamic contrails appear also at cruise levels where they may persist when the ambient atmosphere is icesupersaturated.

There is no evidence to support his later contention that "the stuff from that plane is more than you say it is" - the contrails are generated in exactly the manner aerodynamic contrails are generated, they look like aerodynamic contrails, and they behave like aerodynamic contrails.

the only way anyone would know there is more to them than aerodynamic contrails is by having sampled them. As far as I am aware that has not been done - and since the original video was taken from another a/c that was not taking samples it would seem it's a bit late to do so now! .

the person who took the video says they are aerodynamic contrails too.

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.

reply to post by fireyaguns


And you've taken samples from how many planes? "I can see they're different" doesn't cut it when trying to prove that something is different from what it appears.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

No, need to prove me right or wrong. We see very clearly the stuff from that plane is more than you say it is.

Thanks for commenting

But you are wrong, and just avoiding the correction of your error hurts your side of the debate.
There are people who know what is what on planes, and those that do not. The people who made that video, you, and any other person who continues to "believe their eyes" without knowledge are exactly why I and other people I've met online will continue to reply, comment, debate, correct, and take the abuse of being called all manner of things, directly or indirectly.
What you are looking at in those videos is not identified correctly. Saying it's not does not make you right, it only shows you have a completely closed mind. Try learning something about planes.
When you can show something that is not somehow misidentified, then you will be making strides.
Continuing in stubborn error is just overt foolishness.

And continuing to imply that some are paid to try and inject some information you disagree with is childish, like name calling. Stop it, please. What you think is not important enough to bother with, much less require a paid position. When the same wrong information is being regurgitated as many times as that video, it's easy to find the correct information.

I've really wondered this: why don't you chemtrail people get a kickstart site or something similar for funding, where you guys can charter a plane, a balloon, or some aerial vehicle, along with an air sampler, fly into a contrail and get the sampled air spectrally analyzed and prove us all wrong.

Simple and scientifically valid. Showing a bunch of videos and arguing about what Cletus saw in his back yard is stupid.

Do this scientifically.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by fireyaguns

... If you can or can’t provide proof and/or evidence does NOT mean something does or does not exist OR is happening, common sense for most of us.

Let's take that bit of nonsense and see, OK?
1. If you can't provide evidence ... .
2. If you can provide evidence ... .
3. something does exist ... .
4. Something does not exist ... .

If "you can provide evidence," where is it?
Anecdotal perceptions ("I know what I saw ... ") are NOT evidence.

If you can't provide evidence, you're reduced to faith, suspicion and worse.

If "something does exist," then it should be objectively observed, measured, tested. Give me a "chemtrail " to test.

If something does not exist, there will be no objective evidence of it.
You offer no objective evidence.

Sorry; you lose.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
I've really wondered this: why don't you chemtrail people get a kickstart site or something similar for funding, where you guys can charter a plane, a balloon, or some aerial vehicle, along with an air sampler, fly into a contrail and get the sampled air spectrally analyzed and prove us all wrong.

Simple and scientifically valid. Showing a bunch of videos and arguing about what Cletus saw in his back yard is stupid.

Do this scientifically.

Doesn't this answer your unspoken question?

"Do this scientifically."

You cannot prove or disprove an unfounded belief "scientifically."

reply to post by fireyaguns

We see very clearly the stuff from that plane is more than you say it is.

I can very clearly see a contrail.......what do you see? and how can you "clearly see" from watching that video that it is anything more than a contrail?

Reply to post by jdub297

You must certainly can. It's called being wrong.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Argyll


"I can see" clearly there are fiery balls in the sky at night. they move around a sphere fixed in the sky, and the gods reside there.

"You have no proof" that my observations are wrong. "Scientists" who say otherwise are paid shills working for the "Solarcentric" conspirators.

reply to post by Zaphod58


And you have samples for us do you?

I doubt it.

reply to post by stars15k


If you say so

reply to post by fireyaguns


Personally no, but I can point to study after study that shows a contrail is nothing but a contrail, with nothing added to it. I have never seen a chemtrail believer able to point to a single study that shows anything but a contrail, or where a believer has even tried to get a sample from the source, instead of saying "It was on the ground after a chemtrail plane went overhead". If you are making the claim that it is something other than a contrail, let's see some proof. You're making the claim, along with who knows how many others, and yet there isn't a bit of proof other than some patents, and "I can see the difference".

WTH was that? I hit post once, and got three replies.

Reply to post by jdub297

Do you know what a tautology is?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com