The Kids understanding it. Why can't you?

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment
 


I've never claimed to be an expert witness, but I do have more than a "minor involvement" in aviation. I've studied the field, worked on planes, and have experience flying powered and non-powered aircraft. I'm approaching 35 years of studying/working on them. I think that is slightly beyond "minor involvement".



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyInTheOintment
reply to post by Zaphod58/i]
 


It fascinates me that when it comes to chemtrails, an 'expert witness' need only have some minor involvement in aviation to be qualified to comment on this phenomenon and have his wisdom taken as gospel truth


It Fascinates me how anyone would not comprehend the EVIDENCE that is brought is the only thing you should be paying attention to. I could tell you I am the president of a small country. Since you cannot prove or disprove that, it's irrelevant to the conversation. When you grow up, you will understand this.

What evidence do you bring to prove chemtrail are real? If you have none, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate your position. There is plenty of evidence that show what you see are just contrails. And you have been told this by me, a multi-billionaire with unlimited resources in the science field. I purchased my own science team just last week.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 





My appointment with the DoD/CIA was so hush hush that they never told me I was 'in' or what I was supposed to do. How about yours?


I guess mine was so hush hush they figured that since I didn't know they didn't have to pay me, and now I don't know how to go about getting that back pay...


Damn handlers....



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 



sorry double post
edit on 24-3-2013 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 




It's funny cause it's true.
more

On topic and addressed to all...

This topic is a growing pop-culture trend that I don't see an end to, unless someone officially says it doesn't exist. I'm still wondering why no one has made an official statement - the lack thereof is kind of suspicious.

Are they working on their official speech or are they ignoring the chatter and hoping it will go away? This isn't exactly reptilian overlord mumbo jumbo. This one, to the layman such as myself, seems it could be real. Why no official response?

To add point of reference: They have made statements on aliens, and other such things, why not this?

Google shows the topic is rising and youtube shows 700 thousand video results corresponding to the topic.

edit on 3/24/2013 by Bleeeeep because: corrected spelling and added content



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I don't see how an official statement would put an end to it. Ardent believers would simpy dismiss such a thing as another PTB lie. That's the trouble when one takes up such a position as anything from an official ource being a lie, as many believers have. Those people have wilfully cut themselves off from all information from one side of the debate. Objectivity is gone, no new learning is permitted unless it confirms what is already thought to be true.

Rather than see the lack of official statement as something suspicious, maybe open up to the possibility that statements tend not to be issued about things which are figments of someone's imagination.

There are no official statements about fairies living at the bottom of people's gardens or of why everyone assumes Humpty Dumpty to be an egg despite their being no literary reference to it either.

In the grand scheme of things it is only a small minority of people who believe in chemtrails and it could even be said that an official response would lend the theory a credence it doesn't deserve. Can you imagine? "Look, chemtrails must be real, the UN has issued a denial. Why bother if it's not real?"



For me, the lack of any evidence beyond supposition is just that, and not evidence that people who couldn't even keep a hooker in the White House secret have managed this for three decades :-D
edit on 24-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 





For me, the lack of any evidence beyond supposition is just that, and not evidence that people who couldn't even keep a hooker in the White House secret have managed this for three decades :-D


Well our bosses are good look at the way they handled Roswell and Area 51...


Those are two of the best kept secrets in the USA...



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


It's not about whether or not people will believe them - I know some won't, it's about the lack of statement. If it is popular and to the contrary of the government they tend to make statements like denying they bought mass amounts of ammo.

This isn't fairies and reptilians either... and that is why I explicitly mentioned reptilians for rebuttals such as yours.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I actually thought about that point and edited my post, but you would have already been typing, I reproduce my edit here in response;


In the grand scheme of things it is only a small minority of people who believe in chemtrails and it could even be said that an official response would lend the theory a credence it doesn't deserve. Can you imagine? "Look, chemtrails must be real, the UN has issued a denial. Why bother if it's not real?"




There is no need of a rebuttal because their is nothing to be seen that people with a reasonable grasp of basic science couldn't figure out, or read up on, themselves.

The fact that people don't get why contrails behave as they do, or in some cases refuse to get it, does not make chemtrails any more real.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


I gave you a star for "Look, chemtrails must be real, the UN has issued a denial. Why bother if it's not real?" .

To your basic science statement:

I don't think anyone believes all contrails are chemtrails - just that a lot of them are a mixture of both. A basic understanding of science just doesn't apply here, unless understanding chemical compounds and how to test them is basic science to you.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 





A basic understanding of science just doesn't apply here, unless understanding chemical compounds and how to test them is basic science to you.


No that is why there are scientists, but having some basic science helps you to understand what those scientists are doing, and why they are doing it.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


No, not at all, that would be too much to expect.

What I mean by that is an understanding, or enough of an understanding to follow a textbook, about the weather. Why some contrails persist, or spread, or stop start and others don't. Also how and why that behaviour is also seen in clouds and what the links that makes this so.

It tends to be people who think that a persisting, spreading or stop-start trail cannot be a contrail that then make the leap to think they are chemtrails.

However many protestations they might make that they aren't talking about contrails but one of the other issues such as GE, cloud seeding, weather modification, or others, whenever they post a photo, it's a contrail and can be clearly seen to, at the very least, look no different to a normal aircraft contrail.

It's all very well saying they might not all be contrails, but if the theory exists simply because someone failed to recognise (or deliberately misrepresented) a contrail back in the 1990's what do we actually have?

The original premise was flawed, but the theory is now perpetuated by anecdotal evidence, a few easily spotted fantasists, and reference to different subjects roped in to prop up the edifice.
edit on 24-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I noticed you ignored my response.
Do you feel there is no validity in taking aerial samples and proving or disproving the theory?
I mean, it's like basic science in that it's a sample, lab work, and a result.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


disinformation, scapegoat, smear campaign, plausible deniability? I don't know.

You might be right, though - it could very well be an urban legend gone wild - but then that just leads me back to my original post: the legend is too damning and too important to let fester. Why hasn't anyone with credibility stepped up and said something, one way or the other? It makes no sense to me.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I ignored you because you were trying to draw me into a childish ad hominem argument. To get a test sample, we wouldn't need any "chemtrail fundraiser" lead by we coach coaches, we would just need a beaker in a controlled environment, and a honest and credible science lab to test the results.

Show respect and you might get some in return.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I take your point, but I still feel too few are concerned about it to be worth the effort and to do so would, in itself, legitimise the concern.

I also cannot think of anyone with sufficient credibility to make such a statement, have you any thoughts?

Regarding the other question of testing. I don't see how anything collected on the ground can be tested and said to be from a contrail/Chemtrail. You have air currents that are capable of transporting sand from the Saraha to Yorkshire, you have road and rail transport exhausts, factory emissions, power plant emissions and all manner of other sources for whatever might be found.

Aircraft have followed behind jets in the past taking samples to see what the exhaust contains and this is the only way to be certain.

You wouldn't even need a plane on standby. You could fly up, pick any persisting trail you like and fly through it.
edit on 24-3-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


For sufficient credibility, I would look to university students, but I wouldn't rule out other independent labs.

A controlled environment implied an area where jet streams, and nearby manufacturing plants, and the alike, could be ruled out.

I do not think chasing planes around all day would be efficient nor insusceptible to nearby plants and smeared "data".


eta: In my original post, when I wrote "somebody needs to do something!", it was a nod to pop-culture - a meme sort of thing. I think the issue is important, but I am by no means, frantic about it.
edit on 3/24/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by waynos
 


For sufficient credibility, I would look to university students, but I wouldn't rule out other independent labs.

A controlled environment implied an area where jet streams, and nearby manufacturing plants, and the alike, could be ruled out.

I do not think chasing planes around all day would be efficient nor insusceptible to nearby plants and smeared "data".


eta: In my original post, when I wrote "somebody needs to do something!", it was a nod to pop-culture - a meme sort of thing. I think the issue is important, but I am by no means, frantic about it.
edit on 3/24/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)


To prove a theory of "chemtrails", you're going to need to test the trail itself. Doing the testing on anything other than that is essentially a waste of money, because you would instantly be destroying any credibility that could possibly have been gained from the testing.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
On my trip to Croatia when I was 14 there was this "pattern" on the sky made by passing airplanes, the familiar one we see on pictures or videos. Not long after, the lines above became small clouds, that landed on ground like a fog. Very soon, as I was heading towards the place we were staying, my eyes started burning. My parents took me to the doctor when we returned home and part of what they said was that some of the tears they took for research had metal oxides in it that had reacted.

I don't remember the other details, it was almost 11 years ago, but I find it odd that I have eye problems since then. My eyes react very bad to the mildest wind, light, or how I position my head when sleeping (they start to tear). I didn't have this problem before that event, ever.

This is the only reason I give at least some validity, to some alleged cases of chemtrails. Simply because of a terrible personal experience. You can show me scientific proof of contrails all you want, the fact is, there are certain planets that do these things, and instead of wasting time and sweat debunking this, maybe it would be more productive to see which airplanes (if certain type), or those recorded on video or in picture, or what company they are from, so a firm, proper investigation can be done. Obviously not every air company is part of this 'conspiracy', we need to find the guilty ones.

I also know I'm not the only one with such after-effects, and I find it disrespectful that some of you take this whole thing as a joke, when in fact it should be taken very seriously.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join