This is why we "debunk" chemtrails.

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMOKINGGUN2012
reply to post by stars15k
 


Although cloud seeding itself does not technically fall under the definition of "Geoengineering", IMO it is a form of it for sure. Alteration of the atmosphere at anytime by anyone IMO is Geoengineering. It is NOT natural and is intended to alter the outcome of weather, the suns rays, etc, etc.

Than that is your opinion. By continuing to insist it is, when professionals say it is not, is expected behavior you have exhibited before. You negated the airplane maintenance-experienced debunker, but believe an anonymous person, without question. That is ignorance.


BTW explain to me what part of that picture is just a small plane for spraying? That is a COUNTRY using a LARGE plane for spraying........it is also form 6 years ago. If they were doing it then what are countries doing now.


Cloud seeding is small-scale in just about every way. It also does not ever look like a high altitude, visible plume from the back of a plane. So please learn what cloud seeding actually looks like.
That you feel if "they" were doing it then, someone is doing it now is paranoid ignorance unless you have proof. So far on two recent threads, all you have shown is your lack of comprehension of research.


Is every single plane that crosses the sky spraying....no...BUT ......is every single plane NOT spraying......NO.....some are. Proving which planes are is close to impossible obviously from the stories told of this being a "black ops" type operation.


Is there any evidence anywhere ANY plane is spraying? No. To make the statement some are, again is just your opinion. There have been many thread which describe how to find out what planes you are seeing, you should try it. I have, and I was able to identify every single plane that went over my head for a couple of hours.
What kind of "Black Ops" would be so completely visible and openly talked about? That is just stupid. If it was a "Black Ops" operation, no one would know about it at all. If they were really doing it there would be some kind of evidence. If they were really doing it, someone in the chain of logistics would have said something by now. Hiding behind "Black Ops operation...so you can't know about it" on a public, free, open forum is self-negating.


BTW stop telling me I need to learn more about the weather or geoengineering, I know plenty and if you don't like my opinion on the subject then don't respond to what I write.


I am not talking to you necessarily. I am talking to the people who like you don't know enough about weather, aviation, chemistry, physics, and geo-engineering to make a really informed opinion about the visible trails behind airplanes. It's why I'm a debunker. You pointed out the topic of this thread to me a while ago.


You act like you are Gods dedicated gift to the debunking chemtrails forum. The debunkers know facts huh? You have yet to post one single salient fact IMO.


Again with your opinion! One salient fact? Any fact presented you have declined to discuss because in your vaunted opinion it is what you say it is. You have not, over two threads, posted anything that is other than your opinion. But you continue to present them as though your opinion were factual. As a debunker, who only wants people to learn about what they see so they don't have to just have an opinion...it's why I continue.




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 





No matter how much you want to believe that chemical aerosol believers are dangerous and crazy doesn't make it so.


Again, belief is not a part of the equation.

Threats have been made, People have posted on forums such as these that action needs to be taken and suggestions of confronting airline pilots and such has happened.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 





You cannot just "debunk" something based on how observers react on it. That is not denying ignorance.


No, but with scientific research and study you can debunk something which is the main way to deny ignorance, something that chemtrail believers do not seem to not understand.

The way an observer reacts is not scientific research. It is similar to saying that math does not exist, if a person does not understand it and says inane things about.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


Yeah, we do know.
Any trail, behind any plane, flown by anyone, at any time, anywhere in the world is a contrail. Unless and until someone can prove that there is something more than the expected elements of burning jet fuel through a jet engine>
Since planes have been flying.
If you think differently without more evidence that "looking up", you are embracing ignorance, believing an internet-generated myth, and not thinking for yourself.

How about you prove to me that all planes only leave contrails. You seem very sure about that.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 




I can't prove that at all - and I'm not actually trying to.

However I can prove that contrails do exist - I presume you are not going to argue about that??

And I can compare trails identified as "chemtrails" from airliners and see that they look like contrails, are generated like contrails, and behave like contrails.

So I ask what it is that makes you think they are not contrails?

And when someone says "because they last a long time" or "becuse they spread out across the sky" then I can point out that actually contrails do do that - and so I can reasonably say that your reason for identifying them as something other than contrails is not valid.

If you can provide me with some credible evidence that a trail is not a contrail then I will accept it - not happily because I do not like the idea of people "spraying stuff" any more than anyone else.

But until then I think my position on this subject is more rational than yours.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 




I can't prove that at all - and I'm not actually trying to.

However I can prove that contrails do exist - I presume you are not going to argue about that??

And I can compare trails identified as "chemtrails" from airliners and see that they look like contrails, are generated like contrails, and behave like contrails.

So I ask what it is that makes you think they are not contrails?

And when someone says "because they last a long time" or "becuse they spread out across the sky" then I can point out that actually contrails do do that - and so I can reasonably say that your reason for identifying them as something other than contrails is not valid.

If you can provide me with some credible evidence that a trail is not a contrail then I will accept it - not happily because I do not like the idea of people "spraying stuff" any more than anyone else.

But until then I think my position on this subject is more rational than yours.

I cannot prove that a contrail is a chemtrail. However you cannot prove that a contrail is not a chemtrail. So I do not see how your position is more rational, considering the fact that the military have done many things in the past that we do not know.

And I understand that contrails can last a long time due to favorable winds aloft, but that does not mean they cannot be chemtrails.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


And yet what is the reason for supposing that chemtrails exist at all? There has to be a reason, yes?

Now, my own understanding is that thick contrails were claimed to be chemtrails by certain people whose names are well known on here sometime in the mid 1990's. When I came here in 2004 that was the *only* claim about why you, me and everyone else needed to be aware of chemtrails.

Since that time a whole raft of additional theories were drafted in to shore up that first claim. In the way I have seen this debate develop over the years this was done purely because the initial claims that contrails don't persist and spread and commercial traffic does not leave grids etc etc were shown demonstrably to be transparently false (despite many adherents still clinging to that very definition).

In this area we were introduced to claims about patents, cloud seeding, GE discussions in the scientific community and a whole host of similar things that had previously not been of any concern to the chemtrail crowd, despite being publicly known for far longer than their original claims, and despite NONE of them actually resembling the contrails that started it all off.

Having witnessed all of this, and bearing it in mind, any current attempt to maintain the belief in chemtrails by simply saying 'you can't prove its not' is the lamest of the lame, when there was never any reason to believe in them in the first place.

It is a truism that you cannot prove a negative. Contrails exist, can persist and spread and appear in all sorts of patterns, as you accept yourself. This is proven and has been for decades. Now if anyone is saying that these known and proven signs are also a sign of something else, they need to demonstrate that claim.

That demonstration will not come by showing that someone has registered a patent for such a device because we know that things are routinely sprayed from aircraft anyway, plus, there are also patents for time machines and one for inducing birth via centrifugal force by whirling the mother around at high velocity. These are no more valid than the chemtrail ones.

That demonstration will not come by showing that various militaries have enacted entirely different types of spraying operations in the past. These tellingly, NEVER left persisting spreading trails and were never done at altitude because if spraying is done too high it is ineffective due to dispersal.

That demonstration will not come by discussing GE documents. All the documents discussed are extremely detailed and specific and not one of them describes leaving any such trails.

The case for chemtrails is also not only not helped, but is actually harmed, by the deliberate misrepresentation of photographs of aircraft and of miscaptioned you tube videos etc etc that are clearly designed to manipulate the gullible and are felt necessary because there is nothing genuine to put in their place.

So, with a global spraying operation having supposedly taken place for the past two decades in the skies over all our heads but with no planes, no personnel, no supply chain, no money trail and no physical residues WHATSOEVER, you may understand why "you cant prove they aren't" is frankly hilarious.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


My position is more rational because it starts with something we DO know exists, and compares reports and photos and videos, etc, with that known quantity. And since they have all the characteristics of that known phenomena it is reasonable to conclude that they ARE that known phenomena.

Yours starts with the position that there "is something going on" because of stuff that was done in the past - but you have no actual evidence of anything being done now yet you still claim that "it" is happening - even though you cannot identify what "it" is!

I have no problem with you being suspicious of the Govt, military,, etc because of past actions - that is right and proper.

But "spraying" through the 1950's to 1970's is simply not evidence of "spraying" from commercial airliners now.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


So, with a global spraying operation having supposedly taken place for the past two decades in the skies over all our heads but with no planes, no personnel, no supply chain, no money trail and no physical residues WHATSOEVER, you may understand why "you cant prove they aren't" is frankly hilarious.


Tehre is actualy a term that covers this - evidence of absence

In some cases it is possible to prove a negative - for example I can "prove" I have no russian currency in my pocket by emptying my pocket - if there was russian currency in it you'd expect it to be there, and since ther isn't you have evidence of that engative.

Now with "chemtrails" the subject is massive - it's not jsut a pocket in trousers - it is the whole atmosphere, so ti's not really possible to say you've checked the whole attmosphere and every suingle contrail ever mande.

Nonethless IF chemtails existed you would expect to see some evidence - as you popint out where's the materials? Where's the documentation (eg weight and balance figures, amintenance manual for "different" fuels, bills, invoices, policies, procedures, etc), where's teh fuel samples? Where's the air samples? (Celarly peole have taken air samples - but they fail to show that there's anything "odd" actually in them) Where's the whistleblowers? (Tehre's been 1 or 2 anonymouse ones but their stories are nonsense)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


My position is more rational because it starts with something we DO know exists, and compares reports and photos and videos, etc, with that known quantity. And since they have all the characteristics of that known phenomena it is reasonable to conclude that they ARE that known phenomena.

Yours starts with the position that there "is something going on" because of stuff that was done in the past - but you have no actual evidence of anything being done now yet you still claim that "it" is happening - even though you cannot identify what "it" is!

I have no problem with you being suspicious of the Govt, military,, etc because of past actions - that is right and proper.

But "spraying" through the 1950's to 1970's is simply not evidence of "spraying" from commercial airliners now.


It is evidence. If the government was willing and able to do it in the past, it is perfectly possible for them to be still spraying.

And chemtrails do not have to come from airliners, it can come from military planes.

Until you have absolute proof that contrails are not chemtrails, I , and many other people will continue believing in it.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


See, there is the rub.

"Chemtrail" believers are the people who make the claims, therefore the onus is on them to prove that what they claim is true.

I cannot prove something does not exist, and don't have to. There is decades of study about contrails, going all the way back to when they were first seen....over 80 years worth. They have been described, measured, modeled, observed by professionals. Testing is done on the trail itself many times. Contrails are a given of air travel.

What believers cannot prove is anything they continue to say about "chemtrails" is actuality. There are no valid tests, no credible whistleblowers, no real admission from someone in the know....just a bunch of anecdotal stories, sloppy testing, suspicion, supposition, and paranoia. Believers therefore continue to only believe.

I choose to know. I know the science that makes contrails happen, know good science method from bad, and know to question the source of everything. Before I began debunking, I thoroughly researched both sides of the question. I am not a professional in any pertinent field; I learned what I know. "Chemtrail" theory does not hold up to critical thinking.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


So, with a global spraying operation having supposedly taken place for the past two decades in the skies over all our heads but with no planes, no personnel, no supply chain, no money trail and no physical residues WHATSOEVER, you may understand why "you cant prove they aren't" is frankly hilarious.


Tehre is actualy a term that covers this - evidence of absence

In some cases it is possible to prove a negative - for example I can "prove" I have no russian currency in my pocket by emptying my pocket - if there was russian currency in it you'd expect it to be there, and since ther isn't you have evidence of that engative.

Now with "chemtrails" the subject is massive - it's not jsut a pocket in trousers - it is the whole atmosphere, so ti's not really possible to say you've checked the whole attmosphere and every suingle contrail ever mande.

Nonethless IF chemtails existed you would expect to see some evidence - as you popint out where's the materials? Where's the documentation (eg weight and balance figures, amintenance manual for "different" fuels, bills, invoices, policies, procedures, etc), where's teh fuel samples? Where's the air samples? (Celarly peole have taken air samples - but they fail to show that there's anything "odd" actually in them) Where's the whistleblowers? (Tehre's been 1 or 2 anonymouse ones but their stories are nonsense)



I can link you to articles of air samples being taken that do show odd particles in the air. But of course, you will say it is faked.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


See, there is the rub.

"Chemtrail" believers are the people who make the claims, therefore the onus is on them to prove that what they claim is true.

I cannot prove something does not exist, and don't have to. There is decades of study about contrails, going all the way back to when they were first seen....over 80 years worth. They have been described, measured, modeled, observed by professionals. Testing is done on the trail itself many times. Contrails are a given of air travel.

What believers cannot prove is anything they continue to say about "chemtrails" is actuality. There are no valid tests, no credible whistleblowers, no real admission from someone in the know....just a bunch of anecdotal stories, sloppy testing, suspicion, supposition, and paranoia. Believers therefore continue to only believe.

I choose to know. I know the science that makes contrails happen, know good science method from bad, and know to question the source of everything. Before I began debunking, I thoroughly researched both sides of the question. I am not a professional in any pertinent field; I learned what I know. "Chemtrail" theory does not hold up to critical thinking.

Read my post below you. I can give you evidence, but you will deny it.

And how can you say that chemtrails do not exist without any proof? You can be certain that they do not exist, but that does not mean they do not.

This time the burden of proof is on you. You are making claims that they do not exist, and I would like to know where the proof of that is.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


We would only say that if it IS faked AND can be shown to be so. This is the point. As you say, you are choosing to believe in chemtrails.

I asked you a question pertinent to that belief choice in a previous post, but you seem to have skipped that. Is that symptomatic of you having made a choice without reason perhaps?

I have seen several of these reports and I refer to you to my earlier post where I mentioned misrepresentation. Is yours then not one of these reports that mention finding aluminium and barium in samples as if it is not natural to do so?


Did you know Doctor Who is a dramatisation of a true story and Gallifrey is a real place? Prove it isn't. Do you see how silly that sounds?
edit on 5-5-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Read my post below you. I can give you evidence, but you will deny it.


Personaly I will EXAMINE it - to see whether it stands up to resdonable scrutiny.

So far none of het evidence for chemtrails does so - it falls appart quiet quickly being revealed as not actually supporting the theory at all.

Or do you object to evidence veing examined for how good it is?


And how can you say that chemtrails do not exist without any proof? You can be certain that they do not exist, but that does not mean they do not. [/quoet]

Indeed - which is why I say that so far there is no credible evidence that chemtrails exist - all eth supposed evidence persented to date is not actually credible at all - indeed some of it is obviously and deliberately fake.

[quoet]This time the burden of proof is on you. You are making claims that they do not exist, and I would like to know where the proof of that is.


No - it is not.

Debunking is about examining eth evidence - once you discard faulty evidence whatever is left is what you make conclusions on.

since there is no evidence of chemtrails left after debunking it is obvious to conclude that there is no evidence that chemtrails exist.

I do not have to PROVE they do not exist at all, because that is not what I set out to do. I set out to examine eth evidence and see what it tells me - so if you find some credible evidence that chemtrails exist then I will conclude that they do exist too!

Go for it!



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 





So I do not see how your position is more rational, considering the fact that the military have done many things in the past that we do not know.
emphasis mine

Another moment of irrationality. I prefer to know what to fear.
It is irrational to fear something because you don't know what something is or perhaps was done.
Isn't it more rational to know if that fear is warranted?
I understand the physics of why anything "up there", even if it were being sprayed, would not be affecting me as the viewer below. Yet believers continue to point up, say "chemtrail" and preach in fear about the dangerous poison, morgellons, or whatever is in vogue for believers to spout right now. All with no evidence.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 


In relation to this point;


And chemtrails do not have to come from airliners, it can come from military planes.


Are you aware of any evidence that such trails have been deposited by military aircraft? Or even any aircraft at all?



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
I can link you to articles of air samples being taken that do show odd particles in the air. But of course, you will say it is faked.


Why don't you provide the link?

I know of one such sampling done in Phoenix.

The sampling wasn't fake - but the conclusions weer nonsense.

for example they measured the amount of elements in the dust they gathered out of the air - nothing wrong with that.

Then they said that the proportion of the elements in the DUST was actually the proportion in the AIR - and that is egregiously wrong.

To determine the proportion of the elements in the air they would have had to determine how much air they filtered to get the dust - but, as far as I can tell, they did not do so.

for example if you get 10 grams of dust and find that it is 10% aluminium (100,000ppm = 10%) you cannot then claim that the air sample showed 100,000ppm aluminium.

If you had to filter 100 kg of air to get that 10 grams of dust then the actual proportion of aluminium in the air is 1gm/100,000 gms = 10 parts per million.

They also invented their own "limit" about what was acceptable, ignoring things like OSHA limits for dust.

Discussion of Arizona Skywatch "air particle tests"

If it is something else then I'd be interested in having a look at it.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


One issue I have had with similar tests is that, regardless of the quantity of materials found, the chemmies seem to proclaim with confidence that this material has been deposited from an aircraft. How can they know this is the origin of what they have found?
edit on 5-5-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Agreed.
Method is everything.
It's how I knew, all those months and years ago that anything from Carnicom was a stool sample.






top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join