The truth about chemtrails finally revealed - with PROOF!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
OK - perhaps not proof.....but this video actually has some real evidence that supports the contention it makes for why chemtrails are "sprayed" - and yes the conclusion does actually fit the evidence!!


I know - shocking - but I've always said I'll believe the evidence...and here it is!







posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Should probably have posted it in the joke forum.

Not informative or funny so I guess maybe not?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I think it is very informative - it shows how you CAN provide verifiable evidence that supports a conclusion about chemtrails.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Classic satire and well done. I am not sure I can fill a "second line" here. Good points made but his British accent just had me picturing a dopy typical British aloof smoking a cigarette while making the post.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by benrl
 


I think it is very informative - it shows how you CAN provide verifiable evidence that supports a conclusion about chemtrails.


No and no.

first it was clearly a joke, so wrong forum.

2nd, It made no attempt to provide any actual data.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
It is a bit funny, reminds me of the talking friends for android phones haha



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by benrl
 


I think it is very informative - it shows how you CAN provide verifiable evidence that supports a conclusion about chemtrails.


No and no.


2 "no's" for only 1 point made - a bit of overkill perhaps?


first it was clearly a joke, so wrong forum.


this is the chemtrails forum, the video, for all its satire, does actually provide evidence for it's theory.

that is more than any other chemtrail video does!


2nd, It made no attempt to provide any actual data.


It did provide actual data - it provided the world population increase since 1997.

Why am I not surprised that you didn't notice the actual data??!!
edit on 7-8-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by benrl

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by benrl
 


I think it is very informative - it shows how you CAN provide verifiable evidence that supports a conclusion about chemtrails.


No and no.


2 "no's" for only 1 point made - a bit of overkill perhaps?


first it was clearly a joke, so wrong forum.


this is the chemtrails forum, the video, for all its satire, does actually provide evidence for it's theory.

that is more than any other chemtrail video does!


2nd, It made no attempt to provide any actual data.


It did provide actual data - it provided the world population increase since 1997.

Why am I not surprised that you didn't notice the actual data??!!
edit on 7-8-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)


If he said the sun will rise tomorrow, I would also say is not relevant data either.

If you wanted to provide data, compare birth rates per-chemtrail conspiracy inception, with rates after, and look for anomaly, as this is clearly a joke he did not do that.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


There are lots of things that could be data - total population is a perfectly valid data point.

Yet again I am not surprised you do not like the data.....what chemmie ever does like actual data??



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
This clearly isn't meant to be taken seriously. The dopey accent mixed with the silly cartoon style is a dead giveaway. I don't see any real proof either, I just see him somehow linking chemtrails to population growth with no real evidence to back the assumption up.

Maybe this should have been put in the joke section or grey area?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This clearly isn't meant to be taken seriously. The dopey accent mixed with the silly cartoon style is a dead giveaway. I don't see any real proof either, I just see him somehow linking chemtrails to population growth with no real evidence to back the assumption up.

Maybe this should have been put in the joke section or grey area?


It is contradictory satire to make the point that the claims of social engineering (population control to be exact) cannot be linked because there has been an explosion of population since the claim of "chemtrails".....so yes, it should be taken seriously even if presented in a satirical format.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The video maker follows up his theory with a blog post in which he asks some very good questions about chemtrails that IMO deserve answers from those who know such things.

they look like perfectly reasonable serious questions to me.

I can't answer them, because of course I don't think chemtrails exist - but for all you believers out here how about it??


1) On any given day, how many chemtrail spraying aircraft are active worldwide?

2) Are the aircraft involved a) normal commercial airliners carrying passengers (but with slight modifications to allow spraying), or b) specially-equipped planes whose only purpose is chemtrail delivery?

3) Are the pilots of the aircraft aware of/complicit with the chemtrail spraying program? Are the various air traffic control agencies aware or involved?

4) How many people are involved with delivering the chemicals to the planes, filling the tanks etc (again, rough estimate is fine)? Are these people aware of the purpose of the program?

5) How do the people involved in the spraying program protect themselves and their families from the chemicals that are being sprayed?

6) How much does the spraying program cost? How is it funded?

7) Since the program is international, how many people in each participating national government are involved?

8) How is the program co-ordinated internationally? Is there a central planning committee or is it more of a franchise?

9) If a person were interested in becoming an active participant in the spraying program, for money or just for fun, who would they contact?

10) Which other conspiracies are real, and which ones are simply conspiracy theories put out by Them as disinformation?



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I don't see any real proof either, I just see him somehow linking chemtrails to population growth with no real evidence to back the assumption up.


In which case it is in the right place, alongside the German "Duppel" video, all the Tankerenemy videos, all the purported pictures of chemtrails and Chemtrail planes, and all the claims about population control, active SRM programmes, Morgellons disease and all the othe other unsupported and unsupportable rubbish that passes muster as valid evidence for the 'desperate to believe'.

Not forgetting of course those comedy classics, WITWATS 1 and 2

I think it's a good point well made.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I find it laughable that video man picks the most unlikely and ridiculous reason for spraying chemicals, above all the rest.

That makes the case closed. doesn't it? As if.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


It doesn't matter what reason he chose. The point is rather that you should take the rationale you are applying to see it is nonsense and apply it to all the other supposed evidence instead of just giving it a free pass because it support swhatever bias you already hold. Which is what normally happens for so many believers



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by smurfy
 


It doesn't matter what reason he chose. The point is rather that you should take the rationale you are applying to see it is nonsense and apply it to all the other supposed evidence instead of just giving it a free pass because it support swhatever bias you already hold. Which is what normally happens for so many believers


That my friend is a load of tosh, and you know it.
You have no clue as to what extent I have gone into the idea of chemtrails, or the use thereof, or under what conditions they may be used. As for bias, that is your assumption. And get this, it doesn't matter what I think or you for that matter, because if any such operation is/was used, there is feck all could be done about.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I thought it would be obvious that the "you" in my previous post was the general,"you" as in "you, the viewer of the video". Witness my closing use of "so many believers"

My apologies for being too demanding of your (as in yours personally) comprehension skills.
edit on 8-8-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by smurfy
 


I thought it would be obvious that the "you" in my previous post was the general,"you" as in "you, the viewer of the video". Witness my closing use of "so many believers"

My apologies for being too demanding of your (as in yours personally) comprehension skills.
edit on 8-8-2013 by waynos because: (no reason given)


In that case the definitive is, "One" not "you" replying directly personally to someone, when referring to a third party.
As for, "So many believers" that has no context except your own. It is not a belief system.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

As for, "So many believers" that has no context except your own. It is not a belief system.


without verifiable evidence "it" can ONLY be a belief system.



posted on Aug, 8 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
I find it laughable that video man picks the most unlikely and ridiculous reason for spraying chemicals, above all the rest.


So what is the most "obvious" reasons that chem-trails are sprayed? Why is the video unlikely? Why is such "unlikely" reasons being perpetuated then?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join