It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What should I believe about contrails?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Ok...they're "contrails". You can move on to another "debate" now. The only thing you can "see" are "clouds". BTW...what are clouds? lol
edit on 4-1-2014 by WonderBoi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 





Absence of evidence is not evidence of it's absence; you'd do well to remember that. Sometimes a little critical thinking and intuition goes a long way in the 'absence of evidence'.


Evidence goes a long way to prove something happened.

Even critical thinking needs evidence of proof.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





Ok...they're "contrails". You can move on to another "debate" now. They only thing you can "see" are "clouds".


Been doing some research I see.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Absence of evidence is not evidence of it's absence;

Perhaps not, but that same "absence of evidence" would be grounds for an acquittal in a US court of law.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 
What evidence do you have that 2+2=4? There is no evidence! It's what you believe because it's what you were taught. 2+2=4 isn't a "fact".

I know that's probably waaaaaaay to deep for you. Trying to prove 2+2=5 would make a person look "crazy"; doesn't mean they're wrong. Who's to say 2+2 doesn't equal 5?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

tsurfer2000h
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





Ok...they're "contrails". You can move on to another "debate" now. They only thing you can "see" are "clouds".


Been doing some research I see.
I can see you haven't done enough. You still think clouds = water droplets. lmfao



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

AugustusMasonicus

VeritasAequitas
Yeah because this is completely not a strawman argument..... Are you being willfully obtuse and purposely misunderstanding my statements? In no way did I infer that they are spreading High Fructose Corn Syrup, or Aspartame, in the sky from airplanes...


Then you need to work on being specific in your posts instead of meandering from the atmosphere to the food chain without being clear in your commentary. I am not the only poster that misinterpreted your comment.



Thinking that he said that aspartame is sprayed off planes shows just how little respect you have for VeritasAequitas's arguments and intellect.

Oh the chemtrail argument...where none of the sides really really know what they are talking about because we clearly have no proof that chemtrails do exist yet we have no proof that they don't.
Not much different than arguing on the existence of God.

I'm on the fence on the subject, the whole conspiracy sounds too big to hide yet I know that we can't trust our governments...I mean, they lied to us in the past and obviously still do...but the absence of evidence isn't evidence...from both sides of the argument.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   
ATS made me double post, erase please...


edit on 4-1-2014 by theMediator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

theMediator
Thinking that he said that aspartame is sprayed off planes shows just how little respect you have for VeritasAequitas's arguments and intellect.


Being that my mind reading capabilities are not nearly as efficient as yours I interpreted his comments as clearly as I could given that there was no differentiator that he was referring to something other than the atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 

Why do you have to be so condescending every time you talk to someone on here? Would you be surprised if you talked to people like that in real life and they knocked your teeth out?

How about joining in the discussion as an equal and not trying to make out you're better than everyone else and know things they don't?



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 
What evidence do you need, when it is a known FACT that they're spraying silver iodide, aluminum, barium and various other "chemicals" in the air? Those "chemicals" mix with the "chemicals" in our atmosphere; which cause those trails to "linger".

It's NOT "meteorology". It's CHEMISTRY. Chemistry 1st; Meteorology second.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





What evidence do you have that 2+2=4? There is no evidence! It's what you believe because it's what you were taught. 2+2=4 isn't a "fact".

I know that's probably waaaaaaay to deep for you. Trying to prove 2+2=5 would make a person look "crazy"; doesn't mean they're wrong. Who's to say 2+2 doesn't equal 5?


You can say that 2+2 is a thousand, that still doesn't prove chemtrails exist.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagewerx
 
The people posting here are well accustomed to me, as i to them. The only people they're fooling, with these threads, are those looking for real answers. The same characters are posted up in every single chemtrail or contrail thread on ATS, trying to "teach" someone something.

The only thing you're gonna learn from them is meteorology. It's the only "science" they know!



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 





Thinking that he said that aspartame is sprayed off planes shows just how little respect you have for VeritasAequitas's arguments and intellect.


And using that to prove chemtrails are a reality shows how far chemtrail believers will go to try and prove something that has no evidence of their existence.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 
It doesn't prove they don't exist either. It's really unprovable, but facts are out there. FACT 1...they've been using it since the Vietnam war, maybe longer.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





The only thing you're gonna learn from them is meteorology. It's the only "science" they know!





If you took the time to learn something of meteorology you wouldn't make such sad comments.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


So evidence of corruption is evidence of spraying.

The existence of patents (I'll go further, the existence of ACTUAL dispersal systems) is evidence that a contrail is more than a contrail

And lack of evidence that they wouldn't do it, means that they are doing it.

(Letting go that your own statement about absence of evidence could work both ways there)

If that is your explanation as to why a chemtrail is not a contrail, that you offered, it is one of the weakest, most tenuous bits of rationale I've ever come across.

How does that help you to tell which is which?

Regarding the case for chemtrails, can you answer some of these?

Why do chemtrail websites ask for money and sell cures? It is a well known con trick tactic to scare people into donating and buying crap. What are the donations for? Why no aerial testing in all this time? I think it's cos they know it's a con and provable lab results are the LAST thing they want.

Why do the make false statements about contrail behaviour (ie short duration, don't spread etc) that are outright lies? If this is a real threat, why is it vital that people don't understand contrail behaviour accurately, that stinks of fish by itself.

Why do WITWATS 1 and 2 use deeply flawed or misreported figures, testing sludge from the ground and claiming it is 'water' etc etc. again, if it's real why do they have to twist what they have done? People talk about govt dishonesty, well, unlike you, theirs bothers me too.

Why so many misrepresented pictures of what look exactly like normal contrails, aircraft test prototypes etc etc. same again, if it's real, why use lies to promote it? Doesn't that risk it looking like a hoax?

It astonishes me how many people rave about government lies etc but happily gobble up every piece of crap that infowars/geoengineering watch/ etc etc shovel towards them. It's as if they think that because the government lies, nobody else does. Well, how dumb is that?

But hey, you believe in chemtrails because it 'might' be true, not because anything actually shows there's anything in it.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 


Oh the chemtrail argument...where none of the sides really really know what they are talking about because we clearly have no proof that chemtrails do exist yet we have no proof that they don't.
Not much different than arguing on the existence of God.

No, there's a huge difference! The reality of contrails is based on physical evidence. When it comes to "Chemtrails" the argument is based on, ONLY, speculation.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 





It doesn't prove they don't exist either. It's really unprovable, but facts are out there. FACT 1...they've been using it since the Vietnam war, maybe longer.


I see your back on the cloud seeding again.

I wasn't sure, but I honestly think you are trolling now.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


So to hell with scientific methods, let's just assume that they're chemtrails, because of things like high fructose corn syrup, and other "chemical attacks". Who cares if there's proof or not, it's happening.

And you say *I* suffer from cognitive dissonance?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join