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: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by waynos
 





Of course it can, as can any other spray capable aircraft of which there are many.
But it requires one to put the cart before the horse for it to be the proof you seem to think it is, you have a stance of poisons exist, the government is crooked, therefore they are being sprayed from the skies. That is truly asinine.


The only asinine thing I can see in this stance is that because you don't have prima facie for the specific conspiracy it is by default false, even though analogous incidents can be proven true...


You have that backwards. Prima facie evidence is, as I stated previously, a known and proven appearance and behaviour for contrails that ALL reported trails in the sky suspected of being chemtrails conform to.

What you have that they may be chemntrails is a belief and suspicion that spraying is 'just the sort of thing they would do' and that the means exist.

You can't convict someone of a shooting because guns exist and they look like they might shoot someone. A body and a bullet would be a start.




posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I do not EVER remember, as a kid in the early 70's, looking up and seeing streaks CLEAR ACROSS the sky as far as I can see (especially in many different directions). The Contrails I remember were short and short lived. They did NOT spread out into a dull cloud cover.

That is why I am convinced chemtrails are real.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by tinker9917
 


Then you are in the same boat as many others. But it doesn't make it right. That's how the whole thing started.

In order, for instance, to make a case that what you said there means chemtrails are real, how would you discount the effect on contrail numbers of the growth of air transport numerically since 1970, the deregulation programme of the same decade that led to an explosion in the numbers of regional carriers over the next two decades, the gradual removal of the turbojet and marginalisation of the turboprop on commercial airframes coupled with the wholesale acceptance of the high bypass ratio turbofan in their place?

If you are thinking contrails behaved differently then to now, how would you account for the writings about persistant and spreading contrails that go back 80 years and become commonplace from WW2 onwards when aircraft routinely flew higher?

If these changes would NOT result in more visible and persisting trails due to higher flying aircraft appearing in ever greater numbers, why not?

And why are chemtrails easier to accept than that lot?

After all, a person who is certain that chemtrails are real would have considered and answered those questions, would they not?


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



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   

tinker9917
I do not EVER remember, as a kid in the early 70's, looking up and seeing streaks CLEAR ACROSS the sky as far as I can see (especially in many different directions). The Contrails I remember were short and short lived. They did NOT spread out into a dull cloud cover.

That is why I am convinced chemtrails are real.


I remember them clearly over southern England in the early 70s.They were only 707s,747s,DC8s,DC10s,Tristars,Starlifters,Galaxys etc in those days,but they definitely persisted on some days and not on others.And even back then in the 70s before they allegedly started "spraying" some 20 years later,when the started to spread out and cover the whole sky you could guarantee a weather front was approaching from the west.
I was only about 13 at the time,but along with a bit of help from my dad I soon worked out that a weather front would always follow persistent contrails,which were the effect rather than the cause.
And of course every time this happened,I had to sit and listen to his stories of the same happening over the south east of England in the second world war as the Battle of Britain took place in the skies over his head.This of course involved nothing more than piston engined Spits,Hurricanes,Messerschmits etc,and there's plenty of photographic evidence to prove that it doesn't need modern airliners with high bypass ratio turbofans to do the same thing.

St Pauls cathedral,London WW2.......



Somewhere over southern England early 1940s.....




Prague 1988.......




posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 





Patent US7413145

Where is your proof that it isn't being used? That is a rather terrible rationalization and dismissal in my opinion..


Well you found a picture that is for firefighting equipment and are trying to equate it with chemtrails, well it isn't, and yes it is being used but I guess it's time to nip this in the bud before you start adding balast tanks as proof.

www.metabunk.org...



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


The A350 will be entering the water ballast testing stage soon as MSN003 is kitted out. Pictures may start appearing any time.

www.aviationweek.com.../article-xml/awx_06_06_2013_p0-585892.xml

Eta, for some reason AW doesn't like links, the article comes up by searching "a350 testing"
edit on 5-1-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 





The A350 will be entering the water ballast testing stage soon as MSN003 is kitted out. Pictures may start appearing any time.


Let's just hope the chemtrail crowd is a bit brighter than that...Oh wait I just realized what I was saying.

Yes, it is just a matter of time before they make the rounds.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I am astounded by the sheer willful ignorance displayed on this thread since my last post.... "Oh it's just a water ballast, nothing to see here move along." Maybe I was wrong in my assessment that you gentlemen could be reasoned with, I see now that is not the case. The only reasoning you will see is one that confirms your bias, and strengthens the level of cognitive dissonance within this forum. As I have stated before, if you lot want to stick your heads in the sand, that's quite fine by me... Enjoy your blissful ignorance for the very little time left that it lasts... Good day to you all, and good luck.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

VeritasAequitas
This is just more asinine thinking... Evidence : A patent exists for aerial dispersal of chemicals. We are currently being administered harmful food additives, and chemicals via the garbage that is intended to represent food these days. Nothing at all prevents the use of that same system to disperse harmful chemicals into the atmosphere, and is not unreasonable to suggest that they have done this based on the evidence above... It is only willful ignorance which is remorse to acknowledge this fact.


What am I acknowledging? That there is a method to disburse chemicals at attitude? That you happen to eat bad food? So what? That does not cause me to jump into Paranoia Land and believe that what you are seeing is chemtrails.

You know what is really asinine? Just because you eat crap and there is a aerial disbursal system for chemicals does not automatically equate to 'chemicals are being sprayed in the atmosphere'.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Pepsius ergo veneno chemtrailis.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Well then I'm sorry you are so astonished that we don't want to play along with your fantasy game. For all your outrage and pontification, you haven't actually said anything of substance AT ALL.

Despite being offered several specific discussion points on a plate that you deemed beneath you.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 





I am astounded by the sheer willful ignorance displayed on this thread since my last post.... "Oh it's just a water ballast, nothing to see here move along." Maybe I was wrong in my assessment that you gentlemen could be reasoned with, I see now that is not the case.


I am astounded you try to equate firefighting equipment with chemtrails.

Btw I never said what you pictured was a balast tank and neither did anyone else so that in itself is a fallacy. I did add the balast tanks because you are seemingly trying your hardest to equate things that are not even close to the topic at hand.

Your trying to reason with us...Really?



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


If you want to try reason, why not start at the beginning? Starting here should help avoid obfuscation. Are you up for it?

When anyone posts photos with claims "they chemtrailed the hell out (name of town etc) today!" These photos always show a network of white trails high in the sky, sometimes parallel, sometimes crossing etc.

Chemtrail websites tell us that contrails cannot last very long and quickly dissipate, which is how these chemtrails are being identified.

So firstly, do you believe that claim relating to contrail persistence and what is the reason for your answer?

Secondly, regarding the point people frequently make about the skies looking different now, taken from a post higher up, how would you discount the effect on contrail numbers of the growth of air transport numerically since 1970, the deregulation programme of the same decade that led to an explosion in the numbers of regional carriers over the next two decades, the gradual removal of the turbojet and marginalisation of the turboprop on commercial airframes coupled with the wholesale acceptance of the high bypass ratio turbofan in their place?

If you are thinking contrails behaved differently then to now, how would you account for the writings about persistant and spreading contrails that go back 80 years and become commonplace from WW2 onwards when aircraft routinely flew higher?

These are mundane, but surely plausible explanations as to why the sky looks as it does as opposed to a hypothetical chemtrail spraying operation that has been carried out in total secrecy for 20 years. What are your thoughts on this element of the discussion?
edit on 5-1-2014 by waynos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Are you really that slow? This thread is about the white lines in the sky. They are contrails. They look just like contrails. They act just like contrails. Is there bad stuff in diet drinks? Maybe. Is fluoride good for you? hard to say, depends on whom you ask. Does the fact that diet soda may have bad stuff in it make contrails chemtrails? Well according to your logic, yes. Now that is asinine.

Maybe if you go back and re-read your posts, you will see how utterly silly they are.

White lines in the sky that look like contrails, are probably contrails. Saying they are chemtrails with no supporting evidence is ignorant. Once you comprehend that, you will be ready for second grade science. Start slow, work your way up.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

AugustusMasonicus
You know what is really asinine? Just because you eat crap and there is a aerial disbursal system for chemicals does not automatically equate to 'chemicals are being sprayed in the atmosphere'.


Seeing that that is the prevailing level of intellect you deal with in the chemtrail debates, it kind of make you re-think coming to one, doesn't it?

Next you have a kid trying to argue 2+2 doesn't equal 4. Why? Because that's what the government wants you to think.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Have some sweet tea. It helps clear the mind.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 





I am astounded you try to equate firefighting equipment with chemtrails.


And I'm even more astounded that you lot can't realize that they needn't only be used as 'firefighting equipment'. Critical thinking skills are apparently lacking on ATS. Good day to you all..



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 





I am astounded you try to equate firefighting equipment with chemtrails.


And I'm even more astounded that you lot can't realize that they needn't only be used as 'firefighting equipment'. Critical thinking skills are apparently lacking on ATS. Good day to you all..


I've seen people telling you several times throughout this thread that no one is saying it CAN'T be done but there is zero proof that it IS being done. Is that so hard for you to understand?
edit on 5-1-2014 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 





Does the fact that diet soda may have bad stuff in it make contrails chemtrails?


Nor did I ever say that, which makes this a veiled argumentum ad logicam, or a strawman argument. I never said all 'contrails' are 'chemtrails'. The point is you lot are arguing over whether we are being poisoned with aerial dispersal of harmful chemicals over some frickin lines in the sky... If that isn't asinine I don't know what is. As I have repeatedly tried to point out the real issue is not contrails vs chemtrails, but whether or not you believe the government has, will, or can disperse harmful toxins into the atmosphere. It seems you lot can not understand this or simply refuse to think about it which is why any and all reasoning with you is pointless. The issue with Diet Soda/Fluoride/etc being brought up is that the factors are known that they already poison us on the ground, and have the capacity to do so from the air. I don't need to see lines in the sky to know that this happens... So go ahead, stick your heads in the sand with your fingers in your ears, and enjoy your willful ignorance while it lasts..
edit on 5-1-2014 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mrthumpy
 





I've seen people telling you several times throughout this thread that no one is saying it CAN'T be done but there is zero proof that it IS being done.


And I responded with absence of evidence is not evidence of it's absence at all... While there may not be concrete proof(Which I'm not even sure what you guys would consider this to be anyways), any reasonable person who looks at the evidence that DOES exist, could draw the same conclusions. That patent was filed by Evergreen Air; a CIA front, while the CIA has indulged in morally bankrupt behavior for decades. I have proof that the government they work for, who is in league with multinational corporations and interests has allowed their own people to be subjected to harmful toxins by their federal regulatory agency, the FDA. So excuse the hell out of me if I can put two and two together, and get 4, while you lots act as if there is no equation at all. As I said, critical thinking skills; seriously lacking here.
edit on 5-1-2014 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


you just don't get it. Now that is plain sad.

My only argument is that those lines in the sky that look like contrails, are probably contrails. That's it. I get irritated when some gomer comes in and says "just look up man! they are spraying you!" and that is all the proof that's needed to overturn the science that explains contrails.

Now you seem to think that since it's possible for "them" to spray you, we should all be pissed off like they "are" spraying us. If you look at your stance from an outside perspective, like maybe a grade school level, it's asinine. It's less than childish. It makes no logical sense. It's pathetic.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

VeritasAequitas
That patent was filed by Evergreen Air; a CIA front, while the CIA has indulged in morally bankrupt behavior for decades. I have proof that the government they work for, who is in league with multinational corporations and interests has allowed their own people to be subjected to harmful toxins by their federal regulatory agency, the FDA.


Diet soda exists. Diet Soda is bad. The government exists. The government is bad. Aerial chemical delivery devices exist. Therefore the government is spraying you with chemicals.

Non cogito ergo chemtrailis.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join