In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof

a reply to: wmd_2008

Actually, it's quite clear which is which. I don't discount the idea that weather conditions will affect contrails in various ways, & I don't care enough to note the minor differences in Californias sunny days & times of day I see what I would consider a difference between Chem or contrail.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

You have no idea.



I think the biggest problem with chemtrail pushers is they are mostly convinced it's to poison ppl (or at the very least keep them sick & feeding big pharma)

I believe the sky is kept up as either a perpetual hologram or is being prepped as one, whether this is to hide what's really in the sky or for a planned fake alien invasion or return of Christ & the Angels, who can say.
I posted some links in one of Petros other threads, not going to bother reposting them.
It's always the same crowd in these threads, & why anyone expects to change anyone else opinion about anything is beyond me.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

If you are well aware of how contrails are formed then you'll fully understand how a contrail can be 'turned on and off' and how planes at different altitudes can produce different trails.

If you don't understand then maybe you're not as aware as you think you are.

I am aware of how differences in the atmosphere can affect contrails. I can also tell when an aerosol nozzle is turned on and off repeatedly.
As another denier said earlier, this is pointless. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind and I don't care what you believe about them. I believe the difference between us is that I have actually researched both contrails AND "chemtrails". Most deniers only scratch the surface of "chemtrails" and say "nope, no water down there. no need to look any further". In truth, the rabbit hole is deeper than you or I will ever know.

a reply to: johnwick

Why not just drop colored chaff or something and then ask folks if they find it to report the color and or size.

Because chaff would not spread the way they are looking for, as chaff would just come down and possibly not land in the area your testing.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h

Only to those who refuse to actually understand what they are seeing.

Exactly.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD

I am aware of how differences in the atmosphere can affect contrails. I can also tell when an aerosol nozzle is turned on and off repeatedly.

How can you tell this and how do you differentiate it from an aircraft passing through regions of different humidity? How can you tell such a nozzle is even present?

I believe the difference between us is that I have actually researched both contrails AND "chemtrails". Most deniers only scratch the surface of "chemtrails" and say "nope, no water down there. no need to look any further". In truth, the rabbit hole is deeper than you or I will ever know.

You are not alone in this belief. Maybe it's easier for believers to think this way than it is for them to accept that those who don't believe have researched exhaustively and found the whole thing to be rubbish. After all, you have absolutely no way to know how much research any individual here has done, therefore you are making an assumption that reinforces your own bias. Can you say, for example, that you've been following the trail of "evidence" for ten years, as I have? I find it all very interesting, but at the same time I also find it flimsy and vacuous. I think part of the fascination is why people believe it at all.

If your research convinced you, it may be worth sharing. After all, we don't believe because our research has revealed nothing convincing whatsoever. You may have found something, or you may be more easily led or lack the background experience to recognise a falsehood. Without sharing, we can't know.

I have no interest in attacking or belittling you. If your evidence is new I'd like to see it. If it's not, it's not. It wouldn't be the first time.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Petros312

The problem is every chemtrailer sees every contrail as a chemtrail...

--Not according to how the public has defined who is a "chemtrailer." This quoted statement is overgeneralized. See: In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality

a reply to: network dude
"the horrible antithesis to all chemtrail believers" I find that statement hilarious.
And regarding the website itself named "chemtrail science", this is a quote from the owner:
"I’m not a scientist, or a meteorologist, but I try to ensure that what I post is comprised of independently verifiable facts." That sounds like every denier I've come into contact with who uses "independently verifiable facts" in their argument.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

And what is wrong with that? If the facts presented are correct, it doesn't require a PhD to deliver them. Do you only believe fire is hot if a fireman tells you, or are you smart enough to recognise it for yourself? If they are wrong they can be shown to be wrong. Chemtrail believers have so far failed to show anything on there is actually wrong, so they instead attack the site author. That's a very poor attitude as the are plenty of enthusiastic amateur experts on many subjects.

originally posted by: waynos

How can you tell this and how do you differentiate it from an aircraft passing through regions of different humidity? How can you tell such a nozzle is even present?

Have you ever watched sky writing? How about crop dusting?
Regarding the rest of your comment I will say that It is pretty obvious by the content of one's argument how much is is actually understood about WHY there are chemtrails in the sky.
Yes, I can say that I have been following the trail of "evidence" for ten years. I agree that the "evidence" is sorta flimsy and vacuous, but what else would you expect from secret government programs?
I could start a thread on the topic but seriously, what's the point? I've said before I really don't care to convince anyone about what I believe. There are enough pieces to the puzzle out there to get a good idea of the picture if you really want to know.
Thanks for not attacking or belittling me, I do appreciate that.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: 3danimator2014


I believe the sky is kept up as either a perpetual hologram or is being prepped as one, whether this is to hide what's really in the sky or for a planned fake alien invasion or return of Christ & the Angels, who can say.

And you can't understand why you might be mocked? I mean...really?

I feel bad for you that you perceive the real world around you to be so boring that you have to make up crazy theories like that. For me..The real thing is interesting enough and leaders and politicians lie about enough stuff that my place is full already.

And the funny thing is you talk to me condescendingly like I'm a child who just doesn't get it and is walking around with my eyes shut.

By the way..i read that aurora displays are really because of Scandinavian trolls farting. ..you might want to a look into that. I mean...no one can prove that it isn't (other than lying scumbag scientists), so there MUST be some truth to it.

a reply to: waynos
There's nothing wrong with it and I did not attack the author of the site. It just loses credibility in my mind. I can find those same facts presented in an unbiased way elsewhere.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Extra ordinary claims...require extraordinary evidence.

Well this slogan doesn't excuse debunkers from typical unfair debate tactics assigning the burden of proof to chemtrailers alone while they confound explanations of normal jet aircraft activity and contrail formation with what's actually happening in the sky at any given time and any given location, and that includes with or without the presence of contrails. In fact, given they don't see the error of this approach, they're doing it right here.

Moreover, given the history of open air testing that's occurred in the USA in and near populated areas, I don't find claims about toxins in the air to be "extraordinary."

I say anyone on a conspiracy site that would guarantee without a doubt that chemtrails aren't real, needs to adjust their tinfoil hat, it is on way too tight.

- The air and soil are tested every day by thousands of independent labs worldwide....nothing found.
- Dropping anything at 30,000 is an idiotic way of getting things to fall on people as you have no NO idea where the particulates will land. This is not up for debate.
- 20 years of spraying. Not a SINGLE shred of evidence.
- 20 years of spraying...no sign of anyone dying off, getting ill, becoming superhuman...whatever you chemmies think the reason for spraying is this week.

Sorry...but im just going to say it...you have to be a bit of a gullible fool to believe this ridiculous conspiracy. And thats me being very polite.

Did you just call me a "chemmie"?

I am not one to say either way on the subject, so I wouldn't call me a "chemmie" just because I won't rule it out.

Tuskegee experiments- true the gov did this.
Intentionally placing personal way too close to the A-bomb tests....true as well

Irradiating milk and then giving it the mentally retarded to test the results of internal radiation exposure....check.

Just saying man, the gov has done some pretty messed up stuff over the years.

But this is the one subject you will fixate on a claim "NO WAY!!!"

Seriously?

I never stop doubting that they would do anything.

Is Obama a secret illegal alien with a faked BS?

I don't think so, but I suppose it could be possible.

Did we fake the moon landings?

I like to think we actually did it, but it is possible I guess they faked it.

Don't be so closed minded.

There are always many possibilities, even ones we never think of.

Sigh....im not close minded. I know governments lie and do terrible things sometimes. But for chemtrails to be anywhere near as prevalent as most chemmies believe requires a logistical nightmare the IS IMPOSSIBLE. totally and utterly impossible for that many planes to be carrying that much chemical and to be spraying round the clock, all over world and not a single person has seen a nozzle, a chemical truck, spotted anything in the fuel etc.....

Is it possible that the leaders would do something this sh*t? I guess so, sure.

Is it possible that they are doing it (at the scale that chemmies believe- and cloud seeding does not count)? No a chance my friend. Not because of anything other than sheer logistics . And If you cannot grasp that, then you don't understand how planes operate in the air and on the ground enough.

And incidentaly, i don't consider keeping an open mind to such crazy things as chemtrails or Obama being an alien a good thing. I know ATS likes to make out like that's a positive thing....i don't agree. Keep an open mind about things..sure. but not everything. Somethings can safely be scoffed at.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

What have sky writing and crop dusting got to do with on/off contrails or chemtrails? I don't know what point you're trying to make there?

I'm an aviation photographer with a portfolio of over 30,000 images of all kinds of aircraft doing all kinds of things from inside and out so yes, I have watched those things and lots of other aviation activities besides. I've been around aviation for 40 years and started taking photos in 1980. When people ask me if I lok up or if I remember persisting spreading trails before the 90's, or various other similar questions, it kinda makes me want to laugh.

To understand the practicalities of aircraft operations, to see it close up and to know what has to happen for a plane to fly is enough to know that chemtrails are bull. I guess if you don't have that anything seems possible. No fault there.

But you're right on one thing, I know I'm just a guy on the net, as are you, so we aren't going to convince each other at all. But I do find the debate fascinating.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: waynos
There's nothing wrong with it and I did not attack the author of the site. It just loses credibility in my mind. I can find those same facts presented in an unbiased way elsewhere.

Why does it lose credibility in your mind if the info is correct?

It sounds like the site is correct rather than biased and the one with a bias is you.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

What have sky writing and crop dusting got to do with on/off contrails or chemtrails? I don't know what point you're trying to make there?

they both have nozzles that spray an aerosol for different purposes.
Your experience with aircraft is admirable but is still not all encompassing in the realm of aviation whether private, commercial or military and i don't get what that has to do with secret government programs that may or may not be happening in our skies.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
because it appears that the owner wants one to think that his site is THE site for contrail info because science. I never said the site wasn't correct, just a little biased. In other words, it seems like the site was created specifically to explain certain characteristics that persistent contrails and chemtrails share in a biased way. You are correct that I am biased. It is because of my experience and perceptions.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Ah I see what your saying, but that's not correct. Sky writers inject diesel oil into the exhaust which creates the smoke cloud they use. This is the same mechanism that display teams like the Blue Angels or Red Arrows use. Crop dusters DO have spray equipment, but it's a fine liquid spray. The aerosols that create contrails come from the jet exhaust itself (plus the aerosols already present in the air). I've never seen any aircraft deliberately equipped to emit an aerosol, though proposals for such things do exist. I don't think you want to get into the minutiae of why I think chemtrails are bunk. It's not for ethical or technical reasons at all. I'm sure some people would do it and I know that it's possible to engineer. Chemtrails fall down for purely logistical reasons (as well as leaving no trace after 20 years of supposed ops, which makes one wonder what the point would be). I also don't share your faith that a secret that big could be kept so completely for so many years by the Governments we foist ourselves with. Clinton couldn't even keep a single hooker in the White house a secret, and as for Tony Blair! WMD anyone?
Pm
I first heard about chemtrails online and came to the subject with a completely open mind as it was right in the middle of the gulf war lies scandal. My research led me to conclude its nonsense, not any preconceptions I'd had. Amongst the things I found were a lack of anything related to chemtrails being found in air quality tests done daily around the globe, plus the obvious snd transparent lies put out by such as Rense, Tankerenemy et al as supposed evidence. There is no physical way for the logistical requirements to be met and there are no aircraft capable of carrying out such an operation whilst loaded with passengers, fuel and luggage and insufficient airframes to carry out a dedicated operation. The volume of a contrail (in terms of actual water content) is many hundreds of times higher than the total lifting capacity of any aircraft in existence, precluding any possibility that the trail was 'sprayed' at all.

Chemtrail sites tell me that a normal contrail cannot persist and spread. Which I've known the opposite to be true and observed it myself for forty years. Chemtrail believers have told me that grids snd X's in the sky are a sign of chemtrails as commercial flights don't do that. I tracked snd photographed commercial flight myself and that claim was so wrong I disproved it within thirty minutes, which even I was surprised at. I've waded through so much and found absolutely nothing credible. But that's my experience, not yours, and I recognise that.

That the government is untrustworthy and that operations against citizens have occurred in the past is a given, but nothing gives any reason at all to believe in chemtrails once the lies and faked evidence have all been stripped away.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

I never said the site wasn't correct, just a little biased.

Again, if it's correct then why call it biased? Are there other sites you could point out as being biased, in your opinion, that you also would say present correct information? It might help to see another example for comparison to get your point.

In other words, it seems like the site was created specifically to explain certain characteristics that persistent contrails and chemtrails share in a biased way.

Obviously that's not the case. It explains contrails scientifically without resorting to magic potions being sprayed from imaginary nozzles that form clouds that can be thousands of times greater in volume than the planes can even carry.

ETA: I see waynos already covered this ^^^^^^.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
"magic potions" that are patented. "imaginary nozzles" that are patented. systems that are patented. I'm done with this thread. Thank you OP for the opportunity to have some fun and thank you everyone else for your input especially waynos.