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

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD

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.

Interesting. You understand how persistent contrails can stop and start and how different trails can firm at different altitudes and yet you're determined to believe that something is going on.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
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.

And the sites your chemtrail information from? Is there any chance they have an agenda?

Heres the thing:

It doesnt matter is contrailscience has an agenda. It doesnt' matter whos pocket hes in or what his goal is...the science is irrefutable and can be done by anyone. Even if Mike answers to Lord Xenu himself...who cares. Anyone can go through the science on his website and prove it wrong. But no one has or can...because its correct.

Seems to be that the very FIRST thing i would do is to show that his site is full of sh*t...in order to discredit him. No one has. I wonder why

Someone in another thread asked me to provide an example of the kind of logical fallacies being used to "debunk" chemtrail conspiracy theory. I realized it can be applied to the topic presented in this very thread. One logical fallacy is the following non-sequitur argument:

Claim: Chemtrails do not exist; they are contrails.
Evidence: Detailed description from research explaining what is a contrail, what is a persistent contrail, and why contrails turn into cirrus clouds
Conclusion: The contrails in any part of the world at any given time and location match what the research explains.

Or in this variation, which is another non-sequitur argument:

Claim: Contrails in the sky are only "normal"
Evidence: Research that explains why jet engines form contrails.
Conclusion: There is no reason to be concerned about persistent contrails or human-made cirrus clouds.

In each case, the conclusions being made do not necessarily follow from the initial claim and evidence given, and I explain why in detail in the first post on page 1.

I know I said I was done but I guess I should attempt to make my point one last time. The thing EVERY denier misses is that not one of you can prove that there aren't chemtrails just as I can't definitively prove that there are. Which, I believe, is the point of this thread. There is actually more evidence in the form of geo-engineering studies, patents and news articles to support the idea than there is that would disprove it. This is why I will not try to change anyone's mind or debate the topic past a certain point.
Thanks again to the OP and for everyone's responses to my prodding

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
I know I said I was done but I guess I should attempt to make my point one last time. The thing EVERY denier misses is that not one of you can prove that there aren't chemtrails just as I can't definitively prove that there are. Which, I believe, is the point of this thread. There is actually more evidence in the form of geo-engineering studies, patents and news articles to support the idea than there is that would disprove it. This is why I will not try to change anyone's mind or debate the topic past a certain point.
Thanks again to the OP and for everyone's responses to my prodding

No you can't prove a negative. Well done.

You can, however, prove that chemtrails as described by the theory are physically impossible and the trails can't be anything other than contrails.

But you're not interested in that of course.

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

The thing EVERY denier misses is that not one of you can prove that there aren't chemtrails just as I can't definitively prove that there are.

Actually until it can be shown that what your seeing is something other than a contrail...it is a contrail as science has shown us.

Can you say that about chemtrails?

a reply to: mrthumpy
Ok, I'll bite. Please describe in detail what you think the theory is and then prove that it is physically impossible. I would be very interested in reading that.
Maybe you would be interested in reading this before you begin:
Patent for powder contrail generation

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
yea, ok. whatever you say. you really settled it there, didn't you?
you got me. you win. game over. I'm a convert now.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: mrthumpy
Maybe you would be interested in reading this before you begin:
Patent for powder contrail generation

Have you read it? What makes you think this could be responsible for the trails created by airliners?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation of course I read it. It's owned by the navy and among other things it appears to be used for sky writing such as the Blue Angels would do. It in itself is nothing, but if combined with other patents it absolutely could dispense any particulate within the size parameters of the equipment.

7 Other type powder compositions can also be used with the apparatus described herein. For example, various powder particles which reflect electromagnetic radiation can be dispensed as a chaff or the like from the contrail generator. Obviously many modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in the light of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described.

Who said anything about airliners?

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

It's owned by the navy and appears to used for sky writing such as the Blue Angels would do.

The patent you linked says

The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a contrail with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like.

It in itself is nothing, but if combined with other patents it absolutely could dispense any particulate within the size parameters of the equipment.

Even then, what could be sprayed in an amount sufficient to produce what some call "chemtrails"?

Who said anything about airliners?

"Chemtrail" conspiracy theorists around the world. If you're not one of them then what's your theory? What is a "chemtrail" to you?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

"The patent you linked says "The present invention is for a powder generator requiring no heat source to emit a contrail with sufficient visibility to aid in visual acquisition of an aircraft target vehicle and the like."

I guess you missed the part where it says " The present invention is also suitable for use in other aircraft vehicles to generate contrails or reflective screens for any desired purpose."


"Even then, what could be sprayed in an amount sufficient to produce what some call "chemtrails"?"
Since I'm not privy to classified documents or operations I couldn't answer that question, only speculate which I will not do here.

Who said anything about airliners?
"Chemtrail" conspiracy theorists around the world. If you're not one of them then what's your theory? What is a "chemtrail" to you?

Well since you asked so specifically, I believe it's beyond our own government and the planes being used would be tankers, not commercial airliners. A chemtrail to me is what appears to be a persistent contrail but may not be because of a number of factors such as estimated elevation of aircraft, other aircraft leaving non-persistent contrails at the same time, dispersion pattern of the particulate or condensate and the distinct difference between what appears to be a delivery system turning on and off and differing conditions in the atmosphere causing moisture to condense into a broken contrail.

If you like, this one may be more relevant:
patent for Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
notice the legal events of this patent. pretty interesting in my mind (biased as it is)
also note the classifications of this one.
Of course the delivery system is not specified but the materials and altitude range is..

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

what did you find wrong with the explanation given for the trails to stop and start?
is the science incorrect?

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: mrthumpy
Ok, I'll bite. Please describe in detail what you think the theory is and then prove that it is physically impossible. I would be very interested in reading that.
Maybe you would be interested in reading this before you begin:
Patent for powder contrail generation

Maybe you would be interested in reading it and finding out what it's for before posting it.

The gist of the chemtrail theory is that those big white lines across the sky are composed of condensed or frozen water vapour but are in fact trails of chemicals (usually aluminium, barium and strontium). The simple fact is there is no plane capable of carrying enough material to create the trails we see. Add to that the fact that trails that grow and spread must have material added to them which must exist as an invisible gas in the atmosphere before condensing or freezing.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
I know I said I was done but I guess I should attempt to make my point one last time. The thing EVERY denier misses is that not one of you can prove that there aren't chemtrails just as I can't definitively prove that there are. Which, I believe, is the point of this thread. There is actually more evidence in the form of geo-engineering studies, patents and news articles to support the idea than there is that would disprove it. This is why I will not try to change anyone's mind or debate the topic past a certain point.
Thanks again to the OP and for everyone's responses to my prodding

I understand that. Just for clarity (apologies if I'm repeating myself) to paraphrase your own post, the thing EVERY believer misses is that none of you can prove that any chemtrails were ever sprayed ever and that apart from websites like Rense, geoengineeringwatch and their ilk nobody else ever talked about chemtrails and every shred of supporting evidence ever presented has been very quickly, and very accurately, shown to be faked, misrepresented or an outright lie. Patents and proposals are proof of the concept, which nobody denies, but the only thing that links these to activity is supposition and a misidentification of contrails. No geoengineering proposals even involve creating contrails from aircraft at 30,000ft, it is far too low and the heights needed are attainable by fewer aircraft than you have fingers on one hand. One WB-57F and two Myasischev M-55's without checking. None of which are large enough anyway.

The scientific explanation of weather, aviation and contrail formation cannot be shown to be lacking in any proclaimed chemtrail sighting, that is why I see it as the most likely and credible explanation rather than believe claims from a group (chemtrail sites etc)I have seen lie to me repeatedly for years.

Believers talk about government lies, but seem happy to believe in chemtrails when the sites saying they exist have a track record of lies that covers every single piece of evidence thry have ever presented. I find this aspect strange.

a reply to: network dude
nothing is wrong with the explanation and of course the science is correct. It doesn't preclude what I described though and again we are back to pointlessness.

a reply to: mrthumpy
I did read it, did you?
"The simple fact is there is no plane capable of carrying enough material to create the trails we see." uh huh. you go ahead and keep believing that there are never any particulates in persistent contrails.

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: mrthumpy
I did read it, did you?
"The simple fact is there is no plane capable of carrying enough material to create the trails we see." uh huh. you go ahead and keep believing that there are never any particulates in persistent contrails.

Of course there are. CCN are required for contrail formation.