Chemtrail add

reply to post by FreedomCommander


what makes you think I believe "the gubmint"?

why can't I look at the chemtrail hoax and know it is a load of drivel based on real simple logic?

For example the idea that contrails cant' last more than a few minutes is nonsense, and it doesn't take any "gubmint" info to figure that out - contrails are water, as are clouds, and clouds last more than a a few minutes, so why can't contrails??

see how easy it is to blow the contrail myth out of het water without actually needing to refer to anything published by the gubmint - just by "looing up" exactly like the hoaxers keep telling everyone to do!

As for the rest - why should I believe you telling a story that comes right out of science fiction when you dont' present any evidence at all - you said "look at het results" - so I asked you what are the results of these things you say are happening - so where are the results?

Why don't you do what you say and look at the results yourself??

I reckon you avoided my question about results because YOU KNOW THERE AER NO RESULTS TO LOOK AT.

you are just going around shouting "wolf" all eth time - spreading fantastic stories, refusing to back up with any actual evidence, making up a new story when it is pointed out how wrong you are, abusing anyone who points out hat you don't have any actual evidence, ducking the questions, avoiding giving any actual answers......

And you wonder why people think chemmies are nuts, and why the less kind call you "chemtards"?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Look, I'm just saying dude, I can throw all the evidence I want at ya and you won't even take a single thing in.

Ok, first off, yes, I avoid your questions. I answer them, and people like you attack. Common scientific mindset.

second, do you believe in the evolution theory?

reply to post by FreedomCommander


How utterly predictable. Who said anything about believing the government? Has the government even said anything about chemtrails? I wouldn't know.

Chemmies have such a hard time dealing with reality they even make up their own fake arguments in threads, refuting points that have never been made!

Just so are clear;

It has not been said that the govt are beneficial and kind

It has not been said that nobody would ever try to do "chemtrailing" if they felt they had a reason.

It has not been said that aircraft cannot spray stuff

It has not been denied that aircraft have sprayed things from them in the past

What HAS been said is that all the evidence ever presented that purports to show chemtrails actually exist and occur on a daily basis is nonsense, crap, garbage, lies, and, at it's kindest, misununderstood.

Diseases that simply do not exist and nano robot conversions of humans are two prime examples of the utter stupidity that even those who think chemtrails are geoengineering feel embarrassed to read.

However, I accept and recognise that paranoid delusion is an illness that cannot be cured on an internet message board and so I'll leave it at that.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


And what about the really obvious, simple stuff, like clouds lasting longer than a few minutes so why can't contrails?

Have you taken that in? What makes you think Carnicom is a fountain of knowledge when he can't even get that right?

reply to post by FreedomCommander


All the evidence has been thrown time and time again but none of it ever sticks because there's no substance to it. Far from not taking it in, the debunkers examine and test the evdence instead of just blindly accepting it as the believers do.

Take 'your' assertion (and I know it's not actually yours, just one that you mindlessly parrot) that contrails don't persist. That's one that comes up time and time again as proof that the trails are not normal. Yet never is an explanation given as to why they don't persist - it's just given as a statement as if that explains everything. Yet, as the Gaul pointed out, if you stop and think about it for a minute you realise that statement makes no sense. You don't though, you just accept what you're told and then mock others who you assume to be doing exactly what you're guilty of.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Until Morgellon's Syndrome is recognized by mainstream medicine as more than just a psycho-somatic response, it will not be taken seriously by most. I personally believe Jeff Rense made it up to fill space on his site.

My biggest problem is the damn lines in the sky all look like contrails, they all act like contrails. The only thing that seems to point to them being chemtrails are people like you. And when asked why, there is such a mess of convoluted answers, it's no wonder the whole thing is treated like it is. There is no uniformity, or even basic logic to the description.

If you argue that a contrail doesn't last longer than X amount of time, I can prove that they do. Then that whole argument is false. Then the whole discussion is left with the faith that you "think" it's a chemtrail based on how it looks. (I am not attacking, just discussing)

Let science prove or disprove the whole thing once and for all. The fact that NOBODY is willing to take it to that level is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. (IMHO)

reply to post by network dude


Right. Whether Morgellons Syndrome is real or not is a totally separate issue from "those trails in the sky are chemicals being sprayed".

I suppose one could argue that it is the spraying that is causing the Morgellons, but there is (a) no evidence that those trails are chemtrails (there is actually far more evidence that they are vapor contrails), and (b) no direct link between the trails and people getting sick, or a link between the trails and heavy metals/chemicals found on the ground, in the water, and in the air.

Obviously there are pollutants in the soil, water, and air, but where is the link (the "smoking gun") between these pollutants and the trails commonly left behind by plane? We need evidence that those trails are really chemtrails before we can even begin to argue about the idea that the trails are poisoning people.

People can't argue it backwards and say "I think people are being poisoned, and I see trails in the sky. Therefore, those trails must be the poison". I sure pollutants really are poisoning people to one extent or the other (I'm not claiming "Morgellons Syndrome -- just that pollution probably has some effect on people), but there are many sources of pollution that could be to blame.

reply to post by FreedomCommander

Ok, first off, yes, I avoid your questions. I answer them, and people like you attack. Common scientific mindset.

I could be wrong, but I would guess it isn't you personally only the evidence your providing, but that is just my guess...

One last thing that Common scientific mindset is what created this fun thing we call the internet, which btw you are using....

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Look, I'm just saying dude, I can throw all the evidence I want at ya and you won't even take a single thing in.

Evidence has to be evaluated - the reason you think I "don't take a single thing in" is because I look at to see how good it is - does it tie up with other stuff that is actually known - for example how long clouds last; does it actually support the contention - for example how does aluminium in soil show that aluminium is being sprayed at 30,000 feet??

ALL the evidence I have seen so far "for chemtrails" has completely and utterly failed to be convincing.

Ok, first off, yes, I avoid your questions. I answer them, and people like you attack. Common scientific mindset.

Where did you answer them? I don't see it anywhere in this thread.

the scientific mindset is to look at evidence and see whether it supports the conclusions. The conspiracy mindset is to complain that the evidence is "ignored" when it is actually just rubbish.

second, do you believe in the evolution theory?

which one?

edit: and why are you changing the subject.....again??

reply to post by waynos


well, they do admit geo-engineering. Saw that in a Popular Science magazine. Lost the date though.

Predictable? Not likely, it's just that people like you would rather bury the TRUE past than face it as fact.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


That's one that Waynos missed off the list but comes up time and time again. No one has admitted that geoengineering is taking place. Proposals have been discussed for some time now though.

No doubt the subject of cloud seeding will rear it's predictable head now though.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


I still have yet to see a real connection between the idea of geo-engineering (or even Morgellons), and those white trails coming from planes that I call contrails.

Someone please show me a solid connection.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by waynos

 

well, they do admit geo-engineering. Saw that in a Popular Science magazine. Lost the date though.

There's lots of geoengineering going on - reforestation, carbon capture, "cool roofs"

Predictable? Not likely, it's just that people like you would rather bury the TRUE past than face it as fact.

when you come up with some facts "we" do not bury them - just like me admitting yes there is geoengineering going on in this post.

and when you come up with rubbish well yes - it gets buried - because it is rubbish.

If you could tell the difference between the two then we would not be having this conversation!

reply to post by network dude


Well, I understand your "Neutral Ground" sir, and I'm not going to fight you on that. That's your stance, not mine.

People around here would praise others by saying,

"Thank you for proving that J.A. wrong about his ways.

"

More debunkers here than anywhere else.

Ok, my stance is that I found what a chemtrail is by accident, looked into what is it and what it can do, and what is the most effective way of dispersing such a malicious activity. However, I will NOT prove my point to anyone who has that kind of attitude towards others as that quote.

There is a rule I operate on, "Don't Criticize."

Why? In the End, you'll face that person you Criticized and you will have to explain yourself when the cold hard facts show themselves in the End.

This is Borderland Science, sir. Hardly anyone goes into that field because of 3 known reasons, 1. No money, 2. Constant Criticism, and 3. You have to throw out everything you were taught in School as truth.

Here, anything is possible.

This is my stance to you sir, this is what I learned in Borderland Science.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

...More debunkers here than anywhere else....

Yeah, well -- I think you will find that when there is more to debunk, the more debunking will be done.

There are a lot of debunkers on "Moon Hoax" threads, also.

There is a lot of pseudo-science and ignorance being thrown around on Chemtrail threads as well as Moon Hoax threads. And considering one of the mission statements of ATS is "deny Ignorance", you will find a lot of debunkers attempting to deny the ignorance of chemtrails theories and the Moon Hoax theories.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


We've been through this, Gaul kid. I know who you are. I've already stated my stance towards you, kid, no answers to your questions, due to your lack of understanding and criticism.

Changing subjects? No, tell me if you know and believe the Darwin's model of Evolution. That will tell me, who you really are. And I'll tell you what connection does this have.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

...More debunkers here than anywhere else....

Yeah, well -- I think you will find that when there is more to debunk, the more debunking will be done.

There are a lot of debunkers on "Moon Hoax" threads, also.

Moon Hoax? Kid, they went there, and came back. Boy, you have no idea what they found there.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

We've been through this, Gaul kid. I know who you are. I've already stated my stance towards you, kid, no answers to your questions, due to your lack of understanding and criticism.

Thank you for confirming your problem.

Changing subjects? No, tell me if you know and believe the Darwin's model of Evolution. That will tell me, who you really are. And I'll tell you what connection does this have.

no - if you will not answer direct relevant questions regarding the evidence of chemtrails I see no reason to pander to whatever game you are playing by changing the subject to evolution by natural selection.

You ARE a typical chemmie - you avoid, obfuscate, heaven alone knows what sort of connection you think exists between Darwin and chemtrails but I have no doubt that it is pathetic and irrelevant - simply because it is you who seek it.

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by FreedomCommander

...More debunkers here than anywhere else....

Yeah, well -- I think you will find that when there is more to debunk, the more debunking will be done.

There are a lot of debunkers on "Moon Hoax" threads, also.

Moon Hoax? Kid, they went there, and came back. Boy, you have no idea what they found there.

Tell me what they found and please provide the sources for your information.
You can do it in a PM instead of on this thread; I don't want to hi-jack the thread by going OT.

If your information is much of the same unsubstantiated stories I've read about on the internet, I'm probably not interested, considering I would need more back-up evidence than simply "I read about it on the internet"

Anyone can say anything on the internet. And even if it is a really cool and conspiracy-laden idea (instead of a mundane idea), that doesn't make it more true, just because it is "way out there". Sometimes the truth is boring; the most exciting and far-out-there stories are not always the true ones.

And a great conspiracy-laden story isn't true just because some guy on the internet told a great story. If you don't think there are people making up fake stories and conspiracy theories on the internet (often in order to profit in some way), then trust me when I tell you that I am a French Model...

..."Uh, Bonjour" (American Television viewers will get that reference).

Edit to add :

Originally posted by mrthumpy
reply to post by FreedomCommander

 

That's one that Waynos missed off the list but comes up time and time again. No one has admitted that geoengineering is taking place. Proposals have been discussed for some time now though.

No doubt the subject of cloud seeding will rear it's predictable head now though.

Yes, I forgot that one. Plus the one I'm normally quite quick to mention, that is that nobody has ever shown why geo-engineering equals chemtrails in the first place. Given that all the GE papers published on here utterly fail to mention that it would leave long white trails in the sky, so where has that connection come from?