Quote:

---

One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out...

---

Quote:

---

=I like how a poster has allready started with the straw man ad hominems- suggesting that those who don't believe in chemtrials believe they understand the phenomena, believe the media, and so forth.  Why is it these threads always use fallacious arguments and don't present evidence for chemtrails on their own merits?

---

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out and reporting the Governments are spraying chemicals over civil populations

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out and reporting the Governments are spraying chemicals over civil populations

---

where's the reports of the air samples, no one can be an expert without them,
even the fuys flying in the plane behind the jet couldnt be bothered to get
an air sample. why he fuck not, wouldnt that prove beyond a reasonable doubt
the claims being made

---

You are exhibiting some key traits of the conspiracy theorist. Let me point them out for you.

1. Fondness for certain stock phrases.

These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

The "phrase beyond reasonable doubt" crops up incessantly within the chemtrail fringe. It really hurts whatever argument you have.

8. Leaping to conclusions.

Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "unofficial" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "unofficial" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.

Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

And finally.

7. Inability to withdraw.

It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

You must know that opening a plane door to collect a sample would be a little silly so why suggest it? Don't try and wriggle out of this or you'll be employing NO. 7

Quote:

---

Batty Koda said:

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out and reporting the Governments are spraying chemicals over civil populations

---

where's the reports of the air samples, no one can be an expert without them,
even the fuys flying in the plane behind the jet couldnt be bothered to get
an air sample. why he fuck not, wouldnt that prove beyond a reasonable doubt
the claims being made

---

You are exhibiting some key traits of the conspiracy theorist. Let me point them out for you.

---

Quote:

---

Batty Koda said:

You are exhibiting some key traits of the conspiracy theorist. Let me point them out for you.

---

Quote:

---

You must know that opening a plane door to collect a sample would be a little silly so why suggest it? Don't try and wriggle out of this or you'll be employing NO. 7

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
Isn't there enough proof in the visual trails that some planes leave behind?

---

Quote:

---

From what I understand, there is a clear difference between a chemtrail and a contrail.

---

Quote:

---

Even though simply seeing a trail in the sky would not provide information on what its contents are, an abnormally long trail should provoke some curiosity in a mind not yet zionistically indoctrinated.

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
Isn't there enough proof in the visual trails that some planes leave behind?  From what I understand, there is a clear difference between a chemtrail and a contrail.

---

Quote:

---

johnm214 said:
So what?  If we accept that this is true, it has no relevance, since you've failed to tie this methodology to anything suggested by Prisoner.  There are any number of methods one could use to measure the contents of a volume of space and compare that to controls- I don't see any reason you'd need to be at altitutde at all.

---

Quote:

---

that difference isnt clear until an analysis is done

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
I understand the properties of exhaust and water vapor, and I see it is clearly neither of those.

---

Quote:

---

Some people need more data to make any sort of conclusion.  I don't know how these people can function in society.

---

Quote:

---

This is all irrelevant.  Its the burden of the one putting forth the claim to demonstrate it, and no positive evidence other than antecdotal conclusions (not even clear factual testimony showing why the conclusion was formed) has been put forth.  It is not Prisoner's, or anyone else's, burden to suggest ways such a claim might be proven if it were true.

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
Clouds act completely different.  I've seen numerous clouds pass by while chemtrails sit and linger.

---

Quote:

---

Quite the hypocrite jumping to conclusions on something you've clearly never seen.

---

Quote:

---

koraks said:
Oh, you thought I had never look upward? I'm not being hypocritical, I'm pointing out that the phenomena that you and I observe are perfectly explicable without resorting to far-fetched conspiracy theories. Occam's razor, google that.

---

Quote:

---

koraks said:

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
Clouds act completely different.  I've seen numerous clouds pass by while chemtrails sit and linger.

---

Different wind speeds at different altitudes.

You have no way of knowing that was the case.

A cloud won't pass through a con trail, even if it may appear to do so from ground level.

Exactly! Contrails are different from chemtrails.  Thank you for reinforcing that point.

Quote:

---

Quite the hypocrite jumping to conclusions on something you've clearly never seen.

---

Oh, you thought I had never look upward?

Simply looking upward with not give you a universal visual experience.  Each person in each location on the planet will see different things while looking upward.

I'm not being hypocritical, I'm pointing out that the phenomena that you and I observe are perfectly explicable without resorting to far-fetched conspiracy theories.

The chemtrail conspiracy being far fetched is your opinion.  With no proof either way, you did indeed jump to a conclusion.  It's something we all must do, so don't use 'jumping to conclusions' as a negative action by other posters.

Occam's razor, google that.

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
The chemtrail conspiracy being far fetched is your opinion.  With no proof either way, you did indeed jump to a conclusion. 

---

Quote:

---

koraks said:

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
The chemtrail conspiracy being far fetched is your opinion.  With no proof either way, you did indeed jump to a conclusion. 

---

So did you. You looked up at the sky, saw something you didn't understand, and concluded that it must be part of some conspiracy.

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:

Quote:

---

that difference isnt clear until an analysis is done

---

See, this is what I'm talking about.  Why must a chemical analysis be done when the most telling evidence is clearly in view.

---

really? look, here's a chem trail

Quote:

---

I've watched these trails for hours.  They linger and dissipate over long periods of time.  I understand the properties of exhaust and water vapor, and I see it is clearly neither of those.

---

how do you know it's neither of those, can you analyze the chemical composition with your eyes?

mind telling us what chemicals are present?

 

Quote:

---

That's evidence enough for me to understand that SOMETHING is causing these trails.  That something's contents cannot be proven to me, since I don't own a machine to analyze its contents.  To me, the fact that these trails simply exist is more relevant to the chemtrail conspiracy than its actual contents (to me anyway).

---

so you take it on faith, your belief that it's something other than it is

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
Clouds act completely different.  I've seen numerous clouds pass by while chemtrails sit and linger.  Quite the hypocrite jumping to conclusions on something you've clearly never seen.

---

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
Much the same way I don't need a chemical analysis to prove this plane is pissing out chemicals in the skies on us.

---

Quote:

---

Whiteydr said:
Are you dense or something?  Let me repost one of the points I was attempting to make:

[Jumping to conclusions is] something we all must do, so don't use 'jumping to conclusions' as a negative action by other posters.

---

Quote:

---

A cloud won't pass through a con trail, even if it may appear to do so from ground level.

Exactly! Contrails are different from chemtrails.  Thank you for reinforcing that point.

---

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
Heck I even have to admit, the proof is out there.
The video that was posted in OP shows a pilot following a plane that is dumping a chem trail.


Much the same way I don't need a chemical analysis to prove this plane is pissing out chemicals in the skies on us.

---

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:

Also, yet another WINTER chemtrail thread...

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
Heck I even have to admit, the proof is out there.
The video that was posted in OP shows a pilot following a plane that is dumping a chem trail.


Much the same way I don't need a chemical analysis to prove this plane is pissing out chemicals in the skies on us.

---

so you take it on faith, the religion of chemtrails

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:

Also, yet another WINTER chemtrail thread...

---

---

Geewiz Prisoner

Sorry if you found that gif of the girl peeing on the floor was a bit too graphic

anywho

The point that i was making is when things are completely obvious its easy enough to at least draw a conclusion.
Courts of laws draw conclusions everyday based on eye witness testimony.

I guess it all boils down to "blind belief".
In the original post I put a video that, in my opinion shows a plane spraying something into the air.

Soil samples show aluminum concentrations - in the very top layer - something like 6000 times greater than normal.

I do admit, Prisoner

There are a hell of a lot of crackpots running around paranoid about everything. Some people like Alex Jones, Kerry Cassidy, etc, are really making a lot of $$ from it.


However, one thing I do feel confident in sayings, is I have no doubt that chem trails are real.

Much the same ways as when I view this video below, I don't need a chemical analysis to prove that this guy on the ground is getting a bit of an ass kicking

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:
My God!

It must be so much easier having a debate when you make your own rules.

How can anybody argue against your FAITH? You have no proof.

I neither makes you right nor wrong. It just gives you an excuse to write what you feel like while tossing insults at those who don't share your faith.

I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

Also, the guy tossed from a car and beaten? Perfect example of why we should all believe chemtrails are real.

---

Quote:

---

Discoveries in Global Dimming




Dimming the Sun homepage

In the early 21st century, it's become clear that air pollution can significantly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth, lower temperatures, and mask the warming effects of greenhouse gases. Climate researcher James Hansen estimates that "global dimming" is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F) and fears that as we cut back on pollution, global warming may escalate to a point of no return. Regrettably, in terms of possibly taking corrective action, our current understanding of global dimming has been a long time in the coming, considering the first hints of the phenomenon date back to 18th-century observations of volcanic eruptions. Below, follow a series of historic events and scientific milestones that built the case for global dimming.—Susan K. Lewis

---

Quote:

---

Visionary Tools said:
I do wonder how people can claim with such conviction they are right and not even begin to see the other side.

I remember what the sky used to look like. I also know the UN has put into action geo-engineering.

http://yourdaddy.net/2011/03/06/usa-today-admits-jet-aircraft-exhaust-may-be-chemically-modified-to-reflect-sunlight-thats-right-chemtrails/

---

Quote:

---

Also, a lot of people are making claims that these trails are formed by aluminium powder, which oxidizes when exposed to ozone.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/05/monsanto-develops-aluminum-resistant-biotech-seeds

Funny that. When farmers and gardeners across the world see their crops die here comes monsanto with some seeds we made earlier. Thanks chaps, that's good thinking of you. Just in case we need them, right?

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

Visionary Tools said:
I do wonder how people can claim with such conviction they are right and not even begin to see the other side.

I remember what the sky used to look like. I also know the UN has put into action geo-engineering.

http://yourdaddy.net/2011/03/06/usa-today-admits-jet-aircraft-exhaust-may-be-chemically-modified-to-reflect-sunlight-thats-right-chemtrails/

---

so USA Today is the one spreading these chemtrails. have they told us the
contents that they're spraying? Oh, that's right, the USA Today article
isnt talking about something that's actually going on but talking about
something that scientists have been talking about

why not read the actual article instead of some yourdaddy screen cap of a small part

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-25-geoengineering25_CV_N.htm

---

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
I totally can understand why there are so many people that refuse to see it. It takes a great deal of courage to face the truth about the world around us.

---

there is no truth until there's proof, seeing ice crystals in the sky isnt proof of anything


why are these so called chemicals starting well behind the parts you're
calling nozzles as opposed to us seeing the stream coming directly from
the nozzle where it would be most concentrated.


what you're calling a nozzle is the flap track fairing on the wing




here;s the detail view of the C5's wing showing what you allege to be nozzles

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:
But you are unwilling to study chemtrails by putting your money where your mouth is... no?

Shame on you.

>:)


Why not? Are you frightened that you might disprove yourself?

---

Quote:

---

Visionary Tools said:

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:
But you are unwilling to study chemtrails by putting your money where your mouth is... no?

Shame on you.

>:)


Why not? Are you frightened that you might disprove yourself?

---

How would you test it?

---

Quote:

---

Visionary Tools said:

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:
But you are unwilling to study chemtrails by putting your money where your mouth is... no?

Shame on you.

>:)


Why not? Are you frightened that you might disprove yourself?

---

How would you test it?

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
I totally can understand why there are so many people that refuse to see it. It takes a great deal of courage to face the truth about the world around us.

---

there is no truth until there's proof, seeing ice crystals in the sky isnt proof of anything

---

Much the same way, when Galileo Galile, possessed with a telescope, he proclaimed heliocentrism,




I too, along many others, have come to the conclusion, based on our hypothesis that chemtrails are real.

Prisoner, Galileo_Galilei was  a man that had a great deal of courage during those times to take a stand to report what he believed in.

My statement

Quote:

---

It takes a great deal of courage to face the truth about the world around us.

---

In the above quoted statement,  I am  just stating that it take courage to deviate from popular opinion. Historically, it often caused those that did to be burned as a heretic or witch.

It is not my intention in that statement to berate the non-believers in chem trails. If that was the case, I apologize.

I respect and acknowledge your firm foundation of creditable evidence which supports your statements and arguments.

It all boils down to which book one chooses to believe in.

Like I tell others, we have a planet with 6 1/2 billion people, all reading a different book, therefore it is really hard to get everyone to agree on everything.
So the best we can hope for is consensus reality.

Quote:

---

Cervantes said:
At one time concensus was a flat Earth.

---

Consensus reality, simply means that everyone agrees to believe in something, regardless of any facts supporting it.

Everyone believing that the Earth was flat would be, in my opinion be an example of consensus reality.

This is a very common occurrence in modern mainstream society.

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
Consensus reality, simply means that everyone agrees to believe in something, regardless of any facts supporting it.

---

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
There is no quantum of scientific proof which I could offer and submit that would clearly tip the balance in my favor (at least at this time).

---

Quote:

---

Much the same way, when Galileo Galile, possessed with a telescope, he proclaimed heliocentrism,

---

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
Spray is coming from NOZZLES, Not engines

---

Quote:

---

Visionary Tools said:
Because I've already read the UN articles on geo-engineering. Just because they say "oh well this might work but we'll need to do some experiments on it" doesn't mean they aren't doing it now. The European Union was established in 1951, but in the UK we weren't told about it until well into the 90's.

Do you think the SR71, a plane designed in the 1950's is the fastest plane the world has ever seen?

Do you think the computer technology we have is cutting edge?

---

Quote:

---

koraks said:

The problem is that there are no facts that support the existence of chemtrails. There are only debatable interpretations of observations for which satisfactory explanations are available that do not rely on the existence of chemtrails.

---

Quote:

---

koraks said:

Exactly. So chemtrails are a hypothesis without existing evidence. Chemtrail believers can do two things: search for evidence and make a credible case for their hypothesis, or tell it the way it really is and present chemtrails as a theory. Concerning the former: they have yet failed to do so: no credible evidence is available that proves the existence of chemtrails. Concerning the latter: no clear, unified theory exists of what chemtrails could be (in terms of chemical makeup and mechanism of action) or who would benefit from making chemtrails. The only thing chemtrail believers do is connect snippets of information and (mis)interpretation from different sources into a shaky, far-fetched framework. Chemtrail theory is a good example of quasi-science; of people with a lack of understanding of scientific methods pretending to make scientific claims. Clever, but not truly intelligent.

---

Quote:

---

koraks said:
He had evidence. Moreover, the example is a poor one. In the case of Galilei, he was the one who applied scientific methods to a natural phenomenon and found a unifying theory that matched his data. He had to defend that theory against a block of conspiracy theorists who relied on man-made texts as the only evidence for their beliefs (i.e. the Catholic church). In the case of chemtrails, it's the chemtrail believers who rely on man-made conspiracies and try to use those constructs to attack a body of scientifically verified knowledge (which, among others, contains knowledge concerning contrails, thermodynamics and weather systems.)

---

Quote:

---

koraks said:
In your sig you mention you like photography. If that's true, then I assume you know one or two things about perspective. I find it odd that you interpret the image above in the way you do; given the angle at which the plane is viewed, it is entirely plausible (and in my opinion bleeding obvious) that we're looking at contrails created by the engines. Note that the contrail doesn't start directly at the tip of the engine, as the water vapor is too hot at that point for the water to condense. That only happens at a considerable distance behind the engine outlet after the exhaust gases have been cooled by the surrounding air. You can actually see this when flying a plane. Next time try to get a seat at the back of the plain and note that the contrails of the jet engines only become visible at a considerable distance behind the engine.
This is one of the many examples of misinterpretations made by chemtrail believers to 'support' their crackpot theories.

---

All I can do is encourage you to express your views publicly.
I thank you for your input and I acknowledge that you feel strong in your beliefs and reality. I wish I was that confident in my reality.
However, the longer that I have lived, and the more that I have learned has taught me that I really do not know that much about anything.

Quote:

---

sloantbone said:
I thought I would address a strange phenomenon that occurs in some people.

They deny the existence of chem-trails. 

---

Quote:

---

One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts

---

Quote:

---

Alan Rockefeller said:
2) The trails that you see are water vapor.  Nothing about these trails suggests that they are anything else.

---

Quote:

---

Prisoner#1 said:
they contain the chemicals Hydrogen and Oxygen which combines to make a powerful and sometimes lethal solvent

---

Quote:

---

Alan Rockefeller said:
DHMO kills thousands of people per year.  Seriously, fuck that stuff.

Why is marijuana illegal while DHMO is legal, allowing people to buy it and spray it on the population?!??!??

---

Quote:

---

hockeyplyr1057 said:
Why would these chemicals be sprayed in the first place? The people in the planes spraying it or the people who would have ordered the spraying would be just as much as a victim as those people that were the target. Wind blows around, and small particles can and will spread vast distances. That's why nuclear fallout from a nuclear war would be so deadly, not just for the explosion victims.

Those chemtrails would disperse and spray their chemicals at the whim of the winds. Suicide or self-inflicted harm are usually not the goals of those in power and wishing to remain in power.

---

I once saw a guy get kicked in the balls.

So I go into a discussion forum and say:
" I saw a man get kicked in the balls"

Someone says " I don't believe anyone gets kicked in the balls", "Why would anyone kick anyone in the balls".

My reply to them was;

" Look you fucking moron, I saw a guy get kicked in the balls and what the fuck does it matter why he was kicked in the balls. The fact is that he was kicked in the balls".

Same thing with Chem trails.

I saw a plane making chem trails.

Quote:

---

hockeyplyr1057 said:
You totally twisted my argument around to fit your weak analogy.

" Look you fucking moron, I saw a guy get kicked in the balls and what the fuck does it matter why he was kicked in the balls. The fact is that he was kicked in the balls".

First, you are changing an argument of "why" to an argument of observations, which are not the same thing at all. Yes, I saw a man get kicked in the balls, but if you are trying relate my argument to this, I would be asking WHY he would be getting kicked in the balls in the first place. Same thing for the chemtrails, I was asking WHY this would happen; I was not asking if you or I have seen them.

Second, the kicker does not get affected by the other guy getting hit in the balls. Your analogy doesn't work. He would have to kick himself in the balls at the same time as he kicked the other person in the balls for it to relate to the idea of chemtrails.

---

I have made a statement from something I have observed. From that observation, I have further taken the time to study as much information about the the phenomena as possible.
From the overall facts and observations my conclusion is:

I am witnessing jet airplanes  purposefully laying down Chem trails.

Now if you wish me to speculate (make a guess)as to why they are polluting the skies with chem-trails for that I don't know for sure.

However I have an another analogy and case history point to draw from.

Back in the Vietnam war the United States was spraying agent orange onto the tropical forest to defoliate them.
This is a matter of fact and public record.

Below are some images of them spraying agent orange in Vietnam as well as the effects of this on humans.

Images obtained from here

Quote:

---

About Agent Orange

During the Vietnam War, the United States used Agent Orange to kill jungle foliage that served as cover for Viet Cong forces. American pilots sprayed Agent Orange from the air while ground troops applied the defoliant from tanks with hoses or from backpack sprayers. From 1962 to 1971, nearly 12 million gallons of Agent Orange doused the Vietnamese countryside. By war’s end, Agent Orange and related herbicides destroyed 4.5 million acres of forest and 585,000 acres of cultivated land.

---

The military industrial complex has a history of dropping chemical agents from the skies over populations, and having little to no concern whatsoever on the depravity of life.

In Vietnam, if the military Industry complex would have simply adopted a policy of refusing to admit that they dropped chemical agents from planes, few would be able to prove otherwise.

Simply because there will always be those that will refuse to even consider that the good old Military Industrial complex could lie to them at all. The people that refuse to believe will just accuse those that try and point out the obvious, that they are conspiracy theorist.
Can you smell the coffee yet?


In conclusion to this blurp, I have provided you with facts.

Historically the USA has dropped harmful chemicals on human beings, including their own citizens and military personal.
To believe otherwise, would simply be naive.

The Industrial Military complex certainly has a well known history of causing biological harm to both its personal and civilians, and then refusing to admit liability to compensate the injured for their loss and suffering.

There is clear evidence to demonstrate they are at it again! This time over our own skies here at home and abroad. The difference is we are not sure what the chemical are, and why they are doing it.
They are refusing to admit they are doing it in the first place.

The reason why they get away with it so easily is because there is are so many people who just refuse to see it.

Lets face it, we only see what we want to see. IT is easy not to see something if we simply close our eyes and ears to it.....Isn't it.