U
Unregistered
Guest
I explained earlier:
No, sorry. but you still have not debunked what the objects are in the videos i posted. not mist/dust
I explained earlier:
No, sorry. but you still have not debunked what the objects are in the videos i posted. not mist/dust
Bull crap. A "subject" is not something one debunks. You just don't want to understand what debunking is, SD, or else you think you can use sophistry to obfuscate the real issue. I'll take you by the hand and lead you through it since you insist on pretending to be ignorant.
here was the claim:
clifford carnyclown said:the atmosphere of this earth has been tragically altered as a result of the aerosol operations.
Operative words of the claim: tragically altered [as a result of] aerosol operations
Evidence given: a video of particles in the air.
The debunk centered on this:
1. No actual measurements were taken
2. No historical measurements were supplied
3. No causal chain of evidence was presented to establish causality with anything
4. No evidence was presented for any "aerosol operations"
There are enough "No's" above to debunk the entire thing. Period.
However, the claim primarily rests it's case on a video which is implied to be extraordinary. Mick showed that what is seen in the video could easily be duplicated by simple ordinary night-time mist. I showed how ordinary particulates are in the air, that there is nothing extraordinary about having them there. I also showed that the claimant has a decades long history of making claims and not supporting them.
The claims were debunked as far as the evidence supplied would let them be.
That is what debunking is, it is not about debunking a "subject".
But it's been shown that there are a number of things such videos could be: mist, dust, seeds, insects, spider silk, pollen, etc. Now while you can't identify exactly what each one is, there's no real reason to suspect it's not one of those, or something similar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9X3cCqmuw
Why is it that so many people are seeing these objects as orbs then? Are they all wrong?
Why is it that so many people are seeing these objects as orbs then? Are they all wrong?
I would add that anyone can look up and see that they're not seeing "orbs" flying around when they look at persistent contrails with the naked eye. They only see them when looking at camera footage. That's probably because they are just out-of-focus specks of various sorts, floating near the camera (which is what they look like anyway).
Yup, same type of thing - very small objects relatively close to the camera, brightly lit by the sun, mistaken for alien spacecraft.
Plus some larger ones that are clearly birds (1:56) and insects (e.g. 1:09 for a classic "rod"). Unregistered, have you ever wondered why they only look strange through your camera, and not with the naked eye (assuming your vision is good)? Do you think it's more likely that your camera is able to see things that are invisible to you, or that it is recording things that are out-of-focus and blurred?
Yup, same type of thing - very small objects relatively close to the camera, brightly lit by the sun, mistaken for alien spacecraft.
Unregistered (and it would work better for you if you registered), nobody is saying that are not all identified. Some of them ARE "unidentified" flying objects. But there's a large range of very reasonable things that they might be that need to be eliminated before more esoteric explanations are applied.
The problem with the "orb" or "lots of stuff in the air" folk is that they immediately skip over all the reasonable explanations and go for the least reasonable (but most interesting) explanation.
Let say I feel I have something in my pocket. It's an unidentified thing in my pocket. UFTIMP. I don't know what it is, but I theorize it some coins, or keys, or a flashlight - things that are usually in my pocket. I can't tell what it is. I can't prove it's one of those things. It might be something else. What I don't do is start theorizing about how it might be a miniature robot, or a leprechaun, or the Hope diamond.
There's many things that can reasonably found in my pocket. There are many things that can reasonably be found floating around in the sky. Just because we can't identify something does not mean it's not one of those things.
If you want to see these things for yourself, go outside when the sky is clear blue and the suns shining and block it out with something.. I can assure you.. they look just as strange
"They only see them when looking at camera footage"
WRONG.
If you want to see these things for yourself, go outside when the sky is clear blue and the suns shining and block it out with something.. I can assure you.. they look just as strange
street lights work nicely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=3xlF1lYSgYs
Do they look like "orbs" without the camera? I think not. I see specks floating around all the time. They look like dust, bugs, pollen, seeds, etc.
The argument that particulates have increased in Earth's troposphere is bound to be true. The Earth's human population is increasing, and particulates created by it (this population) will have increased commensurately.I don't think that was the authors argument though. He argued that the atmosphere has increased in particulate. So you debunked that it does not look unique, and you showed video of particulate from unnatural sources such as tissue which look similar to it. You debunked your own argument, not his.
The argument that particulates have increased in Earth's atmosphere is bound to be true. The Earth's human population is increasing, and particulates created by it (this population) will have increased commensurately.
However the Earth's method of removing these particulates (by nucleating water droplets from water vapor) is well up to the job, with 99% to spare. The world's largest explosive eruption (Tambor) put 300 million tons of nano-materials into the air in an instant, and all the rest of us experienced were a slight drop in temperature and glorious sunsets for a year.
Thanks for the hard data, Jay. Splendid.Considering cloud condensation nuclei at Mauna Loa, you can see the increase and wash out from two eruptions, and the return to the persistent variation over the last 30 years.
James Mulholland, one of the YouTube people claiming "chemwebs" were real, has removed his entire profile from YT. I don't know what this means; my last few contacts with him were messages claiming irrefutable proof of one thing or another. At least he was starting to debate using science. I think James is fairly intelligent, just a bit misguided. I wonder if he had some sort of epiphany?
I think he possibly finally had an epiphany that he was believing absolute nonsense as he wrote it all down, and what he initially thought would be a coup de grace turned out to be aimed at himself.
yea like we would need more rain here in FloridaTCSW - that video has been discussed (with its creator, Dave Dahl, attending) here: Debunked: Artificialclouds.com claims silver iodide causes chemtrails & global warming! Dave did adjust his claims somewhat after that discussion, but still left in most of the original bunk. There is no evidence that cloud seeding with silver iodide has any effect on contrail formation, and many reasons to think that it wouldn't.
I checked, BTW - no cloud seeding activities have been permitted in Florida in recent years.
All those oxygen ions in a furious combustion plasma and supposedly not a single one of them reacting to TMA....