Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?

Mick said:
All what people? What evidence is there that anyone became infected because of this experiment? What evidence is there that "Several people died as a result of the experiments."

I don't trust the government. I look at evidence. I debunk bunk.
Click to expand...

I suppose one could track down medical records... I don't know how publicly available those records are, especially since they are from the 1950's and I am a long way away from Georgia.

All debate aside on the health implications, the army admitted that they were conducting illegal activities. I am concerned with the health implications of course, but it is not my only concern. Breaking the law concerns me as well. It is bad enough in itself, and the health implications would just be added concern. Proving that there was no health implications does not take the burden of guilt away from the accused who has already admitted to guilt. Breaking the law is not justified even if the army proclaims that nobody got sick from their experiment (in which they do not provide any medical records to back up their claim).

The government breaks the laws. Laws are supposed to be in place for a reason. It is not OK that they broke the law in the past. Perhaps you could overlook one discrepancy, however the government is a repeat offender.



JFDee said:
Hmm, I don't want to debate semantics with you. So you suspect that some persistant contrails are in fact chemtrails.
Click to expand...
No. I suspect that some persistent contrails could be chemtrails. I assume nothing is "in fact" without facts. Once again, I suspect. There is no semantics here. Assume and suspect have completely different implications on interpretation, which is why I used the word "suspect". It should be taken at face value now that I have explained myself thoroughly. There should be no confusion as to what I am saying.

JFDee said:
You do so on the base of these arguments:
  1. some trails that look suspicious, and which you can't immediately explain
  2. some water tests by chemtrail activists that are not verifiable
  3. a list of bad (illegal or whatever) deeds quite a while back in history
This is still a somewhat weak case.

Again, why suspecting the extraordinary in view of the ordinary?

What would a judge say if confronted with your arguments?
Click to expand...



  1. Some trails that look suspicious, which I can't immediately explain, still look suspicious. That is the definition of suspicious. More research is needed. There is also no way to see trails at night, and no way to see trails that are not in my area, and no way to see trails while I am inside, and no way to see trails while I am outside and not looking, and there is no way to see trails if there is no air traffic at the time... Etc Etc. I need more research.
  2. Tests by chemtrail activists that are not verifiable, I have already explained are fundamentally flawed and would not be included in my case.
  3. A list of bad (illegal or whatever) deeds in history. There is no "quite a while back" about it. There is a continuation of illegal deeds and I have merely sourced an example of it being admitted to as far back as the 1950's, but that is not the only time it has happened.

I am building a case, but obviously I am not being paid to do so. That being said, I have limited resources. At this time I would not confront a judge with my arguments. I am still investigating and researching. I'm not in discovery in a case before a judge.

Breaking the law is extraordinary. You want a more recent example of the government breaking the law? Is that what would satisfy you? With Bush and Obama I am sure there is plenty that I could dig up. How about Hillary Clinton being fined for violating the Logan act?

http://www.standupamericaus.org/corruption-2/the-logan-act-and-the-bilderbergs-who-is-attending/
In a rare example of political wrist-slapping a few years back, Hillary Clinton was actually fined under the Logan Act, for violating U.S. law and meeting with foreign officials in secret. However, the practice of power-brokering without legal oversight remains the norm. How about US General Robert Gates who attended th[e] 2011 Bilderberg Meeting.
 
JFDee said:
Hmm, I don't want to debate semantics with you. So you suspect that some persistant contrails are in fact chemtrails.

You do so on the base of these arguments:
  1. some trails that look suspicious, and which you can't immediately explain
  2. some water tests by chemtrail activists that are not verifiable
  3. a list of bad (illegal or whatever) deeds quite a while back in history
This is still a somewhat weak case.

Again, why suspecting the extraordinary in view of the ordinary?

What would a judge say if your arguments were presented to him?
Click to expand...

I love the way debunkers minimize the seriousness of past transgressions and misjudgments . . . seems the propensity of humans in power to commit such acts over and over is to be dismissed as historical clutter a statistical artifact to be dismissed as four standard deviations from the mean . . . LoL!!!! I guess they never heard of a rear view mirror . . . sometimes something you past and is now behind you can hurt you . . .
 
It's all abut the evidence SD.

There's the army's mosquito thing. There's no evidence that it killed anyone, or even made anyone sick, or even really got more people bit by mosquitos than before. I've not even seen evidence it was illegal, seeing as the people in the area were informed.

And then Hillary being fined under the Logan act is just something Alex Jones made up.

I understand not trusting the government. But that does not mean you have to trust every single claim that is against the government.
 
Mick said:
It's all abut the evidence SD.

There's the army's mosquito thing. There's no evidence that it killed anyone, or even made anyone sick, or even really got more people bit by mosquitos than before. I've not even seen evidence it was illegal, seeing as the people in the area were informed.
Click to expand...

We don't have any evidence that they were informed... and even if they were... It does not mean it was not illegal.

Mick said:
And then Hillary being fined under the Logan act is just something Alex Jones made up.
Click to expand...
That is a positive claim my friend. Please provide a source or reference.

Mick said:
I understand not trusting the government. But that does not mean you have to trust every single claim that is against the government.
Click to expand...
Of course not. But with so many illegal activities VERIFIED I really don't need to validate every single claim. The fact that governments are the number one source of unnatural human death is enough for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

I could also list other illegal activities if you question the Logan act claim and still want a recent example of government doing illegal things.
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
We don't have any evidence that they were informed... and even if they were... It does not mean it was not illegal.
Click to expand...

What would mean it was illegal? He's the actual source document that describes the tests:



The point I'm making is that the claims have been vastly exaggerated, and yet are taken as fact.

That is a positive claim my friend. Please provide a source or reference.
Click to expand...
Okay, let me refine that. It seems like it was promoted by Alex Jones, but possibly invented by Jim Tucker. There's no evidence it was true. See:
http://planet.infowars.com/activism/tracking-the-lie-clinton-fined-for-attending-bilderberg


Of course not. But with so many illegal activities VERIFIED I really don't need to validate every single claim. The fact that governments are the number one source of unnatural human death is enough for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Click to expand...

Sure. But that does not mean I should simply ignore the false claims. I'm a debunker. I debunk false claims. The more false claims are debunked, the clearer the truth will appear.
 
Last edited:
Jay Reynolds said:
From the link:

"No TRUTH movement can grow with a lie at its head."

so true......
Click to expand...

Yep, looks like it was Jim Tucker. That does not mean it is a lie, it just means that it is an unsubstantiated claim. Someone needs to confront Jim Tucker on his source or evidence of this claim. I also wonder if there would be a way to find documentation of the fine buried somewhere on a government website... Either way... Let's get back to contrails/chemtrails hehe

Also, good point mick. I will wait a moment, and think of a less controversial activity that is well documented. I am sure that there is a ton of evidence to support that the government breaks the law on a regular basis though. I do not know how much help that it will bring to the debate however because we agree that the government has done some controversial things already.. it is just whether it breaks the law or not.. and if it is still being done today that is still in question right? Or are you saying that the government is perfect now and does not break the law? If you are saying the government is perfect and does not break the law then I suppose I can go and look some better sourced examples of government involved in more recent illegal activities. What do you think?
 
I think "the government" takes great pains not to break the law. To a certain extent this is done by arguing, and re-interpreting the law. Take water-boarding - most people would consider that torture, and hence illegal. But the government considers it "enhanced interrogation" and hence legal. So that's something where I think they are doing something illegal, and yet they have an arguable case that it's legal.

It's like rich people and taxes. They take advantage of the law to get the most out of it as possible. You could look at this in multiple levels.

- There's unethical behavior, where they take advantages of loopholes. It's not all illegal, but seems wrong
- There's arguable behavior, where what they do is open to interpretation of the words in the law. Like taking a deduction for something that might not actually be business related. It might be illegal, it might not, it might come down to a 5-4 supreme court decision either way.
- There's illegal yet accepted behavior. Like people in California don't pay use-tax on things they bought in Oregon.
- There's serious illegal behavior, like actually adding thousands of dollars in deductions, or wire-tapping the opposition.

There's also the question here of who is "The Government". Is a small branch of the army "The Government", or are we just talking about things directly authorized by the executive branch? There are a lot of people in the government, who make decisions on many different levels.
 
Mick said:
I think "the government" takes great pains not to break the law. To a certain extent this is done by arguing, and re-interpreting the law. Take water-boarding - most people would consider that torture, and hence illegal. But the government considers it "enhanced interrogation" and hence legal. So that's something where I think they are doing something illegal, and yet they have an arguable case that it's legal.

It's like rich people and taxes. They take advantage of the law to get the most out of it as possible. You could look at this in multiple levels.

- There's unethical behavior, where they take advantages of loopholes. It's not all illegal, but seems wrong
- There's arguable behavior, where what they do is open to interpretation of the words in the law. Like taking a deduction for something that might not actually be business related. It might be illegal, it might not, it might come down to a 5-4 supreme court decision either way.
- There's illegal yet accepted behavior. Like people in California don't pay use-tax on things they bought in Oregon.
- There's serious illegal behavior, like actually adding thousands of dollars in deductions, or wire-tapping the opposition.

There's also the question here of who is "The Government". Is a small branch of the army "The Government", or are we just talking about things directly authorized by the executive branch? There are a lot of people in the government, who make decisions on many different levels.
Click to expand...

All good points. Since the illegal activities are compartmentalized and not widespread by every single entity under the term "government", there is no reason to use a term with such a vast scope, such as "government". Let us define them as "individuals who are in positions of power or have influence over those in positions of power and are involved in corruption".

Which pretty much means any wealthy person who uses their money for corrupt purposes. Do you believe that there has been an increase or a decrease in these types of people since... well... the founding of America?
 
10th amendment:
powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.
10th Amendment Challenge to Medical Marijuana Crackdown

Jacob Sullum|Nov. 1, 2011 3:27 pm
Last week Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the Justice Department's crackdown on medical marijuana in California violates the 10th Amendment. The complaint (PDF) alleges that the federal government "has instituted a policy to dismantle the medical marijuana laws of the State of California and coerce its municipalities to pass bans on medical marijuana dispensaries." That policy features raids on dispensaries, forfeiture and prosecution threats against their landlords, warnings that newspapers could be held criminally liable for carrying medical marijuana ads, and threats to local officials seeking to regulate dispensaries or growing operations. ASA cites letters in which U.S. attorneys warned officials in Chico and Eureka against proceeding with plans to authorize cultivation of medical marijuana; in response, both cities abandoned those plans. ASA says the "coordinated enforcement actions" announced by the the state's four U.S. attorneys on October 7 "have also derailed the regulatory efforts of local governments in Arcata, El Centro, Sacramento and other municipalities across the state."
In short, ASA argues, the Justice Department is not simply enforcing the federal ban on marijuana (as the Supreme Court has said it has the authority to do, even in states that allow medical use) but doing so in a way intended to undermine state and local policy choices. "While the government is entitled to enforce its criminal laws against marijuana...in an even-handed manner," the complaint says, "the Tenth Amendment forbids it from selectively employing such coercive tactics to commandeer the law-making functions of the State."
Click to expand...

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debate/dwarcon1.htm
this idea of alcohol prohibition. We were talking about a new power that was being acquired -- surrendered by the people and the states - and so the 18th Amendment was passed to give that power to the Federal government. In the case of our second question -- prohibiting other drugs -- I would argue that we are talking about new powers being granted to the Federal government that have never been surrendered by the people and the states. Ergo, the drug war, prohibition laws, the DEA, the whole ball of wax, are all unconstitutional. I think what we have here is a prime example of the illegal acquisition of powers by a central government through a process of slow accretion. And this was exactly the sort of thing Hamilton was warning against back in 1787.
Click to expand...

This might be considered a more wider scope of illegal government activity since it is federal.
To ban marijuana, Congress should have amended the Constitution through the arduous process prescribed by the Framers, just as it did when it banned alcohol. Instead it has amended the Constitution through legislative assertion and judicial acquiescence.
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
All good points. Since the illegal activities are compartmentalized and not widespread by every single entity under the term "government", there is no reason to use a term with such a vast scope, such as "government". Let us define them as "individuals who are in positions of power or have influence over those in positions of power and are involved in corruption".

Which pretty much means any wealthy person who uses their money for corrupt purposes. Do you believe that there has been an increase or a decrease in these types of people since... well... the founding of America?
Click to expand...
Interesting question . . . there is a presumption by conspiracy advocates that there are rogue compartmentaluzed governmental units in cooperation with private powerful entities that engage in covert activities . . . many of the activities are unethical, illegal, or at least embarrassing if the public were aware . . . like the Iran Contra Affair for example . . .
 
George B said:
Interesting question . . . there is a presumption by conspiracy advocates that there are rogue compartmentaluzed governmental units in cooperation with private powerful entities that engage in covert activities . . . many of the activities are unethical, illegal, or at least embarrassing if the public were aware . . . like the Iran Contra Affair for example . . .
Click to expand...

[h=1]Bayer Exposed ( HIV Contaminated Vaccine )[/h]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
Bayer Exposed ( HIV Contaminated Vaccine )


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs
Click to expand...

On a first glance this does look like what we have been talking about . . . expediency . . . in this case corporate profit over public welfare . . . just like Ford and the Pinto gas tank, Ford Explorer tire stability issue . . . the death rate was too high in retrospect to keep the lid on the decisions . . . these types of decisions are made all the time;however, most don't blow up in the decision maker's face . . .
 
Jay Reynolds said:
Someone needs to confront chemtrails advocates on the evidence of their claims........ When will they have to come face-to-face and be held accountable?
Click to expand...

Accountable for what? Claims? Now... someone who shoots down a plane has performed an action, which they can be held accountable for. As far as I know there is no issue on any ballot that is asking for anyone to vote whether to fund an investigation so there is no issue of whether or not your tax money will be possibly wasted or not. I could care less what a minority of the population's opinions are. Why are you spending so much effort on changing a small portion of the population's opinion? How is this conspiracy theory affecting you on a personal level? Why do you care if conspiracy theorists believe in chemtrails?

I am just saying that the theorists have good reason to believe in corruption... and that they are not all completely paranoid. You portray them in a negative light without any justification whatsoever... as if questionable government activity has never been prevalent so why are people questioning things at all? What is wrong with questioning a known liar?

P.S. when I said someone needs to confront Jim Tucker, I meant it as i stated... to verify his claim... I did not mean that someone should confront him without an open mind and ask him to "prove his lie" so to speak. The only person you can claim accountability for is yourself and that is why I admitted that the claim Jim Tucker made was unsubstantiated. I have an open mind you see... I don't shy away from controversy. I admit mistakes and change my statements when I need to. Mick has also done this and seems fairly open minded from the limited interaction I have had with him thus far. From you I have not seen as many examples of this. I just mean that before we can claim a fact, that it has to be substantiated. That is why I said someone should confront him... to get his source.... so that we can determine if this is a fact or not...not to assassinate his character.

I will conclude with this;
You can rule out a source as evidence (chemical testers) but ruling out one source does not rule out all sources.
You know how you make those chemical testers accountable? By ruling them out for yourself and not spreading their information.
Again... you cannot convince people who are propagandized. If you know how to think for yourself then great! Once people enter into meaningful debates then they have a chance to think about it for themselves. You won't ever convince theorists that they are wrong because they usually do not enter into debate. We still have no solid evidence against the possibility of chemtrails which could rule them out of the equation all together, so to bash chemtrail advocates without defacto evidence to eliminate the possibility, is close-minded.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The point I am illustrating here is that you are responsible for assuming all claims of fact. If the claims are unsubstantiated after you cross-reference them and you still assume (not suspect) the claim to be true, then you are an idiot. Shame on you! So are you trying to convince some idiots who don't care about facts that chemtrails are fake? Good luck! The only thing you have control over, is whether you yourself are an idiot or not. There is no useful purpose in confronting an idiot... much like confronting an angry drunk. They do not listen to reason. The best thing to do is to ignore them and let the court of public opinion judge them. If you try to engage in communicating with idiots... then you are either cruel and enjoy ridiculing them, or you are an idiot yourself.
 
"We still have no solid evidence against the possibility of chemtrails"

There are lots of things that there is no solid evidence against the possibility of... time travel, FTL travel, extraterrestrial intelligence, God, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the list is endless. Should we believe in everything because we can find no solid evidence against the possibility of them existing?
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
If the claims are unsubstantiated after you cross-reference them and you still assume (not suspect) the claim to be true, then you are an idiot. Shame on you! So are you trying to convince some idiots who don't care about facts that chemtrails are fake? Good luck! The only thing you have control over, is whether you yourself are an idiot or not. There is no useful purpose in confronting an idiot... much like confronting an angry drunk. They do not listen to reason. The best thing to do is to ignore them and let the court of public opinion judge them. If you try to engage in communicating with idiots... then you are either cruel and enjoy ridiculing them, or you are an idiot yourself.
Click to expand...

That's a very simplistic and one dimensional method of characterizing an individual. People (including you) sometimes do stupid things, but that does not make them idiots. Everything is learned and nobody is born with knowledge. Some require more patience and explanation to see reason. I don't see how that can be considered cruel or make anyone an "idiot".

SeriouslyDebatable said:
If you try to engage in communicating with idiots... then you are either cruel and enjoy ridiculing them, or you are an idiot yourself.
Click to expand...

That's a non-sequitur and a false dichotomy. Should I have just ignored your statement and let the court of public opinion judge it, or an I being an idiot for engaging you?
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
Some trails that look suspicious, which I can't immediately explain, still look suspicious. That is the definition of suspicious. More research is needed. There is also no way to see trails at night, and no way to see trails that are not in my area, and no way to see trails while I am inside, and no way to see trails while I am outside and not looking, and there is no way to see trails if there is no air traffic at the time... Etc Etc. I need more research.
Click to expand...
Would you accept if someone knowledgeable explained these suspicious trails to you?

If you insist on doing the proper research all by yourself, you would probably have to study atmospheric sciences and learn to be an air traffic controller.

BTW, there are atmospheric scientists in most nations. I'm sure they would know if they'd see something in the atmosphere which they couldn't explain.
 
JFDee said:
It's irrelevant as long as you can't even show that there is an ongoing crime.
Click to expand...
Crime has nothing to do with it . . . I know of no crime broken by the peaceful injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . .
 
George B said:
Crime has nothing to do with it
Click to expand...
This was only to extend the judge-and-prosecutor analogy.

I know of no crime broken by the peaceful injection of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere . . .
Click to expand...
No matter how you call it, you don't have any evidence that is able to convince scrutinizers like scientists or judges.
 
JFDee said:
.BTW, there are atmospheric scientists in most nations. I'm sure they would know if they'd see something in the atmosphere which they couldn't explain.
Click to expand...
The majority of those folks make their living studying those sorts of things. Hundreds, maybe thousands of them have looked at chemtrails claims over the years.
Chemtrails are beginning to be an inside joke among some of these scientists.They laugh at chemtrail conspiracists. They joke about them.

But if there were something to study and write up, they would jump to get the edge on their colleagues, there is competition within that community for who gets published first, and who discovers something new, intense competition. If they don't come up with something, they move down the ladder.
 
Trigger Hippie said:
That's a very simplistic and one dimensional method of characterizing an individual. People (including you) sometimes do stupid things, but that does not make them idiots. Everything is learned and nobody is born with knowledge. Some require more patience and explanation to see reason. I don't see how that can be considered cruel or make anyone an "idiot".



That's a non-sequitur and a false dichotomy. Should I have just ignored your statement and let the court of public opinion judge it, or an I being an idiot for engaging you?
Click to expand...

Yeah I just went on a rant really there.... I was not calling anyone here an idiot.. I just meant to say that someone who is close-minded and argumentative and tries to indoctrinate you instead of debating you, in my opinion is being an idiot... even if they are not always an idiot... they are being one at that moment... and it is more productive to move on to someone who will interact with you instead of trying to have a one way conversation, unless of course you like to argue... which to me is idiotic.
 
JFDee said:
Would you accept if someone knowledgeable explained these suspicious trails to you?
Click to expand...
I would listen.

JFDee said:
If you insist on doing the proper research all by yourself, you would probably have to study atmospheric sciences and learn to be an air traffic controller.

BTW, there are atmospheric scientists in most nations. I'm sure they would know if they'd see something in the atmosphere which they couldn't explain.
Click to expand...

Remember chemicals being sprayed could be invisible, and also the spraying could be done on days which already had conditions necessary for persistent contrails.
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
Remember chemicals being sprayed could be invisible, and also the spraying could be done on days which already had conditions necessary for persistent contrails.
Click to expand...

In which cases how would you know "chemtrails" are being sprayed at all??

The whole point of the chemtrail myth is that thy ARE visible, and CAN be distinguished from contrails....except no-one seems to actually know how.....except by this persistence thing which has long been known to be rubbish!
 
MikeC said:
In which cases how would you know "chemtrails" are being sprayed at all??

The whole point of the chemtrail myth is that thy ARE visible, and CAN be distinguished from contrails....except no-one seems to actually know how.....except by this persistence thing which has long been known to be rubbish!
Click to expand...
Guess you can't count on us all thinking the same way . . . Sorry . . .
 
Mick said:
Indeed, as correct as the guy who says that robot cats could look exactly like regular cats, and only come out when there's no way we could catch them.

And equally meaningless.
Click to expand...
I freely admit robotic cats are a possibility and you should get all the credit for pointing that out . . .
 
SeriouslyDebatable said:
Remember chemicals being sprayed could be invisible, and also the spraying could be done on days which already had conditions necessary for persistent contrails.
Click to expand...

But then, how would you know which are the suspicious ones? What makes a trail suspicious in your eyes?

It can hardly be the course of the planes, because if someone takes great care to hide any spraying, he surely doesn't botch it with conspicious flight patterns.
 
JFDee said:
But then, how would you know which are the suspicious ones? What makes a trail suspicious in your eyes?

It can hardly be course of the planes, because if someone takes great care to hide any spraying, he surely doesn't botch it with conspicious flight patterns.
Click to expand...
An assumption would be if one knew the purpose of every flight to ID a flight that deviated from the published purpose based on its behavior; however, seems since that would draw attention a true injection flight . . . they would avoid such behavior . . . I would be curious about strange patterns but don't think they would be that stupid.
 
MikeC said:
In which cases how would you know "chemtrails" are being sprayed at all??

The whole point of the chemtrail myth is that thy ARE visible, and CAN be distinguished from contrails....except no-one seems to actually know how.....except by this persistence thing which has long been known to be rubbish!
Click to expand...

Visible chemtrails are a common belief among many chemtrail theorists perhaps, but many theorists have inadequate critical thinking skills and they limit their sources of information only to those sources which already agree with their beliefs. Persistent contrails have been explained here quite thoroughly, and we have no instances of any visible chemtrails which have been verified, so limiting our discussion with a talking point about whether we can see sprayed chemicals or not is a distraction because we will just go around in circles. I am merely pointing out the possibility of something, and not dismissing it without having any evidence to the contrary.

Mick said:
Indeed, as correct as the guy who says that robot cats could look exactly like regular cats, and only come out when there's no way we could catch them.

And equally meaningless.
Click to expand...

It is not meaningless, it is remaining open minded. Remember that until we prove that something is impossible, it is still on the table.



Mick said:
So why don't they get more play on Alex Jones?
Click to expand...

Now that is just silly. Are you a regular listener? You should call in and ask Jones about robot cats... Or robot dogs... or robot goldfish... Oh, and don't forget to talk like a robot. That would be awesome!

JFDee said:
But then, how would you know which are the suspicious ones? What makes a trail suspicious in your eyes?
Click to expand...
You do not know personally what normal is until you have a control to compare it to. Everything is suspicious to me until I understand how it works, which takes having experience in something, which also takes time. I do not have to see a trail at all to suspect spraying. Just hearing stories about governments all around the world doing bad things to people, in the past AND currently and my own personal experience with governments is enough to make me suspicious of their INTENTIONS and in turn therefore I am suspicious of any possible means of implementing said intentions.

JFDee said:
It can hardly be the course of the planes, because if someone takes great care to hide any spraying, he surely doesn't botch it with conspicious flight patterns.
Click to expand...

According to the contrail supporters here, there are no conspicuous flight patterns as they can all be explained... for example flights circling around are always in a "holding pattern".
 
"It is not meaningless, it is remaining open minded. Remember that until we prove that something is impossible, it is still on the table."

So...vampires, zombies, ghosts and robot cats (among BILLIONS of other things the mind can come up with) are all on the table...and it makes sense to discuss them as if they are reality..regardless of a lack of evidence to support their existence.

Where do you draw the line?!?
 
Danny55 said:
"We still have no solid evidence against the possibility of chemtrails"

There are lots of things that there is no solid evidence against the possibility of... time travel, FTL travel, extraterrestrial intelligence, God, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the list is endless. Should we believe in everything because we can find no solid evidence against the possibility of them existing?
Click to expand...

Noble1965 said:
"It is not meaningless, it is remaining open minded. Remember that until we prove that something is impossible, it is still on the table."

So...vampires, zombies, ghosts and robot cats (among BILLIONS of other things the mind can come up with) are all on the table...and it makes sense to discuss them as if they are reality..regardless of a lack of evidence to support their existence.

Where do you draw the line?!?
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase that.
"Chemicals have been sprayed in the past, however we still have no solid evidence of chemicals being sprayed currently"

None of the things you listed has ever been proven to have happened at any time.
 
"According to the contrail supporters here, there are no conspicuous flight patterns as they can all be explained... for example flights circling around are always in a "holding pattern"."

Yeah, why not?! It's just as normal of an assumption than assuming the green things at the end of tree branches are leaves. There is NO REASON to believe the circling flights are anything more. Unless, one is overly suspicious...which sounds like a personal problem to me.

Of course, there are many reasons why a flight is put into a holding pattern. Is it "normal" to see a plane making a circular pattern and say to oneself " I wonder what that pilot is up to...looks mighty suspicious to me"...especially if that person has never studied aviation?

To me...it's abnormal to do so. Pretending that one understands aviation because they accept the "chemtrail" hoax as truth, is just silly.

And that goes for ALL "conspicuous (conspicuous to WHOM!?!?) flight patterns"...not just circling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

John J.
Is "Improved Instrumental Techniques...", Nolan, Vallee, Jiang, Lemke 2022 a useful paper?
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
Z.W. Wolf
Z.W. Wolf
NorCal Dave
Meta Materials From UFOs
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
23K
Gary C
Gary C
Rory
Claim: Sweating can release a useful amount of toxins/toxicants from the body
Replies
26
Views
6K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
  • Sticky
Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails
2 3
Replies
116
Views
66K
Dan Page
Dan Page
ki_cz
"The Chemistry in Contrails" - paper
Replies
8
Views
5K
Jay Reynolds
Jay Reynolds

Latest posts

Back
Top