Using the "L" word with regards to chemtrails.

a reply to: Chamberf=6

Does not matter that the argument is flawed?

Only thing that matter is that he goes against chemtrails?

Why consider you have the logic when you dont care if what you say is true to begin with

a reply to: Indigent

My whole point, op logic is flawed one could argue population is controlled, evidence support it, the parameter he use to prove is not controlled does not determinate population growth in the long run. and the same can be done to most of his points.

Well nobody can determine for sure how the population will grow in the future, but they can take what we know and give it one hell of a guess.

And yes in certain parts of the world the population is controlled, but that is a very small part of the total population of Earth.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

population growth rate is decreasing in the present, what is what we know that you say?

Years TFR
1950–1955 4.95
1955–1960 4.89
1960–1965 4.91
1965–1970 4.85
1970–1975 4.45
1975–1980 3.84
1980–1985 3.59
1985–1990 3.39
1990–1995 3.04
1995–2000 2.79
2000–2005 2.62
2005–2010 2.52
2010–2015 2.36

a reply to: Indigent

Only thing that matter is that he goes against contrails?

I think you may be misunderstanding the OP's stance on this issue, and it isn't going against contrails it is chemtrails he is going against.

a reply to: Indigent

See my above post
I used the word "contrails" earlier, because That Is What They Are.

when you dont care if what you say is true to begin with

...and as for my statement on education and lower birthrate, and my not "caring" if what I say is true...

www.cdc.gov...
www.jfmpc.com...
repository.upenn.edu...
www.boundless.com...

Many more links

I would also submit as personal thinking without having to look up a millions links to prove it to you, that the increase of women higher in the workplace
-- (especially since the 50's where your above rundown begins-- not every woman is June Cleaver anymore) --
also contributes to that lower birthrate (fewer and later in life kids) and oddly it also correlates to higher education.

a reply to: network dude

You certainly have a vendetta towards Chemtrails and peoples opinion of them. May I ask why that is? You consistently ridicule giving out your own logic, but nothing based on truth and facts.

1.) No one said it was to block out anything,although there are cloud seeding programs that you might be talking about. We simply know chemicals are being sprayed into the air, and the chemicals can be doing anything to our body, minds, souls, land, animals ect. Who knows the real reason? and just like ALIEN disclosure, its never going to be something we truly know exists. But its that feeling. So you disproved nothing, just threw something out there so you can shoot it down real quick.

2.) well, population control is one of the many theories as to why we are being sprayed on. As mentioned above there are a lot more things that can be affected by spraying chemicals then just killing off the population. Science is supposedly 50 years or more into the future for our government, so with that being said I'm sure population control is not the main reason, but is probably a factor. How do you know that the chemicals don't start hurting people until they spray a different solution? (just saying)

3.) Tasting the air is funny, never heard of that. But you say that everyone would be sick, arnt we all sick in one way or another? I mean there are a lot of different kinds off illnesses that the world has to offer, not to mention who knows what concoctions our government is creating while we speak. And there are men who served in area 51 in the 1950s that have still not opened their mouth once about the things they were apart of and seen because its all top secret. So you think some pilots who are most likely unknowing that they are spreading this chemical would talk about it? If you were told by your superior to do something, don't ask questions, its for the betterment of America, you would happily do it no questions asked.


-anyways I'm here just to poke my head in and give my 2 cents on yet another Chemtrail bashing thread.

thanks for all of the logic you filled my head up with. But not to be rude, its unthought of logic, like you were in a hurry to write up this hater thread. lol


Oh and ill end this saying yes i didn't present truth and or facts as well but cmon, the logic used was not logic at all, I could use the same logic to disprove demons, ghosts, jesus and aliens for crying out loud.

the Chemtrails debate will never end. we might as well take a poll on ATS to see who believes in them and who doesn't. because I'm curious who else agrees. I'm not crazy either by the way, I just have faith in my belief of them. I guess that all i do have for now. nd i know there is nothing i can do about chemtrails, but I know in my head that its probable. and thats all that matters. Thanks again OP

a reply to: network dude

BECAUSE LOGIC!

Before using logic as a tool, one must first understand it. For a basic introduction, you may consider giving John D. Mullen's Hard Thinking a read.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

I made a mistake using contrails when i meant chem trails, its the same anyways.

I read my last 3 post and they are pretty bad, my lack of English is showing more under the strain of trying to say self analysis and finding our own flaws is more important than trying to prove the other people points, if you say things that are wrong to try to prove other people mistakes whats the point in what you doing.

I'm pretty sure event the most die hard skeptic could see what i say, if just leave its stance for a little and try to see it.
________

Both of you should see i'm not defending chemtrails, i'm just exposing the weakness of op argument, it seems you are too down in the rabbit hole to see it


a reply to: Chamberf=6
Could you please quote when i said chemtrails is the cause of population control? do you know what the pill does right? its so simple but chemtrails is all you see, op is wrong an increase in life spam is not prove of the lack of population growth control, fertility rate is the parameter that controls it.

Its like saying there is not chemtrails because elephant and you all say YES ITS LOGIC when in reality all you care is there is not chemtrails... and you dont care to see if the rest hold any relation to that afirmation

[OFF TOPIC MATERIAL REMOVED]

But I digress. So logically, yes, all those are good points why chemtrails are bogus. Can we compare population samples between modern, airborne population centers and places where airplanes don't fly? As the Devil's advocate though, why are autism and cancer rates skyrocketing?

BTW, how do you keep every pilot, every mechanic, every worker from knowing about this chemtrail conspiracy?

Only thing I could think of which might be plausible regarding chem-trails is that stuff might be sprayed when measured UV levels are too high. Ozone holes are patchy, so it doesn't need to be done everywhere. Nor is there much point if UV is too high where there's no economic benefit. The reason why I think it might have this use (if real), is because many of the chemicals or metal oxides that people claim to find in relation with chemtrails are the same things you can find in a bottle of sun-block. Ok to slather on your skin, but probably not so great to breathe in.

So if there's anything to that idea, I can think of an interesting experiment. Anybody who is studying chemtrails should get a UV light meter and check exposure levels before and after what appears to be a chemtrail event. If there's any economic reason to do it, I'd suspect too much UV might affect agricultural productivity under artificially accelerated and boosted growing conditions. You should see it happening most over or upwind of large commercial farming operations.

a reply to: Indigent

population growth rate is decreasing in the present, what is what we know that you say?

Years TFR
1950–1955 4.95
1955–1960 4.89
1960–1965 4.91
1965–1970 4.85
1970–1975 4.45
1975–1980 3.84
1980–1985 3.59
1985–1990 3.39
1990–1995 3.04
1995–2000 2.79
2000–2005 2.62
2005–2010 2.52
2010–2015 2.36

And yet it shows that the population has been growing since the 50's.

originally posted by: network dude
Since it’s impossible to get anywhere discussing how contrails are just contrails

The logical thing to do would be to up the ante...post 2 or 3 threads per week instead of just 1.

a reply to: Thisbseth

You certainly have a vendetta towards Chemtrails and peoples opinion of them. May I ask why that is? You consistently ridicule giving out your own logic, but nothing based on truth and facts.

First they call it Denying Ignorance, and continually saying they exist without any evidence to show they are really isn't following that motto.

Maybe you could be so kind as to show where his logic isn't based on truth or fact?

Side note for chemtrail believers...

No, I am not calling chemtrail believers ignorant so please don't go there.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h



populationpyramid.net...

Did you miss my explanation that while is above 2 we are growing when is 2 we stop growing??

Again why trying so hard to not see the flawed logic

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

And higher life expectancy is a huge factor in that.

Which others don't take into account when saying chemtrails are used (like OP said) as population control--they are trying to kill us.

a reply to: Chamberf=6

Ok them, if you think longevity is such a factor prove you can sustain a population without at least a 2 in fertility rate

Yes the population control was rendered by women who took the pill or were able to legally terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
1960 the birth control pill becomes widely available. 1973 reo v wade determines that women can control their own bodies and terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
These are statistics for the US Per your chart.
If you read US history you can coorolate the highs and lows to specific events that have absolutely nothing to do with Chemtrails. Which you say you don't believe in but continue to defend with silly data. reply to: Indigent