TV Meteorologist shot. Chemtrail Believers Applaud it

a reply to: DJW001

Not talking about suspicion, you said ""chemtrail revenge" seems the most plausible motive at the moment...i don't agree a couple of people claiming to be 'chemmies' posting disgusting remarks about this unfortunate bloke equals 'the most plausible motive' at all, when it could literally be for any reason carried out by anyone at all.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: MysterX

To you and Charlie:

My stance is that those white lines in the sky behind airplanes that may or may not last for hours, the ones that look an awful lot like contrails, and act, an awful lot like contrails, are probably just contrails.

Could they be a clandestine military program? I doubt it based on my personal experience, but......I don't know for sure. What I do know is those lines sure do look and act just like contrails. So, knowing that, why do they have to be "chemtrails"?

Until you can give me a real answer to that question, I will continue to believe that those lines are most likely contrails.

Ball= your court.

That's probably the fairest reply i've ever seen you post in regards to this topic..and well, a star for you for that.

The honest answer to your question is that those white lines in the sky are NOT all chemtrails, and they most certainly don't HAVE to be chemtrails.

I'd argue a large number of what people routinely see are ordinary contrails, some short lived, some longer lasting depending on variable factors like hight of aircraft, temperature at the altitude the plane is at and so on...these are NOT what people are reporting in the main, although i most certainly do not doubt many ordinary contrails are misidentified as chemtrails.

My question to you, given that you have been open and honest in saying that you don't know whether they are actually spraying or not, is why for years now, you have so vehemently argued against the possibility of chemtrails and settle on calling those who are deeply suspicious of what may be carried out above their heads, 'idiots' who don't understand basic science?

The two positions don't seem to be the best of bedfellows.

a reply to: network dude

Why would chemicals cause a contrail to look or act differently...



I'd assume they'd look exactly the same, just with chemicals in.





At the same time I'd say it's pretty obvious that there is a difference from cloud/engine contrail reaction and stuff you can clearly see is being sprayed.



Unless they're skywriting what's the other alternatives?

a reply to: Chadwickus
The religious chemtrailers come out of the woodwork, eh? And it's the fundamentalist sect too. Scary stuff there, Chad. I noticed below what you posted, there were a few posts thinking it was conspiracy theorists in general...

"Good to hear he is still alive. Maybe he can shed some light on who shot him and what words were exchanged. I'm not going to accuse the CT'ers of doing this, of course, without any evidence. But lets just say I would not be too surprised to find out it was a CT."

"Even if it wasn't a Conspiracy Theorist who shot him, I'm still mighty pissed off those people at Global Skywatch take pleasure in this. Until I first heard about chemtrails, I would never have believed such people existed."

So "conspiracy theorist" now equals "chemtrailer" in some minds. I hope the meteorologist recovers fully, and is able to help pinpoint the shooter(s), and maybe their real reasoning too. I seriously doubt he was shot over chemtrails, but then again, religion does strange things to people.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: DJW001

Not talking about suspicion, you said ""chemtrail revenge" seems the most plausible motive at the moment...i don't agree a couple of people claiming to be 'chemmies' posting disgusting remarks about this unfortunate bloke equals 'the most plausible motive' at all, when it could literally be for any reason carried out by anyone at all.

Why is your mind so firmly closed to the possibility that it might have been a deranged person who believes in chemtrails?

originally posted by: MysterX
My question to you, given that you have been open and honest in saying that you don't know whether they are actually spraying or not, is why for years now, you have so vehemently argued against the possibility of chemtrails and settle on calling those who are deeply suspicious of what may be carried out above their heads, 'idiots' who don't understand basic science?

The two positions don't seem to be the best of bedfellows.

I am against anyone posting a picture of lines in the sky and calling them chemtrails. That's it. Of course, it has to get into name calling and posting patents and articles on cloud seeding. Why? I think because at the very basic levels, if one of US shows the science that makes us believe those lines in the sky are just contrails, it degrades YOUR side. can you honestly say you have portrayed what you just wrote to me in all your posts?

Could it happen? sure. Things like it have happened. But...becasue they did happen is not proof of anything. And the biggest question of all, if they did do it, would it look like contrails? Could you even see it from the ground? remember, if it's for SRM, it would be above 50K feet.

I feel like I need to keep the discussion on facts. Otherwise, all this should be discussed in the gray area. Since it's not, and it's on the main site, why would facts need to be disregarded? Facts explain why contrails do what they do. How do you justify ignoring that?

a reply to: network dude

Ah yes, the old, "since they did it before, they MUST still be doing it!".

Give credit where it's due. At least he does show precedent. We just don't have any solid evidence it's still happening.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: DJW001

Not talking about suspicion, you said ""chemtrail revenge" seems the most plausible motive at the moment...i don't agree a couple of people claiming to be 'chemmies' posting disgusting remarks about this unfortunate bloke equals 'the most plausible motive' at all, when it could literally be for any reason carried out by anyone at all.

Why is your mind so firmly closed to the possibility that it might have been a deranged person who believes in chemtrails?

It's not closed to the possibility, which is why i have said it could be anyone for any reason.

Anyone and any reason includes people who believe all sorts of things.

What i don't accept as reasonable is jumping to the conclusion that because a few morons posted hateful remarks, they automatically become the most plausible suspects for the shooting. If that were the case, anyone with a particular belief, posting hateful remarks about anyone who has been shot should according to that criteria become the most plausible suspect based on their belief...this is nonsense, i'm sorry but it is.

Could it have been a nut who happened to have latched on to the chemtrail paradigm? Sure it could, i'm not discounting that, but a couple of nuts do not make a fruit cake.

Could it have been a nut who happened to have an intense dislike of his TV personality, his tailor, his hairstyle, his gender.. his anything at all? Sure it could.

a reply to: MysterX

So if a black man is murdered by a white man, you wouldn't think it possible that race hatred might not be the strongest motive?

a reply to: Chadwickus

I don't get it. He couldn't have been banging some guy's wife? If it ever gets officially tied to chemtrails, it'll only be so that anyone considering their reality can be branded a dangerous terrorist.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: network dude

Ah yes, the old, "since they did it before, they MUST still be doing it!".

Give credit where it's due. At least he does show precedent. We just don't have any solid evidence it's still happening.

I agree. I have even gone as far as posting pictures of the planes that could do this today, without modification.


But none of that is proof that anything is being sprayed today. Which brings me back to the original point. Those lines sure do look like contrails.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: Chadwickus

I don't get it. He couldn't have been banging some guy's wife? If it ever gets officially tied to chemtrails, it'll only be so that anyone considering their reality can be branded a dangerous terrorist.

Neither the victim nor his wife recognized the shooter. If it was a contract killing, it would not have taken place in broad daylight. This was a hate crime.

a reply to: network dude

As far as i'm aware, i have never ignored the facts and science that contribute to the formation of contrails.

Of course they exist, and of course there is a set of facts and fairly simple scientific reasons why they exist. As far as i know, contrails are not now, nor have they ever been claimed to be anything other than what they are..ordinary contrails.

Is that it?

Could these years of antagonistic banter back and forth be the result of a case of getting the wrong end of the stick?

Do you think that people who report chemtrails, think that every or most of the trails seen in the sky are actually chemtrails?

That certainly isn't my experience...to deny ordinary contrails exist and all trails are in fact chemtrails would be the absolute height of ignorance and stupidity...it would be like finding a plastic tree and thinking all trees are actually plastic...or something like that, but you get my point?

If you've been arguing essentially technicalities because you think people think all trails are chemtrails, i can see why you'd get hot under the collar...i would too if that was being said to me. The very idea is perfectly ridiculous.

I disagree though that these spraying programmes happening before are not proof of anything...they are indeed proof that secret spraying programmes have happened, proof that the 'authorities' are prepared to and wilfully carry out these programmes involving the public without their knowledge or consent, and prove the technology was in place to do these spraying programmes way back in the 1950's and beyond...and now, they are probably significantly more advanced than they were in the 50's.

I'd say it being done before proves a great deal.

It show us that people who believe the authorities can and will and have lied to them consistently for decades are in fact not idiotic or stupid for thinking this is both possible and happening, it shows us that the programmes involved many military people who didn't seem to have whistle-blowers among them, and it shows they can keep a lid on a big secret which affected a great number of the public, for a very long time.

At the very least, it shows us the authorities are willing, capable and deceitful enough to do this to their own populations for years upon years, and nobody is the wiser until half a century later.

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: network dude
They believe they are in a war. How very sad and pathetic. A war with clouds. Oh, an immense stupidity.
I wonder what it would take to get them to comprehend basic science?

I suggest you look at the UK history of aerial spraying of both live viruses, bacteria and toxic chemicals such as Cadmium (yes, that well known carcinogenic) back through the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's and then marvel at your own ignorance mate.

Sad and pathetic yes...but you can change that with research.

No they don't want to look THAT up. That would be detrimental to their campaign of name-calling. The protocol is for each post to contain some jab at intelligence and sanity to make sure folks think everything is simply exhaust.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MysterX

So if a black man is murdered by a white man, you wouldn't think it possible that race hatred might not be the strongest motive?

Depends...it's possible, but not the only or indeed the single strongest motive.

Was the black guy banging the white guys wife or girlfriend in this hypothetical?

Did the white man break into the black man's home to rob it, got surprised by the black guy and then shot the black guy so he could get away?

There are SO many scenarios that could be in play and none of them have to be race related.

a reply to: Urantia1111

The protocol is for each post to contain some jab at intelligence and sanity to make sure folks think everything is simply exhaust.

I don't care about that mate. I have become immune over the years...that protocol is losing it's teeth right across the board if you ask me..the time for ridicule being an effective psychological weapon is coming to an end methinks...MUCH too overused online and so has lost it's edge.

Besides, i get enough of it at home! lol.

a reply to: MysterX

Look back at some threads. What the majority of debunking is about, is the empirical statements of fact. "those ARE chemtrails", "they ARE spraying us!", "We ARE being killed by THEM!".

I have seen countless times where we all agree things like it could happen, and yes, the government has done experiments before using bad tactics.

MY, and from what I can see our, biggest bitch is the ignoring of facts. Like when someone claims contrail science is all lies. No, it's all facts. What makes chemtrail believers mad is that they cannot dispute any of it. Nowhere on that site does it say it cannot happen. What is said is the science that explains persistent contrails and weather.

Look at what geoengineeringwatch is claiming. The same thing I am talking about. They show pictures of contrails and claim "heavy spray days".

I am against stupidity, not conspiracies.

ETA:
I firmly believe that the divide between logical thinkers and chemtrail nutters is what obfuscates the Geo-engineering issues. Geo-engineering is a real topic that should be discussed and watched. But as long as it's lumped in with boneheads who fear clouds, this will be a murky, sad discussion. (IMHO)

I don't think there is any reason to believe this guy was shot by a chemtrail believer. Granted, we can't be sure either way, but I'm going to assume it had nothing whatsoever to do with chemtrails until I get information telling me otherwise.

HOWEVER...that's not the point here. The point here is that the story of the shooting was posted on a chemtrail believers' site, and the people there were applauding the shooting. What's wrong with these people?

originally posted by: MysterX
If you've been arguing essentially technicalities because you think people think all trails are chemtrails, i can see why you'd get hot under the collar...i would too if that was being said to me. The very idea is perfectly ridiculous.

Essentially, that's it.

Thanks for getting it. I wish more would. (like all the websites dedicated to chemtrails)

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: network dude

Ah yes, the old, "since they did it before, they MUST still be doing it!". Seriously, do you even think before you post?

As opposed to your argument of "since they did it before, it isn't happening now"...

Except nobody said this, you're being disingenuous.

You might not believe people are evil enough to do this...
Others do.

Nobody says this either. An absence of credible evidence is no an absence of intent, however, chemtrails are physically impossible to exist in the way they are claimed. This is rather stronger than a chemmies "belief"

This kind of mentality that there is no chemtrails comes from information you receive from people who wouldn't be willing to lose their funding.

As with every community... Mainstream science has its fair share of cowards that would say whatever they're told to say.

No, it comes from doing the maths and understanding that no aircraft can carry the volume of materiel that is contained within a "chemtrail" and from knowing that, other than water, in humid freezing conditions, nothing else would replicate itself to cover the entire sky with a thick blanket.

If I'm wrong, show me.