Could "Chemtrails" be a kind of medication?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Science is supposed to be about the open discussion of facts and the hunt to establish them, sans assumption or presumption where it would interfere with fact.

The one thing that a chemtrail believer just can't seem to provide.

Now how can one discuss science when there isn't science to show that chemtrails exist, so now if they can produce science showing that they exist then you have a discussion.

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

Vague question.

Can you be more specific?

So how is that question vague?

How much more specific can it be...Do you trust science?

I ask because you don't seem to trust much do you?

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

This reply usually shuts down a thread quickly. We'll see if it works today.

Nobody that I know of claims that chemtrails are impossible. We all know that planes exist that can spray stuff. We all know that the possibility exists for "stuff" to be sprayed. The largest bone of contention that I see is when a random chemtrail believer points to a picture of line in the sky and says "that there is a chemtrail".

I don't know if you care or not, but in a nutshell, that is the argument. Nobody can say based on sight alone that a trail is anything other than a contrail until it's tested, it's seen coming from a known spray plane, or it's got a damn sticker on it explaining the chemical makeup.

Science, (or logic if you prefer) explains contrails, how they form, why they form, and how long they may last, as it has for over 60 years. For some strange reason, it hasn't changed.

THAT is what the debunkers/deniers are here trying to explain.

Some ATS'ers think that the Illuminati is gang stalking them and spraying them with chemicals. Fantastic. I don't.

Sorry if my logic is wrong, but I'd appreciate it if you could point out where.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The one thing that a chemtrail believer just can't seem to provide.

You know there is a world of difference between the standards of proof to someone discussing a theory and someone debunking it. The one discussing a theory and exploring the truth (or lack of it) behind it is...as noted..exploring. Not claiming to have anything definitive or that would stand to the burdens of proof ..of any kind. That, after all, defines a conspiracy theory.

Those who would debunk are willingly taking on the high burden of proof which the other side never had, to show what they believe does not exist vs...their contention that it simply could. I'm still waiting for that burden to be met by a debunker on this and a few topics....but I doubt I ever will.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Well, when one side willfully disregards facts, it's frustrating and quite impossible to have a normal discussion.
It's like providing link after link of proof to what you are saying, and the opposing side never clicks on a single one, then comes back with the witty retort: "you're just a shill".

Perhaps one day, integrity will be included in these debates.

a reply to: network dude

Well, when one side willfully disregards facts, it's frustrating and quite impossible to have a normal discussion.

What facts are they willfully disregarding? Are they facts in the world of science or facts by your interpretation of what you understand to be applicable science to a given situation?

It seems the principles that may very well apply to a specific instance of debunking chemtrails, as reported, are often twisted to somehow apply across situations and instances the person arguing them could never have seen, known details of or understood to make the broad statements.

However, there are two very firm, sharp and clear sides of the Chemtrail debate....and a debate it most certainly is. Two sided, from where I sit and watch. One side seems determined to have open discussion without fear of ridicule..and one side seems determined to 'educate' the first on the 'facts' for why such a discussion is silly.

I dunno.. that whole approach is silly, to me. There need not be sides on a phenomenon real people report seeing. Just a search for the truth...but that seems to be what is most lacking sometimes. Everyone is right, while few care about being correct.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: waynos

I made no assumptions. I reflected what he and you (and others) always say on these boards...

"Persistent contrails are harmless"

Have I though? I don't know that they are, so if you can point that out for me?

It's all most of you ever say.

Most of you, or me?

You think they are harmless...

Is that an assumption, or am I stating how you feel because I've seen your posts from previous threads?

Yes, it's an assumption, because they may be harmful, I don't know. All I say is that my decades long familiarity and understanding of aviation explains to me why they aren't deliberately sprayed. That all that stuff about persistence, crosses and grids, spreading out over the sky etc are red herrings and not reasons to think they are chemtrails. If I am to think chemtrails are there, I need a reason that isn't based on something that's perfectly normal, if widely misunderstood.

You said you don't believe in chemtrails, I tried to talk you because I thought you were coming from a different angle, but you seem to be contradicting yourself with each reply. Same old same old.

I don't assume, I know how you feel..

You just did and you're wrong.

[quote ]They are harmless, right?

LOL

Your words.

Are they?

Is that what you call a discussion? You just decide what I think and argue with that standpoint? You're weird.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Those who would debunk are willingly taking on the high burden of proof which the other side never had, to show what they believe does not exist vs...their contention that it simply could. I'm still waiting for that burden to be met by a debunker on this and a few topics....but I doubt I ever will.

But you see the burden of proof is actually on those who believe in chemtrails, because debunkers are able to provide verifiable scientific evidence that contrails exist and do persist.

Now can chemtrail believers say they have the same to back the theory that they exist, because as of this post they haven't and that is all they really need to do.

Now, no debunker in this forum says there isn't a possibility that they exist, but again as of this post there has not been a shred of evidence that shows they actually exist.

And what burden is on a debunker that you are waiting for?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

www.wrh.noaa.gov...

To answer this question, lets first identify what a contrail is. A contrail is the condensation trail that is left behind by a passing jet plane. Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature. Vapor pressure is just a fancy term for the amount of pressure that is exerted by water vapor itself (as opposed to atmospheric, or barometric, pressure which is due to the weight of the entire atmosphere above you). The mixing occurs directly behind the plane due to the turbulence generated by the engine. If condensation (conversion from a gas to a liquid) occurs, then a contrail becomes visible. Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur. Water is a normal byproduct of combustion in engines.

Things like this. A very good explanation of those pesky white lines in the sky. It sounds real good, until you ignore it completely and start fantasizing over "what if" scenarios.

But I do agree that it's a silly discussion to even have. If people were willing to read, understand, and acknowledge this information, then the discussion would never be "look at this picture of a chemtrail".

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The one thing that a chemtrail believer just can't seem to provide.

You know there is a world of difference between the standards of proof to someone discussing a theory and someone debunking it. The one discussing a theory and exploring the truth (or lack of it) behind it is...as noted..exploring. Not claiming to have anything definitive or that would stand to the burdens of proof ..of any kind. That, after all, defines a conspiracy theory.

Those who would debunk are willingly taking on the high burden of proof which the other side never had, to show what they believe does not exist vs...their contention that it simply could. I'm still waiting for that burden to be met by a debunker on this and a few topics....but I doubt I ever will.

Then just shut the threads down then because I have yet to really see a Chemtrail believer stick to the "I'm just exploring.....b.s." No, they aggressively use such phrases as "anyone with eyes can see...." not scientific. "I will believe my own eye's..." not scientific. "you're a shill" not scientific and in fact just lazy. And that isn't even speaking to the legitimate questions posed that get unanswered such as "where is the science?"

Chemtrails could possibly be proven if a believer or group of believers ponied up and had airborne contrail testing done. but alas it is easier to just keep repeating bunk because the sky looks different than when I was 12.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

But you see the burden of proof is actually on those who believe in chemtrails, because debunkers are able to provide verifiable scientific evidence that contrails exist and do persist.

Which Chemtrail supporters ever have suggested contrails don't exist or aren't sometimes persistent? There may well have been some, but I've not seen that position taken as any absolute.

I'm among those who believe there is a distinct possibility, unproven though it may be, that SOME...but by no means all or even most...trails in the sky may contain foreign substances either chemical or mineral in nature. I.E...Chemtrails.

Proving that wrong isn't possible on the standards I've yet seen brought to the table of this topic.

Now can chemtrail believers say they have the same to back the theory that they exist, because as of this post they haven't and that is all they really need to do.

Do they, or is that an assumption to generalize everyone who has spoken positively on the Chemtrail subject? I'm a "chemtrailer" in that I do believe they COULD exist. I've never said I have anything like proof to support that as something which can be established as fact. Hence....why it's in a conspiracy theory forum to talk about and not Science.com, I'd imagine.

Now, no debunker in this forum says there isn't a possibility that they exist, but again as of this post there has not been a shred of evidence that shows they actually exist.

If you freely admit they may exist...then why the full press every time the topic comes up to repeat the same links, points, argument and positions in telling people what they've seen cannot be what they believe they've seen? Myself included, once again.

It's a confusing position to say they may exist....yet spend so much time and effort arguing that they do not and have not?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: applesthateatpeople

Vague question.

Can you be more specific?

So how is that question vague?

How much more specific can it be...Do you trust science?

I ask because you don't seem to trust much do you?

It is a vague question..

There are many types of science...

If you are asking, do I trust all forms of science and every scientific study EVER...

The answer is --NO

And if you trust the results of any study that you personally have not conducted yourself, fine.

Now can you be more specific?

a reply to: howmuch4another

Then just shut the threads down then because I have yet to really see a Chemtrail believer stick to the "I'm just exploring.....b.s."

For what it's worth...I couldn't say much either way on that shutting anything down. I'm a member in here, not staff, and that's a position I've established and doubled down with for the determination I've taken to the forum and overall topic.

However, the suggestion of shutting down the Chemtrail forum was taken up some time ago in the BBQ forum. It was denied and dismissed as something ATS was not going to do, and so, it remains here as an open place for all to discuss.

Those who don't believe the forum has a purpose (as some here have openly stated in those very words) baffle me as to the reason so much time is spent returning to debunk those who do enjoy the topic? One of those mysteries in life, I suppose.

a reply to: waynos

If you think contrails may possibly be harmless, I apologize.

What is the point arguing if we believe the same thing? I illustrated all of my concerns in a post in this very thread. Read that if you're so interested in my opinions.

Okay?

a reply to: network dude

Things like this. A very good explanation of those pesky white lines in the sky. It sounds real good, until you ignore it completely and start fantasizing over "what if" scenarios.

Are you suggesting my eye witness accounts of what I saw over the Panhandle of Texas on more than one occasion were simple flights of fantasy?

To my personal beliefs and life experience, I saw abnormal behavior for what contrails are and what I saw day in and day out, literally for 15 straight years of driving a truck in the great outdoors. Living on it, in fact, so as to be in the outdoors or in sight of windows in 3 directions, pretty close to 24/7 when I wasn't sleeping.

That's the basis I believe I may have seen chemical dispersion by aircraft at altitude....as is termed to be a "chemtrail".

I actually find it rather insulting when people suggest my direct personal account may be ignorance or flights of fantasy. I'm an educated, middle aged American and have as much right to my belief of what I saw as one has to suggest what they were not there to see, could have been something far more routine and boring.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Which Chemtrail supporters ever have suggested contrails don't exist or aren't sometimes persistent?

How many threads are in this forum?

If you freely admit they may exist...then why the full press every time the topic comes up to repeat the same links, points, argument and positions in telling people what they've seen cannot be what they believe they've seen? Myself included, once again.

Well if you are telling me that in fact yes chemtrails exist I do expect evidence that shows it.

Now the reason you see the same debunker info is because they are just responding to the same old so called chemtrail evidence that is used as proof even after it has been debunked.

a reply to: network dude

Stating that a person is close minded because they don't believe a sky full of persistent contrails is harmless is...

BAD LOGIC

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000

Which Chemtrail supporters ever have suggested contrails don't exist or aren't sometimes persistent? There may well have been some, but I've not seen that position taken as any absolute.

Um, new here huh. Well, let me show you around a bit.

you forgot to put LOL at the end of your statement.

Those who don't believe the forum has a purpose (as some here have openly stated in those very words) baffle me as to the reason so much time is spent returning to debunk those who do enjoy the topic? One of those mysteries in life, I suppose.

So those who argue for contrails aren't allowed to just enjoy the discussion?

Are you just a step away from claiming we must be paid to post this much?

I mean this with all sincerity, I though you were better than that.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: network dude

Well, when one side willfully disregards facts, it's frustrating and quite impossible to have a normal discussion.

What facts are they willfully disregarding? Are they facts in the world of science or facts by your interpretation of what you understand to be applicable science to a given situation?

The facts that are disregarded by everyone I've seen are that contrails can persist and spread according to prevalent conditions, that they've been observed to do this throughout aviation history, that by it's very nature, commercial aviation cannot avoid creating grid patterns as part of its everyday normal operations and that the wholesale shift to high bypass turbofans coupled with the growth in traffic generally since the 1980's when these engines first began to be used across all classes of air transport are going to make trails far more common than they used to be.

Do you accept, or disregard those as simple facts?

That doesn't disprove chemtrails in any way, but if people could be bothered to learn and understand why they are facts and not theories, it would make them more discerning and make chemtrail discussions generally more worthwhile for us all IMHO.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

How many threads are in this forum?

Well if you are telling me that in fact yes chemtrails exist I do expect evidence that shows it.

How many threads are in our UFO forum? I would like evidence of that, too. It's got far more history as a theory w/o evidence than chemtrails and far more people believing what has never been shown to exist.

How many threads are in New World Order? Have we seen actual proof of an organized group holding power above the level of top world leaders? Nope.. not a shred to stand as such, beyond circumstantial evidence and proof by omission of explanation to events that must have one.

The logic that Chemtrails cannot exist because evidence of a theory has yet to surface is illogical and empty on the face of it. By that standard, almost no persistent conspiracy theory could hold to even be discussed without a standard of proof the very nature of conspiracy theory can never meet.