In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 3. Experiments in the Sky

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312
if those yelling chemtrails are real need to educate themselves as to what they are seeing...hence the word uneducated.

Nice circular argument. You might want to edit that while you still have time.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
If those people are so concerned why hasn't one of them made the effort to get a plane that is set up to test the so called chemtrails after they were sprayed?

You see the fact that nobody has done that yet just goes to show they aren't all that concerned. The only thing the top chemtrail pushers are interested in is how much money can they make off the gullible.

Simply even MORE effort to stigmatize anyone who could in some way be labelled a chemtrail conspiracy theorist. Moreover, the claim that chemtrailers are the ones who have the "burden of proof" for obtaining an air sample is a moot point already. It was covered in Part 5 and I'm not repeating it here. If clouds of aluminum were released as indicated by the video above, there's no need for an air sample.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
And because of that we have threads such as yours misrepresenting so called evidence to back their claims.

--Misrepresenting WHAT evidence that backs up WHAT claim?

a reply to: Petros312

What species of spider produces the particles and webs seen falling from the sky in the second video ABOVE?

Amazing what you can find if you just look...

Spiders sometimes fly. Not under their own power, of course, but by a process known as ballooning. Ballooning spiders hitch a ride on their silk as the breeze carries it. Spider silk floating on wind currents is known as gossamer. It has attracted attention for centuries. The word "gossamer" is an old English term, apparently based on a period of warm weather in November, known as goose summer. That was the time of year when geese were eaten. Late fall is also the time when ballooning spiders are most likely to be seen floating on the breeze.

www.agriculture.purdue.edu...-So

So does this look familiar...



As I said spiders.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

1. Does this mean the person who posted the videos is NOT a "chemtrailer?"

2. Does it somehow negate that the Air Force does NOT release clouds of aluminum chaff?

a reply to: Petros312

Nice circular argument. You might want to edit that while you still have time.

Why edit it, because you don't like the truth?

--Misrepresenting WHAT evidence that backs up WHAT claim?

Well let's just look at the last video you posted shall we...

You are presenting it as though it is the truth as to what he is saying, but when actual research is done we find the truth.

But that doesn't count right?

If clouds of aluminum were released as indicated by the video above, there's no need for an air sample.

Why is that, is aluminum the only thing in the air that could possibly do harm to people?

a reply to: Petros312

1. Does this mean the person who posted the videos is NOT a "chemtrailer?"

2. Does it somehow negate that the Air Force does NOT release clouds of aluminum chaff?

If he were not a chemtrailer then he wouldn't be posting videos claiming they exist now would he?

As for Chaff...you disregard anything that doesn't follow your ideas of what is really being done. And nobody is denying the military use Chaff and have been since WWII, but your trying to tie something that does exist and is well known for many years in with something that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312

If he were not a chemtrailer then he wouldn't be posting videos claiming they exist now would he?

Note disbelievers of all that I say, that above someone is saying a person who is NOT interested in a persistent contrail is a person who would still be called a "chemtrailer" (chemtrail conspiracy theorist). Very important.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312
As for Chaff...you disregard anything that doesn't follow your ideas of what is really being done. And nobody is denying the military use Chaff and have been since WWII, but your trying to tie something that does exist and is well known for many years in with something that doesn't exist.

Note that it is not ME who is "disregarding" that individuals who are concerned about something being sprayed into the sky that has nothing to do with a persistent contrail will still be called a "chemtrailer" (chemtrail conspiracy theorist).

My thanks.

It is not ME who is "trying to tie something that does exist and is well known" (though you disregard it is NOT disclosed to the public and is done without regulation or oversight) with something that does not exist. I am merely showing that a) experiments and testing that deploy clouds of aluminum take place without the public's awareness, and b) individuals who are labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" in one way or another are concerned about more than persistent contrails.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: mrthumpy
In reply to: Petros312
No they're not necessarily fixated on contrails. They'll seize upon anything in the sky they don't understand and try and tie it in with their conspiracy theory to prove themselves right.

You're overgeneralizing and continuing the trend to keep stigmatizing anyone who might be "uneducated" and suspected of being a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" for their concerns about what is being sprayed in the sky with no disclosure to the public.

No I'm just speaking from experience. Apparently anything in the sky that the chemtrail believers have no previous experience or knowledge of must be something new and can only be explained by chemtrails or HAARP

a reply to: Petros312

Note that it is not ME who is "disregarding" that individuals who are concerned about something being sprayed into the sky that has nothing to do with a persistent contrail will still be called a "chemtrailer" (chemtrail conspiracy theorist).

Let me clear this up...

When someone says something is chemtrails( whether it has to do with persistent contrails or not) they are a chemtrailer. And I brought up persistent contrails as that is the main thing being called a chemtrail.

It is not ME who is "trying to tie something that does exist and is well known" (though you disregard it is NOT disclosed to the public and is done without regulation or oversight) with something that does not exist.

You just ignore links and facts don't you, because as I showed you Chaff can be used in specific areas and at specific times as you were shown which is regulated by the FAA.

SO they in fact have to follow the rules that the FAA set forth for them to use Chaff, so why do you keep saying they are doing it without being regulated and without oversight when clearly they do?

Again this goes back to you misrepresenting something that isn't what your saying it is, or used for.

originally posted by: Petros312
It is not ME who is "trying to tie something that does exist and is well known" (though you disregard it is NOT disclosed to the public and is done without regulation or oversight) with something that does not exist. I am merely showing that a) experiments and testing that deploy clouds of aluminum take place without the public's awareness, and b) individuals who are labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" in one way or another are concerned about more than persistent contrails.

The only thing we "the ones labeled debunkers" are against is the obvious lies that keep being trotted out.

If someone is concerned with something other than contrails, like chaff, we try to explain what chaff is, and also explain why it's nothing to fear. If you did the research required to look intelligent, you would know that as well.

I think everyone here gives credence to Geo-engineering as a subject, but we do laugh at the chemtrail the theories as they are all based on lies. If you spent more time looking into what we say instead of HOW it was said, you'd know that as well.

Why don't you comment on #4? it was your best work yet. It's the only one where you showed a tiny bit of common sense on the issue.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Let me clear this up...

When someone says something is chemtrails( whether it has to do with persistent contrails or not) they are a chemtrailer.

You're verifying again that the people who get labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are indeed people who are NOT only concerned about what is a contrail, and I agree. This is important because many debunkers believe that chemtrail conspiracy theory itself SHOULD only be about contrails, but it's not the place of debunkers to say this at all particularly given many other valid concerns about open air testing of any kind done without the public's awareness. However, this time, you're saying anyone who simply uses the term "chemtrail" qualifies. That's news to me, is not represented by what I've read in popular sources like Wikipedia, and it would even apply to me (only an apologist for the people being called "chemtrail conspiracy theorists") even if I only demonstrated how the term "chemtrail" can apply in some ways to what is commonly called a "contrail" (See Contrail vs Chemtrail ).

On top of this, if the concerns of the people who are being labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" includes the activity of the military deploying aluminum coated fiberglass (and indeed it is), then when these people call this a "chemtrail" (and they have reason to) they are branded "conspiracy theorists" for something that is actually happening and that the military will not disclose details about to the public! Could these people be treated any more unfairly?

a reply to: Petros312

Maybe those concerned people should just call it 'chaff' then.

But what we see is that chemtrail people don't know what chaff is. They see pictures from radar scopes that indicate clouds of 'stuff' that to them looks like what they imagine a 'chemtrail' would look like. Hence they call it 'evidence' for 'chemtrails'. Trying to explain to these people that it's chaff from military jets is pointless, and will result in you being called a troll, paid shill, cointelpro or something along those lines.

Here are some sites where radar images of chaff are presented as 'chemtrails':

watchthesky.org...

youtu.be...

And here's an explanation of how chaff shows up on radar:

www.accuweather.com...

a reply to: Petros312

(See Contrail vs Chemtrail ).

Again it doesn't matter how many times you link to your own threads it doesn't make it the truth.

If your threads didn't prove anything the first time...they won't magically do it when you link back to them.