An Attempt to Debunk Chemtrails For Good

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT - shifting the goalposts again are we. Maybe you would have more credibility if you actually addressed the issue - in this case that the alleged story about chemtrails is actually about something else (anti radar chaff deployed in a military exercise which subsequent produced misleading return on weather radar) and the youtube version features deliberately false and misleading subtitles.

Who's the disinformationist here?

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT, you're doing it again, but this time you just stole from Ivan and didn't give him the credit.

Oh, and for GoldenFleece, that alleged 'mechanic' and his 'story' was on ATS some months ago and thoroughly debunked. Completely bogus.

reply to post by weedwhacker


It isn't Ivan's list. The site it is from encourages people to use it in the manner which both Ivan and myself have been doing. Nice try though.

So you and Essan are here - where is Oz?

We are all waiting to hear what evidence you'll dismiss next

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT, was on the other thread, waiting for Zeph to come back, because he has personal observations that should shed some light on the subject, and make me a believer.

edit....I'd like to add, by the way, this is OzWeatherman's thread. Some of us get wrongly accused of attempting to 'de-rail' chemtrail threads, but --- AHEM ---what are doing here, if not attempting to 'de-rail'??

[edit on 8/7/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by TruthTellist

I'm sure the inquistive mind could think of a lot of ways to use these resources

But how does this prove that for the past 50 odd years every meteorologist and atmospheric scientist in the world has been wrong and that why they have been studying are not normal contrails and cirrus clouds after all?

How does anyone of this falsify the theory that all we are seeing in the skies are normal contrails?

Surely there must be evidence empirical evidence ?

reply to post by weedwhacker


Nothing would make you a believer my friend, you could be sprayed out the plane and during the fall you'd be trying to debunk yourself

My observations are indeed personal and worth what they're worth. But I know them to be true. So I add my input to group mind: chemtrails are real and widescale spraying is going on. All you have to do to confirm it is keep an eye on the sky, it's so widespread now that sooner or later an unambiguous sighting will happen to anyone.

But you already know this weedwhacker, don't you? Same for Oz and Essan I imagine.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by Zepherian]

reply to post by Zepherian


Z, you saw spraying from an airplane you estimated to be between 3000 and 6000 feet. I ask where, and when and what type of airplane?

Surely that's not too personal?

edit....your last sentence is very cryptic...I already know what?



[edit on 8/7/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


You OzWeatherman and Essan appear to be paid disinformationists.

That is what you should know. That is why you have no credibility regardless of the credentials you 'allegedly' have.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

It isn't Ivan's list. The site it is from encourages people to use it in the manner which both Ivan and myself have been doing. Nice try though.

So you and Essan are here - where is Oz?

We are all waiting to hear what evidence you'll dismiss next

We're waiting for some evidence, preferably of an empirical nature, too dismiss All we've had so far is hearsay and vaguely circumstantial assertion.

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT (apologies to OZ for messing up your thread)...TT, you should re-read your own list of 25, because you're using one of them....(I don't have time to look them up). But, it's generally the last resort, accusing people who actually have experience and knowledge of being 'DISINFO'. That's probably the funniest of all.

'Paid'!!!! Ha Ha!

Ya know, ATS would kick anyone off so fast you wouldn't even notice, if they caught such an activity occuring on this site!

I am guilty of one thing...attempting to impart some knowledge, and deny ignorance. I waste too much of my free time....note 'free' time...doing this, because it's a passion. I also like to read the political and UFO pages too, but that's 'cause I have a lot of interests.

Does this satisfy you?

reply to post by weedwhacker


I don't want to give more data than I already have, sorry. I'm more interested in people taking my testimony, for what it's worth, than having to deal with the inevitable ad hoc debunking I would get for every little bit of additional data I provide.

If the situation repeats itself I will take and upload pictures and possibly some video, which would address the whole "proof" issue to the best of my ability, but untill then the story I provided will have to do.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You OzWeatherman and Essan appear to be paid disinformationists.

That is what you should know. That is why you have no credibility regardless of the credentials you 'allegedly' have.

This is rapidly turning into a flame war

Is there any chance you can offer something of substance to this discussion? Or are you just going to make ad hominem attacks on those who do try and make relevant contributions?

reply to post by weedwhacker


ATS wouldn't know if it's members were being paid.

Your passion is likely why you were picked for this job

reply to post by Zepherian


Well, respect for your decision. I believe I've survived quite a lot of ad hom attacks based on my writings, and I see no blood in the water....anyway, so be it.

May I suggest one possiblity, off the top of my head, for a jet 'spraying' at low altitudes....if it was a widebody jetliner, then it might have been dumping fuel, just after take-off, in order to return for landing due to some mechanical problem or emergency that prevented a continued flight to destination. Not all jetliners can 'dump' fuel. For instance the B757 cannot, the B767 can.

What you saw could be totally different, that's why I'm curious.

reply to post by weedwhacker


So you are going to dismiss what he saw as a jet dumping fuel?

How did I know you wouldn't agree with him? Perhaps you have displayed a pattern...

reply to post by TruthTellist


TT.....I asked a question of Zeph, I DID NOT DISMISS what he says he saw, I offered a suggestion. Let him answer! That way, he can debunk ME! See, I left myself wide open to ridicule, for his benefit.

Thanks for your concern.

reply to post by weedwhacker


See, this is what I was referring from you guys. All this nonsense ad hoc debunking. You're purposefully ignoring the fact that there were TWO jets, and making up a silly psuedo explanation in the hopes you can get the last word in and descredit the testimony.

The chances of two jets dumping fuel at the same time in the same place as close to nil, with all your claimed years of pilot experience you should know this. And what about the grid pattern? And what about the expanding trails which resulted in cloud cover? And what about the ash like substance coming down with the light rain? And what about ATC being very tight lipped and not identifying the aircraft? And what about the fact they came here, flew about yet didn't land, when this is the end of the line for european regional flights?

You have a complex testimony which you can't easily explain, so you chip away at it with nonsense, like a woodpecker at a tree. Please, do not waste my time. This can't be debunked, it was atmospheric spraying and, at the very least, weather manipulation.

I, as a tax paying citized of a democratic country, do not like my weather manipulated without being informed and without popular consent. And if it was more than that... well, sooner or later heads will roll.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

It isn't Ivan's list. The site it is from encourages people to use it in the manner which both Ivan and myself have been doing. Nice try though.

So you and Essan are here - where is Oz?

We are all waiting to hear what evidence you'll dismiss next

We're waiting for some evidence, preferably of an empirical nature, too dismiss

All we've had so far is hearsay and vaguely circumstantial assertion.

I wonder why people that are involved don't leak any evidence. It must be that the project is for noble purposes -- so they believe.