Chemtrail Debunkers....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well I have to say I appreciate the time and effort you put into that post and it is refreshing to see that you take the time to read my post and your answers have merit but 2 point's I would like to make here.
You wanted prof of chemical warfare being used in the WW2 you really should look at a history book sometimes because unless you are one of the few people that say's the holocaust didn't happen that's all the prof you need.
correct me if I'm wrong but Zyklon B, a brand name for a form of Hydrogen Cyanide sounds like a chemical weapon to me also if you do some research on the Japanese experiment's carried out in china.
Now as we are the side that won the war [allies] we got to write the history therefore if we had used such weapons the history book's would exclude it.
My second point I would like to make is that you said that the internet is as reliable as a hardcopy [book] and i have to question your logic there .
1. Any writer will tell you that to write a book of fiction is easy but to have your book published as fact it has to be factual.
2. Once the book is published and on the shelve the information contained within can not be edited or changed.
3.Now with the internet anything that is posted can be edited by anyone at any time so therefore is unreliable so how you can compare hardcopy's [books] to the internet and state that they are both reliable is just stupid.
4.The reason behind that comment about the internet being unreliable came about when member's here would discredit any internet source I would use to validate my argument as unreliable even though they could use any internet source to back up there argument and expect me to take it as fact.
So in affect they enlightened me to the major flaw of the internet as a source of reliable information as if it can be edited at anytime.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You wanted prof of chemical warfare being used in the WW2 you really should look at a history book sometimes because unless you are one of the few people that say's the holocaust didn't happen that's all the prof you need.
correct me if I'm wrong but Zyklon B, a brand name for a form of Hydrogen Cyanide sounds like a chemical weapon to me also if you do some research on the Japanese experiment's carried out in china.

are you suggesting those are linked to B-17 contrails??

I can't see how that would be the case, and that is the context you suggested chemical warfare, so it is the context I was discussing.

My second point I would like to make is that you said that the internet is as reliable as a hardcopy [book]

nope I did not say that.

I said that a piece of information is as reliable as it is regardless of how it is published.

If it is rubbish then publishing it does not make it more relaible, and if it is reliable then leaving it in electronic format does not make it less reliable.

and i have to question your logic there .
1. Any writer will tell you that to write a book of fiction is easy but to have your book published as fact it has to be factual.
2. Once the book is published and on the shelve the information contained within can not be edited or changed.
3.Now with the internet anything that is posted can be edited by anyone at any time so therefore is unreliable so how you can compare hardcopy's [books] to the internet and state that they are both reliable is just stupid.

which is not what I said

4.The reason behind that comment about the internet being unreliable came about when member's here would discredit any internet source I would use to validate my argument as unreliable even though they could use any internet source to back up there argument and expect me to take it as fact.

I am pretty sure they do nto rubbish it because of the source - they rubbish it because of the content.

Also it is certainly easy to write somethign on teh 'net and not back it up with verifiable evidence from credible sources.

But, for example, for all the effort that went into making the "What in the world are they spraying" DVD it completely fails to provide verifiable evidence too.

So going to an effort to produce hard copy is simply no indication of the veracity of the information contained in it.

there were plenty of hoaxes long before the 'net came along - in many respects the 'net makes it harder to perpetrate an information hoax because so much good information is available to anyone.

It is truly a PITA that you have to check every bit of info, FROM EVERY SOURCE, regardless.......

So in affect they enlightened me to the major flaw of the internet as a source of reliable information as if it can be edited at anytime.

Which has the "up" side that it can also be corrected if it is found to be wrong - which is what good information will do.

However things like scientific papers are also published in journals and made available for peer review - so the "fact" that they are on the 'net is pretty much irrelevant.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I would firstly like to say that I haven't watched the what the hell are they spraying vid so I cannot discuss what's in it the reason for this is that I know that all the contrailer's have already discredited it as unreliable so I would rather spend my time looking for fresh evidence.
As to your comment about me taking it out of context in the chemical weapons point.
Quote:What is the evidence that anyone was exposed to chemical warfare?
Therefore I answered that question.
If something can be edited it is not reliable you can argue that it's an up but in truth its not after all how easy is it to change something some one else has written because you don't want that information available.

Quote:I said that a piece of information is as reliable as it is regardless of how it is published.

1. Any writer will tell you that to write a book of fiction is easy but to have your book published as fact it has to be factual.
so I have told you why a book published as fact is more reliable than anything on the internet.

reply to post by djcarlosa

the cost of a chemtrail's program would be to expensive 100 mill dollar's a year is chump change to any western government also I would like to point out that the main cost is the means to undertake the operation to spray and not the material's themselves so in affect you could change the materials you use without increasing the overall cost by to much.

OK. 1st, I haven't seen anyone calculate any costs here.
What do you calculate the costs to be? Please itemize.

2nd, which materials are you referring to? Specify.

3rd, which alternatives are you referring to,and what are the cost differences?

Please elaborate.

Secondly the other answer that you couldn't undertake a program like this including so many country's governments cooperating was also addressed in that report along with the reason's why such a program would be implemented.

More generalities offered as ... what?

1. Which countries are participating?
2. What is the extent of the participation?
3. Do they share the same objectives? (What are the objectives, anyway? Climate manipulation or murder?)
4. What reasons do you propose are there for past and present implementation?

So although this dose not prove in anyway that a chemtrail's program is in use it dose at the very least show that it is a possibility

That is a tautology: Anything is possible!

and it was my hope that it would stop the closed mindedness i so often find in rival's like yourself

"Chemtrail"ers need to wake up and realize that it is not an issue of "closed-minded"ness; it is the frank observation that you have no ability to back up your belief with simple facts.

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by jdub297


Matty linked to some articles on the costs - I'll see if I can find them and cope the links.

Edit:

Here's a video from David Keith that Matty linked to - I did watch it & don't have time to review it now, but IIRC it compares the cost of SRM to US health care - cheap at the price!



Despite Matty posting it as "evidence" of chemtrails, he's arguing that this programme should proceed - not that it's already happening......which is par for chemtrail "evidence" of course...

He's a well known climate scientist & his papers can be downloaded from here

Somewhere I'm sure somone provided a link to a study of how many a/c it would take to make a SRM programme with aerial dispersal - how much material would have to be "sprayed", how much it would cost, etc.
I haven't been able to find it tho

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

who are you tryng to kid here? how am i or any body else going to get funding for chemtrail research from TCOTBIP? sure, make me waste my hard earned money, nice little tactic there.

Gave up without even starting? As with any social advocacy, you start with a fundraiser. Ask fellow "chemtrail"ers to contribute to a fund. Open a bank account; your parents will show you how.

Devote a website or blog to "The Science of Chemtrails," and use it to fund and post research, instead of anecdotes and speculation.

You could even set up sub-topics, such as the materials used, means of delivery, efficacy as delivered, sponsors and perpetrators, results and objectives sought, avoidance, self-protection, mitigation, et c.

Use a separate page/chapter for each hypothesis. Climate? Poison? Mind-control? Enrichment? There's no limit, just as there's no limit to the incoherent rants and hysteria.

i am on record re my Hypothesis concerning CT's and none of you contrailers have ever responded to my allegations

I have not seen your hypothesis. Would you mind re-stating it, please? You could just point me to them if you would prefer. What is the link to your post?

I have not seen your allegations, either. Would you mind pointing me to them? What is the link to your post?

jw

reply to post by jdub297


The calculations where already done as to the cost for all the methods that could be used to reduce climate change so that the report [which I posted the link to earlier]could be put forward to the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008.
www.cfr.org...
How they worked out those cost's is not present in that report but I very much doubt that no calculations were done and that they just plucked a figure out of the air.
as for my comment that the materials[chemical's,aerosols]would only be a very small part of the cost is just common sense especially as most government's have these resources and wouldn't need to import them.
The major part of the cost would be the planes there maintenance there adaptation to be used to spray, the fuel, pilots wages [which would be quite high after all if you don't want them to talk then you've got to pay more]
Storage facility's and airfields away from prying eyes.
now as I said the information for how they calculated the cost was not there so I cannot answer that question factually.
As for what they are spraying again I can not say factually [I can quote what other's have said they are spraying] because I lack the means to get a sample from the source but that may change if I can get hold of an old friend who owes me a favour.
Therefore I will not answer that question because I am a great believer in saying you don't know the answer rather than give a statement I would know to be false.
Another side point I would like to make is something I noticed in a film my son was watching the other day it was Disney's cars and in one part where they have there race through the dessert there are what you would call persistent contrails criss crossing the sky line.
Now I have to say that was rather strange why would they put these thing's in a cartoon for kid's?
I've never noticed them in any of there previous cartoon films just normal blue sky with an occasional white cloud so why now.
The only reason I can think of is that want the kids of today to think that they are normal to see in the sky so why would you need to make kids think something is normal if it is normal

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by jdub297

 

The calculations where already done as to the cost for all the methods that could be used to reduce climate change so that the report [which I posted the link to earlier]could be put forward to the Council on Foreign Relations
Washington DC, May 05, 2008.

Hang on - you jsut told us all how stuff on the 'net is unreliable - so why do you believe it??!!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by jdub297

 

Matty linked to some articles on the costs - I'll see if I can find them and cope the links.
Here's a video from David Keith that Matty linked to - I did watch it & don't have time to review it now, but IIRC it compares the cost of SRM to US health care - cheap at the price!

Thanks for the trouble, but all Mat does is cut and paste without analysis. I've never seen anyone post what the actual costs of this are or why they would be prohibitive. Mr. Carlosa seems to suggest that as one reason for "chemtrails" to be true, not just possible.

I'm thoroughly aware of the aerosol mitigation proposals for AGW. They do not apply.
I need numbers.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Because the member's here that like to discredit everything I post have agreed that this report in there eye's is a reliable source of information.
Also I noticed you side tracked the other issue in that post maybe you would like to give me your thoughts on that?

reply to post by djcarlosa


Pause the picture - the contrails in "Cars" are in the shape of tyre tracks........can you explain what you think the problem is with them more clearly??

Debunk page on contrails in movies

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

5- patently false i am on record re my Hypothesis concerning CT's and none of you contrailers have ever responded to my allegations or if you have you avoid a straight answer to my questions.

Where is this hypothesis? I looked at your posts in this thread and I see none.

Contrails do not Exist!!! Prove me wrong!

Is this your hypothesis? Because if it is, it is not a hypothesis, it is a claim, an extraordinary one at that, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Contrails have been observed and studied for 80+ years, and ARE a recognized phenomenon amongst the scientific community.

YOU are making the claim that they do not exist, therefor the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove that they do not exist.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.

burden of proof

When forming an hypothesis a scientist must prove his case by inductive reasoning, that is to say he must offer proof by means of properly performed experiments.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by jdub297

 

The calculations where already done as to the cost for all the methods that could be used to reduce climate change so that the report [which I posted the link to earlier]could be put forward to the Council on Foreign Relations

No. The cost of using sulfur aerosols to mitigate AGW would not be the same as they are different projects with different purposes. They want to keep the aerosols aloft in the stratosphere, not poison the soil or make it rain. The "chemtrail" advocates are screaming about things that are affecting them now. On the ground.
Using a proposed AGW project isays nothing about present day "chemtrails."

That is just more of the word salad. Moreover, they are not doing it now, they are future projections.

What are your concrete beliefs about what you presently are afraid of?

as for my comment that the materials[chemical's,aerosols]would only be a very small part of the cost is just common sense especially as most government's have these resources and wouldn't need to import them.

What resources? Import what? Which chemicals? What quantities? Which governments? Are you saying the cost of aluminum oxide (for example) in Washington, D.C. is the same as it is in Tel Aviv, Israel (for example)?

The major part of the cost would be the planes there maintenance there adaptation to be used to spray, the fuel, pilots wages [which would be quite high after all if you don't want them to talk then you've got to pay more]

If these are government planes, crews, et c., why would there be any cost difference? Or any cost at all? If, as some contend, they've done it before, why would they need to adapt anything? Which planes: turbo prop, jet, single engine, multi-engine, ceiling, range, capacity. You've seen it with your own eyes. Be specific, please.

Why would you have to pay them more? If the goal is to murder civilians, then why not just murder the crew, too?

Don't "chemtrail"ers argue that the government has abused its soldiers in the past with chemicals? Isn't part of your "evidence" that "they've done it in the past, therefore it is possible they are doing it now?" So, why would the manpower be a concern?

Storage facility's and airfields away from prying eyes.

Most military bases are only limited-access; civilians cannot just wander about and drive over to the hangers or the tarmac. I lived and own property less than 5 miles from one of the largest arms depots in the country. Storage is NOT a problem.

how they calculated the cost was not there so I cannot answer that question factually.

Again, their costs do not matter; apples and aluminum. How do YOU, or your brethren/sisters calculate costs?

As for what they are spraying again I can not say factually ... because I lack the means to get a sample from the source but that may change if I can get hold of an old friend who owes me a favour.

You already have samples.
Do you need the names of 10 independent reference labs (you should use more than one, for comparison and control)? A simple water analysis for particulates and adulterants will cost less than $100, especially if you promise to have them do ALL your testing and publish their names along with your results.

Now I have to say that was rather strange why would they put these thing's in a cartoon for kid's?
I've never noticed them in any of there previous cartoon films just normal blue sky with an occasional white cloud so why now. The only reason I can think of is that want the kids of today to think that they are normal to see in the sky so why would you need to make kids think something is normal if it is normal

Why don't you ask Disney/Pixar? Are you seriously including cartoons among your "evidence?" I saw Rango eat a cigar, drink cactus juice and steal water. Is it your position that including an image in a movie is advocating that conduct, or de-sensitizing/inoculating the audience to it?

I really don't need to hear you tell us what other people did or didn't do.

What is your hypothesis?

jw

Click here for more information.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

Contrails do not Exist!!! Prove me wrong! by DerepentLeStranger a Denial of Ignorance- wherein the contrail conspiracy is unmasked, a proposal for an experiment is provided, and the IHM is short-circuited to the dismay of it's Con-trollers

Contrails do not exist?.......you do know that water freezes at more than -60c don't you?.........I take it you also know that jet engine exhausts contain moisture (water) don't you?..................I am also assuming that you know how cirrus clouds form at heights of 30-36,000 feet don't you?

If you want to prove the existence of chemtrails, post some air analysis results, some soil analysis results, some analysis pertaining to areas (you choose) where the populous are are being poisoned, increases in cancer cases, increases in respiratory diseases........anything!

You have been shown how contrails form, why they form, and why on occasions they can linger for many hours, now you go for it!

p.s
I wonder what people thought cirrus clouds were 200 years ago?

[snip--removed Off Topic Quote]

Gloomy do you realise what you just posted here??

You have jsut said that there's not actually any room for facts, logic or evidence - you just got to "believe in chemtrails in the first place"!!??

[SNIP--Removed Off Topic Content]
Really??

You do the conspiracy of "chemtrails" a wonderful service my friend!

Interestingly, there is a thread here discussing the "credibility" of the so called debunkers, It would be interesting to see the "chemmies" view on the credibility of your post.