"Chemtrail" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?

Just browsing through this forum I've seen that there are dozens of competing theories about "who, what, how and why" as they are related to chemtrails.

You can not ALL be correct, but you can prove each other is wrong: I can take member "A"'s theory and use it to show member "B" must be wrong, and vice versa.

Why can't any of the strongest chemtrail advocares frame a simple hypothetical statement that sets forth:

1. WHO is behind this (examples - TPTB, the Dept. of Agriculture/FDA, the US military, NWO, scientists, Battelle, et c.)

2. WHAT they are using (ex. - military aircraft, airliners, private planes, rockets, et c.)

3. WHAT substance is being sprayed (ex. - barium, aluminum, sulfur, smoke, chaff, filaments, drugs, pathogens, et c.)

4. HOW they are doing this (ex. - mixed in jet fuel, from tanks, in cloud seeding substances, in rocket fuel, et c.)

5. WHY they are doing it (ex. - to kill people, to poison crops, to hide Nibiru, to alter minds, to change weather, et c.)

6. WHERE it is (ex. - US, industrial nations, worldwide, Atlanta, the Midwest, et c.)

7. RESULTS that have been documented (ex. - death, poison food, dumb people, warm weather, cold weather, et c.)

Every one of these examples, and more, have been cited; many by the same person, at various times.

Some are inherently inconsistent. They cannot ALL be correct.

So please, tell us in a simple statement what YOUR hypothesis is.

jw

Can we, for extra fun, also set a rule that debunkers can only use statements from other chemtrailers as their source?

Its like what I was doing with young earth creationists about ten years ago. Every argument put forward could be torn apart by using only statements from other young earth creationists.

Originally posted by jdub297
Just browsing through this forum I've seen that there are dozens of competing theories about "who, what, how and why" as they are related to chemtrails.

You can not ALL be correct, but you can prove each other is wrong: I can take member "A"'s theory and use it to show member "B" must be wrong, and vice versa.

Yeah, awesome dude. Instead of just letting the individual threads you mention simply do the job their respective OP's intended, You'd rather create another bickerfest just to satisfy yourself.

Top stuff.

So please, enlightened ones, tell me in a simple statement what YOUR hypothesis is.

My guess is that if more than one of you even dare to respond, your answers will be inconsistent and contradictory.

My guess is that you are bored and rather intent on atagonizing members just for the sake of it.
After all, you have already said this:

Originally posted by jdub297
Just browsing through this forum I've seen that there are dozens of competing theories about "who, what, how and why" as they are related to chemtrails.

I will take your silence as a tacit admission that you do not have any idea.. I will accept your combination of any or all of the above also as an admission that you have no idea.

jw

Maybe the silence will be the result of members spotting a useless thread started by a troll.

So far this film is the only source I've found info from that actually gets my spidey-sense tingling. They point to the use of certain particulate mixtures being used for geo-engineering purposes. They use footage from a geo-engineering seminar in which the speaker affirms at least the possibility of using this technology in the near future, but water samples obtained from snow at Mt. Shasta show evidence that the technology of which he speaks looks to already be in use.

I'm a skeptic, but this doc really gave weight to the subject for me. I seriously recommend watching, if you have not already. It's intriguing at least.

Heres the full length film called What in the "World Are They Spraying?": www.youtube.com...

reply to post by shenanigans


Film "What in the World..." long ago shown to be a pile of bunk.

It is a clever scam....by those who either innocently "believe" in the "chem"-trail hoax, or know it's a sham, and just promote the silliness for ulterior motives......

Here is a document about geo-engineering from the Council on Foreign Relations website:

www.cfr.org...

I think that this document, and its source, lend credence to the geo-engineering hypothesis. Although this hypothesis obviously isn't my own, it seems a logical one (given all of the recent global-warming concerns).

How do you like them apples, "scholar"?

reply to post by atlasastro

Yeah, awesome dude. Instead of just letting the individual threads you mention simply do the job their respective OP's intended, You'd rather create another bickerfest just to satisfy yourself.

A. I've asked several for a hypothesis, and not one responded in those individual threads.
B. Those threads cannot be reconciled with each other.
C. If you believe, you dhould be able to state what you believe.
D. I want to tie each one to his or her or their own theories for further discussion of their specific theory.

Top stuff

I know; but thanks for the affirmation..

My guess is that you are bored and rather intent on atagonizing members just for the sake of it.

Why would anyone be antagonized by stating and discussing PRECISELY what they believe?

After all, you have already said this:
Originally posted by jdub297
Just browsing through this forum I've seen that there are dozens of competing theories about "who, what, how and why" as they are related to chemtrails.

It is true. Let's see whose is best or most plausible. Any "theory" should be freely tested and examined, why not theirs?

Maybe the silence will be the result of members spotting a useless thread started by a troll

On the other hand, It could be an admission that their "theories" are trolling, in most peoples' opinions.

Why don't we look at yours?

jw

just because some one disagrees with you
does not mean they are wrong
any subject or issue can be won
or lost by either side

the side that resorts to names
rudeness childishness
and trying to use
catchy insulting generalized
group titles to describe
your opponent
usually is baseless
personally insecure
factless
and above all and
most pathetic and telling
willingly deceived

ignorance reigns in the land of
confusion and lies

Originally posted by Bentenheimer
Here is a document about geo-engineering from the Council on Foreign Relations website:

www.cfr.org...

I think that this document, and its source, lend credence to the geo-engineering hypothesis. Although this hypothesis obviously isn't my own, it seems a logical one (given all of the recent global-warming concerns).

How do you like them apples, "scholar"?

The CFR are discussing FUTURE possibilities and CONTROLS for it. It is NOT a hypothesis for present-day chemtrails. Anyone who has read the documents and supporting studies KNOWS that such applications would NOT be visible from the ground, and would not result in "chemtrails."

How's those apples?
Want to try again to use your own words, or do you not understand what they are discussing?

jw

reply to post by Truther9111776

just because some one disagrees with you does not mean they are wrong any subject or issue can be won
or lost by either side the side that resorts to names rudeness childishness and trying to use catchy insulting generalized group titles to describe your opponent usually is baseless personally insecure factless and above all and
most pathetic and telling willingly deceived ignorance reigns in the land of confusion and lies

That is mostly true, and describes the conduct of many "chemtrail" advocates.

Did you have a theory of your own?

Originally posted by shenanigans
I'm a skeptic, but this doc really gave weight to the subject for me. I seriously recommend watching, if you have not already. It's intriguing at least.

Heres the full length film called What in the "World Are They Spraying?": www.youtube.com...

That YouTube video was completely discussed and discredited here:

What are they spraying?

Have you evaluated any of the assertions yourself, or are you willing to accept what you see on TV as the truth?

jw

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by shenanigans

 

Film "What in the World..." long ago shown to be a pile of bunk.

It is a clever scam....by those who either innocently "believe" in the "chem"-trail hoax, or know it's a sham, and just promote the silliness for ulterior motives......

OK, well that's the equivalent of replying to the assertion that the sky is blue with "no it isn't." Can you provide me to some sources that verify this movie's claims are false? I'm genuinely interested in anything that refutes their presentation. Like I said, I'm no avid believer, but they presented me with more information than you did....

reply to post by shenanigans

Let me sum up:
Aluminum is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. None of the substances they claim they found are out of the ordinary. Nothing they found ties the presence of anything found to aerial spraying.
You don't need a "source" for this, you learned this in school..

A more thorough discussion appears in the very first post in this thread:
What are they spraying?

Just because it's on TV does not make it real. You can look up any of the necessary information yourself if you consider each assertion on its own.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Thank you for providing me with a link Jdub. No need to get snarky with me though. This happens to be a subject that I haven't been quite as interested in, and thus, haven't really put an effort into researching. Hence, why I state that it merely appeared to be an interesting presentation.

In the interest of actually educating those around you and creating a better forum for discussion, I think it's worth noting that insulting someone's intelligence (especially when you don't know said person) is a poor strategy when trying to make your point. The whole honey and vinegar bit, ya dig? Could have just pointed me along without the insinuations

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by shenanigans

 

Film "What in the World..." long ago shown to be a pile of bunk.

It is a clever scam....by those who either innocently "believe" in the "chem"-trail hoax, or know it's a sham, and just promote the silliness for ulterior motives......

HAHA... the lucidity of your statements never cease to amaze me WW.

And NO it has not been "shown to be a pile of bunk" .... I love how you make this crap up

Really???? it's a "clever scam" are you serious man? These people are genuine about it and are still finding answers unlike you. ..... cause you know.... people just want to go around wasting alot of time and resources on trying to inform people of the truth .... ya that's "silliness"

reply to post by dplum517


It's been easily debunked - contrailscience.com...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by dplum517

 

It's been easily debunked - contrailscience.com...

sorry buddy...... contrailscience hasn't debunked anything...

You are just victim to a simple propaganda tool..... so sad

Kudos to you jdub for trying this, but you cant teach these guys anything. They know nothing about the upper workings of the atmosphere or the simple chemistry and physics behind the science of persistent contrails, and everytime you try to teach them, they simply cry "disinfo agent".

Thats why I dont even bother with ATS anymore, too many people that are paranoid, and , too many that refuse to use logic. Oh well, back to launching my weather balloons and monitoring the upper troposphere

reply to post by OzWeatherman


you assume
while hoping others trust

if done with some thing
why persist in doing it

is this not
the definition of insanity

reply to post by weedwhacker

reply to post by shenanigans Film "What in the World..." long ago shown to be a pile of bunk. It is a clever scam....by those who either innocently "believe" in the "chem"-trail hoax, or know it's a sham, and just promote the silliness for ulterior motives......

Is that a fact? I think you are a little naive here.