Perpetuating the "chemtrail" hoax

Originally posted by stavis
reply to post by adeclerk

 

who are we?

byebye! NOBODY BELIVES YOUR LIES

may god have mercy on your soul.

We as in the members of the board (the abovetopsecret.com board, of course), but why should I even try to argue this point with you? As evidenced by your posts in other threads, you have already been tricked by the "chemtrail" hoaxers, and since I don't have the same blind faith in "chemtrails" as you seem to have, you will always believe that I am a "disinfo" agent of some sort. Labeling others as "disinfo" agents is a convenient way to deny facts an evidence.

Originally posted by pagan_night
reply to post by adeclerk

 

I see.

I engage in conversation here on ATS to gain knowledge and "listen" to other peoples opinions. But I have to say, sometimes, there are people on here that are more into belittling people to make their case, than showing proof. Or make themselves seem more intelligent. Whatever the reason, it's rediculous.

At some point (especially in the "chemtrail" debate) you need to stop listening to opinions and do research to gain knowledge based on facts.

I am a student

reply to post by adeclerk


Ha! I knew it! Come on, fess up, it was an assignment to use the word 'hoax' as many times as you could in one paragraph, wasn't it? Or perhaps you just learned the word 'hoax' and are trying to commit it to memory by using it over and over?

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by newcovenant

 

This is not a debate on the existence of "chemtrails", so I would appreciate if you could answer my question about why the "chemtrail" myth continues to be perpetuated, and whom benefits from it.

To be absolutely certain (about anything) is dangerous.

ATS News 04: US Defense Contractor Owns Chemtrail Patent!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SaveTheWolves

I am a student

reply to post by adeclerk

 

Ha! I knew it! Come on, fess up, it was an assignment to use the word 'hoax' as many times as you could in one paragraph, wasn't it? Or perhaps you just learned the word 'hoax' and are trying to commit it to memory by using it over and over?

I am a University student not currently taking any writing or English classes (finished all of them). Now, please, do you have anything valuable to contribute to this thread (even opinion, don't be shy, we would love to hear what you have to say about the "chemtrail" hoax) or are you going to continue to try and derail the topic at hand?

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by newcovenant

 

This is not a debate on the existence of "chemtrails", so I would appreciate if you could answer my question about why the "chemtrail" myth continues to be perpetuated, and whom benefits from it.

To be absolutely certain (about anything) is dangerous.

ATS News 04: US Defense Contractor Owns Chemtrail Patent!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't have the time to view the 12 minutes of that video, could you please provide me a link to the U.S. Patent Office's copy of the "chemtrail" patent?

reply to post by adeclerk


This is the "patent". Sounds like documented cloud seeding to me.
www.willthomas.net...

Originally posted by topherman420
reply to post by adeclerk

 

This is the "patent". Sounds like documented cloud seeding to me.
www.willthomas.net...

No one has ever denied that cloud seeding exists, cloud seeding has been around since the 40s. Could you provide a link to the Patent offices copy of this patent?

I don't have the time to view the 12 minutes of that video

reply to post by adeclerk


You don't have time to do the research? Well that speaks volumes about how you form your opinions on things. Maybe if you actually took the time to look into chemtrails you would realize they aren't a hoax.

Originally posted by topherman420
reply to post by adeclerk

 

This is the "patent". Sounds like documented cloud seeding to me.
www.willthomas.net...

I saw absolutely nothing about cloud seeding in that, just two engineers getting an intellectual trademark for an idea they have.

There is a common misconception, that an Patent filing means that not only is something proven to work, but that it exists. Neither of those are true, you do not have prove at all something works, or even make whatever it is. Basically its sort of like saying "I have an idea, and I want the rights to it"

The original purpose of this thread is beneath me.

Chem trails aren't real for one reason and one reason alone. The government benefits from it's people being alive more than it would should thousands of it's citizens be poisoned slowly by passing aircraft. Also, if it's cold and humid you'll get chem trails. You know Cirrus clouds?



It's almost like they form around the same altitude as chem trails and for the same reasons.

reply to post by adeclerk


Don't waste your time on the video. It covers various topics....first 5 minutes are:

H1N1

Banning books

G-8 Summit meeting.

@5:20, the "geoengineering" topic is raised, and just focuses on an ATS member (AllSeeingI) and and his active thread, at the time the JohnnyAnonymous video was made. We've demolished the OP, in that thread, pointing out the same fallacies that you still see, today.

Patent# 5003186....aka the "Welsbach Patent" is well-known.

Still....it is ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE!!

And, just because a patent...ANY patent exists, doesn't mean that it is viable, or even possible. Patents are awarded merely for the idea...not the actual viability.....

reply to post by firepilot


Sorry but your response came off as a little defensive (gotta love the internet lol). It said cloud seeding (which we all can admit is happening and is not chemtrailing), im sorry if i got what they are doing and cloud seeding confused (i thought they used metallic particles for these things). And yes I quoted patent for a reason, because people automatically assume an idea is a patent (i bet theres anti gravity "patents" galore lol).

Originally posted by SaveTheWolves

I don't have the time to view the 12 minutes of that video

reply to post by adeclerk

 

You don't have time to do the research? Well that speaks volumes about how you form your opinions on things. Maybe if you actually took the time to look into chemtrails you would realize they aren't a hoax.

Watching a video is hardly "research", especially when it comes from a source that has practically no incentive to disprove the "chemtrail" myth (lest the conspiracy ceases to exist and less traffic to the site decreases and ad revenue is created). The burden of proof is on the claimant, but so far all I have seen from "chemtrailers" are a few patents showing that cloud seeding exists (which is not disputed).

I find it extremely odd that a college student doesn't know how to do his own research but here are a few patents for you to look into.

reply to post by adeclerk

Chemtrail Patents: Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere United States Patent 4,686,605 / Eastlund / August 11, 1987

Method of modifying weather United States Patent 6,315,213 / Cordani / November 13, 2001

Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying United States Patent / 4,948,050 / Picot / August 14, 1990

Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin United States Patent / 5,286,979 / Berliner / February 15, 1994

Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids United States Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / November 1, 1983

ROCKET HAVING BARIUM RELEASE SYSTEM TO CREATE ION CLOUDS IN THE UPPER ATMOSPHERE United States Patent: - US3813875 / Issued/Filed Dates: June 4, 1974 / April 28, 1972

reply to post by adeclerk


Research comes in many forms. Are you sure you're really a college student?

reply to post by SaveTheWolves


A College professor wouldn't take a video from ATS as a source for a research paper, so you should realize that anyone who is even remotely academically inclined would not consider a video on the internet (with no sources) as an acceptable standard of "proof" or "evidence".

A College professor wouldn't take a video from ATS as a source for a research paper, so you should realize that anyone who is even remotely academically inclined would not consider a video on the internet (with no sources) as "proof" or "evidence".

reply to post by adeclerk


It's not proof in and of itself but it feeds into the whole. Right now I'm having trouble believing you're even a college student. You seem completely inept when it comes to research. Do you have your professors give you links for your research? Is that how they do it in college these days?

Originally posted by SaveTheWolves

A College professor wouldn't take a video from ATS as a source for a research paper, so you should realize that anyone who is even remotely academically inclined would not consider a video on the internet (with no sources) as "proof" or "evidence".

reply to post by adeclerk

 

It's not proof in and of itself but it feeds into the whole. Right now I'm having trouble believing you're even a college student. You seem completely inept when it comes to research. Do you have your professors give you links for your research? Is that how they do it in college these days?

I forgot, individual "chemtrail" evidence on it's own isn't evidence, but taken all together it is proof of "chemtrailing".
All you've shown me are some patents, if these patents were being used in the way described, surely there would be some evidence (in the form of chemicals present in air tests, etc), can you explain to me why none of this evidence exists?