Its happend before, so why not now?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

The barium releases are in the ionosphere.
www.w7ftt.net...
skywatcherobservatory.com...

The first photo discription say in the ionosphere but the second photo desciption say the testing was in the " atmosphere to observe how it reacted with the atmosphere at varying altitudes, and how & which way it would disperse."

I must note the second photo shows a obvious trail and I wished we had time lasped photo's to see its full spread.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

The second caption is from an individual who was not aware of what the experiments were about. The ionosphere, BTW, is part of the atmosphere.

reply to post by Phage


Clearly two differnet results in the two photo's which implies they were two different experiments.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Different experiments. Yes. As the captions say; one is on the east coast in 1968, the other is in California in 1975.

There were a number of such tests in the late 1960's through the 70's. They've also been done more recently. All of them for ionospheric research. Notice how the tests were at night? Notice how the clouds glow?
www.agu.org...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Different experiments. Yes. As the captions say; one is on the east coast in 1968, the other is in California in 1975.

There were a number of such tests in the late 1960's through the 70's. They've also been done more recently. All of them for ionospheric research. Notice how the tests were at night? Notice how the clouds glow?
www.agu.org...

edit on 6/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I noticed and like I said the second photo resembles a contrail minus the glowing green.

I wish we had photo's of how the second pick spread and dissapated.

reply to post by FreeSpeaker

Not like any contrail I've ever seen.

The barium is ionized by UV from the Sun. The cloud is dispersed at a high enough altitude to be out of Earth's shadow.

reply to post by Phage


If search for "barium clouds" on wiki you get 2 quite different sorts of picture in the results - one is night time shots of glowing masses....the other is various "normal" clouds identified as "barium clouds" by chemmies - the dichotomy is quite marked!!

Google search for Barium Cloud images

Originally posted by bsbray11


It's simply on whoever is making the claim.

Okay, now that I've gotten you to say it, imagine the fallacy. You are claiming that there is such a thing as 'chemtrails' without any evidence. That's the fallacy part of the burden of proof, in this case.

reply to post by adeclerk


Nah - you missed his point - apparently it is "us debunkers" who claim that chemtrails dont' exist, therefore it is us who have to prove that they don't.

Never mind that all the people who claim they do exist (in order for anyone to say otehrwise) have never proved the original claim.

And never mind that what anyone actually means is "there's no known evidence that chemtails exist" (by whch I mean the common meaning of chemtrails, not BS's self-serving trivial and pointless one that includes everything ever put into eth atmosphere from an aircraft), and which can be trivially debunked by simply showing some evidence that they do - just 1 piece of verifiable evidence...anything - a plane with nozzles that shouldn't have nozles, a credible eye witness, some bills of lading for mysterious chemicals that can't be explained, some verifiable samples clearly linked to "spraying", etc.

No never mind that teh whole thing STARTS with a claim that chemtrails exist - there is no need for him to prove that, because someone has subsequently said "Oh really?" - so it is up to them to prove their doubt...not for the original claim to be proved in the first instance.

Oh and of course BS never actually claims that chemtrails exist anyway - he's quite careful (as far as I have noticed) not to do so - he asks pointed questions - most rabidly recently "how can you tell contrails from chemtrails?"

And he then weasles around when it's pointed out that something that isn't known to exist is automatically differnt looking to somethign that is known to exist......saying that that is a claim that chemtrails dont' exist and therefore "we" have to prove they don't exist.

i've seen the tactic before - never claim chemtails exist, then try to say that the claim is that they do not exist - it's a combination of Begging the Question and Argument from ignorance.


did I miss anything??

Yeah, there's a false symmetry in the argument here. Partly from a misuse on both sides of "you can't prove a negative".

(And by proof here, I mean the looser standard or irrefutable and convincing evidence, not some abstract mathematical proof)

The problem with a "negative" in logic is that it's just the opposite of a statement, and many statements have negatives that are very easy to prove. Such as "Water is a metal"/"Water is not a metal" - you can actually prove water is not a metal.

For that reason, I think the phrase "you can't prove a negative" should be avoided, and you should more clear try to say what the situation is. More like:

"You can't prove something doesn't exist."

Even that's not specific enough for the pedants, because you CAN prove some thing does not exist if you also specify the time and place, and have sufficient access to that time and place. Such as "a 2-ton elephant in the room, right now", which can be reasonably proven by looking around the room.

So really it's more like

"you can't prove that something never existed somewhere"

So asking someone to prove that chemtrails do not exist, or that orgone does not work, is just silly. It obviously can't be proven, as you can't examine every single contrail, nor can you be present every single time and place the orgone has claimed to have worked, or will in the future. It's impossible, even if they don't exist, there's no way of demonstrating it.

But you CAN prove that chemtrails DO exist (if they do). You can proved that orgone DOES work (if it does). For the same reason you can prove unicorns exist. All you have to do is find ONE.

That's why it's not a symmetrical argument. If you claim something exists, then the burden of proof is not simply on you because you are making the claim, it's on you because PROVING something is trivial. DISPROVING something is impossible.

You can't prove that something never existed somewhere

But you can demonstrate that there's no evidence to suggest that it did. You can debunk.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
And never mind that what anyone actually means is "there's no known evidence that chemtails exist" (by whch I mean the common meaning of chemtrails, not BS's self-serving trivial and pointless one that includes everything ever put into eth atmosphere from an aircraft), and which can be trivially debunked by simply showing some evidence that they do - just 1 piece of verifiable evidence...anything - a plane with nozzles that shouldn't have nozles, a credible eye witness, some bills of lading for mysterious chemicals that can't be explained, some verifiable samples clearly linked to "spraying", etc.

The chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials.

Wiki

Secret Army Chemical Tests Did Not Harm Health, Report Says
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: May 15, 1997

The spraying of a potentially toxic chemical in several cities in Army tests in the 1950's and 60's apparently had no adverse health effects, a National Research Council committee said today.

The New York Times

So here we have undisputible evidence of a " clandestine program directed by government " against the general public by spraying chemicals on them. Seeing as how this was testing for bio warfare can we safely assume the US army would have tested results from many altitudes high and low?

So really guys, how can you say chemtrails don't exist? Look at the wiki definition and tell me how operation LAC doesn't fit the bill for using chemtrails? If I produced a picture of a chemtrail from 1960 would you discard it because that evidence is 50 years old?

Originally posted by Uncinus
You can't prove that something never existed somewhere. But you can demonstrate that there's no evidence to suggest that it did. You can debunk.

I have proven chemtrails have existed, exactly as the wiki definition defines it, and you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. Does something suddenly cease to exist after not being seen for 50 years? I'm in no way saying all the photo's of contrails are anything but actual contrails, i'm just saying chemtrails have existed and the technology also exists therefore chemtrails are real.

What we can't be sure of is are they still being used and for what purpose?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Did you miss this part?

Secret Army Chemical Tests Did Not Harm Health, Report Says

What about this part? I bolded the key words so you can better understand.

The spraying of a potentially toxic chemical in several cities in Army tests in the 1950's and 60's apparently had no adverse health effects, a National Research Council committee said today.

I would be satisfied if you produced a picture of a "chemtrail" from any era. You can't, no one has ever seen a definitive "chemtrail".

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


Can you provide proof with WIKI,that a large scale operation is being facilitated on the world? For all those who believe in a wide scale program,I give you exhibit A:




Not so nefarious. In plain sight.

You SO want to believe AIRCRAFT are involved with ONLY dumping chemicals on us. May I suggest you put your efforts into environmentalism.

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Did you miss this part?

Secret Army Chemical Tests Did Not Harm Health, Report Says

What about this part? I bolded the key words so you can better understand.

The spraying of a potentially toxic chemical in several cities in Army tests in the 1950's and 60's apparently had no adverse health effects, a National Research Council committee said today.

I would be satisfied if you produced a picture of a "chemtrail" from any era. You can't, no one has ever seen a definitive "chemtrail".

edit on 6/14/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

So what if they claim no adverse heath effects. Doesn't dismiss the fact the population was experimented on without its knowledge. Does that not bother you? I think it does bother most members on ATS.

I don't need a picture from LAC because the government admits in its reports they used chemtrails. If the Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar was used to disperse chemicals at differnet altitudes was it not leaving chemtrails?

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by FreeSpeaker

 

Can you provide proof with WIKI,that a large scale operation is being facilitated on the world? For all those who believe in a wide scale program,I give you exhibit A:

No I can't and have said on posts here I don't subscribe to that theory.

You SO want to believe AIRCRAFT are involved with ONLY dumping chemicals on us. May I suggest you put your efforts into environmentalism.

Well, I don't need you to tell me what I believe because the point of my thread is to prove chemtrails do exist. I'm not here to say picture's of contrails are chemtrails or any such thing, just that chemtrails have been used in the past and the technology still exists today.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

So what if they claim no adverse heath effects.

They don't claim it, it's well known as FACT.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Doesn't dismiss the fact the population was experimented on without its knowledge.

They released tracer chemicals in rural areas to simulate the spread of a biological agent? That isn't 'experimenting' on the population.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Does that not bother you? I think it does bother most members on ATS.

I don't care that they released some harmless tracers 50+ years ago. Most members on ATS believe that crystals contain some kind of powers, what's your point?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
I don't need a picture from LAC because the government admits in its reports they used chemtrails.

Where does it say the word chemtrails? How is tracer dispersal any more of a chemtrail than crop dusting, or using hairspray?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
If the Fairchild C-119 Flying Boxcar was used to disperse chemicals at differnet altitudes was it not leaving chemtrails?

No, here, read the definition of chemtrails.

That same aircraft, releasing.......PARATROOPERS!
Would you consider that a chemtrail? Those paratroopers are made of chemicals, and they're coming OUT OF AN AIRPLANE!?

reply to post by FreeSpeaker


I dont think ANYONE will disagree with you that experiments haven't happened . Most chemtrail believers are saying its happening NOW,and its NOT an experiment. Is this what you believe?

I used to think that MAYBE they were spraying something on us. The more I thought about,and researched it,the more it became more of a fantasy. We are putting MORE chemicals in the air, with POLLUTION. Good ol cars,smokestacks,etc.............. Thats the FACTS. Thats whats killing us,as a race. You cant prove me wrong. There is NO WAY. Theres also NOTHING that they can spray into the AIR,with planes that can combat this. NOTHING. This is the layman's approach to it. The average Joe here,telling you like it is. Take some time to really think about it. I did. Help clean the world. Become an environmentalist. We could use you. Your efforts,and time could be the difference. PEACE.

Originally posted by adeclerk
They don't claim it, it's well known as FACT.

Oh its a fact because the US government says so. I see. Yes, the US government has a tremendous record of being open and honest with its citizens and putting thier health first.

They released tracer chemicals in rural areas to simulate the spread of a biological agent? That isn't 'experimenting' on the population.

Oh, dropping chemicals of any kind on a population without their knowledge isn't a experiment? Truly puzzeling.

I don't care that they released some harmless tracers 50+ years ago. Most members on ATS believe that crystals contain some kind of powers, what's your point?

Isn't cadmium extremely toxic? Harmless.

Where does it say the word chemtrails? How is tracer dispersal any more of a chemtrail than crop dusting, or using hairspray?

They used more than just zinc cadmium. Try reading the full reports. Just what do you call dispersing chemicals from aircraft? Chemtrails sounds logical too me. Nice for you to admit crop dusting is a chemtrail. Thats been my point here. We have explained chemtrails and theories of unexplained ones.

Originally posted by adeclerk
That same aircraft, releasing.......PARATROOPERS!

Would you consider that a chemtrail? Those paratroopers are made of chemicals, and they're coming OUT OF AN AIRPLANE!?

edit on 6/14/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)

What does this even have to do with the debate? Why are you always posting nonsense like this? Attempting to derail the thread out of desperation or what?

Can planes not be modified? I thought to someone of your vast knowledge that would be obvious.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Oh its a fact because the US government says so. I see. Yes, the US government has a tremendous record of being open and honest with its citizens and putting thier health first.

You see, they released chemicals, years later realized there might have been a risk, and today we know that there was no actual health risk.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Oh, dropping chemicals of any kind on a population without their knowledge isn't a experiment? Truly puzzeling.

Who was it dropped on?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Isn't cadmium extremely toxic? Harmless.

Probably. Can you give me an example of a single person being harmed by that "experiment"? All it takes is one person.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
They used more than just zinc cadmium.

So now it's zinc cadmium? Or was it zinc cadmium sulphide?

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Try reading the full reports.

I did, and you know what I noticed? It didn't change how many people were effected, health-wise. You know, zero.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker
Just what do you call dispersing chemicals from aircraft? Chemtrails sounds logical too me. Nice for you to admit crop dusting is a chemtrail. Thats been my point here. We have explained chemtrails and theories of unexplained ones.

So now you're modifying the 'chemtrail' definition to fit your own views/ make you right in some aspect? Niiiice.

I don't call using hairspray 'chemtrailing', so why would crop dusting, cloud seeding, etc be chemtrailing?