Massive Chemtrail Attack: Midwest

I took these about an hour ago. I'm in Minneapolis. I don't believe in chemtrails but thought some of you would like to see these.

Originally posted by Witness2008

Originally posted by firepilot
Its not me that is rigid, its facts that are rigid.

But what are even more rigid than facts, are the chemtrailers who disregard those facts, for not fitting into the conspiracy.

I am actually not rigid, I have over and over challenged chemtrailers to tell me where I am wrong, and if I get something wrong, I will gladly acknowledge it, and even thank the person who did it. When someone does point out somewhere that i am wrong, I do thank them. Its a matter of principle for me to do so. If someone is going to take time to correct me, I should take time to acknowledge it and be thankful that i learned something new.

Compare that to the reaction from chemtrailers, who not only do not acknowledge being corrected (with very rare exceptions) but then show outright hostility over it, or at the very least, just ignore it and keep going on like it never happened.

Thats rigid.

I can not speak for everyone that sees the same polluted skies as I do. And I personally acknowledge the science of what creates contrails, the varying temperatures at varying altitudes, something we all agree with. It does not however explain the chemtrails. You are attempting to use that very rigid knowledge of what creates a contrail to dispel what millions if not more people on the planet recognize as large planes spraying our skies with metal particulates.

Perhaps we could turn the table here and have you prove that all the patents, the technology that is obviously available for weather modification is not in use.

Really, why do you persist with conversations that are so obviously beneath you?

edit on 5-11-2011 by Witness2008 because: (no reason given)

Well what chemtrails? The spreading persisting contrails that have long been photographed and studied? And seen every since aircraft were able to climb up to those altitudes?

A patent does not mean that technology is available. That means someone has came up with an idea that they wish to have the intellectual rights to. If there was this technology in use, it would have been seen by someone at least. They would not have to resort to misleading photographs that are never what his claimed.

Why do i post? First of all, anyone can post on here as long as you stay within forum rules, which I do my best to abide by.

Second of all, i am passionate about aviation and the sciences, and enjoy disccusing them, and educating people on them.

While you may not agree with the fact that I post, would you ever ask a chemtrailer who posts obvious bunk, why they do so?

Here is a PDF SPACE PRESERVATION ACT OF 2001 107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2977 look at, section 7 (2) (B)
www.freedomfchs.com...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Sounds to me like he may have observed the activities of companies such as FR Aviation that are based at Bournemouth, also called Hurn. It used to be the manufacturing base of Hunting Percival, and aircraft manufacturer who built the UKs first jet trainer in the 50 's.

A search for FR Aviation or Hurn airport will reveal loads of info, all that chemmie stuff was just an assumption based on not understanding what really goes on, in my view.

reply to post by firepilot

Well...I suppose it is possible that millions if not billions of people are indeed seeing those technologies in use in the worlds skies. Prove they are not in use.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by firepilot

 

Well...I suppose it is possible that millions if not billions of people are indeed seeing those technologies in use in the worlds skies. Prove they are not in use.

Sorry, it does not work that way.

Its up to someone making an assertion that someone actually exists, to prove their statement. You can not just come up with something, have no evidence, and tell others to disprove it.

I could say there are elephants in my backyard right now, and tell you to disprove it. But until I prove that myself, I should not be taken seriously.

With all of the milions of photographs of aircraft, and tens of thousands of pilots, thousands of airports, and flight tracking websites, it should not be hard to find this evidence. Millions and billions of people? Well lets of people do see contrails. How many think that contrails are some spraying conspiracy? Not many.

Ask yourself this. How many people that you know of that are chemtrailers, are knowledgable about aviation or the sciences?

And how many people that are knowledgable about aviation or the sciences, believe in chemtrails?

So, let me get this right.

For the past 15 years aircraft all over the world have been spraying us with something which, after all this time, has made no measurable difference to our health, which has such a tiny presence that even after 15 years there is no accumulation of it anywhere and it cannot be detected in any way. It might poison us, but it hasn't, it might control our minds, but the existence of such as ATS suggests that it hasn't. It is untraceable in fuel or any separate tanks that may be in aircraft to carry it, those tanks themselves occupy no space and add no weight to the aircaft that carry them. They spray from nozzles that are either too small to see with the naked eye when the plane is on the ground or, better still, from inside the engines! The operation can carry itself out so that no ground staff or aircrew need know anything at all about it. Brilliantly the trails look and behave exactly like contrails always have and can only be detected by the instinct of clever people who just know it is there because someone said so.

Seems harmless enough to me, let em get on with it then.

I write from that well known centre of US Government disinformation, Rotherham.

Originally posted by hawaii50th
Here is a PDF SPACE PRESERVATION ACT OF 2001 107th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2977 look at, section 7 (2) (B)
www.freedomfchs.com...

Rather than posting this same garbage over and over, why not use the search function? This bill was discussed as recently as last week on this forum.

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by gman1972

 

I understand the feeling that it is disrespectful. However, other may find it equally dis respectful when the same principal is used in such a way that it promotes a double standard.

It is possible for people to believe in things there is actually no evidence for, including aspects of religion as well as certain aspects of chem trails.

I hope you don't feel as if I am singling you out or trying to pick or prove a point. I just wanted to ask why it is ok to believe one thing that has no evidence to back it, while it is not ok to beleive a different thing that has similarly lacking evidence.

Although the topics are incredibly different in nature, the standard for rationalization should not be different or ignored, simply because it is something that you believe - while the demand for proof is issued for somethingyou do not believe in....

so why the double standard?

I hear ya, that's why I started asking follow up questions regarding if there was anything a chemtrail believer could be shown that would change his/her mind. If the answer is no then it seems that the belief in chemtrails is so strong that it is like a religion, which (and I don't want to start a off topic argument) is also faith vs science. No matter how much science you throw at a religious person, they will not change their mind. I am not saying either is right or wrong in that respect, but we aren't really talking about faith and religion and the strength of belief, were talking about contrails.

That's why I posted that, I'm curious why people believe in something trivial, which contrails are compaired to religion/faith, as strongly as god? Your right, I did post a double standard, but that's because I could not fathom that people could put religious belief and chemtrail belief in the same category.

I mean if that's the fact of it, then I will never post in a chemtrail thread again. You cannot convince a devout christian that god doesn't exist, and you cannot convince a devout chemtrailer that they don't exist either. That's what I was leading up to.

Have a good weekend.

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by firepilot

 

Well...I suppose it is possible that millions if not billions of people are indeed seeing those technologies in use in the worlds skies. Prove they are not in use.

Sorry, it does not work that way.

Its up to someone making an assertion that someone actually exists, to prove their statement. You can not just come up with something, have no evidence, and tell others to disprove it.

I could say there are elephants in my backyard right now, and tell you to disprove it. But until I prove that myself, I should not be taken seriously.

With all of the milions of photographs of aircraft, and tens of thousands of pilots, thousands of airports, and flight tracking websites, it should not be hard to find this evidence. Millions and billions of people? Well lets of people do see contrails. How many think that contrails are some spraying conspiracy? Not many.

Ask yourself this. How many people that you know of that are chemtrailers, are knowledgable about aviation or the sciences?

And how many people that are knowledgable about aviation or the sciences, believe in chemtrails?

Seems to me if you wanted to save all of us "chemtrailers" from our own lying eyes you would simply prove that the technologies available are in deed not being used. It doesn't work that way because you can't provide proof, just like I can not prove anything past the patents, numerous military statements, photos, and millions of witness observations.

Originally posted by gman1972
I mean if that's the fact of it, then I will never post in a chemtrail thread again. You cannot convince a devout christian that god doesn't exist, and you cannot convince a devout chemtrailer that they don't exist either. That's what I was leading up to.

Generally you can't, at least within the confines of a single discussion. But there are LOTS of ex-christians, and ex-chemtrailers. Maybe of whom arrived at that position in part due to discussions with non-christians, and non-chemtrailers. I've had several people write to me and tell me that some of my posts have help them figure out that the chemtrail theory was baseless.

Originally posted by Witness2008
Seems to me if you wanted to save all of us "chemtrailers" from our own lying eyes you would simply prove that the technologies available are in deed not being used. It doesn't work that way because you can't provide proof, just like I can not prove anything past the patents, numerous military statements, photos, and millions of witness observations.

It's not about proof though, its about evidence.

You can't prove that unicorns don't exist. But you can note that there's no evidence that they do. Chemtrail debunkers are just noting there's no evidence that supports the chemtrail theory.

You've got to ask: if there's no evidence something exists, then why would you believe that it does?

I have lived in Kansas my entire life, born and raised in Wichita (Air Capitol of the World and home to McConnell AFB) not once in my time here have I seen as many trails in the sky as I have in the last few days. Its unmistakable to anyone who looks up that this is not "normal".

reply to post by Uncinus



The "chemtrailers" actually have more evidence of what they are seeing, than what you present as to why they are not. Your only argument is to explain the dynamics of high altitude flight. Your weapon however is ridicule.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by gman1972
I mean if that's the fact of it, then I will never post in a chemtrail thread again. You cannot convince a devout christian that god doesn't exist, and you cannot convince a devout chemtrailer that they don't exist either. That's what I was leading up to.

Generally you can't, at least within the confines of a single discussion. But there are LOTS of ex-christians, and ex-chemtrailers. Maybe of whom arrived at that position in part due to discussions with non-christians, and non-chemtrailers. I've had several people write to me and tell me that some of my posts have help them figure out that the chemtrail theory was baseless.

Ahh, so there are actually ex chemtrailers. Okay good, because I have only been involved in a few of these threads and have yet to see someone who believes say, "hmmm you have a point there.", or "I didn't know that, thanks."

I know that if I enter a forum for discussion having an opinion, then someone who is more knowledgeable shows me I am wrong with good examples, facts and science, not just opinion, then I would change my opinion and thank the person for educating me.

In this topic I and you other "paid disinfo, trolls "(lol) are the more knowledgeables ones in the subject of aviation. If people want to believe in chemtrails with blind faith then fine, I guess. Not what I would do, not what I would expect most people to do, but fair enough. Can't educate someone who doesn't want to be educated.

reply to post by Witness2008

he "chemtrailers" actually have more evidence of what they are seeing, than what you present as to why they are not.

Well then by all means please start sharing this evidence. I keep hearing the chemtrailers say they have all this evidence and yet none is ever produced when asked,why is that?

And no " I have seen them with my own eyes" does not prove anything in the way of evidence so until this evidence is shown then they do not exist. See how that works?

Originally posted by gman1972

Ahh, so there are actually ex chemtrailers. Okay good, because I have only been involved in a few of these threads and have yet to see someone who believes say, "hmmm you have a point there.", or "I didn't know that, thanks."

There's are several here on ATS.

Can't educate someone who doesn't want to be educated.

You can't educate them by telling them they need educating either. You have to be polite and respectful, try to figure out what it is they are missing, and illustrate it in an accessible manner.

Originally posted by Witness2008
reply to post by Uncinus

 

The "chemtrailers" actually have more evidence of what they are seeing, than what you present as to why they are not. Your only argument is to explain the dynamics of high altitude flight. Your weapon however is ridicule.

Not my weapon. Or did you think the unicorn remark was ridicule? Sorry if so, but I think it's a good example of a plausible sounding thing (it's just a horse with a horn, so not at all impossible) for which there is no evidence that it exists. So why would you believe in it (I assume you don't).

So if there's no evidence that "chemtrails" exist, then why believe in them?

Nobody doubts that people see trails forming behind aircraft, and that the trails sometimes last a long time, and sometimes spread out to cover the sky. It's just that those are contrails. Ice clouds formed by the aircraft exhaust, given the right weather aloft.

reply to post by Uncinus


I was not at all trying to be disrespectful in anyway what so ever, sorry if I came across as such. I was actually trying to conceed that it was okay for people to believe in what they want to, and that it isn't wise to try and force educate someone if they want to keep believing what they believe. Many times people who believe in something like to hear the other side, other people don't like people challanging what they believe. Like I said before, fair enough if people want to disregard knowledge from others, that's not how I am, but don't fault others if that is how they choose to be.

Anyway, off to play with my 747.