CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?

  • 308 Replies
  • 71626 Views
*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #30 on: June 23, 2014, 01:28:49 PM »

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up.  I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.

Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?


Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.



Yes, of course.

1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.

For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #31 on: June 23, 2014, 01:32:29 PM »

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up.  I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.

Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?


Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.



Yes, of course.

1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.

For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.

The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.

Edit: or Climate Engineering.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 01:36:34 PM by legion »
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #32 on: June 23, 2014, 01:38:48 PM »

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up.  I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.

Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?


Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.



Yes, of course.

1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.

For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.

The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.

Edit: or Climate Engineering.
No, the correct term is contrail. That's what people should research.
I've still yet to see any convincing evidence of either "chemtrails" or "geoengineering".
And they both aren't words.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #33 on: June 23, 2014, 01:46:30 PM »
from wikipedia article on Climate Engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering):

Weaponisation

In 1976, 85 countries signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. The Environmental Modification Convention generally prohibits weaponising geoengineering techniques. However, this does not eliminate the risk. Geoengineering techniques may serve as weapons of mass destruction, creating droughts or famines designed to destroy or disable an enemy. They could also be used simply to make battlefield conditions more favourable to one side or the other in a war. For example, laser-guided weapons are confounded by clouds, and thus switching off cloud machines would favour forces using such weapons, and switching them on would favour ground forces defending against them.

Whilst laws or treaties may prevent the manipulation of the climate as a weapon of war, it could be argued that geoengineering is itself a manipulation, and thus destroying or disabling the geoengineering structures is not prohibited. A new legal framework may be necessary in the event that large-scale geoengineering becomes established.

Carnegie's Ken Caldeira said, "It will make it harder to achieve broad consensus on developing and governing these technologies if there is suspicion that gaining military advantage is an underlying motivation for its development..."


So, weather modification has been possible since at least 1976? th3rm0m3t3r0, you were saying...?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2014, 01:51:48 PM »
How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #35 on: June 23, 2014, 01:53:33 PM »
How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?

Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #36 on: June 23, 2014, 02:00:40 PM »
It's called contingency planning.  I believe someone had made a claim about researching ways to alter weather and was followed by the treaty to ban the weaponization.  Better to ban it from the start than have to address it after a country gets hit by an earthquake, drought, and freak electrical storm resulting in millions of civilian deaths, right?  I imagine it's similar to the DoD having a zombie contingency plan.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #37 on: June 23, 2014, 02:05:16 PM »
How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?

Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen?  ::)


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #38 on: June 23, 2014, 02:09:32 PM »
How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?

Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen?  ::)

Yes I do. Make sure you are more technologically advanced than everyone else. Then, when the SHTF, unleash weather war on them. That was evidently possible back in 1976, so goodness knows what they can do now.

By the way, how many zombie or dinosaur infestation treaties are there????
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #39 on: June 23, 2014, 02:14:03 PM »
How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?

Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen?  ::)

Yes I do. Make sure you are more technologically advanced than everyone else. Then, when the SHTF, unleash weather war on them. That was evidently possible back in 1976, so goodness knows what they can do now.

By the way, how many zombie or dinosaur infestation treaties are there????
Zombies and dinosaurs don't exist.
From you:
Quote
...85 countries signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques...
So, who's trying to be more technologically advanced, and who are they trying to "unleash weather war" on"?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #40 on: June 23, 2014, 02:15:31 PM »
How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?

Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen?  ::)

Yes I do. Make sure you are more technologically advanced than everyone else. Then, when the SHTF, unleash weather war on them. That was evidently possible back in 1976, so goodness knows what they can do now.

By the way, how many zombie or dinosaur infestation treaties are there????
Zombies and dinosaurs don't exist.
From you:
Quote
...85 countries signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques...
So, who's trying to be more technologically advanced, and who are they trying to "unleash weather war" on"?

I have no idea. I answered your question about what I would do.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

DuckDodgers

  • One Duck to Rule Them All
  • 5476
  • +0/-0
  • What's supposed to go here?
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #41 on: June 23, 2014, 02:19:52 PM »
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.
markjo, what force can not pass through a solid or liquid?
Magnetism for one and electric is the other.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #42 on: June 23, 2014, 02:24:19 PM »
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.

So, you don't believe that geoengineering is possible? Is that correct?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #43 on: June 23, 2014, 02:25:44 PM »
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.
I'm not sure if zombies exist outside fantasy.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #44 on: June 23, 2014, 02:30:14 PM »
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.
I'm not sure if zombies exist outside fantasy.

Remember, these people contingency plan. They have to have everything covered. Zombies, dinosaurs, aliens, killer ants, killer bees, killer frogs (you never know), locust swarms etc. The treaties must be never ending.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #45 on: June 23, 2014, 02:32:44 PM »
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.
I'm not sure if zombies exist outside fantasy.

Remember, these people contingency plan. They have to have everything covered. Zombies, dinosaurs, aliens, killer ants, killer bees, killer frogs (you never know), locust swarms etc. The treaties must be never ending.
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #46 on: June 23, 2014, 02:33:52 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #47 on: June 23, 2014, 02:36:12 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #48 on: June 23, 2014, 02:37:59 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #49 on: June 23, 2014, 02:41:31 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2014, 02:43:19 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.

duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2014, 02:45:41 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.

duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2014, 02:50:10 PM »

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up.  I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.

Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?


Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.



Yes, of course.

1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.

For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.

The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.

Edit: or Climate Engineering.

That's quite misleading as Climate Engineering and geoengineering are real terms in their own right. By calling chemtrails geoengineering you're sneaking in the premise that geoengineering and/or climate engineering involve the use of these so called chemtrails. However the whole argument here is whether chemtrails are actually being used for the purpose of modifying the climate etc. You don't get to just do an end run and refer to chemtrails as geoengineering. Which by the way in the normal use of the word has little to to with climate and more to do with geology, mining, groundwater and underground structures.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #53 on: June 23, 2014, 02:59:44 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.

duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.

Read again. You are wrong. Again.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #54 on: June 23, 2014, 03:01:52 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.

duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.

Read again. You are wrong. Again.
No, I'm not.
He said they have contingency planning for things like weather manipulation.
You know, things that could actually happen.
Not zombies and dinosaurs.
Your argument is fallacious.
See : "Straw Man".
« Last Edit: June 23, 2014, 03:04:20 PM by th3rm0m3t3r0 »


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #55 on: June 23, 2014, 03:02:52 PM »

Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?

Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up.  I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.

Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?


Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites.  Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured.  And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.



Yes, of course.

1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites.  If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.

For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.

The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.

Edit: or Climate Engineering.

That's quite misleading as Climate Engineering and geoengineering are real terms in their own right. By calling chemtrails geoengineering you're sneaking in the premise that geoengineering and/or climate engineering involve the use of these so called chemtrails. However the whole argument here is whether chemtrails are actually being used for the purpose of modifying the climate etc. You don't get to just do an end run and refer to chemtrails as geoengineering. Which by the way in the normal use of the word has little to to with climate and more to do with geology, mining, groundwater and underground structures.

What? Who says that is what geoengineering is?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

legion

  • 1593
  • +0/-0
  • You are in my VR
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #56 on: June 23, 2014, 03:04:04 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.

duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.

Read again. You are wrong. Again.
No, I'm not.
He said they have contingency planning for things like weather manipulation.
You know, things that could actually happen.
Not zombies and dinosaurs.
Your argument is fallacious.

The replies are there for all to see. Apart from you, obviously.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #57 on: June 23, 2014, 03:09:19 PM »
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:

ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
Real = Unreal = Win
+1 to you.

What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.

duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.

Read again. You are wrong. Again.
No, I'm not.
He said they have contingency planning for things like weather manipulation.
You know, things that could actually happen.
Not zombies and dinosaurs.
Your argument is fallacious.

The replies are there for all to see. Apart from you, obviously.
You're exaggerating his point to make yours seem more credible, and his less credible.



I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • +0/-0
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #58 on: June 23, 2014, 03:11:22 PM »
Just because something is impossible now doesn't mean it won't be possible in the future.
I.E.- Things like weather manipulation.

Things that reside in the realm of 100% fantasy will never be possible.
I.E.- Things like zombie attacks.

Get it?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • +0/-0
  • Eppur si muove!
Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #59 on: June 23, 2014, 03:41:36 PM »

The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.

Edit: or Climate Engineering.

That's quite misleading as Climate Engineering and geoengineering are real terms in their own right. By calling chemtrails geoengineering you're sneaking in the premise that geoengineering and/or climate engineering involve the use of these so called chemtrails. However the whole argument here is whether chemtrails are actually being used for the purpose of modifying the climate etc. You don't get to just do an end run and refer to chemtrails as geoengineering. Which by the way in the normal use of the word has little to to with climate and more to do with geology, mining, groundwater and underground structures.

What? Who says that is what geoengineering is?

Well recently it's become synonymous with Climate Engineering, but Geoengineering can also refer to Geological Engineering, which has to do with the mining etc.

Anyway, it's still up for debate whether chemtrails are a real thing that has to do with Climate Engineering or Geoengineering. Of course chemtrail people want it in that category because it gets more respect that way. Kind of like how creationists will call themselves "Creation Scientists" and (lol) "Intelligent Design Theorists".

My point is, you don't just get to associate your thing with an actual real thing without providing any reason for it to belong in that category.
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?