CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 02:01:28 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 01:28:07 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 12:29:24 PM

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.

Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?

No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.

LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?

Point out the logical error.

One problem I can see is affirming the consequent.

1. Chemtrails cause geoengineering
2. Geoengineering exists.
3. Therefore chemtrails exist.

However geoengineering doesn't necessarily involve chemtrails so your reasoning isn't valid.

It's like saying

1. Rain will cause the street to get wet.
2. The street is wet
3. Therefore it's raining

Streets can get wet from things like floods and overenthusiastic lawn sprinkling.

Also, you haven't even shown that chemtrails can cause geoengineering, because nobody has ever shown that chemtrails are anything other than just normal contrails.

Rubbish.

1. Geoengineering exists.
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.

Logical errors, my arse.

4. is what you're trying to prove. Quit sneaking in premises.

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 02:10:56 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 02:01:28 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:33:06 PM

Quote from: Shmeggley on June 24, 2014, 01:28:07 PM

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on June 24, 2014, 12:29:24 PM

Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.

You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.

Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?

No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.

LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?

Point out the logical error.

One problem I can see is affirming the consequent.

1. Chemtrails cause geoengineering
2. Geoengineering exists.
3. Therefore chemtrails exist.

However geoengineering doesn't necessarily involve chemtrails so your reasoning isn't valid.

It's like saying

1. Rain will cause the street to get wet.
2. The street is wet
3. Therefore it's raining

Streets can get wet from things like floods and overenthusiastic lawn sprinkling.

Also, you haven't even shown that chemtrails can cause geoengineering, because nobody has ever shown that chemtrails are anything other than just normal contrails.

Rubbish.

1. Geoengineering exists.
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.

Logical errors, my arse.

4. is what you're trying to prove. Quit sneaking in premises.

All of these premises are pretty ridiculous to me.

To offer my conclusions to this thread:

1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

Which is actually quite logical, as "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and never have.  Which is why their purported existence is termed a conspiracy.

2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.

Like much of your flat earth pseudo-science, you're confusing "weather" with "climate".  Two different things altogether.  Your weasel words, "could", at least" and "partially" prove the weakness of your argument.

3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977.

The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) does not mention "chemtrails".  Why quote the Convention?  It's not a scientifically accredited term; just something the conspiracists have made up.

4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.

You need to know that your repeated use of the term "geoengineering" is erroneous.  It's obvious you don't understand what it means, other than it sounds knowledgeable LOL. Geoengineering refers to the exploration, development, and extraction of subsurface earth resources, and has nothing at all to do with the weather.  One of the more recent environmental modification techniques used was the US aerial spraying of napalm in order to defoliate large tracts of Vietnam.

5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.

Citation please.  Personal opinions are valueless without viable supporting evidence.

6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.

Non sequitur.  See [5] above.

You are really naive, aren't you? Governments are filled with kind, loving, honest people who just want you to be happy? And the military are also filled with the same kinds of saints? And scientists never conduct experiments where harm may come to some people?

And you really need to more thoroughly investigate all these conspiracy theories you so easily fall for at first glance.  I'm guessing you'd agree with the following bizarre conspiracy theory?

Many conspiracy theorists (you, maybe?) consider the Great Seal of the United States and the motto Novus Ordo Seclorum (new order of the ages) to be Masonic and to mean New World Order.  These purported "facts" are considered evidence in the argument to prove the vast conspiracy of the Illuminati.  It's useless to argue against these "facts" with conspiracy theorists. They consider everyone else to be dupes—who would note that the Latin is usually translated as "New Order of the Ages" and that the symbol of the eye in the pyramid relates to a poem in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.  Even granting that the Great Seal of the United States and the symbols on the US dollar bill are Masonic (which they are not) and that Novus Ordo Seclorum means New World Order (which it does not), nothing significant follows, certainly not that there is a vast, government-sanctioned conspiracy to take over the world.

I do agree that governments have conducted experiments that have harmed people.  The British nuclear tests in Australia are a classic example of government malfeasance:  "...troops had been ordered to run, walk and crawl across areas contaminated by the Buffalo, SA tests in the days immediately following the detonations; a fact that the British government later admitted.  In 2001, UK researcher Dr Sue Rabbit Roff stated that "it puts the lie to the British government's claim that they never used humans for guinea pig-type experiments in nuclear weapons trials in Australia".

—And your snide comment about mother's basements is typical of the childish personal insults flat earthers so often resort to.  How long is it since you graduated grade school sonny?

1. Geoengineering exists.
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.

Logical errors, my arse.

If chemtrails are supposed to modify weather, then why are the chemicals released at a altitude well above where most weather happens?

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 02:10:56 PM

1. Geoengineering exists.
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.

Logical errors, my arse.

If chemtrails are supposed to modify weather, then why are the chemicals released at a altitude well above where most weather happens?

You'll have to explain the following to me:

1. How do you know the height at which chemicals are released?
2. How do you know the height when weather 'stops happening'?

Quote from: legion on June 24, 2014, 01:19:09 PM

You are really naive, aren't you? Governments are filled with kind, loving, honest people who just want you to be happy? And the military are also filled with the same kinds of saints? And scientists never conduct experiments where harm may come to some people?

And you really need to more thoroughly investigate all these conspiracy theories you so easily fall for at first glance.  I'm guessing you'd agree with the following bizarre conspiracy theory?

Many conspiracy theorists (you, maybe?) consider the Great Seal of the United States and the motto Novus Ordo Seclorum (new order of the ages) to be Masonic and to mean New World Order.  These purported "facts" are considered evidence in the argument to prove the vast conspiracy of the Illuminati.  It's useless to argue against these "facts" with conspiracy theorists. They consider everyone else to be dupes—who would note that the Latin is usually translated as "New Order of the Ages" and that the symbol of the eye in the pyramid relates to a poem in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.  Even granting that the Great Seal of the United States and the symbols on the US dollar bill are Masonic (which they are not) and that Novus Ordo Seclorum means New World Order (which it does not), nothing significant follows, certainly not that there is a vast, government-sanctioned conspiracy to take over the world.

I do agree that governments have conducted experiments that have harmed people.  The British nuclear tests in Australia are a classic example of government malfeasance:  "...troops had been ordered to run, walk and crawl across areas contaminated by the Buffalo, SA tests in the days immediately following the detonations; a fact that the British government later admitted.  In 2001, UK researcher Dr Sue Rabbit Roff stated that "it puts the lie to the British government's claim that they never used humans for guinea pig-type experiments in nuclear weapons trials in Australia".

—And your snide comment about mother's basements is typical of the childish personal insults flat earthers so often resort to.  How long is it since you graduated grade school sonny?

You make a lot of assumptions about conspiracy researchers. As usual with you, everything-is-fine-so-keep-working-and-keeping-the-wheels-turning types, you accept that small conspiracies happen, but cannot comprehend big conspiracies happening. You lack the imagination of your rulers.

Quote from: markjo on June 25, 2014, 05:33:45 AM

If chemtrails are supposed to modify weather, then why are the chemicals released at a altitude well above where most weather happens?

You'll have to explain the following to me:

1. How do you know the height at which chemicals are released?

I don't.  I'm not a chemtrail conspiracy theorist.

2. How do you know the height when weather 'stops happening'?

I didn't say that weather "stops happening" at any particular altitude, however it is common for commercial airliners to fly above bad weather.

You're assuming that I meant tornados were caused by chemtrails, when I never explicitly said that.  Tornados are caused by large wind machines, and of course by natural causes as well.

Its moronic to even suggest that chemtrails could cause something like a tornado to begin with. I thought you all were reasonably intelligent until you made that connection. Chems don't make tornados, period. Trails don't make them either. Maybe your misunderstanding about trails is what causes you to think that they could be made by exhaust? Perhaps you should do some research.

Aha ! You might think those things with those large propellers are wind generators- that is, generating electricity from wind - but they are really giant fans - that is,  generating wind from electricity - that are creating all those wind storms and tornados ! And those radar antennas twirling around, windmills and even the little whirligigs you see in people's yards are really wind machines that are causing all those wind storms and tornadoes. They are all clever devices placed there by those evil scientists from NASA.

You make a lot of assumptions about conspiracy researchers. As usual with you, everything-is-fine-so-keep-working-and-keeping-the-wheels-turning types, you accept that small conspiracies happen, but cannot comprehend big conspiracies happening. You lack the imagination of your rulers.

The fact that the British officers used 8,000 other ranks as guinea pigs to test the results of exposure to nuclear radiation was not and is not a "conspiracy".  At the time—the early 1950s—scientists (and the Australian DoD) had no idea of the longer-term, disastrous effects of exposure to nuclear radiation of the scale emitted at Maralinga and Emu Field.  In fact, of the people exposed to the ground radiation, not one died in the short term.  It was only decades later that they started showing signs of radiation sickness—hyperthyroidism, gastric dysfunction, blindness, melanomas, leukemia, various cancers, and genetic disorders in their future children.

A conspiracy theory alleges an event or events to be secretly influenced by a premeditated group or groups of powerful people or organizations working together.

There was no secrecy involved with these tests; I remember watching the newsreel footage at the time, and being overawed by the stuff I was seeing.  As in WOW!!!  I can recall long rows of soldiers, all wearing dark glasses, looking towards ground zero.  At the detonation point, as one they all turned away, then a minute or two later, all turned back to watch the aftermath.

Anyway... to date their has not been one proven medical disorder to any person that confirms that any sort of injurious chemicals are being secretly sprayed into our atmosphere.  It's also telling that no "chemtrail" conspiracy theorist has captured and contained any of these alleged chemical sprays for analysis. 

I guess part of the reason I started this topic again was to draw the more than obvious parallels between those who believe in a flat earth, and those who believe in "chemtrails.

The pro-chemtrail responses from flat earthers, and their dismissal by round earthers have confirmed my opinion that if people believe in one alleged conspiracy, then they'll be likely to believe in them all.

There are several FErs who are arguing against chemtrails also. 

But no REs arguing for?

I'm sure there are plenty of RErs that would argue for a chemtrail conspiracy.

Sure, but they have a 10,000,000 to 1 advantage before you even get to chemtrails, I expect the proportion of FE enthusiasts amongst chemtrail folks is higher than that.

You're probably right on that point.  But then again,  how many RErs actually care about the accuracy of science?  I'd wager that is about half.

Far fewer, probably, and quite rightly. Science is outsourced to specialists so the rest of us can get on with our lives. We do the same thing with farming, for example. We do it with almost everything, in fact, it's essentially what civilisation is.

I'd certainly agree with your earlier claim...

I'm sure there are plenty of RErs that would argue for a chemtrail conspiracy.

There's possibly tens of thousands of round earthers that claim that fictitious "chemtrails" actually exist outside of science fiction stories.  Which, I have to admit, I find rather disillusioning.

You're probably right on that point.  But then again,  how many RErs actually care about the accuracy of science?  I'd wager that is about half.

I don't think it's as simple as "caring" about the accuracy of science.  The average layman accepts contemporary scientific theory simply because he doesn't possess the necessary intellectual qualifications to analyse it at anything other than a superficial level.  Quantum mechanics and string theory—for example—are way above the intellectual prowess of probably 99% of the wider population, but those millions of scientists who do understand it are worthy of our trust.

A common fallacy I see on this forum applies to the chemtrail issue:  the fact that something is possible is not evidence that it has happened.  I am happy to admit that an airplane could spray chemicals from the sky, and that those chemicals could have some effect on the weather.  But this fact alone is not evidence that this has ever actually happened.

It is very interesting that you all still cling to the idea that chemtrails do not exist, yet the govt has admitted to spraying chems into the Earth's atmosphere. Why do you all deny evidence, even when it's from the source?

Read this article for further information.

“We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time off-course, so it’s not as though the stratosphere is absolutely pristine. But you don’t want to have people going off and doing things that involve large radioactive forgings, or programs that go on for extended periods or for that matter provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction.”
- M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences Member

Please open your eyes. It is childish to keep them closed when the evidence for chemtrails is overwhelming. The fact is: NASA has admitted to spraying a variety of chems into the Earth's atmosphere. They have admitted this. Can we stop talking about this now? All of you detractors are wrong. I know it's hard to accept defeat, but please try to have some dignity. You're all embarrassing yourselves at this point.

It is very interesting that you all still cling to the idea that chemtrails do not exist, yet the govt has admitted to spraying chems into the Earth's atmosphere. Why do you all deny evidence, even when it's from the source?

Read this article for further information.

“We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time off-course, so it’s not as though the stratosphere is absolutely pristine. But you don’t want to have people going off and doing things that involve large radioactive forgings, or programs that go on for extended periods or for that matter provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction.”
- M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences Member

Please open your eyes. It is childish to keep them closed when the evidence for chemtrails is overwhelming. The fact is: NASA has admitted to spraying a variety of chems into the Earth's atmosphere. They have admitted this. Can we stop talking about this now? All of you detractors are wrong. I know it's hard to accept defeat, but please try to have some dignity. You're all embarrassing yourselves at this point.

Did you read the headline?
Do you know what "proposes" means?

I always suspected that you didn't know what you were talking about and now you've just confirmed it. Please don't respond without reading the article. Your stupid is showing.

I always suspected that you didn't know what you were talking about and now you've just confirmed it. Please don't respond without reading the article. Your stupid is showing.

Your arrogance astounds me sometimes.
Try to find a source for that claim that's actually reputable.
USAToday :

With the skies so full of contrails, it can be hard to see how long they last or how far they move. So the government found a way to do some checking. Imagine what the chemtrailers thought the day they flew a DC-8 off the coast of Northern California, in perfectly clear air, and went round and round over the same area to make a racetrack pattern for Minnis and others to watch.

They tracked the massive oval as it passed over Northern California, floated over the Sierra Nevada mountain range and disappeared. Another time, a plane nicknamed the NASA Vomit Comet made a figure-8 in the sky off the Texas coast.

Minnis tracked the contrail for 14 hours as it oozed over the Gulf of Mexico, then across Florida, before it turned into an amorphous blob.

"Again," he said, "if you had been sitting in a fishing boat down in the Gulf, you would have just thought this thing was a cirrus cloud."

Unless you were a chemtrailer — then you would be even more sure that something was up. For the record, even though the government has planes and the government can make clouds, "There is no real truth to weather modification," Minnis said. "That is not going on now. What we're able to do now is inadvertent."

I know the internet is a place where everyone in the world can get together and share information.
I also know that you must sift through the information and separate the actual information from the disinformation.
You seem like you've missed this simple idea.

Besides, what's being talked about in that article is nothing close to your claim that they're dosing us with minute amounts of LSD.

Are a plethora of quotes by NASA employees not enough for you, Th3rm0?  It seems like you're the one missing the point here. Are the words they use to big for you to understand? Give me a few minutes and I'll type up some simple-English explanations for you. It's a damn shame that I have to treat you like a child when the proper reaction to 90% of your postings is "you're a fucking moron". Thankfully, I'm a nice guy.

Besides, what's being talked about in that article is nothing close to your claim that they're dosing us with minute amounts of LSD.

Strange how you resort to ad-hominem when you are trying to assert that you've won this debate.
I wish I could say I thought you were better than that.

If you were talking to me: It's not an ad-hominen when it's been proven amply that you cannot read and/or your comprehension skills are incredibly low. I have not seen you bring anything to any debate you've been in other than "no the earth is flat" or "no, chemtrails are ludicrous". And of course, you never address the points of others. You avoid answering questions and acknowledging facts that prove you're wrong. Similar to RE'ers. Are you sure you're not an RE'er?

You do know how a debate works right? Have you ever considered taking a break from the internet and getting some schooling? I'm not trying to be insulting, so please try not to take offense to this. I seriously believe that this will help you develop intellectually, and it might also help you understand how to quote posts correctly. If you need pointers, you can always PM me.

If you were talking to me: It's not an ad-hominen when it's been proven amply that you cannot read and/or your comprehension skills are incredibly low. I have not seen you bring anything to any debate you've been in other than "no the earth is flat" or "no, chemtrails are ludicrous". And of course, you never address the points of others. You avoid answering questions and acknowledging facts that prove you're wrong. Similar to RE'ers. Are you sure you're not an RE'er?

You do know how a debate works right? Have you ever considered taking a break from the internet and getting some schooling? I'm not trying to be insulting, so please try not to take offense to this. I seriously believe that this will help you develop intellectually, and it might also help you understand how to quote posts correctly. If you need pointers, you can always PM me.

Not sure why you're so mad at me.
So far, I've not only denied what you were saying, but also:
1. Given you (and others) ample reason to believe what you're saying about LSD is not true.
2. Pointed out that this is only an idea in conspiracy theorists' minds.
3. Explained to you why your article is not evidence for your claims - that article says nothing about LSD or poison.
4. Showed to you (with information from a reputable, credible source) that contrails can turn into clouds without the need for any strange chemicals involved.

I've read your entire article.
You really think your argument is more sound, when you've literally got no evidence to support any claim you've made thus far?
Anyone want to help me out with this one? I have to go to work.

I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail.  Disprove that.

Does this qualify as a reputable source?

https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1965/nsb1265.pdf

I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail.  Disprove that.

Dude, where is your bloodtest?