CHEMTRAILS

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:12PM

King Mob wrote: »

He's saying that you can identify chemtrails by the fact that they come from the back of the plane and not the wings, yet you posted a video which you think shows the chemtrails coming form the wing.

So which is the correct answer, from the wings or from the tail?

I never made any such statement,and have never made any statement they come from wing or tail,so your question is void.

22-01-2011 05:23PM

caseyann wrote: »

I never made any such statement,and have never made any statement they come from wing or tail,so your question is void.

So then the video you posted which you said was "alleged chemtrail spraying" and is named "Pilot Films Plane Spraying Chemtrails" and pretty obviously states that they believe that this is a plane caught in the act, was what exactly?

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 05:25PM

caseyann wrote: »

I never made any such statement,and have never made any statement they come from wing or tail,so your question is void.

Caseyann, I see you have deleted the quote and the link to the spoof news website which I quoted above.

The fact that you thought that this is real tells me all I need to know about the level of evidence you believe in. And the fact that you deleted it after I pointed it out makes you look less than honest - you could at least admit your mistake.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:29PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Caseyann, I see you have deleted the quote and the link to the spoof news website which I quoted above.

The fact that you thought that this is real tells me all I need to know about the level of evidence you believe in. And the fact that you deleted it after I pointed it out makes you look less than honest - you could at least admit your mistake.

If you had of bothered to read what i said instead of jumping on and trying to insult me.You would have seen i said i havent read it all as of yet.
But you just wanted to have a go instead of telling me it was a joke site.
Therefore i have nothing to admit to or say to you and i find you to be condescending most of the time.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:31PM

King Mob wrote: »

So then the video you posted which you said was "alleged chemtrail spraying" and is named "Pilot Films Plane Spraying Chemtrails" and pretty obviously states that they believe that this is a plane caught in the act, was what exactly?

Yes they stated they believe caught in the act,i didnt say that.I just posted it to show what they have allegedly seen something being sprayed and then turned off at will.If you want to discredit it.Explain why they appear to able turn it on and off.

5uspect · 22-01-2011 05:31PM

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

If these were con trails they would be constant not intermittent and also they would be coming from the engines which are on the wings not the tails of these planes. Your missing the point that its the same 4 planes going back and forth not different planes just following the same innocent flight path they are currently over the skies of Kildare for any one who lives near Kilcullen or Athy they should look up and if you have a good enough camera try to get a clear picture or a video of the planes stop start criss cross tachnique and put an end to the sceptics argument that its just normal planes going about their business. Another thing if you go towards Newbridge its completly overcast and huge black clouds can be seen in the distance. I suspect north Dublin is the same since the planes were there yesterday. does anyone have any more info on the weather there ?

What is it with the CTers and their complete breathless lack of punctuation?

I flew to India last week. Any while waiting to use the restroom I was able to see the contrails forming just at the aft window. The exhaust is very hot (around [latex]400^{\circ}C[/latex]) and the atmosphere at 36000ft is very cold ([latex]-50^{\circ}C[/latex]) It takes time for the mixture to condense:

So when you look up from the ground you see this:
81791529.tdGHg2Y8.420CHtrip009Standardemailview.jpg

Also don't forget there is an auxiliary power unit in the tail of most aircraft:

since it it is also typically a gas turbine.

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 05:32PM

caseyann wrote: »

You are welcome.I know what you are talking about a i have seen it a good few times of late.
I just found this,not sure if it is a credible site and havent read whole lot yet.

Cheers it all sounds like exactly what we are seeing its good to see that you are not swearing by everything you read because thats exactly what causes the skeptics to go off on one and rightly so as there is nothing worse than people who try to make someone believe something. We can only point someone in the right direction after that its up to them. Here is another link which should be credible however the reasons they give may or may not be the truth, but it should bring some closure to the argument that something is going on in the skies

http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

22-01-2011 05:33PM

caseyann wrote: »

If you had of bothered to read what i said instead of jumping on and trying to insult me.You would have seen i said i havent read it all as of yet.
But you just wanted to have a go instead of telling me it was a joke site.
Therefore i have nothing to admit to or say to you and i find you to be condescending most of the time.

So you reposted the story without reading the address of the site, the banner of the site, the name of the author of the article, any of the joke headlines at the side or the banner at the bottom which clearly reads
"The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious."

22-01-2011 05:35PM

caseyann wrote: »

Yes they stated they believe caught in the act,i didnt say that.I just posted it to show what they have allegedly seen something being sprayed and then turned off at will.If you want to discredit it.Explain why they appear to able turn it on and off.

I actually did in the very next post.

So do you believe that the video did show chemtrails coming from the wing?
Do you believe that chemtrails only come from the tail and this is enough to identify them?

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 05:36PM

caseyann wrote: »

If you had of bothered to read what i said instead of jumping on and trying to insult me.You would have seen i said i havent read it all as of yet.
But you just wanted to have a go instead of telling me it was a joke site.
Therefore i have nothing to admit to or say to you and i find you to be condescending most of the time.

Well the first thing that tipped me off was the name of the link you posted: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i89926

I presume you at least read the page you quoted? Now if you are reading sites called 'the spoof' and quoting from a page about a made-up scientist where

Suddenly, agents from Homeland Insecurity burst into Dr. Saygun's office and dragged him away in a strait-jacket. Dr. Saygun released a statement later in the day, after being 'questioned' by Homeland Insecurity."There are no such things as chemtrails. The government knows what it is doing. Go back to your 'American Idle' and your football games. There is nothing wrong here."

...then I think that your ability to weigh evidence is not very good, is it? And I still think that deleting your post was quite sneaky, instead of being honest about it.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:38PM

King Mob wrote: »

So you reposted the story without reading the address of the site, the banner of the site, the name of the author of the article, any of the joke headlines at the side or the banner at the bottom which clearly reads
"The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious."

I am in middle of something else,so i only had time to read the first and second or so paragraphs.
And doesnt excuse the imsulting comment from the other poster.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:41PM

King Mob wrote: »

I actually did in the very next post.

So do you believe that the video did show chemtrails coming from the wing?
Do you believe that chemtrails only come from the tail and this is enough to identify them?

How would i know whether tail or wing i am not flying in sky behind them

I believe turning it off and on is a pretty plausible questioning of what it is coming out of them.

22-01-2011 05:41PM

caseyann wrote: »

I am in middle of something else,so i only had time to read the first and second three paragraphs.
And doesnt excuse the imsulting comment from the other poster.

So you had time to read part of the article and post it, yet not any of the other stuff, like the address you had to copy and paste. Not exactly top level research.

caseyann wrote: »

How would i know whether tail or wing i am not flying in sky behind them

So then how can your CTer comrade Slumlamb say that he is able to distingush form contrails and chemtrails by whether or not it is coming from the tail?

caseyann wrote: »

I believe turning it off and on is a pretty plausible questioning of what it is coming out of them.

But you don't seem to want to do much questioning at all.
Have you read my reply to the video you posted that suggested a non-conspiracy explanation?

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:42PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well the first thing that tipped me off was the name of the link you posted: http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i89926

I presume you at least read the page you quoted? Now if you are reading sites called 'the spoof' and quoting from a page about a made-up scientist where

...then I think that your ability to weigh evidence is not very good, is it? And I still think that deleting your post was quite sneaky, instead of being honest about it.

And again condescending attitude.
I have nothing to admit to you so get off it already or are you looking to bother someone?

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:43PM

King Mob wrote: »

So you had time to read part of the article and post it, yet not any of the other stuff, like the address you had to copy and paste. Not exactly top level research.

Why do i have to be a top level researcher to post for you, well then you just had better not read my posts,ignore is in the corner for you

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 05:45PM

King Mob wrote: »

But you said clearly that they can't be contrails because they are coming from the tail.
So if they aren't contrails and you are posting on a thread about chemtrails, it's not exactly a leap to assume that's what you where referring to.

So if they aren't contrails and they aren't chemtrails what are you suggesting they where?

Im not suggesting they are anything because I dont know I would be a fool to try and tell you one way or another. all I can say for sure is they are trails coming from a plane with criss cross formations in the sky which eventually spread out and cover the whole shy as far as the eye can see. and the reason I am posting on a chem trails forum is because thats what these strange trails are commonly known as. If you want to start a forum about strange trails that cover the sky in "cloud" I will gladly post there instead

22-01-2011 05:48PM

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

Im not suggesting they are anything because I dont know I would be a fool to try and tell you one way or another. all I can say for sure is they are trails coming from a plane with criss cross formations in the sky which eventually spread out and cover the whole shy as far as the eye can see. and the reason I am posting on a chem trails forum is because thats what these strange trails are commonly known as. If you want to start a forum about strange trails that cover the sky in "cloud" I will gladly post there instead

So then if you're "not suggesting anything" and saying that you'd "be a fool to try and tell me one way or another", how can you say with any confidence that the trail not coming from wing is a sign that it is not a condensation trail?

5uspect · 22-01-2011 05:48PM

Actually they're commonly known as contrails. Only in the rarefied world of CTers are they called chemtrails. Also this is a chemtrails thread in a CT forum.

There is a weather forum also where you could start a thread about clouds.

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 05:49PM

caseyann wrote: »

I have nothing to admit to you so get off it already or are you looking to bother someone?

I'm not trying to bother someone, I'm trying to point out that you posted a joke website as serious evidence of chemtrails. And I'm pointing out that you deleted the post and said nothing until I said that it was a bit sneaky deleting the evidence.

And the reason why it is relevant is because you have been supplying very very weak 'evidence' for chemtrails but ignoring criticism of this evidence, and this is just the ultimate example of how low your standard of evidence for chemtrails actually is.

22-01-2011 05:51PM

caseyann wrote: »

Why do i have to be a top level researcher to post for you, well then you just had better not read my posts,ignore is in the corner for you

You don't really have to be a top level researcher, just might be in the best interest for the information you want to get out there that you'd do basic things like read the article and check facts.

But then I suppose if you did that you probably wouldn't believe in chemtrails in the first place.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:54PM

King Mob wrote: »

You don't really have to be a top level researcher, just might be in the best interest for the information you want to get out there that you'd do basic things like read the article and check facts.

But then I suppose if you did that you probably wouldn't believe in chemtrails in the first place.

Who said i believe in them? I never said without a doubt i believed in them! I am merely questioning what i am seeing and have every right to do so or dont i?
Or is it more plausible to you because you dont believe in them at all i should listen to you and make you the king of my thoughts and my questions.Or perhaps when things dont add up to me still like with fianna fail and their lies as an example i should just ignore my questions and just accept you and others say i am wrong to question just because you do?

SLUMLAMB · 22-01-2011 05:55PM

5uspect wrote: »

Actually they're commonly known as contrails. Only in the rarefied world of CTers are they called chemtrails. Also this is a chemtrails thread in a CT forum.

There is a weather forum also where you could start a thread about clouds.

clouds dont come from planes so Im not talking about clouds also I "cloud" meaning its not a cloud.

caseyann · 22-01-2011 05:56PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not trying to bother someone, I'm trying to point out that you posted a joke website as serious evidence of chemtrails. And I'm pointing out that you deleted the post and said nothing until I said that it was a bit sneaky deleting the evidence.

And the reason why it is relevant is because you have been supplying very very weak 'evidence' for chemtrails but ignoring criticism of this evidence, and this is just the ultimate example of how low your standard of evidence for chemtrails actually is.

You are doing no such thing you are picking and trolling my posts and now badgering me with your insistent rubbish accusations and condescending posts.

22-01-2011 06:00PM

caseyann wrote: »

Who said i believe in them? I never said without a doubt i believed in them! I am merely questioning what i am seeing and have every right to do so or dont i?
Or is it more plausible to you because you dont believe in them at all i should listen to you and make you the king of my thoughts and my questions.Or perhaps when things dont add up to me still like with fianna fail and their lies as an example i should just ignore my questions and just accept you and others say i am wrong to question just because you do?

But that's the thing, you don't seem to be asking questions at all.
You only seem to have an assumption that the government is up to something. Then you accept any and all evidence for this unqeustioningly and without checking the facts (as evidenced by the link you posted) then when you are provided with answers that don't involve massive conspiracies you either dismiss them out of hand or ignore entirely them without bothering to check them out.

I'm not asking you to stop asking questions. I just suggesting you should ask more.

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 06:01PM

caseyann wrote: »

You are doing no such thing you are picking and trolling my posts and now badgering me with your insistent rubbish accusations and condescending posts.

What 'rubbish accusations'? Can you actually argue with anything in my posts instead of just insulting me all the time?

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 06:04PM

SLUMLAMB wrote: »

clouds dont come from planes so Im not talking about clouds also I "cloud" meaning its not a cloud.

Sorry, I don't understand what this post means. Can you please explain it?

Brown Bomber · 22-01-2011 06:09PM

King Mob wrote: »

So you reposted the story without reading the address of the site, the banner of the site, the name of the author of the article, any of the joke headlines at the side or the banner at the bottom which clearly reads
"The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious."

Well done. State the obvious.

Brown Bomber · 22-01-2011 06:13PM

caseyann wrote: »

condescending posts.

Better off putting them on ignore caseyann and discuss it with people in "the rarefeid world of CTers". :rolleyes:

22-01-2011 06:15PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Better off putting them on ignore caseyann and discuss it with people in "the rarefeid world of CTers". :rolleyes:

Absolutely caseyann the absolutely best way to ask questions about the world is to block off anyone who doesn't agree with you and points out the flaws in your reasoning and evidence.

Monty Burnz · 22-01-2011 06:17PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Better off putting them on ignore caseyann and discuss it with people in "the rarefeid world of CTers". :rolleyes:

Yes, that's the way to find the truth. Only talk to people who agree with you even if they think that this is evidence for their beliefs, and ignore the people who point out that it's an obvious joke.

I laughed before when someone complained about their post being moved to the 'intellectual ghetto' that is the CT board, but now I see what they meant.

CHEMTRAILS

Comments