posted 01-08-2002 03:12 PM            

and everything i just said applies to everything else you may or may not believe.

if someone attempts to debunk your experience, they are useless unless they have something other than an offhand opinion to contribute.

most of the people on this forum (i hope) believe that these chemtrails are real because they have seen evidence and countless testimonies. NOT because they "just believe it", or because they are prone to out of ignorance. if you dont believe it, ask yourself why not. is it because you think there is a flaw in the evidence? or you have another explanation? or is it because you plain just dont believe it out of fear/"common sense"/ignorance?

it seems that common sense is the least common thing there is.

posted 01-08-2002 07:03 PM            

Thank you. You know what would be interesting an accounting here, an accounting of "believers" and "disbelievers". We promise to respect all, but let us throw our hats in the ring one way or another and see where each of us stand. We're masked under screennames...go for it. There are some of those that post here in a most ambiguous manner. All those that "believe there is something being sprayed in our skies" mark yes...All those "believe we are just mistaken, looking at normal clouds and airtraffic" (using the least offensive word I could come up with)mark no.

posted 01-08-2002 07:18 PM            

(1) I doubt that you can speak for everyone on this board when you say "We promise to respect all, but let us throw our hats in the ring one way or another and see where each of us stand."

(2) There are rules on this board that place limits on what topics and viewpoints are permitted. Inasmuch as this is Thermit's board, of course, he can make those rules; but how do you expect debunkers to be able to reply when our comments are disallowed?

(3) "We're masked under screennames ... go for it. " No. I never mask under screen-names. Everyone here knows my True Name, e-mail address, city and state, and telephone number. What do I have to hide?

So even though I am forbidden to say why I believe the way I do, I suppose I won't get kicked off this board by entering

NO.

posted 01-08-2002 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

our [debunker] comments are disallowed?

...I am forbidden to say why I believe the way I do...

---

Actually, Duncan, you have said why you believe the way you do, both in great detail, and quite eloquently. One example, here in your 'Six Reasons Why I Consider Chemtrails a Hoax' we discuss these things.

Current forum rules are available at the Register link.

posted 01-08-2002 10:49 PM            

Your observation of the heavens differs
from mine.... I have observed great
changes over the past 10 years.

I wonder what our ancestors would say
about the present state of the atmosphere .... I wonder what stars
they'd use for navigation?

posted 01-09-2002 08:26 AM            

Thank you for bringing up my essay and providing the links to it. In all the time that that screed has been going around (about two years, I'd say), it has almost become the Necronomicon to chemtrail proponents; probably second only to Jay Reynolds' infamous "contrails or trails-con?" as the epitome of evil disinfo.

And yet, in all the time that my exemplar of TPTS-sponsored spewing has been on various websites, only one person has responded to it in a point-by-point discussion.

That person, of course, is you; and that is the reason that why I still feel somewhat comfortable coming here.

Thank you.

posted 01-09-2002 12:11 PM            

but can you at least agree that chemtrails exist?. sure, there havent been any test yet. but abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. its evidence that these particulates they spray arent really provable beyond a visual reference. DUH. who could possibly fly around with a air-collector and collect samples before it dissapates? thats why they arent being found out. nobody can do a gosh diddly darn thing about it.

posted 01-09-2002 01:15 PM            

There are many people both on this board and other boards who believe that the United States government (or a wider and more amorphous instrumentality) is spraying chemicals in an effort to 'cull the population', 'brainwash the American citizens', or other nefarious reasons.

There are many people who do not believe this, and think that the chemicals being sprayed are for a beneficial purpose like national defense, ameliorating global warming by increasing the earth's albedo, or immunizing us against an undetermined disease. There are as many different hypotheses for chemtrails as there are for any other unexplained phenomenon.

But the two things that all these hypotheses seem to have -- as a given -- is that (1) there are undetermined components other than water vapor, combustion byproducts and metallic particles that result from normal turbine engine wear and tear; and (2) that such injection of components into aircraft contrails is done on purpose.

You bring up a good point when you say that "... abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence." Absence of evidence is just that: absence of evidence. Without evidence, we can't show that chemtrails don't exist; nor can we show that they do exist. Typically, in the absence of evidence, we would use techniques like Occam's Razor to come up with a working hypothesis.

I think that the first step would be to show that such components exist, then try to determine what the reasons for the spraying is.

regards,

posted 01-09-2002 03:50 PM            

Duncan, what you say is true for some chemtrails. But some trails are made of components we know perfectly well. They are made by the dumping of JP-8+100 jet fuel. This goes on all the time.

posted 01-09-2002 04:12 PM            

I would like to say, though, that "combustion byproducts" -- as I define them -- include the burning of potentially-dangerous additives in addition to the kerosene itself.

But it's true; we have no serious peer reviewed information -- or even widely-available information -- on JB-8+100 byproducts. Burning any hydrocarbon fuel with additives, whether it's jet fuel additives or lawn-mower gasoline with stuff from your gas can which has been sitting in the shed, or even something from Pep Boys you put in your truck's gas-tank, pretty much overrides whatever precautions that have been taken to ensure that the emissions are within what most people consider acceptable.

And actually dumping unburned fuel, whether JP-8 or Exxon Unleaded, has got to be bad for the environment, and we should do whatever we can to control such behavior.

But I don't think there're many skeptics/debunkers who blow off the very real concerns of hydrocarbon pollution, just as I don't think there're many of us who don't have at least some concerns about the fact that aircraft contrails, which can and do coalesce into cirrus clouds, have the very real potential for long-term climate changes.

It's the jump from that to a deliberate spraying program, of course, that many of us don't make. In my case, the evidence to do so simply isn't there.

Regards,