Monsanto, Chemtrails & our future. Must see. No kidding.

[glenn]

Ok, so today I was walking to pick my kids up from school and I watched an airliner cross the sky, with four strong contrails behind it. As I watched it, it grew, and grew and grew. As it spread, it began to resemble the rest of the cirrus clouds. An hour later, you could still see the trace vector from it's path. I also noticed that there were others in the sky. They are all over the sky right now.

So, chemtrail conspirists, are these the dreaded chemtrails over Vancouver?

[Drumster]

Hmm, good question Glenn.
http://www.infowars.com/cost-of-chemtra ... on-a-year/

[glenn]

So, doesn't it make you even a little suspicious that these guys present a lot of information that "supports" their theory, but they don't have any actual evidence that it occurs. No money trail, no-one talking who makes, fuels, flies, or maintains these supposed planes. No company that produces the "chemicals" No information about how the chemicals are actually distributed - only guesses. No leaked documents. No air traffic controllers noticing unusual flights across the vancouver sky. Not a single person, in the last 20 years that has spilled the beans.

The article "cost of chemtrail program put at 5 billion a year" uses this quote as support:

U.S. scientists writing in the journal Environmental Research Letters concluded that “Planes or airships could carry sun-dimming materials high into the atmosphere for an affordable price tag of below $5 billion a year as a way to slow climate change,” reports Reuters, a process characterized as “both feasible and affordable.

”

They COULD do it for 5 billion. And they said it is feasible and affordable - hardly damning evidence. Scientists say lots of things are possible, all the time - but that doesn't mean they are happening. A mountain of circumstantial evidence is still just that - circumstantial. With all these people watching the skies, so committed to this conspiracy it's odd that no one has been able to uncover anything more than suspect samples of water?

For this kind of theory to have any teeth - someone needs to uncover actual and direct evidence of it's existence.

[tonydca]

C'mon folks -

From a technical review of aviation fuel: (http://www.cgabusinessdesk.com/document ... review.pdf - page 4):

"...In a jet engine, small carbonaceous particles are formed early in the combustion process. These
particles continue to burn as they pass through the flame and are completely consumed under
suitable conditions ... Carbon particles that are not completely consumed are responsible for the visible smoke that
some engines emit..."

From wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleation)

"... Creation of liquid droplets in saturated vapor is also characterized by nucleation (see Cloud condensation nuclei)..."

Also from wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei)

"...Cloud condensation nuclei or CCNs (also known as cloud seeds) are small particles typically 0.2 µm, or 1/100 th the size of a cloud droplet [1]) about which cloud droplets coalesce ... There are many different types of atmospheric particulates that can act as CCN. The particles may be composed of dust or clay, soot or black carbon from grassland or forest fires, sea salt from ocean wave spray, soot from factory smokestacks or internal combustion engines, sulfate from volcanic activity, phytoplankton or the oxidation of sulfur dioxide and secondary organic matter formed by the oxidation of VOCs."

So simple physical phase change of water in high altitude air due to the introduction of particulates from engine exhaust, or secret sinister multi-billion-dollar international conspiracy to poison and control us all?...

[Elbrad]

Tony, by bringing common sense into a conspiracy theorist's deluded ramblings you only reinforce his belief in the impossible.

It's like an atheist and a religious person arguing. The atheist is coming from a position of logic and reason, the theist is coming from a faith-based point of view. Neither position can exist with the other.

[Drumster]

Tony, by bringing common sense into a conspiracy theorist's deluded ramblings you only reinforce his belief in the impossible.

It's like an atheist and a religious person arguing. The atheist is coming from a position of logic and reason, the theist is coming from a faith-based point of view. Neither position can exist with the other.

It’s unfortunate that anyone has to stoop to such a level in an otherwise civil & interesting dialogue among friends. Really too bad.

[yojimbo]

Tony, by bringing common sense into a conspiracy theorist's deluded ramblings you only reinforce his belief in the impossible.

It's like an atheist and a religious person arguing. The atheist is coming from a position of logic and reason, the theist is coming from a faith-based point of view. Neither position can exist with the other.

It’s unfortunate that anyone has to stoop to such a level in an otherwise civil & interesting dialogue among friends. Really too bad.

Well, what really got my goat about this post was that atheism is a logical fallacy, there is no such thing. Atheism is itself a product of faith, or belief.

Imagine my frustration when that comparison was drawn.

[Elbrad]

Well, what really got my goat about this post was that atheism is a logical fallacy, there is no such thing. Atheism is itself a product of faith, or belief.

Imagine my frustration when that comparison was drawn.

Atheism is a faith in much the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

An atheist claims no belief in the supernatural choosing instead to believe in things that can be proven, whereas a theist makes claims that cannot be proven.

[Elbrad]

Tony, by bringing common sense into a conspiracy theorist's deluded ramblings you only reinforce his belief in the impossible.

It's like an atheist and a religious person arguing. The atheist is coming from a position of logic and reason, the theist is coming from a faith-based point of view. Neither position can exist with the other.

It’s unfortunate that anyone has to stoop to such a level in an otherwise civil & interesting dialogue among friends. Really too bad.

I'm sorry that I offended you. I've had this debate with a few other folks, and despite showing them evidence that completely debunks chemtrails, they plugged their ears and hummed (metaphorically).

[yojimbo]

Well, what really got my goat about this post was that atheism is a logical fallacy, there is no such thing. Atheism is itself a product of faith, or belief.

Imagine my frustration when that comparison was drawn.

Atheism is a faith in much the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

An atheist claims no belief in the supernatural choosing instead to believe in things that can be proven, whereas a theist makes claims that cannot be proven.

Thats not the definition of atheism, we could argue all day about it and I could show you the definitions, but I expect you will just plug your ears and hum (metaphysically).

[Elbrad]

Being a devout worshipper of The Flying Spaghetti Monster as well as the Invisible Pink Unicorn, I'm quite eager to hear what you have to say on the topic.

[yojimbo]

I'm very much in the FSM gang, though if pushed and I have to accept religion exists then I'm at least going to have some fun and take the position that it means all myths and legends that have no proof for them are equally valid, thus choosing one of the old time religions that had naked maidens and drunken debauchery and the like.

Cos that rocked!

Aside from that though, atheism definitions still revolve around the belief that no gods exist, which is in itself an act of 'faith', science doesn't deny the existence of something based on no evidence, it just says,"there's no evidence it exists", that doesn't preclude the possibility of existence.

I understand the point of view you put forward, but, its not what you read in dictionaries etc.

[Elbrad]

I get what you're saying, but by saying that atheism is a belief system, then it would follow that not believing in the Loch Ness monster (or more on topic, chemtrails) is a belief system, hence my stamp collecting analogy.

Atheism, by it's very definition is a void of belief. Asexual means without sexuality. Asymmetrical means without symmetry. Atheistic means without belief in supernatural forces.

I have a feeling this could use it's own thread though...

[yojimbo]

It could be a different thread, but...

It's not a belief system maybe, but its a belief, an act of faith.

If you ask someone to prove asymmetry, they can show you a potato, ask a biologist for an example of asexuality and they can probably find something that doesn't spring to my mind, or someone can claim asexuality because they have no interest in sex, but ask someone why they are atheist, and they say they are without god, and you ask why, and they can only say, it's what they believe to be true.

God or Loch Ness monster? They can't show either to not exist, therefore they can, and stating they do not, is a personal belief.

It's pretty fundamental to science to have that, evidence supports theories, it doesnt prove them, when its well enough supported we can use that theory to build a paradigm of how things work, but they are open to negotiation based on later evidence that comes to light.

What I find bizarre is people will believe in god, but not aliens. We have proof that life exists in the universe, us. So the chances of it happening elsewhere are supported. It might just be microbial, but its still life.

[Elbrad]

Again, I'll have to restate, but I'll do so in a different context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism is not a faith. Faith is looking around you, seeing what is real, and then choosing to believe in a fairy tale about some cosmic Jewish zombie or a pederast prophet who married a 9 year old girl.

Atheists sees the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. We believe in that which can be proven, tested, re-tested and shown to be true. Now, I can't speak for every atheist, but at the very core of atheism is the rejection of the supernatural.

What you seem to be hinting at is more of an agnosticism, rather than an atheistic point of view.