Anyone mind tossing up links to orgonite or Ickey forums? (PM if violate TOU...)
Sadly, when we are being very clear, there is no such thing as proof. Just accumulated data points. Sometimes those data points have a high correlation with our models, and we can make relevant (sometimes utilitarian) predictions based on them. But collected data with high correlation is not a guarantee of future events.I'm just asking for proof
It has been noticed. I noticed it. But my observations are just 'anecdotal' and for you do not constitute 'proof'.If there are this many planes doing the spraying, it's almost impossible that someone wouldn't have noticed,
When lead was added to gasoline, there was no need for nozzles or separate tanks to pump lead into the air. And when it was common practice, the public did not take note as they were unaware of the consequences.Where are the photos of the nozzles on the plane, of the tanks of these substances mounted, or being added or removed, refilled or changed?
Um... unless it's a chemtrail. Some common characteristics, but very different behaviors.
If you choose not to believe that I exist, I cannot dissuade you.
Maybe I'm a monkey at a keyboard getting lucky.
Maybe I'm a split of your persona, logging on to your account just to frustrate you towards some kind of internal spiritual evolution.
Or maybe I exist independently as much as you do.
And maybe I am almost as clever as you are, and understand your descriptions and accounts of the relationship between condensate and humidity, and tell you that I've seen a very different phenomenon.
And then you'd have to decide if it's possible that there's something more in the world than benevolent mist.
Verifiable accumulated data points.Sadly, when we are being very clear, there is no such thing as proof. Just accumulated data points. Sometimes those data points have a high correlation with our models, and we can make relevant (sometimes utilitarian) predictions based on them. But collected data with high correlation is not a guarantee of future events.
None of what I ask for requires a lifetime.The practicality of our lifespan demands that we lower our standards of 'proof'... from observation over eternity to something more human and utilitarian to our daily lives.
It has been observed that there are contrails that last longer than others.It has been noticed. I noticed it. But my observations are just 'anecdotal' and for you do not constitute 'proof'.
Lead was an essential part of gasoline to prevent early combustion. With one hand you tell me the NASA patent application is proof of a delivery system (it's an external nozzle), with the other you tell me it's mixed into the diesel fuel.When lead was added to gasoline, there was no need for nozzles or separate tanks to pump lead into the air. And when it was common practice, the public did not take note as they were unaware of the consequences.
Still an awful lot of people to keep quiet. As wikileaks proves, it's by no means easy to do either. One upset person, one simple action, and we could have plenty of proof.Civilians do not have access to our military planes. If there was a need for a more conspicuous application method, is it impossible that specific planes with specific pilots with specific security-clearance/mental-states would be used. And that the application of such metals was for the 'greater good' or 'national defense'?
I see contrails.Scroll up to post #67 and take a gander... but I guess rejecting the 'proof' photographs these days only requires a photoshop reference.
Questions of existentiality have 0 to do with what there is, or isn't in trails of water vapor left behind planes. It also has 0 to do with what normal people require in terms of proof, especially when the claims are so extraordinary.Consider the fact that I can set my standard of proof in such a manner that I can't prove that I exist (even Descartes, "I think therefor I am," fails under his own investigatory standards) . But that doesn't pay my internet bill, and without that I can't have ontological 'discussions' with strangers on the internet... so I choose to lower my standard of proof... grant that I exist... and continue to post in this thread.
Sure, but believing something just because it seems credible is how most religions got so big, how most scammers make their money, and how most politicians fleece their voters. If that's the way you want to go about things, feel free.. I have a higher standard.Ultimately, we all must take responsibility for our own lives and worldview. (Or not, I suppose.) I believe that there is an education component that is involved in being a responsible human, that is, you may not know what is going on, but you ought to do your best to figure it out.
Or earn you an honorary tinfoil beanie..Following that approach to life, I have encountered many disturbing things. One of them was chemtrails. My observations were consistent with many accounts that I found, and these accounts were consistent with my developing model of the power structure of this planet. My global-political model--the one that includes chemtrails--allows me to make utilitarian predictions on future trends. So I don't need any more proof. My own eyes, my own mind, and global consistency is sufficient for me to accept these data points as statistically relevant, and continue on with my life.
I've constructed a very good understanding of how many gullible people are out there (the whole vaccines=autism crap being a prime example).From my perspective, 'figuring it out' is a process of construction. It is fine to use a deconstructive mythology to test your understanding, but if but if you don't intend to construct something new from the rubble, I'm not sure you've done any kind of service to yourself or others.
It is much easier to tear down than to build.
There are scientists, good scientists, that do not disbelieve in god just because they haven't found him in their models of reality. Hell, there are good scientists that have found god in their equations.
When your definition of proof excludes the possibility of the existence of chemtrails (or anything else), is it any wonder that you can't find evidence to prove their existence?
Multiple planes flying in patterns (in a rather remote part of the world en route to nowhere). 'Trails' forming a grid. Rather than dissipating over time (as one might expect with a fixed quantity of vapor exhaust per combustion cycle) the trails expanding, conjoining and thickening (as one might expect in a seeding event where particulate are used as points for condensation).what is so different about the phenomena you have seen, that it cannot be explained by variations in atmospheric conditions?
is not to understand me, but to throw me aside.honorary tinfoil beanie
for reasons I've already demonstrated