That seems a bit weird. This is how it appears: “Would you not have to have an object fall upward in order to assume that there is a consistency in objects falling down?” But maybe I probably misunderstood, possibly, I think is perhaps the case.
This sentence says something about Kim Kardashian.
Leaping to conclusions in action and also not taking the post in context.
Well, no. There’s no natural phenomenon where straight lines spread out into a perfectly rectangular cloud. But then, it clearly wasn’t natural since you could see the planes laying down the lines, and then see how the lines, unlike normal plane exhaust, did not slowly dissipate and become thinner, but rather in this case, the crosshatch spread and did not dissipate, creating the aforementioned rectangle.
[/quote]
After labeling my process Pscience, you then ask questions perhaps you should have asked first. Got your bias out front. It was supposed to a be a sunny day, but of course this is no guarantee and I would not draw a conclusion that a supposed to be sunny day being cloudy means chemtrails. Normal airplane trails, as stated, do not create enormous sky covering cloud covers. I have seen those also. This was clearly a created weather pattern. My post was a response to the idea that these are beneficial things that the government does, but there is no justification. We have had seasonal rainfall, and have had more rainfall in the last decade than the one before and it is a non-growing season. There is a population wide vitamin D deficit, if nothing else. And then there is the fact that these events are not in the MSM and not officially acknowledged or explained.
It is true that sometimes goverments and other organizations - perhaps this was private - do things that are neutral or beneficial or at least intended to be and keep it secret. But then, in general, if not in specific, they could acknowledge that something is happening.
That behavior is characteristic of contrails.
Well, no. Chemtrails, yes. Otherwise most cities would always have full cloud cover. The passing of commercial (or whatever, military…) flights does not change the weather. The trails dissipate.
So your criteria for chem trails is they remain in place on fine days? Surely they stay in place because it’s a nice day though? Hell I’ve seen contrails stay in place for hours and hours on a nice day. Cross hatching is what happens when many planes use the same airspace, this is something I have also seen, was it a well used area of the skys by either military or commercial air planes? What do actual chemtrails look like, I mean one’s deliberately dropped by an aircraft to seed clouds say, do they linger? You’re drawing conclusions that have nothing but anecdote as substance, and in reply all I have to do is say I have seen the same and draw a different conclusion. Do you see?
If you get to the right vantage point, you can see ‘campaigns.’ Where it’s the same couple planes looping back and forth laying down strips in a specific spot. They turn the spray on, turn it off, turn around, rinse, repeat.
Chemtrail planes have no markings.
It’s almost always on bright sunny days.
There’s lots of indicators if you actually look.
Also anecdote? I think what you don’t have to do is convince me, that may well not happen, but you probably need a scientist in your corner to even get anywhere close to showing how this works, how the conclusions lead to your assumptions and ultimately why this is fact over opinion.
Meh. Not really. I had a friend one time who refused to believe so I brought him to one such vantage point and we just sat there watching.
He came around. Once you see it, it cannot be unseen.
I fail to see why you would need a scientist if you witnessed what was clearly a military operation going on over your city. That is just refusing to accept the facts, imo.
In fact, say there was a scientist sitting there explaining complicated orgone/HAARP/etc facts. A) You wouldn’t understand it, and B) Would therefore just be taking some authority figure on faith.
This is like saying you need a scientist to explain how a tap works to admit that some taps turn off. Some things are easil verifiable by the naked eye. Chemtrails are one such thing.
That reminds me of when, in the 80’s, I marked a long single sheet 2 year calender every time it rained or got seriously cloudy. After 2 years, there was an almost perfectly straight line down the calender indicating the predictability of the rain. I could predict the rain a week ahead of time within an hour with 99% accuracy (100% if not for the occasional cloudy days when it did not actually rain). Yet on the TV weather service, they were doing good to get any better than an 30% record.
When I mentioned this to a predominate member of that society, with a degree of disdain she asked if I checked the almanac to ensure that I was right. Of course my reply was something like, “So you seriously think that I need to check a book to know whether it is raining?” 
Well, yes, actually. I posted information about it earlier in the thread. Of course the persistence of contrails will vary depending on when and where they form. You think all should behave in exactly the same way?
I don’t believe you, if you really could do that especially locally then why aren’t you famous? Surely you could email someone at say the UK Met office, who predict the weather globally, and say that it will or wont rain in your location? They use a rather impressive super computer to be 50% locally accurate at best, so I’m sure they’d be interested in your 99%.
No you need to check a book to see if it was raining. Almanacs deal with what has already happened. The statistics lack any sort of bias. Asking someone to corroborate their accuracy is good practice.
I had a friend once who saw serious amounts of cross hatching in the sky, I didn’t prime him first to what it meant, and funnily enough he didn’t assume it was a government plot. Sfunny that.
Yes it’s refusing to accept your so called facts based on anecdote, I am of course ergo evil.
Couldn’t hurt to try. But really this is just evasion isn’t it because no such evidence exists. And as you say even if it did, and did not support your case, you would dismiss it as all part of the conspiracy. Cognitive bias, only accepting science that confirms your ideas.
You know what I would do if something confirmed what I thought, refuse to accept it until at least one independent researcher had verified it, and then only accept it when many had done the leg work.
Obviously not as you cannot analyse the air to see if chemicals are present with the naked eye.
Of the two of us, I’m the one who has done my own experiments. Fake clouds are affected by POR; real ones are not.
Don’t worry, friend. We’re launching a new forum soon, and I’ll explain orgone to you there.
I’m gonna save discussing that for now.
Hmm. That’s very interesting.
One time I kept track of the number of pure blue sky days we had in a summer. It was like 7 or 9 or something pathetic like that.
Yeah was it peer reviewed, by which I mean did any other person look at your experiment, point out the flaws and then tell you it was junk because it didn’t meet certain experimental standards, ie you didn’t actually show there were chemicals in the chem trails, and you entirely relied on your own cognitive bias whereby you only acknowledge what you want to see and how you construe your claims.
You can’t start a scientific experiment already saying that things exist, you have to say something like I set out to prove a null hypothesis and found out it wasn’t in fact null. Or I started with certain biases and then found out I could not answer the question without doing more than just writing walls of text on forums. Or maybe actually doing something that scientists would even be remotely interested in listening to.
Save your energy.
In other words, no, his “experiments” didn’t follow any sort of scientific protocol. And yes, he only sees what he wants to see (clearly).
That’s some wishful thinking where you have to chime in to assert something you know nothing about.
I think it’s obvious which one of us is biased based on your reaction.
hmm… bias or retarded… which is worse… hmm
From the suppressed end of MSN…