He has VERY detailed definition...in several parts. Please ask him to post it here. It will give those who are unfamiliar with George's BROAD definition, a good point of reference.
I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program
- Thread starter George B
- Start date
- Status
He has VERY detailed definition...in several parts. Please ask him to post it here. It will give those who are unfamiliar with George's BROAD definition, a good point of reference.
I want you to use one that I disagree with.
I agree that there is cloud seeding, and contrails. So what is there to debate about?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Those can be specified as exclusions . . . or any other you wish to be excluded . . .
"you instruct the three people you chose to not look at any other Thread except the one the debate will be conducted on until the debate is over . . ."
Is the debate over when we all agree it's over?
If you want to have a formal debate, you have to come up with a statement that can be debated to determine it's truth or falsehood.
You can't come up with a statement that is always true.
How about "The government is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes,and these substances form long white visible trails that last for over 30 minutes".
Something more like that.
firepilot
Senior Member.
You present facts, present data, present actual evidence. Let those, do the advocating. Facts, by themselves, can do more proving, or debunking, than any of us can.
If I wanted to prove that there are seasonal cloud seeding projects, I do not have to "advocate" for endless pages, I could just show a photo of an aircraft, show flight tracks from seeding flights, and websites of companies that do it.
That in itself would prove there are such things as cloud seeding flights, without me having to say a thing.
Visibility of the trails is irrelevant...remember?
Which, in itself, makes HIS position impossible to prove...
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
We are getting closer . . . my problem is . . . those white visible trails are not always visible . . . I think that is misleading . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I also do not agree that it is the 'government' it needs to be broader regarding who may be doing it . . .
How do you know "they" aren't using some sort of secret rocket program to put the "aerosols" into the atmosphere? You seem to suggest one of your main reasons for believing this whole thing is true is the reported extra material supposedly found with supposedly no known source.
How do you know it's not balloons colored as the the sky (some report seeing "orbs") which are being used to bring that particulate up there...Or black balloons at night?!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
"You seem to suggest one of your main reasons for believing this whole thing is true is the reported extra material supposedly found with supposedly no known source." I did not say what you said . . . in fact it was only one of 28 items and was the last one added . . . I will also say that the rate of global warming has changed according to the article . . . and IMO is possibly an important statement . . .
Oh, so I'm not allowed to suggest a level of importance to the things on your list based on the amount of time you and I have discussed these things?!?
The other thing you spend the most time discussing is the "Military-Industrial Complex" which also has nothing to do with "evidence" in this matter! It's just something that has formed your world view...and has allowed you to accept things AS evidence.
I'm sorry George, I don't think you deserve to have a formal debate...and i certainly don't think you should be able to make the rules...
And I absolutely think it's a bad idea for you to influence others. You are a manipulator. Pure and simple.
(That is NOT meant to be insulting...he's VERY good at it! )
By the way, thanks for ignoring the OTHER points I made in that post. You do that often..you pick what you feel like adressing from a post...and leave the meat of it alone.
Maybe you should debate that then.
Or choose as your topic: "there is strong evidence that someone has deliberately and significantly altered the rate of global warming by spraying things other than normal emissions into the atmosphere from planes in secret over the last 20 years".
Something that I can disagree with.
PCWilliams
Senior Member.
No, not like me.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
How about using "SHILL", it seems to be the preferable way that most chemtrail believers address non-believers......
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
I propose that George not debate us. He should head off elsewhere and find and convince three people who are willing to come back here and positively identify themselves, and state that he has presented evidence which has convinced them of his claims.
These three people must have demonstrable and confirmable expertise in the following disciplines:
1. A currently licensed and flying commercial airline pilot.
2. A meteorologist holding a degree of Bachelor of Science.
3. A person holding a PhD. in geology.
George, if you will accomplish this task, I will give you $500 US cash, or remit to your favorite charity.
These three people must have demonstrable and confirmable expertise in the following disciplines:
1. A currently licensed and flying commercial airline pilot.
2. A meteorologist holding a degree of Bachelor of Science.
3. A person holding a PhD. in geology.
George, if you will accomplish this task, I will give you $500 US cash, or remit to your favorite charity.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How about "Someone or some authority is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes,and these substances can form long white visible trails that last for over 30 minutes".
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So I should be bared from discussing the very institution I think is historically linked to or is still involved in intentional aerosol injection. . . You want both my hands tied behind my back and blindfolded do you. . . .????
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My first proposal is still on the table . . . Until that is resolved I choose not to consider other proposals. . . I am not interested in money . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Suggest what you wish. . . It does not change the proposal. . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
If you think I have slighted you I apologize . . . I am trying to answer several people . . . if I missed an important question please repeat your inquiry . . . Many question get overtaken by answers to different individuals . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I don't understand your post . . .
Seems a bit vague "can form"? Marshmallows can form long white visible trails. Do they, or don't they?
Spongebob
Active Member
Where did I say anything about being "bared" from using it?!
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You are saying that intentional aerosols injection will break the rules of atmospheric science . . . They have to observe the same constraints and variables as any persistent contrail does . . . There would be conditions in which they would not be visible as well. . . So yes "can" . . . Not will or must form. . . .
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
My apologies then when I read the following that is what I inferred. . . .
"The other thing you spend the most time discussing is the "Military-Industrial Complex" which also has nothing to do with "evidence" in this matter! It's just something that has formed your world view...and has allowed you to accept things AS evidence.
I'm sorry George, I don't think you deserve to have a formal debate...and i certainly don't think you should be able to make the rules..."
Inferred is right..It seems to be a habit of yours.
I was referring to the use of things which are not evidence...AS evidence...I never said anything about barring anyone from using anything.
You seemed to get upset how i suggested that it was a "main" point of yours...and then I went from there to discuss another thing you bring up often which isn't actually evidence of "chemtrails" but is responsible for forming an opinion about a group of people who you distrust. So...everything they are involved in is somehow a conspiracy in your mind.
I never suggested that you not "USE" this information in your debate.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Quote: "Do others here feel the way Noble does?"
Yes!
So you feel like Noble that I should not (by myself) be allowed to debate the entire Forum with a third party judge to determine the outcome. . . .fascinating. . . .
I said no such thing..
I used my personal opinion, and history with you, to suggest that you don't DESERVE to have a formal debate.
I had just wanted to point out that the average person, with no education in atmospheric science/aviation can easily be MANIPULATED by those who pride themselves in being able to debate well....that something is being sprayed from jet engines.
But, I AM looking forward to watching it.
That being said, I am confident that you can manipulate others into accepting your side of the story. You really do know how to argue.
But, it won't prove that "chemtrails" are anything more than a fantasy.
By the way, how are you guys going to find 3 people who are uninfluenced by this hoax? How will they be screened?
Why do they, if they are chemically and physically different?
If you want to argue "some contrails are chemtails", then you need to phrase your statement that way.
It has to be a clear statement, free of ambiguity, not "something is probably going on"
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
OK . . . Let us see. . . There is no substantial research that shows aerosols are more persistent visually than a regular contrail . . . Though that may be misunderstood by many Chemtrail advocated. . . .so how do we agree to agree on a proper unambiguous statement. . . .Hmmmm
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
How about. . . .
"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes,and these substances because they are in addition to normal emissions are thought possible to form long white visible trails that last for over 30 minutes even when normal contrails would possibly not. . . ."
There is substantial research that indirectly shows they are far less visually persistent. Simply because a 50 mile long "chemtrail" would have a far smaller mass than a contrail and hence less surface area.
Your suggested statement so far is:
Now if a contrail would have formed anyway, and also persisted, then how will you see the chemtrail? How it it relevant?
In what way (if any) does a chemtrail visually DIFFER from the contrail the plane is (or is not) leaving? That needs to be clear in the statement.
"are thought possible" is true. So you can't use that.
You need a statement that, if true, would actually mean something. Of course some people think some things are possible.
That's a good one...
- Status
Similar threads
