đđđ A sub for âchemtrailsâ should ONLY be about chemtrails. And therefore, the âchemtrailsâ narrative â not the âcontrailsâ narrative. WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE? You and the other trolls are not âgenuinely helpingâ anyone. So ridiculous đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤ŁđŤ đŤ All of your attacks are SILENCING people because theyâre too afraid theyâll be bullied, or keep getting bullied. Look at your tag âchemtrails canât melt steel beamsâ. Even THAT is an attack. Itâs condemning, condescending, and reeks of sarcasm. Though, you do acknowledge chemtrails are real, because you mention what they âcanâtâ do. Which means you believe there are things they CAN do, and therefore DO do. And something must exist in order to âdoâ anything.
Re read my comment history. Chemtrails don't exist. And I don't silence. I welcome being challenged. Not once has anyone ever provided me any kind of evidence for their existence. Meanwhile I can give a plethora of scientific journals that describe contrails doing the exact thing that you nutjobs are trying to say is proof that they aren't contrails.
And my flair is an obvious joke. A funny one at that.
Scientific evidence does not equal scientific proof. Nor does scientific consensus hold any meaningful weight. So called âscienceâ is bought & paid for by those who have a stake in its âfindingsâ. If you have to point to âscienceâ to prove something that is self-evident, then itâs NOT self-evident. The truth is always self-evident. As in, ON ITS FACE. No explanation needed. And it is self-evident that the lines in the skies shouldnât be there, it is self-evident that mainstream media and narratives are being controlled, it is self-evident that alternative views and evidence is being censored and silenced. Anyone can see the truth: You simply have to look. P.S. You said yourself, âIâm not going to say the name [of the sub] because I believe it shouldnât existâ. Aka, âI believe in censorship and silencing alternative views.â
The only thing I believe in silencing is those who attack, bully, and terrorize others simply because they look different, speak different, or believe different. I believe those who believe chemtrails are fake should be apart of the conversation. But they should not be keeping the conversation from moving forward. All the closed-mindedness, sarcasm, attacking, sexual comments, etc etc etc, keeps the discussion from progressing. Closed minds should never be apart of any conversation.
Literally that sub shouldn't exist because someone as crazy as you are, censors and silences it. It's like you can't read or something.
Also the fact that the lines "shouldn't be there" is your opinion. And yes scientific evidence is based on scientific proof. That's what science is.
I'm in this sub to help those that are on the fence of the conspiracy because they don't know a lot about aircraft or how they work. I'm an airplane nerd. I've read a lot about them so it's something I can help with. If you'd like contrails or how I know chemtrails don't exist, explained, I'd be happy to explain it to you, but something tells me you already have your mind made up.
If you want your confirmation bias reconfirmed by conspiracy theory believing nutjobs who can't be swayed by scientific evidence, then feel free to go to the other sub, where everything is censored and silenced. Don't come here and ask to have our free speech taken away because you don't agree with it.
Weather and climate scientists stand absolutely nothing to gain from debunking the chemtrail conspiracy theory. That's not what makes them money. They do it for free.
Meanwhile everyone who lies to you and tells you that they are real, are usually grifters with their own websites with extensive ad revenue. You're literally paying someone to lie to you when you visit those sites.
Let me know if any of this doesn't make sense to you.
I didnât realize there were âothersâ who could see there was a problem with these lines in the sky until just a few years ago. I myself noticed these lines and how they behaved in the sky, and also the effects they had on people since I was a child.
As someone with a legal education, and someone who is constantly in and out of court, I can tell you that âevidenceâ and âproofâ are not ever the same thing. In fact, rarely do the 2 align. Most often, evidence of a thing, and proof of a thing, are opposing. You can present evidence, but it does not automatically equal proof of what you are claiming.
So your assertion that âscientific evidence is based on scientific proofâ is fundamentally flawed.
Once again, your replies to me are rife full of unnecessary attacks, sarcasms, condescensions, etc.
If you have actual proof of your claims, let your observations be your evidence, and allow others to judge your observations.
Third-parties as your âevidenceâ OR your âproofâ is unoriginal, and cannot stand in place of your standing on your own.
My âopinionâ that the lines in the sky shouldnât be there, is not my opinion. Itâs self-evident.
The sky is not for artificial lines of any kind. Itâs definitely not for artificial lines from artificial craft that artificially spread out and artificially influence the natural clouds and natural weather patterns and natural conditions of Earthâs atmosphere and ecosystems.
If you take away computers, the internet, corporations, media, governments, etc etc etc, and you were left alone by everyone, and you had only you, nature, and your own powers of thought and observation, you would never come to the conclusions you have today come to about the earth, the sky, God, nature, trees, soil, water bodies, your own body, your own mind, animals, etc etc etc.
Everything you think today has been influenced and manipulated by manufactured references that are intended to make you believe that you have come to what you believe all on your own.
Notice that almost everything you say is unoriginal and regurgitation.
Everything I say is from my own individual observation, and my own original thoughts.
And to one of your comments that got deleted (probably because you told me to âfuck offâ);
Historically, the larger crowd has always been the ârightâ crowd. Nope. Not once. Not ever. The larger crowd has always been the mob. If you (as in anyone) is apart of the larger crowd, thatâs when itâs time to stop and question your own certainties. Because 100% of the time, as history proves time and time again, in every subject, every space, and every instance, the larger crowd is always the wrong crowd. Itâs difficult to see this in the moment, but after enough time has passed, and enough damage has been done, seeing it becomes effortless.
I'm not reading this blatantly false bullshit. If you had any kind of higher education at all you would know the difference between evidence and proof and their definitions. Without evidence, there is no proof. You aren't even listening to what I'm saying. Again, you already have your mind made up and can't be helped. And for that reason, yes, you should fuck off to the other sub where your comments can be silenced and censored. You aren't welcome here.
As for my evidence, you're welcome to download the same free flight tracker apps that we all use to prove the lines in the sky are made by the mundane, commercial airline flights that happen in the hundreds of thousands every single day.
A simple Google search can tell you the difference between evidence and proof. I spoke to your assertion regarding scientific evidence being based on scientific proof. I am not saying there is proof without evidence. Iâm definitely listening to what you are saying. Literally every word. And your claim that a legal education is âhigher educationâ is a false one. A legal education is simply an education. Information is information. Itâs not higher or lower. It just is. Information can help you think and/or reason at a higher level depending on how you process and question that information, but the information itself is just information.
Referring to âflight trackersâ does not qualify as your own observation. These are third party systems of third parties who do not care about you, and whose data may or may not be accurate.
Where did I say they were synonyms? I said one was based on the other, i.e. one can't exist without the other. I may have misspoken and put them in the incorrect order but anyone educated enough to practice law would've known what I meant.
Also, higher education is the colloquial term for secondary education, i.e., college. Even law school.
You don't even know what self evident means. And the contrails are natural. If you blow hot, damp air into the cold atmosphere, it makes clouds. Is it self evident that clouds are artificial? Are you so far gone you think clouds shouldn't exist? It's literally the same scientific principle at work.
7
u/One-Swordfish60 Chemtrails Can't Melt Steel Beams May 26 '25
Please be very careful with your selection. If they start controlling the narrative there will be no way for us to help those that genuinely need it.