Could "Chemtrails" be a kind of medication?

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

If you are asking, do I trust all forms of science and every scientific study EVER...

The answer is --NO

And if you trust the results of any study that you personally have not conducted yourself, fine.

Now can you be more specific?

No need to be anymore specific as you answered the question, also I don't need to do the study myself as that is what those in that field are paid to do.

Now did you do your own studies on contrails, and if so what were your findings?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: howmuch4another

Then just shut the threads down then because I have yet to really see a Chemtrail believer stick to the "I'm just exploring.....b.s."

For what it's worth...I couldn't say much either way on that shutting anything down. I'm a member in here, not staff, and that's a position I've established and doubled down with for the determination I've taken to the forum and overall topic.

However, the suggestion of shutting down the Chemtrail forum was taken up some time ago in the BBQ forum. It was denied and dismissed as something ATS was not going to do, and so, it remains here as an open place for all to discuss.

Those who don't believe the forum has a purpose (as some here have openly stated in those very words) baffle me as to the reason so much time is spent returning to debunk those who do enjoy the topic? One of those mysteries in life, I suppose.

Yeah I would be remiss if I didn't clarify the sarcasm but it is frustrating when even you (whom I respect on these boards) posits that the burden of proof is on non-believers. Proving a negative....It boggles the mind. We don't allow "sightings" of ET, Bigfoot, Loch Ness or any host of other ct theories to be acceptable "proof" so until a believer comes to the table with something other than their eyes or a wiki to "weather modification" we should continue to deny ignorance. The facts ads they stand are that Contrails exist. Contrails are circumstantial. Contrails have pollutants. Contrails are more prevalent due to the number of Jets in the sky alone.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: network dude

Stating that a person is close minded because they don't believe a sky full of persistent contrails is harmless is...

BAD LOGIC

Show me where I said that please.

a reply to: network dude

Page 3

Response to wrabbit

a reply to: network dude

Um, new here huh. Well, let me show you around a bit.

you forgot to put LOL at the end of your statement.

That condescending approach to debate is likely why you encounter such fierce resistance to your points. It's something the average person won't stand well for....and I'm about average.

So those who argue for contrails aren't allowed to just enjoy the discussion?

Are we not enjoying the discussion? I'm simply curious at some of the more firm positions taken in contrast to the overall focus of the forum. It's more curious to hear them taken and repeated daily, but still, points I've not had the opportunity to address and inquire about personally.

If you're feeling put out, we can certainly drop the side chat at any time. Don't let me make you feel at all uncomfortable.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So, you trust everything that is said by a scientist?

Blindly?

With no need to see the results firsthand?

W.O.W.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Are you suggesting my eye witness accounts of what I saw over the Panhandle of Texas on more than one occasion were simple flights of fantasy?

I didn't see what you saw. So I don't know. I haven't seen Bigfoot either, but some say they have.

Perhaps you missed the part where I tried to explain what all the debunkers here are attempting to get across.

Contrails can persist. So far, any picture, video, or personal encounter described, is most likely a contrail. Based on the science that explains them. They could be chemtrails. They could all be chemtrails. But, since they look like contrails, and they act like contrails, we like to assume they are contrails.

We would rather not assume we are being poisoned, or sprayed with heavy metals, or blanketed with SRM material, until there is a reason to think that way. As of now, IN MY OPINION, there is not.

a reply to: network dude

The exact quote Apple was referring to was your message to me in which you stated...

I never figured you for a closed mind kind of rabbit.

Oh well. I guess you need to watch out for foxes and clouds.

..for the sake of clarity.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

How many threads are in our UFO forum? I would like evidence of that, too. It's got far more history as a theory w/o evidence than chemtrails and far more people believing what has never been shown to exist.

Well you will probably see evidence of UFO's before you will about chemtrails.

There is actually more evidence that UFO's exist than there is for the existence of chemtrails.

How many threads are in New World Order? Have we seen actual proof of an organized group holding power above the level of top world leaders? Nope.. not a shred to stand as such, beyond circumstantial evidence and proof by omission of explanation to events that must have one.

And there is more evidence that the NWO exists than you will find for chemtrails.

The logic that Chemtrails cannot exist because evidence of a theory has yet to surface is illogical and empty on the face of it. By that standard, almost no persistent conspiracy theory could hold to even be discussed without a standard of proof the very nature of conspiracy theory can never meet.

And the logic of a chemtrail believer is to just look up and see for yourself.

I know this is a conspiracy website, but that doesn't mean one cannot ask for evidence to backup a theory that is supposedly more than just a theory according to some.

No telling me that you can look up in the sky and know which is a contrail and which is a chemtrail is illogical.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Well you will probably see evidence of UFO's before you will about chemtrails.

There is actually more evidence that UFO's exist than there is for the existence of chemtrails.

Is there? You've made a number of claims in your posts now and I'd asked for clarification and support to your points... I'm really insisting you supply some form of support here as those statements not only should have it, if accurate, they are meaningless without it.

And there is more evidence that the NWO exists than you will find for chemtrails.

See above.. Your claims require support to be taken seriously. I proposed the questions and half way rhetorical. You attempt to address them, and I appreciate that. Give me some idea how you're getting to that point? I'm really not clear on it.

What proof exists of one over the other?

I know this is a conspiracy website, but that doesn't mean one cannot ask for evidence to backup a theory that is supposedly more than just a theory according to some.

Indeed..and that can and will be asked in return. As the one looking to debunk those of us who have an open mind to the topic, I'm really waiting for some support to those points.

*I do have to run...and will be back in a few hours to pick this back up. Thanks for a very enjoyable chat so far!

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: network dude

Um, new here huh. Well, let me show you around a bit.

you forgot to put LOL at the end of your statement.

That condescending approach to debate is likely why you encounter such fierce resistance to your points. It's something the average person won't stand well for....and I'm about average.

It was a joke. I guess that's not permitted anymore. But in reality, if you read a few chemtrail threads, you may see a pattern form with believers. I know I have.

So those who argue for contrails aren't allowed to just enjoy the discussion?

Are we not enjoying the discussion? I'm simply curious at some of the more firm positions taken in contrast to the overall focus of the forum. It's more curious to hear them taken and repeated daily, but still, points I've not had the opportunity to address and inquire about personally.

If you're feeling put out, we can certainly drop the side chat at any time. Don't let me make you feel at all uncomfortable.

I always enjoy this discussion. It makes me think and have to react. But when the other side slides into the toilet so far that they have to use the "you post on this topic too much, you must be a shill", it tends to degrade any intelligent post that person may have after that point. I assume they are out of ammunition. And it's just poor form.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: network dude

The exact quote Apple was referring to was your message to me in which you stated...

I never figured you for a closed mind kind of rabbit.

Oh well. I guess you need to watch out for foxes and clouds.

..for the sake of clarity.

Yes, and for the sake of clarity it was in reference to this post:

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
Indeed....Many of us do still find something odd about it all and no hours of lecturing will ever, by that approach, change anything.

Bold emphasis mine.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: network dude

The exact quote Apple was referring to was your message to me in which you stated...

I never figured you for a closed mind kind of rabbit.

Oh well. I guess you need to watch out for foxes and clouds.

..for the sake of clarity.

Thanks.

That was the one.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So, you trust everything that is said by a scientist?

Blindly?

With no need to see the results firsthand?

W.O.W.

So, of the facts regarding contrails that I talked about in my reply to Wrabbit, which ones do you think are wrong, and why?

Thank you.

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So, you trust everything that is said by a scientist?

Blindly?

With no need to see the results firsthand?

W.O.W.

So, of the facts regarding contrails that I talked about in my reply to Wrabbit, which ones do you think are wrong, and why?

Thank you.

You mean facts or "facts"?

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Is there? You've made a number of claims in your posts now and I'd asked for clarification and support to your points... I'm really insisting you supply some form of support here as those statements not only should have it, if accurate, they are meaningless without it.

The same can be asked of you.

Also saying that something does in fact exist without having evidence is meaningless, but it happens in every thread concerning chemtrails.

See above.. Your claims require support to be taken seriously. I proposed the questions and half way rhetorical. You attempt to address them, and I appreciate that. Give me some idea how you're getting to that point? I'm really not clear on it.

What proof exists of one over the other?

I do not see you asking chemtrail believers to adhere to the same standard you are asking of me, why does that not happen?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
It's a confusing position to say they may exist....yet spend so much time and effort arguing that they do not and have not?

Isnt it?

I find the feasibility of the general "pro-chemtrail" arguments to be rather lacking. However, the zealous debunking of the topic really raises some flags for me. Its like it is viewed as "productive" somehow. People with such accurate knowledge of the workings of nature would probably do better to invest in actually performing science rather than defending it.

Its the reason I think the idea of paid shills is borderline ridiculous. All you have to do is get "debunkers" (its just a societal archetype) to focus on a given topic, usually by presenting it in as ludicrous a manner as possible, and then they do the work for free (and blindly). I wouldnt say its a conscious process, more a result of social condition and the efficacy of contrarianism present in the populace to keep secrets obscured. I would describe the relationship to be more like puppets on strings, that arent aware of the hand controlling the movements.

It only happens on specific topics, and those are the ones I tend to look towards nowadays. The more fervent the debunking, the greater the appeal to authority, the greater the appeal to emotion or "logic," the deeper we should probably dig.

In effect, the more a topic is debunked, the more curious I get. I think that others are starting to look at things in the same way. Its ironic, in a way.

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople

originally posted by: waynos

originally posted by: applesthateatpeople
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

So, you trust everything that is said by a scientist?

Blindly?

With no need to see the results firsthand?

W.O.W.

So, of the facts regarding contrails that I talked about in my reply to Wrabbit, which ones do you think are wrong, and why?

Thank you.

You mean facts or "facts"?

You tell me, that's kinda the question.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I would describe the relationship to be more like puppets on strings, that arent aware of the hand controlling the movements.

So you think debunkers can't actually think for themselves?

And the last time I checked I don't have any strings nor do I have someones hand up my bum controlling what I say or do concerning this subject.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
So you think debunkers can't actually think for themselves?

As individuals, we can. As a societal archetype, no.

There will be fringe elements, as always, so absolute statements are counter-productive. But, as long as you have a majority whom buy into the base contrarianism, then the small percentage fringes are not relevant.

And the last time I checked I don't have any strings nor do I have someones hand up my bum controlling what I say or do concerning this subject.

Obviously.