Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Cute. Metabunk.org.

I joined this site to seek knowledge and hear alternative points of view not often talked about in the "MSM". I was sure that on a "conspiracy" site that posters would be able to have dialog with one another, free of ridicule. Most of the time, this has been the case, however the same people show up to this forum in droves with nothing but ridicule and borderline mockery. These same posters, for whatever reason, see fit to "convince" all people who might think there is a possible conspiracy involving "chemtrails" that they are delusional or lack the understanding of the science behind contrails. I am interested in the geo-engineering angle of that discussion, however it seems these posters have nothing better to do than set anyone straight who thinks there may be something to this. It is alarming that they have stayed so persistent in their en devour without fail, on every single one of theses threads. What is the incentive for this behavior? Why can't these people simply avoid these discussions, so free thought can be openly expressed without the fear of ridicule? Whether or not there is substance to the "chemtrail" conspiracy is irrelevant. I have great concern that this site is becoming a place that those of us who dare to question will be increasingly driven off sites like this, not wanting to get "mobbed" by the resident "experts", for simply entertaining an idea.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Cute. Metabunk.org.

And your point would be? What did you find there that is actually wrong?

I wrote this post in the thread, so feel free to tell me what I got wrong.

a reply to: VikingWarlord

Yeah, agreed. It's almost like the favorite ATS parlor game...see how long until "they" show up.

originally posted by: VikingWarlord
I joined this site to seek knowledge and hear alternative points of view not often talked about in the "MSM". I was sure that on a "conspiracy" site that posters would be able to have dialog with one another, free of ridicule. Most of the time, this has been the case, however the same people show up to this forum in droves with nothing but ridicule and borderline mockery. These same posters, for whatever reason, see fit to "convince" all people who might think there is a possible conspiracy involving "chemtrails" that they are delusional or lack the understanding of the science behind contrails. I am interested in the geo-engineering angle of that discussion, however it seems these posters have nothing better to do than set anyone straight who thinks there may be something to this. It is alarming that they have stayed so persistent in their en devour without fail, on every single one of theses threads. What is the incentive for this behavior? Why can't these people simply avoid these discussions, so free thought can be openly expressed without the fear of ridicule? Whether or not there is substance to the "chemtrail" conspiracy is irrelevant. I have great concern that this site is becoming a place that those of us who dare to question will be increasingly driven off sites like this, not wanting to get "mobbed" by the resident "experts", for simply entertaining an idea.

Instead of complaining about people who are skeptical towards the chemtrail 'theory' being allowed to have a voice here, you'd do better to present some evidence for chemtrails. That's the one thing chemtrail believers are being asked all the time, yet it never materializes.

i can only speak for myself as for the reasons why I'm debunking the chemtrail myth: Some of the primary reasons are:

1: I'm a bit of an aviation buff, and it worries me greatly that people who work in all sorts of aviation-related professions are painted in a rather dark corner, being associated with the 'chemtrail' theory and it's implied nefarious goals. Chemtrail people often refer to pilots, meteorologists, scientists and whomever else they suspect as 'criminals' who should be hanged, shot, imprisoned or whatever. To me that's a very important reason to make sure that this chemtrail madness is exposed for what it is as soon as possible.

2: Point 1 would be moot if the chemtrail 'theory' had anything going for it, but since I haven't seen anything along those lines, I'm trying to get chemtrail believers to present credible evidence for their claims. No luck so far.

3: many people sincerely believe in chemtrails, and it turns out again and again that this is a result of their lack ogf knowledge of relevant subjects. That's not ridicule, but a simple fact of life. So I hope to help educate such people, so they don't have to be afraid of clouds anymore.

If you don't like having debunkers around, I guess you better stick around on chemmie websites where critical voices aren't allowed, while at the same time anything no matter how ludicrous is given free reign as long as it supports the notion that 'chemtrails are real'.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: VikingWarlord

Yeah, agreed. It's almost like the favorite ATS parlor game...see how long until "they" show up.

Maybe it's the other way around.. maybe we're waiting for chemmies to show up with another silly idea, so we can utterly crush it with logic and science.

I know.. it kinda sucks eh? But it's what debunkers do. Bunk isn't my thing, really.. but YMMV

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: VikingWarlord

Yeah, agreed. It's almost like the favorite ATS parlor game...see how long until "they" show up.

Maybe it's the other way around.. maybe we're waiting for chemmies to show up with another silly idea, so we can utterly crush it with logic and science.

I know.. it kinda sucks eh? But it's what debunkers do. Bunk isn't my thing, really.. but YMMV

No. It's not the other way around.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: VikingWarlord

Yeah, agreed. It's almost like the favorite ATS parlor game...see how long until "they" show up.

Maybe it's the other way around.. maybe we're waiting for chemmies to show up with another silly idea, so we can utterly crush it with logic and science.

I know.. it kinda sucks eh? But it's what debunkers do. Bunk isn't my thing, really.. but YMMV

No. It's not the other way around.

Well if you say so. Anyway, maybe instead of complaining you can actually present some evidence for chemtrails. That'd be quite a bit more impressive.

a reply to: payt69

The use of ridicule in response to posts is a fallacy of reason and should be avoided.

That is the point of the complaint in question in my opinion.

a reply to: payt69

Never claimed to believe in "chemtrails". I do have interest in the discussion of the possibility without the endless parade of "debunkers" flocking to these threads to "educate" the masses. I happened to notice a very distinct pattern, and pointed it out.

originally posted by: VikingWarlord
a reply to: payt69

Never claimed to believe in "chemtrails". I do have interest in the discussion of the possibility without the endless parade of "debunkers" flocking to these threads to "educate" the masses. I happened to notice a very distinct pattern, and pointed it out.

What's wrong with debunkers then? They point out and remove bunk and nonsense. If you disagree, then make your point. On this forum everyone gets to have their say. If you don't like that, then you're better off in an environment where only one side is allowed to speak their mind. It just so happens that that's the case on some chemtrail sites, such as look up and geoengineeringwatch... those seem to be more up your alley.

But if it's actually a discussion you want, well you better start bringing up something to discuss. Or do you mean you want everyone to instantly agree with your viewpoint, without it being questioned?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: payt69

The use of ridicule in response to posts is a fallacy of reason and should be avoided.

That is the point of the complaint in question in my opinion.

So what do you call a response like this when someone brings up metabunk?

'Cute. Metabunk.org. '

If whatever is on that site is so obviously false, then you better explain why that is so, instead of just implying it with sarcasm.

a reply to: payt69

A response in kind should have been expected.

No civilized discussion was going to take place - that had been indicated.

a reply to: VikingWarlord
I'm interested in these two lines from your post:

I joined this site to seek knowledge

and

Whether or not there is substance to the "chemtrail" conspiracy is irrelevant.

Would you mind reconciling those two ideas?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

1. You forgot the rest, "and hear alternative points of view not often talked about in the "MSM"
2." so free thought can be openly expressed without the fear of ridicule? Whether or not there is substance to the "chemtrail" conspiracy is irrelevant."

Context my friend.

a reply to: VikingWarlord

You forgot the rest

I forgot nothing. I asked about what interested me.

What ''knowledge'' would one seek without ''substance''?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: payt69

A response in kind should have been expected.

No civilized discussion was going to take place - that had been indicated.

That's up to you. I've seen many civilized discussions take place here. Just make sure you can substantiate whatever ideas you're going to promote here, since people will want to go to the bottom of them if they sound unconventional.

Contrails have a conventional explanation, just like the waves created by the displacement of water by a ship do. Now if you claim that those waves are created by something else, then you have to show that the current explanation based on Newtonian physics is wrong somehow, and then explain what's really causing them.

Same thing for contrails. First explain how the current theory is wrong, then explain why your theory is right. But as it stands, most chemtrail believers don't even seem to know what the current theory is, or do a really good job making it seem that way.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

How interesting that you think so. And believe in chemtrails as well.

originally posted by: VikingWarlord
a reply to: payt69

Never claimed to believe in "chemtrails". I do have interest in the discussion of the possibility without the endless parade of "debunkers" flocking to these threads to "educate" the masses. I happened to notice a very distinct pattern, and pointed it out.

Can a discussion not include both sides then? Can it not include factual explanations for claims where it is possible to provide them? You have no interest in bunk information being exposed for what it is?

OK Your choice, but how can you ever have any meaningful discussion if you are not allowed to separate the lies from the truth?

originally posted by: VikingWarlord
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

1. You forgot the rest, "and hear alternative points of view not often talked about in the "MSM"
2." so free thought can be openly expressed without the fear of ridicule? Whether or not there is substance to the "chemtrail" conspiracy is irrelevant."

Context my friend.

So when someone claims to have a picture of a chemtrail plane interior, or to know that they looked up and saw a chemtrail, or even that contrails cannot persist so any trail that does is a chemtrail, the fact that such claims are nonsense is all irrelevant?

Wow. I always thought that many chemmies were simply game playing and stroking their own ego's, I think your the first to come out and say it though. Fair enough, carry on..