Operation Indigo Skyfold

a reply to: ConnectDots

You do know that ridicule is a fallacy of reason, correct?

Of course I do, IF ridicule IS one's argument.

And FFS Mary, you act like it's the only one. Learn what the others are and quit using them.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

You are twisting the meaning of ridicule as a fallacy of reason in a debate.

So, let's elaborate on it.

In your comments about Kristen Meghan, you made use of ridicule in the form of an ad hominem.

No one who has an actual reason for what they believe has any reason to use ad hominem ridicule.

www.seekfind.net...

a reply to: ConnectDots
You appear to be using delusional reasoning which I consider a fallacy.

I'll keep this simple.

A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...

No argument, no fallacy. A joke can be a joke, whether you like it or not.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul



Two questions:

1. What is the significance of the iridescent colors?
   
2. How can composite photos compare to Wigington's photo? Is it comparing "apples with apples"?
   

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

There is more than one category of the fallacy of ridicule.

You're trying to say it's okay to make use of an ad hominem directed at a public figure giving firsthand personal testimony about a subject of interest to the entire planet.

It is not okay; it is irrational.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: ConnectDots
You don't think images with scary skulls and "chemtrail" plane and tankers are intended to have a psychological effect?

waynos,

Did you not realize that you changed "psychological operation" to "psychological effect"?

The former is intended to promulgate the latter, arguing the phrase is mere deflection. I get it, you don't want to answer that point.

And then made a derogatory comment about the other side.

I gave my own opinion, nothing more.

You are skipping over the point to argue over minutiae again.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

There is more than one category of the fallacy of ridicule.

You're trying to say it's okay to make use of an ad hominem directed at a public figure giving firsthand personal testimony about a subject of interest to the entire planet.

It is not okay; it is irrational.

FFS, why do I feel the need to step into this one?

CD, DO's remark about her forehead was quite obviously a joke, an aside to the argument, not part of it. This is how normal human beings often punctuate friendly discussions and not all worth getting hung up about.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
When I have time, I'll start over.

After listening to Dane Wigington speak, you made this remark:

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
What to make of the claims that those trails weren't around before the 90s? Does he think before he speaks?

Wondering why you would criticize him for varying from the stance that had been taken by chemtrail advocates, I asked this:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Are you sure it was Dane Wigington who made those claims?

Because if it was not him, why should he be held responsible for them?

To which you replied:

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ConnectDots
I'm not sure if he has ever actually claimed that or not. Regardless, my point is he just kicked a bunch of his disciples square in the teeth with that.

Thinking to myself, why do you call others in their movement "disciples," I replied:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Not necessarily.

"Disciples" is a very strong word. I'm not sure it applies at all.

And when people are in a search for the truth, they freely state the facts as they know them, regardless.

I say activists who are trying to piece together the truth going up against the military-industrial complex should be forgiven for making some mistakes.

Then, your next reply really gave me cognitive dissonance:

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

Disciples, followers, blessed children of the lovemind of one, whatever you want to call them. I. Don't. Care.

He kicked them in the teeth. All who have waved the ''chemtrails'' weren't around before the 90s banner. It's a tenet of the ''chemtrail theory''.

In conclusion, this is what I heard you saying:

In the chemtrail - contrail debate, it's us vs. them, not a search for the truth.

So, my question to you is, does that about sum up your opinion?

a reply to: waynos

What do you mean the former is intended to promulgate the latter?

I disagree. Derogatory comments are not minutiae.

They are designed to break down an opponent instead of trying to come to a meeting of the minds and move closer to the truth when there is conflicting information.

originally posted by: waynos
FFS . . .

Excuse me?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: waynos

What do you mean the former is intended to promulgate the latter?

I disagree. Derogatory comments are not minutiae.

They are designed to break down an opponent instead of trying to come to a meeting of the minds and move closer to the truth when there is conflicting information.

So let's finally cut to the chase then, and get past all this idling around 'he said she said' stuff.

Let's focus on evidence for chemtrails instead.

If you're interested in the truth regarding chemtrails, then why do you rely on geoengineeringwatch and Dane Wigington, who has been proven to be keeping things from you that are important for your understanding of what is or isn't a chemtrail.

You've skipped this subject multiple times now, but I'll keep waving it in your face because it makes it so blatantly obvious what geoengineeringwatch is all about:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread proves that Wigington is a liar. I'm sorry, I have no other word for it.. it is what it is, and sometimes you need to face the facts.

Can we agree on that? I think it's important, since geowatch is such an important part of the whole chemtrail debacle. Once we can establish it's veracity, I suppose we can move on to other matters.. such as Griffith perhaps.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

Two questions:

What is the significance of the iridescent colors?

The rainbows are caused by reflection of light though ice crystals - wiki article on cloud iridescence - it is high school science level physics, despite various people claiming that it is a sign of metallic elements - I have no idea how metals cause rainbows, except for bismuth!!

How can composite photos compare to Wigington's photo? Is it comparing "apples with apples"?

Both are aerodynamic contrails - so it is more like comparing apples with apples.

I answered this for you already several pages back!

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: waynos
FFS . . .

Excuse me?

Mate, stop sidestepping the questions by being incredibly sensitive to everything, You are not fooling anyone. We are all adults here (well, i assume you are) and we sometimes swear, make jokes about people etc..)

Just stop. Stop taking everything as offensive and just concentrate on the questions people are asking you,

a reply to: ConnectDots

Psychological operations are intended to have a psychological effect. Therefore the phraseology fits perfectly. I'm finding it hard to accept this is a genuine sticking point for you. It looks extremely laboured.

What exactly was derogatory? I may be talking about something there that you are not.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: waynos
FFS . . .

Excuse me?

You are excused.

a reply to: ConnectDots

There is more than one category of the fallacy of ridicule.

It doesn't matter how many categories there are but I'm sure Petros would be proud. Your argument is fallacious in itself. Here's why-
Fallacy Definition

A fallacy is an erroneous argument dependent upon an unsound or illogical contention.

Comprehension is the key to unlocking the power of knowledge.

Remember to look up.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Indeed. I have seen (and photpgraphed) plenty of irridesence just like that. But only in natural clouds of dihydrogen monoxide ....

Please remember to keep the conversation on the topic.

Keep your eye on the ball...........

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Moderator

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I don't have to look it up.

I can think for myself.

Focusing on the forehead of an important witness testifying about a subject that is of keen interest to people planet-wide makes no sense.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Focusing on the forehead of an important witness testifying about a subject that is of keen interest to people planet-wide makes no sense.

Neither does focusing on the words of proven liars in regards to subjects for which there is no evidence.