It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


You are off by a mile, and your post is not relevant to Part 5.

It was a direct response to your post in THIS thread. If it's irrelevant to this thread, blame yourself for going off topic.



If you refer to the discussion in Part 6. the point is that aluminum coated fiberglass is a portion of the concerns of the people who are being called chemtrail conspiracy theorists. I know why you deny that this is part of their concern as something they call a "chemtrail," but it's the plain truth.

To know why I deny something, shouldn't you first know that I have denied it? If you're not lying you can certainly show where.

You need to understand I don't deny chaff may be a concern of the chemmunity, I deny that it would leave a trail in the sky that looks like what members of the chemmunity call "chemtrails". I deny the deployment of chaff supports the "chemtrail" 'theory'.

#boring




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312




You are off by a mile, and your post is not relevant to Part 5.


And yet this thread is about...



In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof


And here we go...




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
You need to understand I don't deny chaff may be a concern of the chemmunity, I deny that it would leave a trail in the sky that looks like what members of the chemmunity call "chemtrails". I deny the deployment of chaff supports the "chemtrail" 'theory'.


Nice contradiction. You're still essentially saying they have nothing to be concerned about. I'll translate on a more clear level (paraphrased): I'm not saying chemtrailers shouldn't be concerned about chaff, but the one true theory that debunkers keep saying is the only concern of chemtrailers (i.e., supposedly persistent contrails) has nothing to do with chaff, so they still have no legitimate concern.

On the contrary, clouds of aluminum coated fiberglass strands (each thinner than a human hair) released into the sky do indeed qualify as a chemical trail as well as a cloud. So you have no point, other than a contradiction of sorts.



And yes if you're argument is about aluminum coated chaff it does belong in the thread that's about chemtrailers being concerned about it, which is Part 8, but of course I don't expect the same old debunkers who keep sabotaging my posts to stick to the thread topic.


edit on -05:00America/Chicago30Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:36:13 -0500201513312 by Petros312 because: Clarification; punctuation



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


Nice contradiction. You're still essentially saying they have nothing to be concerned about.

No contradiction and stop injecting your twisted version of what people have said.



I'll translate on a more clear level (paraphrased)

I don't believe you're capable, but let's have a look.


I'm not saying chemtrailers shouldn't be concerned about chaff, but the one true theory that debunkers keep saying is the only concern of chemtrailers (i.e., supposedly persistent contrails) has nothing to do with chaff, so they still have no legitimate concern.

I'm correct again, you're either utterly incapable or unwilling. That is not what I said. If you want to see what I said, read what I said.


On the contrary, clouds of aluminum coated fiberglass strands (each thinner than a human hair) released into the sky do indeed qualify as a chemical trail as well as a cloud. So you have no point, other than a contradiction of sorts.

You can call it a unicorn trail for all I care. Chaff doesn't leave those white lines across the sky that get you so irritated when some "nervous freak" (as you call them) points at them. Chaff is pretty much invisible from the ground. If you disagree show me a picture of chaff in the air. Not smoke, chaff.


And yes if you're argument is about aluminum coated chaff it does belong in the thread that's about chemtrailers being concerned about it, which is Part 8, but of course I don't expect the same old debunkers who keep sabotaging my posts to stick to the thread topic.

What's with the cognitive dysfunction? Let's back up. You said


--that's just a game of semantics, and you know it. Debunkers THEMSELVES constantly "correct" chemtrailers by telling them what they call a "chemtrail" is really a persistent contrail. So moot point there.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
THAT is what my argument was about.

The only thing being "sabotaged" is your martyr complex.

#wrabbitvenom



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Again, your text in question:

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
You need to understand I don't deny chaff may be a concern of the chemmunity, I deny that it would leave a trail in the sky that looks like what members of the chemmunity call "chemtrails". I deny the deployment of chaff supports the "chemtrail" 'theory'.


My interpretation of this text:

A contradiction of sorts: The "chemmunity" (a derogatory term) has something they should be concerned about (chaff), but they mostly have nothing to be concerned about (the all important part of what is a "chemtrail," which debunkers assume is a "normal" persistent contrail). The latter half of this statement, which has as it's main thrust the message that there is no reason to be concerned, is based on a) only a single portion of the concerns of the people being labelled "chemtrail conspiracy theorists," and b) many years of no real evidence other than informational descriptions that what looks like a persistent contrail in the sky is either "normal" or has the expected properties of a persistent contrail at any time or location. In other words, you "support" the concern of chemtrailers on one hand, don't support their concern on another hand, but continue to join in with fellow debunkers and continue stigmatizing anyone who might be considered a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist."


And just curious about this:

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
#wrabbitvenom


?


edit on -05:00America/Chicago30Wed, 15 Apr 2015 09:15:38 -0500201538312 by Petros312 because: italics



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


My interpretation of this text:

That's where the problem starts. If you have a question about what I wrote in plain English, then ask. Stop 'interpreting'.

As for the hashtag, that's what it is. If you don't know what it means then don't worry about it. It's like if I ended a post with the hashtag #earthorbitstalledbynibiru. (some people believe that but I'm sure you don't)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
If you have a question about what I wrote in plain English, then ask. Stop 'interpreting'.


1. You have no authority to tell me to stop interpreting what other people post, particularly HOW they say something.

2. INterpeting what someone actually is saying is indeed paramount to uncovering logical fallacies, something that "plain English" often hides.


originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
As for the hashtag, that's what it is. If you don't know what it means then don't worry about it.


I know what a hashtag is. The question is why are you linking your content?


edit on -05:00America/Chicago30Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:52:28 -0500201528312 by Petros312 because: Quote error



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


1. You have no authority to tell me to stop interpreting what other people post, particularly HOW they say something.

Say what? You need documentation? It's here @ 0:17


You're not 'interpreting', you're 'translating' my words into things I didn't say. That's dishonest.



I know what a hashtag is. The question is why are you linking your content?

That's a silly question. What content am I linking?



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The way I see this whole debate, and it applies to other topics on ATS from UFOs to whether or not Jesus was an actual person, is this: Whatever "Proof" someone can supply, debunkers automatically respond with "that's not acceptable proof." As in, it's not really proof to begin with. What we first need to do is to create a viable list of "acceptable proofs," that can be agreed upon by both sides as being genuine. When a valid "proof" is revealed, then both sides can go on to the next topic of what agency is behind it, or who's doing it, or what to the actual planes that deliver the stuff look like, etc. - and not before a vailid proof has been submitted.

The only problem with this method is that debunkers don't tend to think anything is valid proof, so nothing anyone could submit about chemtrails, UFOs, Jesus, etc. can ever get past the stage of whether or not they're even admitted to as being real. So, both sides end up going round and round in circles, arguing "(it) does exist," (it) doesn't exist." To show what I mean, I will apply it to this scenario:

Let's say the topic of discussion is "Abraham Lincoln." Some people will say he was a real person, others debunk him and say he didn't exist, he was just an "amalgamation" of various people and ideas. Here's how that debate would go on ATS:

ABEisMyMAN: He was real and several documents talk about him and show his signature.

LincolnDebunker: You can't show the authenticity of those documents, so I think they're fake. Documents can easily be faked, that's a fact. Plus, how do we know that's his actual signature? It was probably just some nobody in the 1880s that signed all those "authentic" signatures and we have no way of proving who did it today. So, those signatures are unnaceptable as proof.

ABEisMyMAN: Okay, what about all the contemporous reports about him? People actually knew him and talked about him.

LincolnDebunker: I've seen contemporous reports about "Santa Claus." Does that mean he is a real person? Remember Clement C. Moore's eyewitness account of an alleged sighting back in the 1800s? Does that prove "Santa Claus" was an actual person? No, it does not, anymore than those "stories" about "Abraham Lincoln." What do you have for me next?

ABEisMyMAN: Well, there are numerous photographs....

LincolnDebunker: Photoshopped. Next.

ABEisMyMAN: There were many people that lived at the same time as he did....

LincolnDebunker: And they're all dead, so we can't put them on the witness stand. Anything they would or could have said would be second-hand information, therefore the court would not allow it, as it is heresay evidence.

ABEisMyMAN: Ummm.... They've got this hair sample. That should be real evidence. DNA evidence. You can't argue with DNA!

LincolnDebunker: A hair sample? Of who? Or what? It could be hair from my neighbor's camel. No, you say it's a hair sample of this "Abraham Lincoln" character, I say he didn't exist, so it can't be a hair sample from him. You haven't convinced me of anything. Now, go back to your padded room and leave me here in my real world.

You see where I'm going with this. I'm sure anyone can come up with other types of "proofs" about Abraham Lincoln that can be just as easily dismissed as not being "real" proof. So, where does this leave us with the topic of chemtrails? It leaves us squarely at square one. There will always be people who believe in something, and can show proof about it; and there will always be the debunkers, who will not accept any kind of proof and keep on denying the subject in question, ad infinitum. And while they're denying it, they'll throw in a few rude or snide comments about how the original person can't see reality like sane people; or that he needs to adjust his "tinfoil" hat; or that he just wants to have additional fodder to prove his "religious beliefs" so he creates this topic as a common-ground basis to prove his original theory even exists in the first place. You've seen the type of comments I mean. What do we do? Apparently, we can do nothing as long as there are so many close-minded and rude people out there.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Aside from the few posters who don't believe in chemtrails, yet continue to argue against those who don't believe in them, there is a very solid idea of proof.

The conspiracy started with the white lines in the sky becoming more frequent. It was said that instead of those lines being contrails created by powered flight, they were in fact chemicals being sprayed by 'someone'.

Of course, as the theory has evolved, so have the lies, and the moving of the goalposts. But one thing remains constant. The claim that those white lines consist of something other than ice crystals. With that claim alone, the entirety of the chemtrail debate can be solved by taking a direct air sample of a trail and having it tested for any and all contaminants.

The problem then lies with what is considered a chemtrail? Since the conspiracy is based on lies, the dishonestly runs rampant and you likely will never get a solid answer to that seemingly simple question. So in conclusion, those who perpetuate this story would much rather have this myth to cling to, than accept reality on it's own terms. (IMHO)

And should the entire chemtrail community every actually agree on something, I suspect the Earth will stop turning and we will all die instantly.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind
The problem then lies with what is considered a chemtrail? Since the conspiracy is based on lies, the dishonestly runs rampant and you likely will never get a solid answer to that seemingly simple question. So in conclusion, those who perpetuate this story would much rather have this myth to cling to, than accept reality on it's own terms. (IMHO)


1. Although there are several definitions out there, there is absolutely no "official" definition of what is a "chemtrail" except for that it is short for a "chemical trail" in the atmosphere. Many things dispersed into the sky qualify as a "chemtrail" whether manifested by a persistent contrail or not. See In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs. Chemtrail Sources such as Wikipedia are reinforcing only the social reality when it comes to what is supposedly the definition of a chemtrail as it pertains to persistent contrails, but this is a half-truth given that it's only one portion of the concerns of the people being labelled chemtrail conspiracy theorists today.

2. Yet, at the same time there is no one specific understanding of a "chemtrail," debunkers have for years focused exclusively on "debunking" how people often considered to be chemtrail conspiracy theorists confound what is a persistent contrail with what is a chemtrail. They are reinforcing with no real authority the use of a label (contrail) for the sake of establishing that increasing persistent contrails in the sky is "normal," which amounts to no more than an opinion.

3. Opponents of people who are considered by debunkers to be chemtrail conspiracy theorists are perpetuating their own myths (e.g., there is no such thing as "global dimming," the one thing that distinguishes ALL chemtrail conspiracy theorists is that they do not know what a persistent contrail is, etc.)


edit on -05:00America/Chicago30Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:51:26 -0500201526312 by Petros312 because: Clarification; link



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Petros312


debunkers have for years focused exclusively on "debunking" how people often considered to be chemtrail conspiracy theorists confound what is a persistent contrail with what is a chemtrail. They are reinforcing with no real authority the use of a label (contrail) for the sake of establishing that increasing persistent contrails in the sky is "normal," which amounts to no more than an opinion.


Hang on, but isn't it you that calls people who think persistant contrails are evidence of spraying "Nervous freaks"? I've never seen a debunker say that. Is that YOUR considered opinion? Please explain because you repeatedly take this line to attack and undermine debunkers, whilst you seem to be the worst offender.

For the most part people who see persistant contrails as evidence of chemtrails are simply people without much understanding of what contrsils are and, to be fair, no reason to have developed that understanding because it's not relevant to their daily lives, like you and I may not have much understanding about neurosurgery. Often the only information they may have been exposed to on the topic may come from sites such as the one you linked to previously that says contrails can only last 45 seconds, which compounds the misunderstanding.

Most debunking on here, certainly my own, is focussed on this central misconception, to try and counteract the dud information about the nature of contrails so this misunderstanding can be overcome. This has nothing to do with geoengineering or pollution, but helps people stop being concerned with something for the wrong reason. Please explain why you find that so abhorrent, while being happy to insult the people as you did in part four of your thread?

edit on 17-4-2015 by waynos because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join