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.

 

The Hobbyist Debunker Mick West

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




I love it when I get a straight answer!


Pretty sure you have been given a straight answer many times already in this thread.

Now can you give a straight answer to this...

Have you addressed the problem you have with him on metabunk which this thread is all about, or are you afraid you may get the answer you don't want to hear?




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Ksihkehe

If someone is a conspiracy hobbyist, personally, I wouldn't take their website seriously, either.

Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails should be taken seriously.


Is THAT what this thread is about? Did the guy say chemtrails are fake and now you need to discredit him? I had no idea this was related to chemtrails or I'd have avoided responding entirely. That would explain why you want this distinction drawn.

But... since I'm here let's say a prayer for all those fallen to chemtrails over the years. All those countless souls that have died from the toxins being rained down on us. A moment of silence while I read all the names:
.
.
.
That concludes our moment of silence.

We have people dying from preventable diseases all over the world every day, but I should take chemtrails seriously?



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD




Really, because I have yet to see anything that proves they exist...but feel free to show any evidence you can find that shows they do?


Maybe that's because you aren't looking for it. There is an enormous amount of data to support the idea that they exist. If you know GE is happening, how can you deny chemtrails? Here is a local news report from 2007 that includes firsthand testimony, testing, government documents and a statement from a poison control center:






So, facts don't matter...


Poor choice of words, my bad haha. Probably should have been "..many "debunkers" are using the facts that are convenient for them to convince others that their ideas are true and all others are false.."


edit on 11/29/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: trying to get quotes to work

edit on 11/29/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: got it



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD




If you know GE is happening, how can you deny chemtrails?


That's just it. From every report of every person who is involved with Geo-engineering, the consensus is they aren't doing it yet. When you find one of the main scientists claiming they did start, I'd be very, very worried. Until then, it's all speculation based on flimsy information from suspect sites and people.

Read things from real sites to balance out your information.
edit on 29-11-2015 by network dude because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD




If you know GE is happening, how can you deny chemtrails?


That's just it. From every report of every person who is involved with Geo-engineering, the consensus is they aren't doing it yet. When you find one of the main scientists claiming they did start, I'd be very, very worried. Until then, it's all speculation based on flimsy information from suspect sites and people.

Read things from real sites to balance out your information.


Like this one: CV News ?



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD




If you know GE is happening, how can you deny chemtrails?


That's just it. From every report of every person who is involved with Geo-engineering, the consensus is they aren't doing it yet. When you find one of the main scientists claiming they did start, I'd be very, very worried. Until then, it's all speculation based on flimsy information from suspect sites and people.

Read things from real sites to balance out your information.


Like this one: CV News ?


LOL, no, like this one:
scholar.google.com...

ETA:
If you are looking at a subject that is science related, then you need peer review to validate what you are seeing. Otherwise, you can be told all sorts of nonsense and if you are gullible enough, you might believe it.
edit on 29-11-2015 by network dude because: added pertinent factoid.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude
wow!!! you reviewed all the info and links in less than 2 minutes!! you are awesome!



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD




Like this one: CV News ?


Do they have any other sources other than their own site?



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD




Like this one: CV News ?


You know it's always fun to read the about section of these sites...


Climate Viewer News is your source for agenda-free alternative media. Our outstanding team of volunteer activists set the example for modern sousveillance and independent journalism.



This is where conspiracy meets reality. That which can be destroyed by truth should be.


climateviewer.com...

So now how can they be a source for agenda free alternative media...all media has an agenda one way or another.

Yes I will pick your source apart, so be warned.


I go for the source not the member.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

It certainly appears that all of the links keep leading in circles. Keep in mind that it is a news site and not all pages are going to have direct links when previous articles already have them. Here's one with plenty though: Hurricane Hacking



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Have at it lol



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD




wow!!! you reviewed all the info and links in less than 2 minutes!! you are awesome!


Here these may interest you...


LIABILITY FOR SOLAR
GEOENGINEERING: HISTORICAL
PRECEDENTS, CONTEMPORARY
INNOVATIONS, AND GOVERNANCE
POSSIBILITIES


www.keith.seas.harvard.edu...


Solar geoengineering using solid aerosol in the stratosphere


www.atmos-chem-phys.net...


Will solar geoengineering help
us manage the risks of climate
change?


keith.seas.harvard.edu...


A temporary, moderate and responsive scenario
for solar geoengineering


keith.seas.harvard.edu...

If you want to know... you see what the real experts are saying.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Like this one: CV News ?


That site is kindof a self-referenced bunch of stuff that never seems to deliver the goods, despite making statements like this:


Geoengineering the sky has been a worldwide phenomenon since the start of commercial aviation. Ships and jet aircraft are covering our skies in man-made clouds.


Umm nope contrails aren't part of a geoengineering program. They are a by-product of aviation, but they aren't part of a deliberate geoengineering program.

Looking through some of the pages, it looks like all the usual suspects are there again. All the proposals and limited tests regarding geoengineering are dragged in by the neckhairs and are supposed to convince you that geoengineering is an ongoing program.

Well if there's any real evidence, feel free to make us aware of it. I'm not going to read through all the nonsense that is on those pages, so maybe you can direct us to the pertinent parts that prove it.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: payt69
It only took me a short time to come across this(note 1.4 in the intro) and this . There is a wealth of information on and linked throughout the site. But if you don't have time, I get it...


edit on 11/29/2015 by OveRcuRrEnteD because: another link



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
Thanks for the links.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: intrptr

In my opinion, the connotation of the word "debunk" screams agenda, emotional issue, a lack of objectivity.


Your opinion is wrong.

Pretty simple really.



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD




Really, because I have yet to see anything that proves they exist...but feel free to show any evidence you can find that shows they do?


Maybe that's because you aren't looking for it. There is an enormous amount of data to support the idea that they exist. If you know GE is happening, how can you deny chemtrails? Here is a local news report from 2007 that includes firsthand testimony, testing, government documents and a statement from a poison control center:




Prime example of the type of bunk that is removed (de-bunked) by Mick West and yet still spread by chemtrail believers as evidence of chemtrails

contrailscience.com...

You'd think the chemtrail believers would be grateful to Mick for doing their homework for them
edit on 30-11-2015 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OveRcuRrEnteD
a reply to: network dude
wow!!! you reviewed all the info and links in less than 2 minutes!! you are awesome!



No, I just spotted the bull# right off. It's a gift.

But in time, you too can learn how to spot bull# in a instant.

When you can grab the pebble from my hand........



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus
How can an opinion be wrong?



posted on Nov, 30 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude
You call it a gift. I call it blinders. But hey, if you like the narrow little world you live in, enjoy it!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join