Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Round 2: neformore vs TruthWithin : "On a Clear Day I can See..."

page: 1
11

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is “Chemtrails Are A Myth Propagated By A Paranoid Mind”

neformore will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
TruthWithin will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit. Excess characters will be deleted prior to judging.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

Videos are not permitted. This includes all youtube links and other multi-media video sources.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Before I start in earnest, I'd like to say thank you to Semperfortis for setting up this second round debate, and thank you in advance to the judges and potential readers of what I hope will be an informative, lively and good mannered debate.

Now, to business....

Chemtrails Are A Myth Propagated By A Paranoid Mind

Opening Statement

I'm going to start my opening here with an admission.

My screen name is Neformore, and I am an aviation enthusiast.

In fact, I'll go one step further than that, and say this - My screen name is Neformore, and I am a sky enthusiast.

And by that, I mean I'm fascinated by what I see when I look up. From birds to stars, through to aircraft, UFO's and weather systems.

Ever since I was a small child I have made it my business to look upwards and see what I can see in the sky. Its the first thing I do when I go outside, and the last thing I do before I go back inside. I am obsessed.

Things that fly fascinate me. Always have, always will. From bees to birds in the natural world, through airships to rockets that are man made, I've always made it my business to understand them, how they work, and how they perform the wonderful miracle that they do.

So when - one day about 10 years ago now - I came across a site on 'net that had a really cool air-to-air pic of a Boeing 747 leaving a large contrail plume behind it I clicked on the pic, and was suprised to told me I was being poisoned by things being dumped out of airplanes, I had to take a look at the issue properly. The site referred to the subject as "chemtrails".

But what I read did not make sense to me. And it still doesn't.

And then I realised....

The person who wrote the site, had no idea about the things I love so much. They posted what they thought they knew, drawn from some very poorly put together conclusions. They posted it in a very clever way that made what they were writing seem reasonable, when it most certainly wasn't.

They preyed on the ignorance of those who didn't know the information I did about things in the sky, and ramped it up by also playing on the paranoia of those people. They crafted a very clever, very cynical and very deliberate argument about it.

That site is long gone in the flotsam and jetsam of the internet. But others soon sprang up to replace it. And the new ones drew on soundbytes and new media to try and reinforce their erroneous message. And pretty soon a whole industry appeared around the claims, and people started making money off ignorance, and paranoia.

And therein lies a problem. Because there are none so faithful as those who want to beleive, and the proponents of ignorance feed off belief.

The problem is compounded because belief sometimes brings out the worst in people, and creates zealots. And zealots are dangerous because they promote their cause at any cost including logic and science.

So what you have is a triangle. On one side is ignorance. On another side, is belief, and on the other side is zealotry.

It doesn't make for a pretty picture. Its all to easy to be blinded by it.

So, in this opening post, all I ask is that you, dear reader, and the judges, and my esteemed opponent please not fall into the trap of ignorance, and paranoia. In my following posts, I intend to debunk a myth. I will start with some frank admissions that may suprise both you, and my opponent, but by the end of the debate I will have proved that chemtrails are indeed a myth, propagated by the paranoid mind.

I hand the floor to TruthWithin, and look forward to their opening statement, with no socratic questions posed at this time.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen, Judges, Moderators and Fellow Debaters - thank you for supporting this forum - it has truly become a great passion of mine and I am forever grateful. Neformore, I have always admired your solid work on ATS and would be lying if I didn't say that I look extremely forward to this debate.

Truth Within's Opening Statement



Chemtrails Are A Myth Propagated By A Paranoid Mind

British philosopher, Alan Watts once wrote,



A myth is an image in terms of which we try to make sense of the world.


How true.

The human imagination, the reasoning mind and the ability to engage and execute upon those very ideas provides humans with a truly unique quality. It is also, I believe, this same curiosity that brings such a diverse group of minds and talents here to ATS - the quest to learn the truth.

The debate on chemtrails has raged in this forum since its inception. In fact, I would almost go as far as to say that the topic has been nearly exhausted. So the debate is over, right?

Far from it.

This debate phrasing was very well crafted. At first I though, " Arggh! Another debate about chemtrails!?" Then the "ah ha" moment; this debate is not about whether or not chemtrails actually exist, per se, although we will most certainly explore and debate the definition and the evidence. I postulate that this debate is an exploration of what our minds perceive as reality or, in this case, myth, and the associations in which we create through these perceptions. It is the crux of this that will ultimately determine our outcome.

Don't get me wrong, I am game to debating the existence of chemtrails, however I do believe this debate also shows great potential to really seek the root of this concept, from imagination to conception and exploring its very own context within our reality.

My opponent was very smart not to release to many strategic details in their opening statement. I shall follow suit and not go into further detail...yet. What I will say is that I do intend to prove that chemtrails are most certainly not a myth propagated by the paranoid mind.

I look forward to my opponent's reply and open the floor.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
My opponent wrote;



I postulate that this debate is an exploration of what our minds perceive as reality or, in this case, myth, and the associations in which

we create through these perceptions. It is the crux of this that will ultimately determine our outcome.


Its an interesting premise but......its also utterly irrelevant. The debate on chemtrails revolves around a belief in their existence, and that they are "real". As such, we would not be having this debate if the perception of them was that they didn't exist. Therefore, as a premise for the debate, such a line of thinking is self defeating.

Of course, if my opponent wishes to concede at this point, I'm all for it! (Although I doubt he will), so let me continue with my little Chem-TRIAL, and I'll start with a few basics.

When you look up into the sky there are two things you are likely to see. The first (if you are blessed to live in sunnier climes than I do) is a blue sky. The second (more familiar to me!) are clouds.

Now I could get all geeky here and explain cloud formation to you, but some nice folks contributing to Wikipedia have already done that here ;

Cloud

There are many different types of cloud, but the basics of their formation are the same, namely (taken from the above link)



As air parcels cool due to expansion of the rising air mass, water vapor begins to condense on condensation nuclei such as dust, ice, and salt. This process forms clouds.


Why am I talking about clouds?

Well, its like this - the things that people see in the sky behind aircraft are a type of cloud, known as a Contrail

Again, the nice people at Wikipedia have explained contrails brilliantly here;

Contrail



Contrails (short for "condensation trails") or vapour trails are visible trails of condensed water vapour made by the exhaust of aircraft engines. As the hot exhaust gases cool in the surrounding air they may precipitate a cloud of microscopic water droplets. If the air is cold enough, this trail will comprise tiny ice crystals.


Contrails are a bit more complicated than clouds, but the main premise is the same. Contrail = cloud. Formed in a slightly different manner thats all. Nothing sinister. Nothing untoward.

Now the dark bit, and the frank admission I mentioned in my opening post.

Our governments and militaries are most certainly not angelic.

I do not, have not and will not ever point blank state that nothing has been lobbed out of a plane into the atmosphere - quite simply because it has.

Various world governments have, at one time or the other, messed with chemical and biological agents. Some (the majority) have been put into the atmosphere at low level and some have been put into the atmosphere at high level. We know about some of the tests, and I am positive that we don't know about all of them. However, there is a difference between government/military testing of that nature and the everyday myth of chemtrails as stated, and shown on the majority of websites and internet presentations on the subject.

Similarly, weather modification by cloud seeding is an establised science. Proof of weather modification is not proof of chemtrails. Sure, its proof that chemicals are put in the air, but thats not chemtrails. They are a whole different bag of tricks.

Chemtrails, in this case and as defined by the average believer - in my experience - are the "lines in the sky" that people see every day. They are actually just contrails, but that doesn't stop the protagnaists of the chemtrail myth from making all kinds of proclamations about them....

In my next post, I'll be exposing some chemtrail lies that you can find on the net, but first, I have a question for my opponent.

 


Socratic Question for Truthwithin

Q1. When you exhale on a cold day, and a stream of water vapour appears to be coming out of your mouth, are you dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere with the intention to kill people?

 


I hand the floor back to my opponent



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
On paranoia, Emo Philips, a comedian from California, said:



I was walking home one night and a guy hammering on a roof called me a paranoid little weirdo. In morse code.


I thank my opponent for distinguishing CON and CHEM trails, as it is an apt distinction that we must make in this debate. I am more interested in defining CHEMtrails.

My opponent says:



Chemtrails, in this case and as defined by the average believer - in my experience - are the "lines in the sky" that people see every day. They are actually just contrails, but that doesn't stop the protagnaists of the chemtrail myth from making all kinds of proclamations about them....


Now, if a CONtrail is defined as, "Contrail = cloud. Formed in a slightly different manner thats all.", by my opponent, then it follows that the term CONtrail makes sense. In fact, it is simply an abbreviated version of condensation trail.

CHEMtrail, by using the same logic, would then be defined as some form of chemical trail, obviously implying some form of chemical involved.



I ask all of our readers to examine the picture above and immediately ask yourselves what you see.

How would that perception differ if it were one straight line?

Clearly the sky is busy in this photo, and many might look upon the image as being strange or out of the ordinary. Based on that perception, some will ignore it, some will admire its composition on an artistic level. Some - and this is where it gets interesting - will question it further and then begin to designate the image various values and hypothesize its cause. Enter myth.

Generally, when we question things that we do not understand our minds begin to fill in the blanks. The ancient Chinese did not fully understand the sun, but they did associate it with great power and thus many Dragon myths were born in relation to the sun. We now know the sun is not a dragon, but it helped people to resolve an inconsistency in something not easily understood.

Chemtrails are different. Even my opponent admits that governments around the world have tested many horrible things on people in the air, on land and in the water. In fact my opponent even goes as far as to say:



Some [chemical and biological agents](the majority) have been put into the atmosphere at low level and some have been put into the atmosphere at high level.


This is significant because my opponent has taken the Chemtrail out of the realm of myth and has recognized it as a fact, something real. Logically, if governments are known to spray chemicals through the atmosphere at low and high levels, and flying machines are the most efficient and direct means of disseminating said chemicals, then suddenly the "dragon" becomes real.

If my opponent's distinction of CON and CHEM trails is simply what you see and don't see, then it is a matter of physical perception. The same elements are there (plane exhaust, heat and atmosphere), sometimes they are more visible than others.

Thus I issue mt first socratic question to my opponent:

Socratic Question 1:

Can you say with 100% certainty that all of the planes in the sky right now are for flight only and in no way are spraying chemicals (other than engine exhaust) that are expelled to create a certain effect?

I ask this because my opponent implies in their first reply that "They are actually just contrails, but that doesn't stop the protagnaists of the chemtrail myth from making all kinds of proclamations about them....".

If we KNOW that governments around the world have tested spraying chemicals in the air at high levels, then what is to say those tests no longer exist?

More on this later...

I would like to end my first reply by directly answering my opponents question:



Socratic Question for Truthwithin

Q1. When you exhale on a cold day, and a stream of water vapour appears to be coming out of your mouth, are you dumping toxic chemicals into the atmosphere with the intention to kill people?


No. However, if I was dumping out chemicals with the intention of killing people, no one would be able to tell the difference from 1000 feet away.



I open the floor to my opponent.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Thank you Truth

 


Reply to Socratic Question from TruthWithin

Q1 Can you say with 100% certainty that all of the planes in the sky right now are for flight only and in no way are spraying chemicals (other than engine exhaust) that are expelled to create a certain effect?

All of them? No.

There will be planes flying somewhere in the world dusting crops. There will be water bombers putting out forest fires. There will be aircraft seeding clouds. There may be some limited military testing going on, but as I said in my previous post, those things most certainly do not fall under the bracket of "chemtrails" in the everyday sense. They are a side issue, and one I will address later.

 


Heres a typical situation.

Joe Sixpack goes out into his garden. Its a lovely day.

The sun is out, the sky is blue, and theres not a cloud to spoil his view (its probably raining in his heart though, but thats a different matter) and he's sitting in a recliner sipping a beer and catching some rays when he notices a line in the sky that sits there for an hour or more, and slowly starts to spread out.

"Whoa" he thinks, "My perfect Buddy Holly moment has been ruined. What is that thing, and how come its not going away?"

So he goes back into his house, turns on the PC, and spends the next five hours slowly drifting into paranoid psychosis that plays on his worst nightmares. What Joe really needs to do (apart from grab another beer and go back and top up his tan, he's a bit pasty), is talk to a meteorologist and a pilot. What he does instead is rely on ignorance, and - sadly - lies.

Lets deal with some of the biggest lies first, heres four of them.

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies....

Lie No.1 - persistent contrails

Some of the zealots (I call them "chemtrailers") involved in propagting the chemtrail myth will argue that there is a visible difference between a "chemtrail" and a contrail. Again, don't be fooled.

The argument is that "chemtrails" persist, while contrails don't. If I had a dollar for everytime I've seen the argument that contrails can't persist put forward by a chemtrailer over the years, I'd have approximately $1745 by now (okok...I'm guessing there).

Simply put, contrails can and do persist, in the same manner that clouds tend to stick around for a while. Its all to do with the relative humidty of the atmosphere at height. If conditions are correct, the trail may last for several hours. It may get dispersed by wind, forming a cirrus cloud (cirrus are thin, wispy clouds). I refer you intially back to the link I posted previously regarding contrails, and also to NASA here, as they pay their scientists to explain things a hell of a lot better than I can;

Contrail Identification Chart and Formation Guide

Contrails can, and do persist. Persistent contrails were first properly observed in World War 2, when the bomber streams of the RAF, Luftwaffe and USAAF cris-crossed the European continent. They are nothing new.

Lie No.2 - Grid patterns

"You can tell when they are spraying, because the lines are in grid patterns"

Heres an interesting resource that people might like to play with;

Airline routemaps (dotcom)

In 2007 29.5 million commercial flights took place. Thats roughly 80,000 flights a day globally. Add to that military traffic (which on global terms I estimate will be less than 1% of the commercial flights figure) and Thats an awful lot of things in the sky. (LA-X for example, hosted 61,895,548 passengers in 2007)

Two things come to mind here. Firstly, the map site I linked above shows the main arterial air-routes. Those are like highways in the sky. The old addage that the "shortest distance between two points is a straight line applies perfectly to air operations. Planes travel on set routes, in set corridors, similar to train tracks. Their movements are controlled, and diversions only take place because of emergencies or extreme weather patterns. As with train tracks, those routes cross, separated by height and if they cross in areas of favourable atmospheric conditions for contrails, theres going to be crosses in the sky.

Furthermore, as the saying goes - "what goes up, must come down". And it does. But it can't come down all at once.

Airports employ holding and stacking patterns. Aircraft approching the landing strip, in busy times, are assigned areas of the sky to wait in. Those areas can be tens of miles wide, and 1-3 miles deep depending on how busy things are on the ground. In his post above, my opponent has kindly linked a picture of what a holding pattern looks like in favourable contrail conditions. (Thanks Truth!).

Combine air lanes, and holding/stacking patterns, and grids appear. Oddly, they appear mainly over urban areas. Why? Well because thats where the airports are

Lie No.3 - Persistant contrails are a new thing, and theres much more of them now that their used to be, which proves that spraying is occuring.

As I noted above, the first persistant contrails were observed in WW2. They most certainly are not a new thing.

As for the increase in them, well, is it really any suprise that the increase in regular air travel has caused more contrails? Think about it. Air travel has increased an average of 4.38% a year in the past 20 years (Heres the maths, in 2007, there were 29,500,000 commercial flights, that means that in 1987, there were "only" 12,596,447 flights - less than half the 2007 figure). More planes = more chances for contrails = more observation of contrails. Its not rocket science (its meteorology!)

Lie No.4 - Samples have been taken from chemtrails in (insert town here) where heavy "spraying" occured that prove there are increased amounts of (insert chemical name here) in the air! They're spraying us!!!!1111!!!!!1

Of all the chemtrail lies, this one is the one that preys most on peoples out and out gullibility. Let me explain.

Firstly, there are some concepts that you need to understand. They are very simple, but few people fail to grasp them.

The first is this - the sky is huge

And by that I mean that when you look up, you have no frame of reference whatsover, unless you have a radar system or a complex opto-mechanical measuring device. We live in a 3D world, and yet we very rarely comtemplate "up" as a distance to factor in.

Contrails have a tendency to form at about 26,000ft, and above. 26,000ft is 8666 yards, or 4.9miles UP. (Conditions may vary, due to the atmosphere)

The second is this - the atmosphere is not uniform from top to bottom.

What we experience at ground level, is not the same as what is going on at 26,000ft. Theres a couple of reasons for that, the first is friction, because at ground level the atmosphere moves slower because of ground effects. The second is thermal induction, whereby over land masses the atmosphere tends to heat up differently than it does over oceans, causing rising and dropping air temperatures. Warm air rises and cold air sinks, producing weather patterns and wind.

The wind speed five miles up is not the wind speed at ground level. Anything ejected out of a plane at five miles up in aerosol form is, therefore, not coming straight down, due to the effects of atmospheric dispersal. Anyone who claims they saw a "chemtrail" form above them, and that something came down over them in minutes enabling them to take a sample of it is lying. Its akin to claiming that you have caught smoke in a jar from a bonfire burning 5 miles awat. There is a reason why crop dusting is done at low level and this is it.

Not only that, but the atmosphere is polluted from all kinds of sources, including factories, power stations, mining activites, dust, nuclear explosions, industrial process, automobile exhausts etc.

For more information on this, I draw your attention to ATS's very own Chadwickus, and his thread Manufacturing Industry - The REAL Chem Trail which details some of just what is in the air around us.

And remember, the "samples" referred to are taken only after the event. There are no background samples, and no constant air quality monitoring carried out in these cases. In other words, no one knew what was in the air before hand. If thats the case, how on earth can they claim that something else was introduced into it?

In my next post, I'll be looking into the paranoia aspect of chemtrails.

 


Socratic Question to TruthWithin

Q1. You said this in your previous reply;



No. However, if I was dumping out chemicals with the intention of killing people, no one would be able to tell the difference from 1000 feet away.


Given that you are not (to my knowledge) an evil genius mastermind for the NWO, why is it, do you think - that the people supposedly carrying out the "spraying" of the alledged chemicals decide to do it in broad daylight where people can see it happening, and not at night-time, when the majority of the populace is asleep, and would never have noticed what was going on?

 


I hand the floor back to my esteemed opponent.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
So far, we have established several facts.

Fact 1: Governments have tested spreading chemicals through the air.

Fact 2: These chemicals have be spread via the use of airplanes.

Fact 3: Material released from planes, exhaust or otherwise, produce visible trails under the right circumstances.

My opponent has assumed several things that have little or nothing to with this debate.

Assumption 1: In order for chemtrails to exist, the chemtrails must be visible.

Assumption 2: CONtrails and CHEMtrails are not mutually exclusive.

Allow me to clarify.

My opponent initially defined chemtrails very vaguely.



Chemtrails, in this case and as defined by the average believer - in my experience - are the "lines in the sky" that people see every day. They are actually just contrails, but that doesn't stop the protagnaists of the chemtrail myth from making all kinds of proclamations about them....


This debate is not about what a chemtrail looks like, how often it is deployed or the intention behind its use. This debate is whether or not Chemtrails, the deployment of chemical agents for some specified purpose, are myths propagated by the paranoid mind.

This distinction is incredibly significant.

We have already established that it is not a myth that the government is indeed capable of spraying chemical agents in the air as even my opponent concedes this to be true:



Various world governments have, at one time or the other, messed with chemical and biological agents. Some (the majority) have been put into the atmosphere at low level and some have been put into the atmosphere at high level. We know about some of the tests, and I am positive that we don't know about all of them.


So then is it really paranoia that would cause one to notice abnormal patterns in the sky? It seems like a plausible circumstance to me.

Paranoia is defined as:


1. Psychiatry. a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.

2. Baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.


Most of the accounts of people pointing to what they believe to be chemtrails seem rather harmless to me and they most certainly do not come close to defining paranoia. If anything, they are simply questioning the world around them and seeking a deeper truth. This critical reasoning is only human, and in this case, it is not baseless to think that the government is attempting to spray chemicals though the air because governments have already presented the capacity to do so.

Therefore, to look up to the sky and see a grid pattern made by airplanes that does not normally exist or that a sight that one is not accustomed to, I feel it natural to question its existence. The next step of logic is to question the pattern.

For example, I see a grid of airpalne lines in the sky and am not at all familiar with the concept of "chemtrails". Let us say that I cut my lawn once a week and I know that the best , most efficient to cover the yard is by using a grid pattern. The next logical question is what would the purpose of this grid pattern and why have I not noticed it before. I also know that the government has tested chemicals in the air before and there is nothing to stop them from doing it again.

This scenario does not play into myth, nor does it exhibit any signs of paranoia. It is merely a logical series of questions based on ones own experience.

Another example to illustrate this point.

The neighborhood I live in has been suffering from a string of robberies (ie we know for a fact that houses have been robbed before), and for the past 3 days I have noticed an unmarked gray van parking in front of my house after the sun sets. Is it paranoid for me to question that vans purpose? Is it a myth that houses are being robbed in the neighborhood?

Therefor, my argument stands that chemtrails are indeed NOT a myth propagated by the paranoid mind.


I thank my opponent and the judges for a brief extension to post this reply. "Life" happens sometimes, and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the extra time.


I open the floor to my opponent.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Thank you Truth - I hope your off-board issue is sorted out as soon as possible.

Back to on-board business, and our debate.

 


I fear that my opponent may have missed my socratic question from the previous round. I offer the opportunity to respond to it in his next post, along with the questions I may post later in this round.

 


Paranoia

As stated in the last round, this post will deal with paranoia.

My opponent produced the dictionary definition of paranoia as follows



2. Baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.


But then goes on to suggest that this is not the basis for the belief in chemtrails.

Actually, it is the essence of the belief in chemtrails, because chemtrails are bought out of the excessive suspicion that someone - be it our governments, some shadowy "NWO" agency or even aliens, are "secretly" filling the skies with supposedly toxic materials in order to harm and subdjugate the populous, or (and this is where the whole issue gets messy) subsitiute for the ozone layer or (even more complicated) provide some form of defence against missiles.

I would venture that anyone who spends their days taking photographs of contrails, without fully understanding the reasons for their formation, or understanding the various flight sciences involved in pushing an aircraft through the air at 25,000ft or above, and who chooses instead the path of assuming that what they are seeing is part of a secret plot, and then chooses to believe un-qualified, sensationalised accounts based on outright lies and ignorance refusing to listen to those who seek to explain such things to them is displaying the absolute, utter height of paranoia.

Science is the current method humanity has chosen to quell its paranoia. Science explains contrails and persistant contrail formation.

Paranoia turns aspects of science against us, and manipulates it for its own ends.

This is where the "chemtrail" sites are so very clever. They prey on paranoia to propogate their industry.

Take this example from Rense.com

Chemtrail Pod Is Simple Aerial Refueling Drogue

The author of the original article (it starts about a third down the page) claims;



From my research I feel this is an authentic photo. It also raises some interesting questions ­ what is a plane from a French air squadron doing in North America?


Except..its nothing of the sort. His "research" was based on paranoia (and a massive degree of ignorance). In fact, I question if he even did any research at all, and instead let his zealot like belief in the subject, and his overt paranoia of the aircraft in question get the better of him. He also apparently has no idea that the French air force, together with air forces from all over the world, come to Canada and the USa to take advantage of the fact that they can fly combat practice overland in areas that are largely unpopulated. He assumes - paranoically - that the plane is there for another reason.

And even when he is corrected, and other people have pointed out to him that the object he identifies is a drogue air-to-air refuelling pod he still has this to say;



It is still unknown why a propeller would be mounted on the front of the pod to generate electricity or power a hydraulic pump.


Except its not unknown, because the propellor drives the pump inside the pod, providing it with its own power source, yet his paranoia forces him not to believe it.

He also says



Finally, there is the funnel-shaped cone ("B" in Fig. 4) which terminates with a rear-ward protruding tube visible in the center of the engine exhaust. [1] Patent #5,791,138 discusses prior art which uses core engine air mixed with exhaust air for the purpose of noise reduction. More information on this can be viewed at [2]. However, this tube could also be used to inject biological or chemtrail agents into the exhaust stream.


The patent he describes tells him what the cone is for. And yet he attributes another possible reason for it - of his own making because his outright paranoia regarding the subject matter overrides the common sense part.

This then, is what we are dealing with. Its not common sense. Its not science. Its not logical explanation.

What it is though, is this;

Baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others

 


Socratic Questions To Truthwithin

1. How do you describe the willful ignorance of established science, based on assumptions made with no direct evidence, when discussing a subject where people believe something is happening to them?

 


In my closing post, I will summarise my argument, but for now, I hand the floor back to my opponent.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
William Shakespeare's Hamlet says:



There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


I apologize for not answering a question posed by my opponent 2 posts ago and shall directly answer now. My lack of answer came from confusion as to whether the question was Socratic or rhetorical in nature. The Question:



Given that you are not (to my knowledge) an evil genius mastermind for the NWO, why is it, do you think - that the people supposedly carrying out the "spraying" of the alledged chemicals decide to do it in broad daylight where people can see it happening, and not at night-time, when the majority of the populace is asleep, and would never have noticed what was going on?


It could be a variety of reasons. Your question, however, points to the great flaw of your argument, the flaw being the enormous assumptions you make about chemtrails, their existence and the fray of people who give the study of such phenomena a bad name.

Maybe they spray during the day because they are able to blend in with the THOUSANDS of other aircraft that you admit are there. Perhaps the atmospheric conditions during the day are more conducive to effective chemtrail deployment. Maybe the sun's natural heat aids in the dispersion pf particles in the air based on basic geothermic principles of heat and expansion or it could be that whomever is spraying likes the fact and receives pleasure knowing that their plan is being unfolded in broad daylight for everyone to see.

Whatever the reason may be, I do not know, nor is it pertinent to this debate. The flaw in my opponent's argument that I mentioned above is that Neformore has done a great job making countless assumptions about some of the people who investigate chemtrails, the organizations that deploy chemtrails and the intentions of said organizations to release chemicals into the air. While there issues might be pertinent in another debate at another time, the fact remains that we are here to debate a very simple premise; Chemtrails Are A Myth Propagated By A Paranoid Mind.

These arguments, however, do nothing to speak to the myth or the paranoia that is implicitly demanded in the topic.

NWO, death and destruction, rogue websites, nefarious plots, intention to kill, mame and control. All of these assumptions have been made by my opponent, yet the facts remain that governments have, for certain, sprayed chemicals in the air using airplanes and thereofor cannot be "myth", nor a product of the paranoid mind.


The Russian Air Force, during a mission to clear the skies of potentially rain-filled clouds, dropped a mixture of silver iodide, liquid nitrogen and cement powder in an attempt to seed the clouds. This form of climate modification is common practice in Russia, when attempting to engineer dry days on public holidays and special events in Moscow. However, during the cloud seeding operation last week, cement dropped from one of the aircraft failed to fragment when falling through the air, falling as a solid mass, crashing through the roof of a Moscow suburban home…

Source 1

OR


A suspected ringleader in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America repeatedly visited a crop dusting airfield in Florida, asking lots of questions on topics including how many chemicals a crop dusting plane could hold, according to a witness.

Federal authorities fear the suspect's presence at the airfield is another indication the terrorists may have planned, or still may plan, to use crop dusters to launch a chemical or biological attack.

Source 2

OR


Early last year, the California Department of Food and Agriculture became aware that light brown apple moths, Australian pests, had reached twelve counties around the San Francisco Bay Area. Citing studies that the creatures could devastate fruit crops, they launched an aggressive and multifaceted effort to eradicate them. In addition to spraying the natural pesticide spinosad, covering infested plants in a bacteria that destroys the moth larvae, and releasing wasps that prey upon their eggs, the agency began dropping tiny plastic pellets from low-flying aircraft. Those capsules are infused with two pheromones, chemicals that can confuse the moths and prevent them from mating.
Source 3


Weather change and pest reduction, all relatively non nefarious plots compared the assumed NWO plot that my opponent keeps mentioning, and yet these examples are inextricable examples of government initiatives to spray chemicals from aircraft.

To answer my opponent's other question:



Socratic Questions To Truthwithin

1. How do you describe the willful ignorance of established science, based on assumptions made with no direct evidence, when discussing a subject where people believe something is happening to them?


Stupidity. Plain and simple - and in case you haven't noticed, it is everywhere.

Look at Above Top Secret. A forum, dedicated to alternative topics, in which there are some of the best and brightest minds on the net. Are their some trolls and those who refuse to actually research their theories...sure - just as there are morons over at TMZ who are theorizing, living and dying with what ever Brad and Angelina are doing right this second - just as there are web sites about chemtrails that pay no attention to reality. I can start a website tomorrow about my experience dancing with the unicorns, but it does not make me an expert on the subject.

Do not confuse a critically thinking mind with paranoia and do not confuse denying ignorance with igonorance's constant battle to prevail.


I open the floor and eagerly welcome my opponent's closing arguments.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Rebuttal

In his last post, my opponent cites three examples.

The first relates to cloud seeding, which is an established science, has nothing whatsoever to do with "chemtrails", as cloud seeding can only occur when clouds are present and conditions are favourable.

The second relates to the potential to use crop dusting aircraft for spreading biological agenta. The key words there are "crop dusting", which is done at low level to prevent dispersal and diffusion of the pesticides, as I alluded to earlier.

The third relates, to low flying aircraft within the text.

None of these are "chemtrails" in the established sense. They are straw man examples.

 


Closing Statement

In my posts above I have described how, with the help of a healthy dose of ignorance, and outright lies, the chemtrail myth has been developed and propagated.

The thing that drives - and continues the myth of "chemtrails" is, quite simply, paranoia - a suspicion that external forces are out to harm, for their own motives.

Wikipedia defines Paranoia as follows;


Paranoia is a thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself.


Let me break that down, as far as chemtrails go.

Excessive anxiety or fear - in the case of chemtrails, that would be the ultimate fear, that the very air we breathe is being tainted against us, by an unknown party, for unknown reasons...be it poisioning or subdjugation.

Irrationality and delusion - in this case, irrationally ignoring facts and science. Denying explanations that are offered. The development of alternatives because the real answers do not suit the argument

A perceived threat towards oneself - in the case of chemtrails, it may be ill health, slavery, warfare and even death.

The myth is this - someone, somewhere, carries out spraying operations, 24/7/365, all over the globe, in plain sight of everyone. They either manage it without the pilots and ground crews knowing its happening, or they have a fleet of their own jets that is so huge it is larger than the tanker fleets of the combined militaries of the world put together.

They manage it without public health laboratories, water quality and food standard agencies picking up massive amounts of toxins in food, in the ecosystem, in autopsies, and they have been pumping these supposed toxins into the air for - allegedly - nearly 30 years now, with no mass die off, no subdjugation and no hugely adverse ill health effects in the general populace across the globe.

Chemtrails are then, indeed, a myth propagated by a paranoid mind. To explain them any other way is, frankly, pointless.

 


I would like to take this opportunity to thank Truthwithin for the stimulating debate, and once again to thank all readers, and the judges, for their time in seeing what we both have had to say.

I hand the floor back to my opponent, and look forward to his closing statement.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Ladies and Gentlemen, Judges, Debaters and my esteemed opponent, Neformore - we come to the end of yet another debate and it has been, as always, a tremendous honor to participate in such a rigorous debate. A big thanks to Semper and Memory Shock for making this happen!


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - William Shakespeare

Why do I keep utilizing this quote? Because it sums up my opponent's argument throughout this debate.

Chemtrails are exactly what the term suggests - trails of chemicals released into the sky via airplane. My opponent has acknowledged that governments have done this before. This covers the myth portion.

My argument postulates that paranoia can not exist so long as there is an actual threat for with which one might be concerned - in this case there is known evidence of these activities existing. Just because my opponent does not categorize planes spraying chemicals in the air for some reasons does not mean that this does not amount to chemtrails.



The first relates to cloud seeding, which is an established science, has nothing whatsoever to do with "chemtrails", as cloud seeding can only occur when clouds are present and conditions are favourable.


You mean favorable to produce a visible TRAIL in which people can see from the ground? How does this not equate to a chemtrail? According to this logic, we must then assume that if conditions are not "favorable" for contrails, then chemtrails would not be visible as well.




The second relates to the potential to use crop dusting aircraft for spreading biological agent. The key words there are "crop dusting", which is done at low level to prevent dispersal and diffusion of the pesticides, as I alluded to earlier.


How in the world does this not count as a trail of chemicals being spread through the air?



The third relates, to low flying aircraft within the text. None of these are "chemtrails" in the established sense. They are straw man examples.


So, if chemtrails are released at low altitude then they become something else other than chemtrails? That simply makes no sense. It would seem that it is not the crop dusting, nor the cloud seeding that produces a straw man, but my opponent's string of logic.

Myth is a powerful thing, but chemtrails are not myth. Trails of chemicals left in the sky by planes are a pure reality and for people to question the sight, practice or even the notion that our government, or any government, would do such a thing is hardly paranoia. Rather, this questioning exhibits the very thing that makes us human, makes us unique and, most importantly, the thing that makes us ATS'ers.

Therefor, chemtrails are anything but a myth propagated by the paranoid mind.


Nefermore, it has been a real pleasure. Thanks for a great debate!




posted on Mar, 20 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Off to the Judges



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
We have a winner!!!

In a Split Decision:::::


I'd like to thank both debaters for a fun and fascinating debate. Both of you are to congratulated on a well fought debate.

Both opening statements were well-written but TruthWithin stated what he intended to present and during the course of the debate did exactly that. Both debaters used outside references very well to support their positions and while Neformore was able to use TruthWithin's posted picture to support his position TruthWithin consistently used Neformore's references to support his position.

I felt this was an extremely close debate. I found it difficult to choose a winner. However, after a great deal of thought and several readings TruthWithin carried the day. His win is based on laying what he intended to do and sticking with his position not allowing Neformore to force him off course as it were. I also liked how he used not only his own references but Neformore's to support his position. As I said it was very close.

Thanks again to both of you for taking your time to produce such thought provoking work.



nefermore and TruthWithin, you both put on one heck of a show out here!! This was one of the harder debates to judge because you both did so well at selling your own argument, as well as rebutting your opponent. But, someone has to win, so what follows is a breakdown of how this judge feels that the debate went.

nefermore:

Intro: Solid intro, but you didn't outline what you were going to cover. Not detrimental though, as you set your argument up well enough. (0)

Reply 1: Excellent use of sources, and an even better Socratic Question to kick off the debate. (+1)

Reply 2: Again, great post! You continue to expand your argument to take on your opponent's responses. You continue to utilize sources very well, and you respond well to your opponent's Socratic Questions. (+1)

Reply 3: Excellent reply! You showed rather eloquently that paranoia is more often than not a huge factor in the formation of a theory, despite the facts surrounding it. (+1)

Close: Does a "chem-trail" have to be at a certain altitude to be considered one? Overall, a fitting close to a wonderful debate! Good job! (+1)

Total Points: 4


And, last but not least, TruthWithin:

Intro: Well-rounded intro. (0)

Reply 1: Great use of the Dragon Analogy! Good Socratic Question. It helps to establish your argument. The only issue with this post is the lack of a source for the picture. Sourcing is important, as it helps to establish a link between you and the evidence that you present. (0)

Reply 2: Great job of redirecting the focus of the topic from your opponent's side back to your own! The added definitions of terms help to frame your side as well. (+1)

Reply 3: Great rebuttal with regards to the two Socratic Questions! You throw doubt at your opponent's argument in a way that makes the reader really think about it. (+1)

Close: Compelling close there! You went out swinging, and made some very valid points at the same time! One was about how low-flying planes spraying are in fact creating a "chem-trail". (+1)

Total Points: 3


Addendum: Okay, this was a tough one to judge. However, in my opinion, nefermore exhibited a slightly superior knowledge of the debate topic. Therefore, I declare nefermore the winner! Congrats!!



neformore vs. TruthWithin.

With no quarter given on the debate topic definition and both sides taking radically different approaches to the subject, this was an interesting one to judge. I had to modify my usual method for this debate.

Both fighters started off coyly, neither really giving the other much material top work with. They did however, succinctly lay out where they were going. Nef moves into the conspiracy realm while TW takes the topic into the area of literally dissecting the whole statement.

Nef provides lots of good information on how chemtrails are the product of ignorance and paranoia. He provides plenty of science to back up his claims of what we see above us daily are nothing more than contrails, established by proven scientific methods.

TW, uses his side to show, and to get nef to admit, that governments have indeed sprayed chemicals in the past. He uses that logic to build his case. He provides solid examples of past instances of this spraying for various, practical reasons.

I found myself swaying back and forth throughout this debate. Both made really great arguments and built solid cases for their particular side of the proposition. In the end it came down to who made the better definition of what a chemtrail is/is not.

Both fighters again made strong cases for their side. Nef layed out what, in conspiratorial terms, is a chemtrail. TW showed that chemicals sprayed from planes, whether it be for cloud seeding or crop dusting, leave a visible trail if conditions are right.

If this had been a non tourney debate, I would have most likely called it a draw. But this format doesn't allow for that.
Therefore, based on what I saw as a slightly better description of what a chemtrail is, I award this debate to TruthWithin. he clearly showed that chemtrails, in the context of his definition are real and not a myth.

A masterful job from both fighters and it was interesting to see this subject tackled from a different perspective.


TruthWithin is the Winner and will advance...

Congratulations to both Fighters!!!!

Semper



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Congrats TW
Good luck with the rest of the tourney


I shall go and join the rest of the observers in the gallery!



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Neformore, it was a great debate. I was on my heels the whole time - you're a powerhouse and it was an honor debating you!

Thanks to all!







top topics



 
11

log in

join