Originally posted by Zepherian
Absence of proof is not proof of absence in any case, as you well put it, you can't prove a negative.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, however, there is a sort of standard that most fringe and conspiracy theories follow, more or less. In order
for the reality of Bigfoot to be accepted, we need physical evidence - a body, blood, hair with DNA, etc. The same is true for chemtrails - we'll
need physical evidence. If we're ever going to get past all the sniping, we've all got to concede one simple starting point:
Pictures are not proof.
No matter how many pictures there are of uncharacteristic persistent contrails, a picture can not prove the composition
of a contrail or cloud.
Why can't we set that particular argument aside as being pointless? 25 pages and it's gotten us nowhere... Contrailers, please concede that
contrails are heavier and more persistent today than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and Chemtrailers, please concede that there were persistent
contrails prior to 1998 (as proved by newspaper articles and pictures which have been posted in this thread), and that therefore not ALL persistent
contrails are chemtrails. Then we can move past the pictures!
you will realise the debunking follows a pattern and rejects information and sources beyond reasonable doubt.
Assuming that your fellow ATS member has a nefarious agenda or is denying something they know to be true on purpose is counterproductive and is not at
all helpful or conducive to constructive debate. Why is it so hard to accept that there are intelligent people who simply, genuinely don't believe in
Remember the Georgia Bigfoot in the freezer? Early on, there were people in the ATS thread about it saying that it was a suit, and those people took
plenty of abuse and were accused of being disinfo agents and etc. In the end they were right, but as I recall it they didn't get any apologies nor
does anyone seem to have learned anything much from that incident. Most of the time the people who have the opposite point of view from you and argue
for their "side" are sincere
! Can we not get over pointing fingers and making snide claims about agendas? For the sake of constructive
debate, let's pretend (if you can't convince yourself to believe it) that we're all honest, sincere people here with no hidden agendas. Can we do
Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
website like here,
Okay, one of those sites you posted is someone's blog, and the other is just pictures. However, the first one - the one included above - is
interesting and does have some evidence. OZ, Essan, and some of you other Contrailers - how about addressing the evidence on that site such as the
chemical analysis reports, reports of illnesses, and maybe even the pictures since a couple of them look odd even to me?
What about this?
According to a report published 8/28/06 in The Idaho Observer recent lab reports found the following in samples of chemtrail fall-out:
bacteria including anthrax and pneumonia, 9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride, 26 heavy metals including arsenic, lead, barium, mercury and
uranium, 4 molds and fungi, 7 viruses, 2 cancers, 2 vaccines and 2 sedatives.
(from above quoted site)
If that stuff didn't come from "chemtrails," then where did it/could it have come from, and why is the newspaper saying that this stuff was found
in "chemtrail fallout?" Why would those chemicals and heavy metals be in air samples?
Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
I don't have to know science about TNT or bombs to know that if I see a stick of dynamite I shouldn't touch it.
True. But if you saw some powder, would you know whether or not it is explosive? We can recognize a stick of dynamite by looking at it because it is a
familiar form. You can't tell what is in a chem/con trail by looking
at it! Rainbows show us that water droplets in air can reflect every
color of the rainbow (ha, ha), so color doesn't mean anything. Thickness, density, and persistence might mean something, but even if we concede that
a particular trail is uncharacteristic and might not be normal, that tells us nothing about what substances it may or may not contain.
Even if we all suddenly said "okay, fine, there are contrails which are sufficiently outside the norm to be something other than plain old water
vapor," where would that get us? What would it prove? Nothing!
I know that OZ and I are familiar with debate rules because we're ATS "fighters." Do the rest of you know anything about structured debate? (i. e.
debates with rules)
The concept I wish to use, specifically, is that of Socratic Questions. SQ's MUST be answered, directly, by the opposing debater and may not be
ignored or blown off.
One of the things I'm consistently seeing in this thread is questions and evidence which are ignored by the other side. So, instead of 25 pages of
going round and round the same old arguments that apparently some of y'all have been through before even, in other threads, let's try something
I'm going to ask a few questions of both sides and request that they be answered. Each person, after answering an SQ directly and honestly, may ASK
an SQ that must be answered directly and honestly by the other side.
Okay, here goes:
1. Presumably the folks in charge of the Chemtrail program are human. They have friends and family which are not immune to the effects. Why, then,
would they do this knowing that their friends and family would also be harmed?
2. Why are the 'effects' of chemtrails not seen in indicator animal species? (Or, if you say they are, please provide links to evidence of such).
3. What evidence is there that the illnesses and effects of "chemtrail" fallout are not caused by pollution, soil/water contamination from other
sources, and ordinary person-to-person transmission?
1. If the Barium, which is consistently reported at unsafe atmospheric levels, is not coming from "chemtrails," then where else could it be coming
2. Please choose one or two of the pictures on this site: Strange Days, Strange Skies
and explain what is in the picture if not chemtrails.
3. Many people claim to be getting sick or having their health negatively impacted after seeing "chemtrails." Assuming this is not mass hysteria
since thousands of otherwise reasonable people report it, how could ordinary contrails cause illness?
And, as I said in the beginning, let's assume for debate purposes that we are all sincere, honest people with no agendas.
Go ahead and roll your eyes and sigh, but let's try this once ... the results can't be any worse than 25 pages of the same old arguments, insults,
name-calling, accusations, and mod scolding, can they?