When did you start/stop believing in chemtrails

Originally posted by longwinter

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by longwinter

 

What does that mean??

In my country we cannot chat about court evidence before the case take place..bla bla

But I'm sure you can before a case exists

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

....and it's very easy for us to see how biased and "boxed" your understandings are.

If any of us are biased or "boxed" for basing our claims on direct experience backed by scientific data, then indeed we are.

reply to post by longwinter


No...I time that *starting* point from round about the first lesson. SO, no......not nearly 40 at the major I worked for...nearly 23, there.

Typed B737, B757/767 and DC-9. Lots of right seat B727, A-300, and DC-10. Previous, lowlife commuters, (several, some failed out form under me)....CFI/ME/I before, of course.... scraping by to hit "the big leagues" Ah, naivete'.....

What's your excuse??

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by unityemissions

 

"Biased"?

Yes.

Because I have science, and reason on my side, instead of idiotic claims that are fed to gullible, ill-informed people by con artists who wish to perpetuate the scam, to hoax people for their own profit and self promotion??

No. Because you are or were a pilot.

Also, I'm not falling for your strawman. Go find a weaker mind to mess with.

WoW!!

Delusions come in all shapes, but one size fits many.....apparently.

Agreed.

reply to post by unityemissions


Show us the goods, then!!


Be the first "believer" to come up with it....everyone here is waiting to see it. Why haven't any of the "chem"-trail advocates done so, yet?

Originally posted by Uncinus
ATS Members, what's your story?

1. When (what year)did you first hear of chemtrails, and what was your initial impression?
   
2. Did you notice persistent trails before or after you heard of chemtrails?
   
3. Did your belief ever change? When was that?
   
4. What happened after the change? Did you drop it, or switch sides in the discussion?
   

1. I first heard of chemtrails in 2004 and I wasn't impressed or believed in chemtrails.
   
2. I didn't notice persistent trail before I heard of chemtrails.
   
3. My belief changed after I started noticing more chemtrails.
   
4. I believe in chemtrails and will continue to believe academia and scientists, however.
   

---

My location is somewhere off the west coast.

reply to post by weedwhacker


You claim I'm a believer....

How are you any different?!

You have NEVER shown ANYTHING that disproves what's taking place.

I DARE YOU to prove otherwise.

reply to post by unityemissions


AND, boom goes the dynamite, yet again!

The irrational demand to "prove a negative".....what is this called, as a failed form of *debate*??

"Argument From Incredulity"? I am not fully spooled up on all those exact definitions, and their appropriate applications...

I remember another, "Argument From Ignorance"...that applies often as well....maybe not here, this time, but it will...again and again and again.....

reply to post by pikypiky

Sounds like a case of confirmation bias, you didn't notice persistent contrails until you heard about them from the "chemtrailers", and I'm sure you can't stop seeing them now.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You have NEVER shown ANYTHING that disproves what's taking place.

I DARE YOU to prove otherwise.

Yet another chemmie, when faced with his (or her?) inability to provide any evidence ('cos there is none) argues from ignorance

How about this:

I DARE you to NOT argue from ignorance.

Originally posted by pikypiky

I believe in chemtrails and will continue to believe academia and scientists, however.

You can't do both.

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You claim I'm a believer....

How are you any different?!

You have NEVER shown ANYTHING that disproves what's taking place.

I DARE YOU to prove otherwise.

Is your caps lock key broken, or are you offended because debunkers are challenging your faith? Time to admit it, you have no evidence, do you?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by unityemissions

 

AND, boom goes the dynamite, yet again!

The irrational demand to "prove a negative".....what is this called, as a failed form of *debate*??

"Argument From Incredulity"? I am not fully spooled up on all those exact definitions, and their appropriate applications...

I remember another, "Argument From Ignorance"...that applies often as well....maybe not here, this time, but it will...again and again and again.....

Need anybody say anymore....

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

You claim I'm a believer....

How are you any different?!

You have NEVER shown ANYTHING that disproves what's taking place.

I DARE YOU to prove otherwise.

What is taking place are perfectly normal contrails, if you are telling me they are something else then you will need to provide me with the evidence.

Contrails have been studied for years and years and the different types of contrails are well known. Here's a site dedicated to the study of contrails.. science-edu.larc.nasa.gov...

Now I don't know about you, but logic tells me the scientists who actually study the phenonenom might know a bit more about the subject than a few youtube videos.

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by adeclerk

 

I don't think most Chemies use responsibility in the
same context as most of us do.

The answer to my question above may surprise even the most
stubborn Chemie.

You see, I used European airlines on purpose to prove a point to them............

Why would the American government allow foreign aircraft to spray
hazardous unknown material over US soil.

So now i have given you the question , can I now have the answer please.

Still waiting on an answer from any of the chemies.
Your silence is proving me completely right.

You have no evidence and can't argue against my example.

Originally posted by rigel4

Still waiting on an answer from any of the chemies.
Your silence is proving me completely right.

You have no evidence and can't argue against my example.

This is usually the part where they come in and ask the debunkers to prove a negative, rather than answer the question.

reply to post by adeclerk


If you ask me the mods should make them a new forum!!
One which clearly states that Chemtrails nothing more than a state of
mind (a belief). There is certainly no evidence to suggest otherwise.

/Thread

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Again....what "evidence"??

There simply isn't any.....what the "chemmies" called "evidence" and tried to claim as "proof" was laughably absurd, to people experienced and knowledgeable about the topic of aviation in particular, and many aspects of physics and science in general.

You admitted you never considered the possibility it was true...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Never any doubt that it was bogus

...so the evidence was already irrelevant to you before declaring it all "laughable absurd".