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.

 

Chemtrail debunkers and their agenda

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
Let me repeat it because you don't seem to be comprehending this. . You're not in a position to tell me what to say or what not to say or what I can or can't express, here or anywhere else.

In fact, you seem to have a problem with comprehension, because if not, you would have seen that my post was specifically referring to a small group of debunkers who jump on all the 'chemtrail' threads with the only aim of disrupting, insulting, and ridiculing others who have a different point of view from them...or in some cases, perhaps, from the gubberment.

There are many other members who genuinely want to explore the issue, they may agree or disagree with the existence of chemtrails, but they're here to genuinely discuss and explore the issue, and those discussions can often be enriching and are never a problem for me, at least, on the contrary.

The problem is that that kind of discussion is too often sabotaged by the same small group of those who simply won't tolerate others having a different point of view to their own.


Why don't you just ignore them? Look how much you wrote. It seems like your time would be much better spend in finding a way to effectively present the evidence you have.

I'd be happy to explore the issue with you. Has there been any scientific statement made by a debunker that is wrong?


You're right, ignoring them is best and that's what I normally do. The only reason I have discussed it here is because the topic of the thread is 'Chemtrail debunkers and their agenda'. It's actually not a thread for discussing chemtrails per se.




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


I said with all respect...but when the shoe fits and it is a beautiful pair of comfortable shoes why not take it?

An other thing I forgot to add to the list of deniers....and this is also not specifically meant for you;

There are also people so very full of themselves that they cannot admit a defeat even if the evidence is starring in his or her face and they know they are wrong. For as long as the jury is out they will hang on to their first opinion and when the verdict is made not in their favour,....... they disappeared.....suddently nowhere to be found, a silent retreat. Believe it or not, there is the exception of people who refuse to accept the truth. This is how it is and is it not meant as name calling.


I strongly belief that when enough people start wake up, see trees dying, fauna dissappearing and protests are in swing whisleblowers will step foreward and scapegoats will be presented. The truth will come out.


edit on 18-5-2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
You're right, ignoring them is best and that's what I normally do. The only reason I have discussed it here is because the topic of the thread is 'Chemtrail debunkers and their agenda'. It's actually not a thread for discussing chemtrails per se.


Good point. Well, I'm a debunker. You can find my agenda here:

metabunk.org...

And a small part of my motivation here:

whatstheharm.net...



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
You're right, ignoring them is best and that's what I normally do. The only reason I have discussed it here is because the topic of the thread is 'Chemtrail debunkers and their agenda'. It's actually not a thread for discussing chemtrails per se.


Good point. Well, I'm a debunker. You can find my agenda here:

metabunk.org...

And a small part of my motivation here:

whatstheharm.net...


I appreciate your openess Unicus. Thanks. I'll check out your links a bit later on.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Personally, if there's a topic I believe is bunkum, I just don't bother with it.


And personally, if there's a topic that I happen, through my own long time interests and hobbies, to know rather a lot about, and other people are getting very worried over something they clearly don't understand, then I think it's only nice and proper to help out and put their minds at rest by explaining the truth.

If you'd rather ignore such people than help them, then that's fine by me. Just don't complain if I'm not so selfish



Edit: plus it gives me an excuse to show off some of my photos from time to time



edit on 18-5-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by wcitizen
Personally, if there's a topic I believe is bunkum, I just don't bother with it.


And personally, if there's a topic that I happen, through my own long time interests and hobbies, to know rather a lot about, and other people are getting very worried over something they clearly don't understand, then I think it's only nice and proper to help out and put their minds at rest by explaining the truth.


If you'd rather ignore such people than help them, then that's fine by me. Just don't complain if I'm not so selfish




Nothing like taking the moral high ground.


If people are getting worried about something which, in my opinion, they don't understand, and which I have knowledge of, and if I think something I know may be helpful, of course I'll post it. If someone wants to discuss it further I'll happily do so. What I won't do is try to ridicule them if they aren't willing to take that info on board, or don't agree with it.

It's not my wish to try to force people to agree with me, just simply to provide info which I believe may be helpful.

Berating someone, insulting them, attempting to ridicule them for not taking that info on board is, in my opinion, more than selfish, it's verging on narcissistic.

Now, if I think the topic itself is bunkum, I'll just ignore it and happily let those discuss it who wish to. Each to their own.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Berating someone, insulting them, attempting to ridicule them for not taking that info on board is, in my opinion, more than selfish, it's verging on narcissistic.


As as debunker, I think that if anyone feels insulted or ridiculed by me, then I'm doing it wrong.

Such things generally serve only to charge and polarize a discussion. Of course there are some people who take offense at the very slightest questioning of their beliefs, but in general it works well to simply present verifiable facts and reasonable analysis in a polite manner - regardless of the actions of the other person.

Here's a hierarchy of ways in which you can disagree with people. The higher you can go the better.




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
That's a great diagram, Uncinus, thanks.


edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


In my experience, most of the name calling and ridicule comes from those who for whatever reason refuse to accept that chemtrails might actually just be contrails after all. Alleging that some of us are paid disinfo agents, for example


Though I must admit that when yet another person posts up the same ancient video that's been shown to be wholly incorrect and misleading in a dozen other concurrent threads, it is sometimes hard to hold ones temper!



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by wcitizen
 


In my experience, most of the name calling and ridicule comes from those who for whatever reason refuse to accept that chemtrails might actually just be contrails after all. Alleging that some of us are paid disinfo agents, for example



Sure, some of that goes on, but imo the agressive debunking, the posts with a definite tone of ridicule and disdain begin as soon as any discussion on chemtrails begins. Those who believe in them are simply not allowed to have a discussion on the topic wihtout constantly being goaded, and riduculed. I have never, ever seen them be allowed to do this. Many debunkers seem to actually want to humiliate and silence those who believe in chemtrails, nothing less. It's like a blood sport to them.


.

Though I must admit that when yet another person posts up the same ancient video that's been shown to be wholly incorrect and misleading in a dozen other concurrent threads, it is sometimes hard to hold ones temper!


Yes, but the point is that if people don't accept the opinion expressed by a debunker about a video, for example, that's their prerogative. Debunkers want to FORCE people to adopt their point of view. They often seem to want to smash them into submission.

I don't participate in threads about chemtrails on ATS anymore for this reason. I am convinced they are happening. I've done hours of research and continue to do so, and I've given serious consideration to the argument against them as well. I prefer to continue researching and exploring in a context where info can be sifted and evaluated without all the aggression and insults here on ATS. It's the same with 9/11. I won't participate in the discussions on here any more.

I don't feel any need to convince anyone who doesn't believe in chemtrails, but I'm sick of the aggressive, nasty attitudes from people who can't just allow people to have a different point of view.

I've had it woth the verbal thuggery which goes on.

ETA: And yes, I believe one or two may be paid disinfo agents. I don't understand why that's so offensive to those debunkers who aren't. Again, it's as though people read 'all debunkers are paid disinfo agents' even though I would never say, or even think, something so ridiculous.




edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Yes, but the point is that if people don't accept the opinion expressed by a debunker about a video, for example, that's their prerogative. Debunkers want to FORCE people to adopt their point of view. They often seem to want to smash them into submission.

I don't participate in threads about chemtrails on ATS anymore for this reason. I am convinced they are happening. I've done hours of research and continue to do so, and I've given serious consideration to the argument against them as well. I prefer to continue researching and exploring in a context where info can be sifted and evaluated without all the aggression and insults here on ATS.


Well then it seems the aggressive debunkers have won.

For polite debunkers though, that's a failure. I'd also put it that it's a failure for the believers. It's doesn't show very well if your theory does not stand up to ridicule. You'll note that the debunkers don't duck out the way the believers do. I don't think that's necessarily anything to do with the quality of the person, but more to do with the quality of their evidence.

If you can't stand public scrutiny, perhaps that's a drop of evidence right there?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
Yes, but the point is that if people don't accept the opinion expressed by a debunker about a video, for example, that's their prerogative. Debunkers want to FORCE people to adopt their point of view. They often seem to want to smash them into submission.

I don't participate in threads about chemtrails on ATS anymore for this reason. I am convinced they are happening. I've done hours of research and continue to do so, and I've given serious consideration to the argument against them as well. I prefer to continue researching and exploring in a context where info can be sifted and evaluated without all the aggression and insults here on ATS.


Well then it seems the aggressive debunkers have won.

For polite debunkers though, that's a failure. I'd also put it that it's a failure for the believers. It's doesn't show very well if your theory does not stand up to ridicule. You'll note that the debunkers don't duck out the way the believers do. I don't think that's necessarily anything to do with the quality of the person, but more to do with the quality of their evidence.

If you can't stand public scrutiny, perhaps that's a drop of evidence right there?


Yes, I'm sure that's what you think, but I respectfully disagree. If I want to discuss a topic with some intelligent people, would I go to a rowdy bar full of noisy idiots to do so? No. That's why I won't discuss these matters here.

Your insinuation that it's because evidence is not valid enough to withstand critique is below the belt. Just like most debunkers, you won't ever believe a statement made by a chemtrail believer. They either have to be covering up a weakness or talking rubbish.

So sorry. I thought you were different. Now I see you're not.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Just like most debunkers, you won't ever believe a statement made by a chemtrail believer. They either have to be covering up a weakness or talking rubbish.


I believe evidence. Eyewitness accounts are generally not good evidence. They are also, in this case, generally contradicted by other eyewitnesses (or the lack thereof), and by science.

It does not matter WHO gives the eyewitness account. If it's of something that seems extraordinary, then I'd always want more evidence to back it up. It's nothing personal.

I do stand by the suggestion that most chemtrailers leave the discussions because their evidence is weak. My evidence to support this is the one sided array of people leaving in a huff. It's nearly all, as far as I can tell, chemtrailers.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
Just like most debunkers, you won't ever believe a statement made by a chemtrail believer. They either have to be covering up a weakness or talking rubbish.


I believe evidence. Eyewitness accounts are generally not good evidence. They are also, in this case, generally contradicted by other eyewitnesses (or the lack thereof), and by science.

It does not matter WHO gives the eyewitness account. If it's of something that seems extraordinary, then I'd always want more evidence to back it up. It's nothing personal.

I do stand by the suggestion that most chemtrailers leave the discussions because their evidence is weak. My evidence to support this is the one sided array of people leaving in a huff. It's nearly all, as far as I can tell, chemtrailers.


I'm not referring to any eyewitness account. I'm referring to the fact that I gave my reason for not wanting to participate in either the chemtrail or 9/11 tjhreads any more, but you decided you knew better, and attributed it to my not being aboe to support my beliefs.

That kind of arrogance, I'm afraid, is typical of debunkers. I accept that in terms of a debate about objective phenomena your interpretation is as valid as mine (not, necessarily more so, however), but I draw the line at you pretending to know better than I do what my motivation is.

Disappointing, but a typical attitude amongst debunkers. Now that's clear, I have no wish to continue this discussion with you. Go find someone else to badger. And attribute whatever motive to that that you wish.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I saw an avatar somewhere that had the caption "I don't like your tone. Let's talk about that instead".

There are people here who will have a perfectly reasonable discussion with your about whatever evidence you think supports your case. Yet you choose to let some rude behavior be your focus, and ultimately you leave because of it.

Why not just ignore them, and have a reasonable discussion?

I think many people leave because they know they don't really have a strong case, and they don't relish the thought of the inevitable mockery that sadly comes with public forums.

However that does not make them right.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
reply to post by wcitizen
 


I saw an avatar somewhere that had the caption "I don't like your tone. Let's talk about that instead".

There are people here who will have a perfectly reasonable discussion with your about whatever evidence you think supports your case. Yet you choose to let some rude behavior be your focus, and ultimately you leave because of it.

Why not just ignore them, and have a reasonable discussion?

I think many people leave because they know they don't really have a strong case, and they don't relish the thought of the inevitable mockery that sadly comes with public forums.

However that does not make them right.


Have a nice day.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
Just like most debunkers, you won't ever believe a statement made by a chemtrail believer. They either have to be covering up a weakness or talking rubbish.


I believe evidence. Eyewitness accounts are generally not good evidence. They are also, in this case, generally contradicted by other eyewitnesses (or the lack thereof), and by science.

It does not matter WHO gives the eyewitness account. If it's of something that seems extraordinary, then I'd always want more evidence to back it up. It's nothing personal.

I do stand by the suggestion that most chemtrailers leave the discussions because their evidence is weak. My evidence to support this is the one sided array of people leaving in a huff. It's nearly all, as far as I can tell, chemtrailers.


I'm not referring to any eyewitness account. I'm referring to the fact that I gave my reason for not wanting to participate in either the chemtrail or 9/11 tjhreads any more, but you decided you knew better, and attributed it to my not being aboe to support my beliefs.

That kind of arrogance, I'm afraid, is typical of debunkers. I accept that in terms of a debate about objective phenomena your interpretation is as valid as mine (not, necessarily more so, however), but I draw the line at you pretending to know better than I do what my motivation is.

Disappointing, but a typical attitude amongst debunkers. Now that's clear, I have no wish to continue this discussion with you. Go find someone else to badger. And attribute whatever motive to that that you wish.


If we are so arrogant as to assume you couldn't support your beliefs, please expose that arrogance with some evidence.

If you could support your belief, you would have no trouble doing so.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo




You know what, I wasn't replying to you at all, and the discussion I was having is now finished. I actually explained my point in the post. You must have missed that.

If you want more evidence, you could look in the mirror. ROFL.
edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by GringoViejo




You know what, I wasn't replying to you at all, and the discussion I was having is now finished. I actually explained my point in the post. You must have missed that.

If you want more evidence, you could look in the mirror. ROFL.
edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)


Your "point" is worthless without evidence.

I really don't care if you were replying to me. You can get over it or not.

And it's not arrogance if you can back it up, which we can, and have done repeatedly in regards to this hoax.

So, I take it you have no evidence to back up your "alleged" (by me) arrogance?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by GringoViejo




You know what, I wasn't replying to you at all, and the discussion I was having is now finished. I actually explained my point in the post. You must have missed that.

If you want more evidence, you could look in the mirror. ROFL.
edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)


Your "point" is worthless without evidence.

I really don't care if you were replying to me. You can get over it or not.

And it's not arrogance if you can back it up, which we can, and have done repeatedly in regards to this hoax.

So, I take it you have no evidence to back up your "alleged" (by me) arrogance?


As I've already said, you seem to have a problem understanding what is written. I explained what I perceived as arrogance in the post I made to someone else. If you can't grasp that or if that doesn;t satisfy you, that's not my problem.

I think this conversation has run its course, and actually it's not serving any constructive purpose.




top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join