G Edward Griffin - help me prove chemtails exist

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Here's an appeal from one of the major chemtrail believers -


Here is what I am asking you to do. If this project interests you, please go on the Internet and become familiar with a program called Plane Finder: planefinder.net... Play with it a while to see how you can track aircraft anywhere in the world, provided there are receiving stations in that area. When you see on your screen that a plane is moving over your location, you should be able to go outdoors and watch it in the sky. Every time you see a plane, get its identity from Plane Finder and note if it has very long trails (lingering over more than half the sky and feathering out into a lingering milky haze), short trails (moving along with the aircraft and dissipating as they go), or no trails (usually low altitude flights). Record all the data about the flight including the time.



- chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com...

so there's the challenge from one of your own - get some actual, real, verifiable evidence.

Personaly I think it's a crock - I already think chemmie believers will falsify the evidence rather than admit that there are any commercial airliners on normal operations that leave peristent contrails.

but I'm willing to at least allow the possibility that I will be wrong.

And Mr Griffin is at least nominally open to the possiblity that the data may show the hteory wrong -


This project is a two-edged sword. What if we find that all those trails really are coming from the same scheduled planes that carry passengers? That would mean we have been on the wrong track, and we would have to re-examine our evidence and re-consider our position. There are some who are convinced that spraying is done by planes performing routine commercial services, but I have not considered that to be likely in view of the huge amount of chemicals needed for such missions and the difficulty in concealing the mixing of chemicals with jet fuel, to say nothing of the effect it would have on fuel performance and damage to the engines. Furthermore, Planes that fly in the crazy patterns we have seen would hardly go unnoticed and unreported by passengers. In any event, the results of a field test such as I am proposing will clear up many of these questions.


which is a major admission from any chemtrailer IMO, and to be applauded.

however there are plenty of hooks in his appeal for objective evidence -


To be sure, the debunkers will always be able to find some semi-plausible explanation for everything, even this. For example, not all parts of the world or even of the United States are serviced by this technology at the present time, although the most populated areas are. So the debunkers will likely claim that the coverage is not complete and, therefore, not reliable.


so he is already claiming that known limitations of hte system are actually just claims by debunkers.



Also, there is some question about whether all commercial planes are equipped with these transmitters or merely most of them, so the debunkers will claim that a plane that does not show up in the system is probably just one of those commercial planes without transmitters.


ditto - if you are using a system that relies upon a/c being fitted with ADS-B then you simply get no indication of any a/c that is not fitted with it.

en.wikipedia.org... - a/c are not REQUIRED to be fitted with this in the USA until 2020!!

Around here for example I can see al lthe A320's and B737-800's in the air - but no 737-300's or ATR-72's at all that I also know are flying because I checked the departure times for the last 45 minutes....

However in the USA you can use flight aware - flightaware.com... - which relies upon IFR flight plan information rathe than ADSB - although in some cases positions are "predicted" based on the flight plan rather than being actual and known.



One blogger who is not happy with the technology claims that his iPhone does not work if the plane is closer than 50 miles, supposedly because of some interference by Homeland Security to protect planes from terrorists. (I do not have an iPhone so I cannot verify his claim, but I had no trouble tracking aircraft directly overhead when using the full computer version of Plane Tracker.)


Or perhaps the fiarly well known delay of a few minutes comes into play - 5 minutes at 600mph = 30 miles....


In any event, debunkers will claim that the system is filled with quirks and errors and is not reliable. You get the picture.


Yes indeed I do - making excuses already........and hence the reason for my skepticism that the recording will actually be honest and accurate in the first place.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Personaly I think it's a crock - I already think chemmie believers will falsify the evidence

making excuses already........and hence the reason for my skepticism that the recording will actually be honest and accurate in the first place.

I'll say this once, due to experience:

Look at your first statement, and then ask yourself how you cannot be accused of poisoning the well so completely that it is you who would falsify evidence if it goes the other way. Demanding evidence, providing an example of what you consider proper evidence, and then declaring beforehand that such evidence will certainly turn out to be falsified makes all claims of debunkers to only want the truth null and void.

In light of that, whining that chemtrail believers are "making excuses already" sounds awfully hypocritical. There's skepticism, and then there's a double standard. "And that's all I have to say about that."



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


I can't falsify the evidence 'cos I'm not going to collect any - so there's your answer to that


And of course my skepticism is in response to Mr Griffin's original message - his request for help in collecting evidence is what has poisoned the well - and that occured before I typed a word.

If you have a properly co-ordinated scientific process then you can actually PROVE that the evidence is good.

If you don't then you leave yourself open to suspicion - and given Mr Griffin's track record on observation, and the "reluctance" of "hard core" believers to actually consider verifiable evidence I think my skepticism has a reasonable foundation.

but, as you guys like to say, you could always.......PROVE ME WRONG

edit on 26-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the GaulPROVE ME WRONG

edit on 26-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

You... missed the point.... completely.

You already declared that you will reject out of hand any kind of proof from anybody, even without first poisoning the well yourself.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth
You already declared that you will reject out of hand any kind of proof from anybody, even without first poisoning the well yourself.


where did I say I will reject it out of hand?

Perhaps yuo missed this bit:


but I'm willing to at least allow the possibility that I will be wrong.


?

edit on 26-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

where did I say I will reject it out of hand?


Quoting you:


Personaly I think it's a crock - I already think chemmie believers will falsify the evidence


If this is what you believe, then claiming you'd admit to being wrong is a mere attempt to appear open-minded in spite of it. The well is poisoned by your presumption of "pre-crime".



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
so you are still ignoring the bit where I said it is possible I'm wrong, and the other bit where I said that it is possible to PROVE that the data is good by carrying out a scientific procedure. And being a rational and science based person I would HAVE to accept such data.

See this is exactly why I don't believe chemmies are capable of doing this properly - yuo have selectively quoted what suits your purpose, ignored the context, ignored the antecedents that caused me to come to my conclusion, ignored the correction that has vbeen pointed out.

And of course your basic conclusions is just bollocks anyway - what I think doesn't poison the well at all - it doesn't force any chemmie to screw the data - you remain completely free to collect and analyse perfectly valid data.

You are just trying to use ME as an excuse why you are not prepared to even try to do so - whereas I reckon the REAL REASON is that you know your stupid theory is just drivel and you are scrabling to find any reason not to do anythnig that might prove that to be the case.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Personaly I think it's a crock - I already think chemmie believers will falsify the evidence rather than admit that there are any commercial airliners on normal operations that leave peristent contrails.


Maybe he means this part.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Trueman
 


Yes I know that - I'm just pointing out that by selecting jsut part of my post he is lying by omission.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Trueman
 


Yes I know that - I'm just pointing out that by selecting jsut part of my post he is lying by omission.


When the words I'm quoting are not off at some distant website but right here in the first page of the thread, how can I possibly be "lying by omission"? I already explained how your two statements-- that a pro-chemtrail result must be due to falsification, but you could be wrong-- are an attempt to cover up your having poisoned the well. So in fact I could accuse you of lying.

This is why no chemtrail discussion will ever be resolved, and why it's pointless to try.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I think of it this way, if you commit a crime unknowingly, it does not mean you haven't committed a crime.

If you claim something and show evidence that is false, whether by ignorance or intention, it doesn't mean you haven't falsified evidence to support your claim.

Gaul's opinion is based on the history of "chemtrail evidence" thus far. How is that poisoning any wells?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo
I think of it this way, if you commit a crime unknowingly, it does not mean you haven't committed a crime.

If you claim something and show evidence that is false, whether by ignorance or intention, it doesn't mean you haven't falsified evidence to support your claim.

Gaul's opinion is based on the history of "chemtrail evidence" thus far. How is that poisoning any wells?



I disagree. An accidental crime is not a lie or falsification, because an accident is not premeditated. To charge someone with lying you have to prove the intent to deceive. A person can break the law without being aware of the law, but they can't be charged with premeditated crime. There is a penalty for both, but not an identical penalty. Intent is a critical distinction.

So your assertion is patently false, meaning erroneous. You didn't make the claim in order to deceive though, so I can't accuse you of lying. See how that works?

The fact remains that Gaul poisoned the well by proclaiming in advance that any evidence showing chemtrail theory to be factual must be due to deliberate, premeditated falsification. No matter what the study may find, Gaul has already written it off as a fabrication; he did NOT say it would be merely "mistaken". Yet even if he had said that, what kind of science or logic is it that has already judged the study to be flawed due to incompetence? Again, the well is poisoned, and this whole thing begs the question of why the thread was started at all. As I explained, to say this proposed study is what is needed to settle the issue, then turn right around and either call the study flawed due to incompetence or to charge the researchers with intent to falsify, is the height of hypocrisy.

So Gaul has accused the people proposing the study of intent to deceive, and me for quoting him with intent to deceive. You can't-- and I won't try anymore-- reason with people like that.
edit on 26-5-2011 by SaberTruth because: added thought



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 





This is why no chemtrail discussion will ever be resolved, and why it's pointless to try.


No, this is why "chemtrail" discussion will never be resolved.
You presuppose that anything you bring to the table as evidence will be quashed by a debunker, so you bring nothing to the table at all. I've been a debunker for over two years, and have heard all kinds of claims that the evidence is there. And no evidence has been produced. What is given is videos and pictures, which do not reveal chemical content so are useless, reports that are easily shown to be not performed with good standards, or anecdote, which is meaningless. Why do we have these standards? Because we have chosen to follow the science, which hold these standards. We would like an even playing field, and producing a test on water gathered in the back of a pick-up truck which is then interpreted wrong is not to a standard we would expect to present to you to explain our claims. When we present pictures or videos, it's because of the visible physical aspects of the trail. When we are presented with pictures or videos, it is to show a clue of content. When believers bring anecdote, we have members who are professionals, many times with years of experience who knows how things work, what they do, what they see, what they don't see......and quite frankly, I would trust someone who has been a pilot with just a few months flight time under their belt over a "chemtrail" believer who has "looked up" for years and "knows" something isn't "right". Pilots have to learn a lot about meteorology, and really common traits of the atmosphere are mistaken by believers many, many times.
So, bring forward what you believe is good evidence, or proof, or whatever you choose to call it but expect it to be measured by the same yardstick we use when we choose ours.
Or, show us where what we say is somehow wrong.
It's not pointless to try.
It's pointless to not try.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
So are any chemtrail believers going to give it a go? There really is a lack of tangible evidence, and it seems like if this really is such a huge conspiracy then it should be relatively simple to get concrete evidence to back it up.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
So are any chemtrail believers going to give it a go? There really is a lack of tangible evidence, and it seems like if this really is such a huge conspiracy then it should be relatively simple to get concrete evidence to back it up.


Not when we are guaranteed to be called incompetent or liars regardless of the outcome. That would be a fool's errand. The problem is not getting evidence, it's getting debunkers to define what they'd even accept as evidence.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


Okay, I can concede it wasn't a great analogy. I'm not a lawyer


But still, he's open to the possibility of being wrong. And I don't think anyone is going to get called a liar if they purely misunderstand their "evidence." It's happened before, and those people aren't liars. If it can be proved though that someone is intentionally falsifying evidence, I don't think it would be wrong to call them a liar.

I still don't think any wells have been poisoned.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Uncinus
So are any chemtrail believers going to give it a go? There really is a lack of tangible evidence, and it seems like if this really is such a huge conspiracy then it should be relatively simple to get concrete evidence to back it up.


Not when we are guaranteed to be called incompetent or liars regardless of the outcome. That would be a fool's errand. The problem is not getting evidence, it's getting debunkers to define what they'd even accept as evidence.


Well that really depends on which version of the theory you are claiming. GEG claims that normal planes don't leave long contrails. So he can produce evidence like:

Photos of planes, with times and locations, leaving long persistent contrails, that cannot be identified as normal passenger planes.

The absence of normal passenger planes leaving long persistent contrails during a period of observation of the unidentified planes.

This can be done in the manner he suggests.

It does not matter if there are few people predisposed to doubt him. If he can present this evidence, then he can convince the entire world. Surely the people you need to convince are not the debunkers? You need evidence you can show to the average person or scientist.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by Trueman
 


Yes I know that - I'm just pointing out that by selecting jsut part of my post he is lying by omission.


When the words I'm quoting are not off at some distant website but right here in the first page of the thread, how can I possibly be "lying by omission"?


You are omitting something that is relevant and shows you to be wrong - it's simple really - your original post is only a partial quote and you refused to acknowledge that part of my post which shows it to be a lie.

So you are lying by omission.

I'm not surprsed you refuse to acknowledge it.


I already explained how your two statements-- that a pro-chemtrail result must be due to falsification, but you could be wrong--


lol - so now you do acknowledge my position - but you think that me acknowledging I can be wrong is somehow irrelevant??


are an attempt to cover up your having poisoned the well.


I'm not involved in the data, and it is completely possible to PROVE without doubt that the data is not false by collecting it properly - so I cannot actually poison the well if the exercise is done properly.

clearly you dont understand the concepts of verifiable data or scientific process - more jsutification for my belief that chemmies can't dothis properly!.


So in fact I could accuse you of lying.


chemmies regularly do - and then fail to back it up by showign where I have lied. I expect you to be no different.


This is why no chemtrail discussion will ever be resolved, and why it's pointless to try.


As has been pointed out that is just another cop out.

If good data shows that there are chemtails then I will be obligated to believe the data.

Your reluctance to gather data is evidence to me that you have no actual interest in proving your case - you are just argumentative
edit on 26-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Pot and kettle come to mind. The OP is argumentative, the intention behind the thread seems argumentative and the purpose seems to me to be to just have anothe gratuitousr pop at people who have a different opinion from the OP, which he clearly doesn't tolerate. Rather like bullies do, who then typically cry victim when they are challenged. I'ts known as the victim/tyrant game.

This must be a big issue for TPTB that they attack it so much, and send out their henchmen in such hordes.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Yeah right...
Another chemmie cop-out.

Why don't you jsut admit that yo're afraid to go to the effort of actually getting verifiable evidence in case you get proved wrong?

I'm not afraid for you to go get verifiable evidence, because if you do then it's win-win for me - either

1/ You find nothing, or
2/ You find something and then I know to do something about it.

So I am TELLING you to go get verifiable evidence - how does that constitute trying to shut anything down??

You are the ones trying to shut this down - not me!!


What are you trying to hide by not taking this opportunity to get verifiable evidence?!!

Hmm???
edit on 26-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)




new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join