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.

 

China admits to dumping chemtrails for weather modification. What do they look like??

page: 28
79
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
If there's no proof, then why do you keep asking for it?


Because I'm being rhetorical. Of course you can't prove that chemtrails don't exist, and I'm not trying to prove to you that they do.

I'm just hoping that the next time someone posts a photo they claim is a chemtrail, you won't come out dancing all over it with logical fallacies of "ohhh that's just a contrail" when you would just be making yourself out a hypocrite.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Ok, this chemtrial nonsense is getting out of hand now. Its an absurd make believe fantasy that is clearly the result of mentally ill people latching on to something and trying to attribute some kind of meaning to their existence.
WATER VAPOUR! ITS WATER VAPOUR for gods sake.
My advice, keep taking the medication and then when you are well enough go back to school and study rudimentary science.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
If there's no proof, then why do you keep asking for it?


Because I'm being rhetorical. Of course you can't prove that chemtrails don't exist, and I'm not trying to prove to you that they do.

I'm just hoping that the next time someone posts a photo they claim is a chemtrail, you won't come out dancing all over it with logical fallacies of "ohhh that's just a contrail" when you would just be making yourself out a hypocrite.


Just so long as you don't go claiming this is a real cat. I'm pretty sure it's a robot cat that only looks like a real cat.



If you come out with the logical fallacy "ohhh that's just a cat", you'd make yourself out to be a hypocrite.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnStrawManDoe
WATER VAPOUR! ITS WATER VAPOUR for gods sake.


Well, technically it's ice. But yes.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnStrawManDoe
WATER VAPOUR! ITS WATER VAPOUR for gods sake.
My advice, keep taking the medication and then when you are well enough go back to school and study rudimentary science.


You want to talk about science? Why don't you prove that chemtrails are a bunch of nonsense and people are just seeing water vapor?

If you're really so damned confident then you must have some evidence against their existence? Otherwise why would you be so emotional about it?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Just so long as you don't go claiming this is a real cat. I'm pretty sure it's a robot cat that only looks like a real cat.


Once again resulting to mockery and ridicule when you don't have a real argument.

Let me know when your robot cat nonsense finally catches on with all of us gullible crazy people.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're really so damned confident then you must have some evidence against their existence? Otherwise why would you be so emotional about it?


I do wonder why you keep using this argument from ignorance line when it is one of the best known logical fallacies around.

I mean if you your position is based on a fallacy that wipes out any claim yuo have to be making a valid point.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Just so long as you don't go claiming this is a real cat. I'm pretty sure it's a robot cat that only looks like a real cat.


Once again resulting to mockery and ridicule when you don't have a real argument.

Let me know when your robot cat nonsense finally catches on with all of us gullible crazy people.


How exactly does it differ from contrails/chemtrails?

There's lots of evidence that robot cats exist. Sega sells one. There's lots of patents. How do you know this is not a robot cat?

Would you say it's just as likely as my trail being a chemtrail? If not, then why not?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Here's a robot cat and a real cat together. Now you can spot the difference, but what if you were 200 feet away!


I'm not mocking you BTW, I'm just pointing out how pointless your "can't tell the difference between identical things" argument is.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
I'm not mocking you BTW, I'm just pointing out how pointless your "can't tell the difference between identical things" argument is.


I didn't say they were identical, only that you don't have any evidence every time you cry "contrail, contrail!!!"

Stop putting words in my mouth.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're really so damned confident then you must have some evidence against their existence? Otherwise why would you be so emotional about it?


I do wonder why you keep using this argument from ignorance line when it is one of the best known logical fallacies around.


I'm not making an argument from ignorance, or any argument at all here. I'm asking someone who just definitively claimed that chemtrails don't exist, to prove it.

The only fallacy here is making a claim without having evidence to support it.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


How many times do you need this explained to you?

People can claim contrails as that is what they are (until someone proves that they could be anything else).

You have to prove that "chemtrails" exist before anything else.

IMHO, all "chemtrail" topics should be moved to the Hoax section until evidence of their existence arrives. I'm sick of seeing this paranoid fantasy all over these forums.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
People can claim contrails as that is what they are (until someone proves that they could be anything else).

You have to prove that "chemtrails" exist before anything else.


That is argument from ignorance.

If you want to claim they are contrails, you can't just fall back on "well, we know contrails exist," because that is not proof that any given trail actually is a contrail.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Reply to post by bsbray11
 


What else could they be?

Certainly not "Chemtrails" as they do not exist.

Prove otherwise by all means.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
Certainly not "Chemtrails" as they do not exist.

Prove otherwise by all means.


I'm not claiming to prove chemtrails to anyone.

But you're claiming definitively that they don't exist.

Do you have any actual evidence of that, or are you making the "argument from ignorance" fallacy that you all love so much?


Appeal to Ignorance

There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.


www.fallacyfiles.org...



Claiming that something does not exist, is just as much of a claim, as saying that something does exist. It's an assertion that requires evidence just the same in either case.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Claiming that something does not exist, is just as much of a claim, as saying that something does exist. It's an assertion that requires evidence just the same in either case.


No it's not.

If chemtrails existed, there would be evidence they existed. There's no evidence.
If chemtrails DID NOT exist, there would be no evidence they existed. There's no evidence.

The evidence that chemtrails do no exist is the lack of evidence that they do. This is called Evidence of Absence. It is not a symmetrical argument.


In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. -— Copi , Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
*EDIT*

Weird stuff happening on ATS mobile
edit on 2-6-2011 by Goathief because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
*EDIT*

Weird stuff happening on ATS mobile

Apologies
edit on 2-6-2011 by Goathief because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Reply to post by bsbray11
 


You're right, contrails are actually goblin urine.

Amirite?

The moon is made of unicorn horns.

Amirite?

No, I'm not.

One thing I am right about is that you don't understand what an appeal to ignorance argument actually is. I'll do some c&p from YOU OWN LINK...


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
Claiming that something does not exist, is just as much of a claim, as saying that something does exist. It's an assertion that requires evidence just the same in either case.


No it's not.

If chemtrails existed, there would be evidence they existed. There's no evidence.


So in other words you are saying there must already evidence for anything that exists? And that we already have proof for everything that exists, because the things we don't already have evidence for, simply don't exist? Well we might as well stop all scientific research then, because according to your "logic" we already know it all and there is no use searching for more evidence of things that obviously can't exist.


You are posting nonsense and just pretending that it makes sense. If anyone were to actually think about what you say, they could easily realize this.



The evidence that chemtrails do no exist is the lack of evidence that they do. This is called Evidence of Absence. It is not a symmetrical argument.


In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. -— Copi , Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95


And you have provided no evidence that this is any such situation.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join