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.
If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that someone claims that the president was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that the president visited another planet, therefore he probably didn't do so.
Originally posted by Goathief
You're right, contrails are actually goblin urine.
Amirite?
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...
Originally posted by Goathief
If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
and
Now, prove that "chemtrails" exist.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Goathief
You're right, contrails are actually goblin urine.
Amirite?
Trolling now are we?
Maybe you missed where I claimed I'm not trying to prove that chemtrails exist.
I'm only pointing out that all your nonsense of "all chemtrails are contrails!! chemtrails don't exist!!" is not supported by evidence.
Originally posted by Goathief
No, it's the same argument you're using.
Are you genuinely that dim or are YOU trolling?
Maybe you missed where I claimed I'm not trying to prove that chemtrails exist.
Of course you're not, because it's impossible due to them not existing.
I'm only pointing out that all your nonsense of "all chemtrails are contrails!! chemtrails don't exist!!" is not supported by evidence.
It is
Originally posted by Goathief
Read your own link.
Hello? Anybody home?
Outlandish claims can be assumed to be false until proven otherwise. Your link states that, albeit in a slightly wordier manner.
How long do you want to continue this charade?
Originally posted by bsbray11
[
Speaking of dim, you still don't understand that I'm not claiming chemtrails are anything, or even claiming that they exist.
Then what's your evidence?
Originally posted by Goathief
So you're not claiming contrails don't exist... brilliant.
Then what's your evidence?
My evidence? The science behind and relating to contrails. It's been covered quite comprehensively in this thread alone, never mind elsewhere.
Are you going to argue contrails don't exist again?
Prove contrails can be anything but contrails, otherwise they are indeed contrails.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You're fantasizing and stretching what the page says to fit your agenda.
For exactly as long as you keep lying about your blatant fallacious logic.
Originally posted by Goathief
Originally posted by bsbray11
You're fantasizing and stretching what the page says to fit your agenda.
No my friend, that is EXACTLY what you are doing.
For exactly as long as you keep lying about your blatant fallacious logic.
No, your logic is.
I'll explain as simple terms as possible;
You make an outlandish claim; some or all contrails are actually "chemtrails".
Originally posted by Goathief
You are indeed claiming "chemtrails" exist by implying that not all contrails are actually contrails.
Again, to prove that we are arguing from an appeal to ignorance, you have to prove why your claim is not outlandish.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Goathief
You are indeed claiming "chemtrails" exist by implying that not all contrails are actually contrails.
I have never claimed to have proof of any such thing.
Go ahead and find the post if you think I have.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I just refuse to be as comfortably numb as you are towards what human beings are dumping into the air to accomplish god-knows-what.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Are you telling me that any such airplane at that same altitude is going to be spewing all of that crap? What "atmospheric conditions" induce such a thing?
Originally posted by bsbray11
you're just trying to shift definitions so that chemtrails excludes weather modification.
Unfortunately "chemtrails" are not universally accepted as excluding weather manipulation
Originally posted by Vis Mega
Roark, I was on the fence about the Chemtrail thing until you came out so hard against it - after that it was kinda obvious that there are some forces at work who are doing everything to ensure that the discussion on the subject is silenced on any public forum
Originally posted by bsbray11
Same here, man. And water fluoridation, but I was already pretty convinced of the negativity in that anyway. Just not so much the weather control stuff, until I saw how he was all over that in the exact same way he is 9/11, and then shortly after I saw some radar imagines showing these freaky rows of clouds, straight as a razor and lined up perfectly, right in the path of an oncoming hurricane.
Originally posted by Goathief
No problem:
Originally posted by bsbray11
I just refuse to be as comfortably numb as you are towards what human beings are dumping into the air to accomplish god-knows-what.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Are you telling me that any such airplane at that same altitude is going to be spewing all of that crap? What "atmospheric conditions" induce such a thing?
Originally posted by bsbray11
you're just trying to shift definitions so that chemtrails excludes weather modification.
Unfortunately "chemtrails" are not universally accepted as excluding weather manipulation
Yeah, in your world maybe...
Originally posted by Vis Mega
Roark, I was on the fence about the Chemtrail thing until you came out so hard against it - after that it was kinda obvious that there are some forces at work who are doing everything to ensure that the discussion on the subject is silenced on any public forum
Originally posted by bsbray11
Same here, man. And water fluoridation, but I was already pretty convinced of the negativity in that anyway. Just not so much the weather control stuff, until I saw how he was all over that in the exact same way he is 9/11, and then shortly after I saw some radar imagines showing these freaky rows of clouds, straight as a razor and lined up perfectly, right in the path of an oncoming hurricane.
Your claim that "chemtrails" exist and/or that not all contrails are indeed contrails as we know it is outlandish.
Ergo, we are not arguing from an appeal to ignorance.
Prove otherwise.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Now, prove that "chemtrails" exist.
I have never claimed to have been trying. You are clearly confused.
Originally posted by bsbray11
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.
Originally posted by Goathief
You have admitted that you believe in "chemtrails" (so stop pretending you don't)
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
-therefore I am justified in concluding that they are contrails.