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: 29
79
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post 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


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.


Nicely owned by your own link, way to go.

Now, prove that "chemtrails" exist.

Otherwise, ALL contrails are just plain 'ol contrails.
edit on 2-6-2011 by Goathief because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
You're right, contrails are actually goblin urine.

Amirite?


Trolling now are we?


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...


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.

For all the whining you do about argument from ignorance you obviously have no idea what it means. I should have never introduced you guys to the phrase.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:35 PM
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


Exactly, and this is why the claim...

"There is no evidence for chemtrails, therefore they don't exist."

...is bullocks.

That's all I've been pointing out here, but man, does it piss you guys off.



Now, prove that "chemtrails" exist.


Make me.


I have never claimed to have been trying. You are clearly confused.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Goathief
You're right, contrails are actually goblin urine.

Amirite?


Trolling now are we?


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, or are you saying contrails don't exist and have no evidence?




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
No, it's the same argument you're using.

Are you genuinely that dim or are YOU trolling?


Speaking of dim, you still don't understand that I'm not claiming chemtrails are anything, or even claiming that they exist. I'm only pointing out that you are constantly making the exact same fallacy you keep accusing me of.

And the goblin urine is all yours.



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.


And this is the fallacy, argument from ignorance, that you keep projecting onto me.

You can't say something doesn't exist, simply because it hasn't been proven yet. That is making a claim based on nothing. That is argument from ignorance.




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


Then what's your evidence?

Argument from ignorance yet again? Maybe you think repeating a fallacy 100000 times makes it suddenly logical.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


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?

It is perfectly acceptable to assume that all contrails are contrails until someone proves that some are indeed made from goblin urine or even unlikelier, "chemtrails" (whatever is in those?!).



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
Read your own link.

Hello? Anybody home?


That's what I want to know man.

You are so obsessed with being right that you aren't thinking at all when you post.



Outlandish claims can be assumed to be false until proven otherwise. Your link states that, albeit in a slightly wordier manner.


You're fantasizing and stretching what the page says to fit your agenda.


How long do you want to continue this charade?


For exactly as long as you keep lying about your blatant fallacious logic.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   

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.


So you're not claiming contrails don't exist... brilliant.

I on the other hand, will claim that they exist - which brings me to:


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.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
So you're not claiming contrails don't exist... brilliant.


Yes, I'm neither claiming that they do or don't.

If you were neither claiming that they do or don't, then we would have nothing to argue about.

But you want to say they definitely don't exist. That's where the problem arises, because that is a claim that requires evidence. Not a lack of evidence.





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?


I never argued that contrails don't exist in the first place. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Stop asking loaded questions.


Prove contrails can be anything but contrails, otherwise they are indeed contrails.


Once again... argument from ignorance.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

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".

The definition of an appeal to ignorance states that if someone makes an outlandish claim, it can be assumed to not be true.

If you wish to prove that we are indeed arguing from an appeal to ignorance, you have to prove why your claim is not outlandish.

You can do this by proving that "chemtrails" exist, and that not every contrail is what it seems.

You have utterly failed in this regard thus far, and it is where your silly argument falls flat on it's face.
edit on 2-6-2011 by Goathief because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

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.


Right, just make it into "no I'm not," "yes you are," okay.





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".


Wrong. Already you have forgotten that I'm not making this claim.

How many more times do you want to lie about this?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You are indeed claiming "chemtrails" exist by implying that not all contrails are actually contrails.

That is an outlandish claim backed up by nothing.

Again, to prove that we are arguing from an appeal to ignorance, you have to prove why your claim is not outlandish.

As it stands, you cannot.
edit on 2-6-2011 by Goathief because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

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.



Again, to prove that we are arguing from an appeal to ignorance, you have to prove why your claim is not outlandish.


Unfortunately no one ever appointed you the arbitrator of "outlandishness."



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

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.


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...

... and if that wasn't enough, here's the undeniable admission of your belief in "chemtrails";




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



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

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.


So now are you also going to deny cloud-seeding and all other known forms of dumping crap into the air don't exist either?

Notice that nowhere here do I claim to have proof of chemtrails.

Or here...


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?


There's nothing there claiming proof of chemtrails either.




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...


Arguing the definition of the word "chemtrail" is also not claiming to have proof of them.





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.


Again, nowhere did I claim to have proof.


I'm sure through all the rummaging that took, you came across multiple examples of me also plainly stating that I am not claiming to have proof. Want me to post those for you too?



Ergo, we are not arguing from an appeal to ignorance.


Even if I was claiming to have scientific proof of chemtrails, which I nowhere have, it still wouldn't remove your own burden of proof for ever claiming definitively that they don't exist. Once again... you are arguing from ignorance.


Prove otherwise.


You still haven't shown where I have ever claimed to have proof of chemtrails.

You think you have proof that they don't exist, don't you? How is that in any way my burden?
edit on 2-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Reply to post by bsbray11
 


You have admitted that you believe in "chemtrails" (so stop pretending you don't) and given a few reasons for it, including one that you have stated in this thread as being impossible; you can tell by observing trails from the ground, specifically as they were straight and preceeding a hurricane.

LOL!

Again, your claims that contrails are anything but is outlandish.

Ergo, we have nothing to prove because it's perfectly acceptable to dismiss a paranoid fantasist's nonsensical rantings.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Now, prove that "chemtrails" exist.


I have never claimed to have been trying. You are clearly confused.


you claim that a chemtail cannot be distinguished from a contrail - for this to be a valid comparison chemtrails must exist for them to be able to be compared - ergo you claim chemtrails exit (or yuo could not claim they are indistinguishable in hte first place)

QED...and yes I know youre going to claim it's not what you said, or it's not logical - but we already know your whole argument is based on logical fallacies so that's going to be a bit of a laugh.....



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   

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.


Just as well I didn't say they were contrails jsut because contrails exist then - phew - dodged that one


What I say about lines is the sky is:

-they look like contrails,
-they behave like contrails,
-they look like they are being generated in the manner contrails would be generated,
-there's no evidence that anything else exists that they might be,
-therefore I am justified in concluding that they are contrails.

It's called logic - a series of premises that support a conclusion - sorry to burst your bubble



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
You have admitted that you believe in "chemtrails" (so stop pretending you don't)


We weren't talking about what I believe. We were talking about what I said I have proof for. Do you understand the difference between those two words in italics?

Now combine that with what I have been saying to you again and again: You have no more prove that they don't exist, than I do, that they do exist.

Saying that since I don't have proof, you're automatically right, is argument from ignorance. I am not making that same argument. I can differentiate between a belief and proof. The reason we are arguing, is because you can't.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
-therefore I am justified in concluding that they are contrails.


You forget that it isn't an either/or scenario, because I believe contrails exist too. Nothing at all about that automatically discludes chemtrails from also existing at the same time. So what is "they"? Every white trail in the sky following every white plain? That is a leap of faith no more than believing that they are being dumped.



new topics




 
79
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join