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.

 

How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

page: 13
96
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Can you give an example of something that exists without evidence?


I can give you historical examples, yes.

Try... everything ever proven in the history of science, ever.

Before anything and everything was proven, there were periods when there was no evidence of it.


But that does not mean that "everything not yet learned" has any benefit in believing in it before it becomes accepted as workable. If that were the case, ....wow... this would be one nutty world.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


>Can you give an example of something that exists without evidence?

Yes. Zero.

>Scientific evidence, where?

Dude, you seem to have this type of attitude like 'scientists' have got the monopoly on reason...

I've got to tell you that white lab coat you think you are parading around in... sharing your grand thoughts... with us... apparently, feebles! (
) is seriously amusing!

Cuz, it ain't a lab coat, it's actually more something like a hospital gown, and your you KNOW what is hanging out!



'Science' is hardly anything more that unending layers of absurdities...

and this thing that you seem to have a problem with... 'Orgone' (I would call it something else
) seems to have your goat.

It quiet frankly doesn't seem to care if you believe in it or not.
edit on 2-6-2011 by golemina because: typos!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by adeclerk
 




it ain't a lab coat, it's actually more something like a hospital gown, and your you KNOW what is hanging out!



I couldn't agree more! Star for you my friend.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by adeclerk
 


>Can you give an example of something that exists without evidence?

Yes. Zero.


cute - but there is actually evidence for zero ...even if it refers to a lack of quantity the lack of qnaitity is not lack of evidence for zero



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


This IS delicious...

DO provide me with evidence of 'zero' in nature.



C21H30O2I a star!

You are too kind.

edit on 2-6-2011 by golemina because: ps comment




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


This IS delicious...

DO provide me with evidence of 'zero' in nature.


Why have you added "in nature" to your defintion - it wasn't in the post I replied to - change the goal posts much?

You said there was no evidence for zero - and that's all -


>Can you give an example of something that exists without evidence?

Yes. Zero.
- www.abovetopsecret.com...

clearly there is evidence for zero - for example the word itself exists



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Nature?

You're kidding right?

How about just substituting REALITY?


You reference, to a 'word', is to an abstract concept, NOT anything approaching real, as in existence, as in germane to what is being discussed...

You know... PROOF.

Soon as we are thru here, I will alert the angels and tell them to scoot over and make room for you on the head of that needle!


Just because you can abstract something, encapsulate it and have it exist in YOUR head... doesn't make it exist...

At least not in the plane you seem to want to take some of the nice folks in this thread to task for.

So when push comes to shove, you've got nothing.

And are pretty much incapable of distinguishing between a blatant fabrication (an abstract concept
) and reality.

No problem. Obviously too advanced a concept...

Let's try something simple...

Why don't you explain to us the mechanism by which clouds exist?


edit on 2-6-2011 by golemina because: I typo... therefore I am!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bacci0909
 


Try starring your own replies and see if we can come up with evidence to prove that you didn't do it yourself! Of course, that's how pseudo-science works, just faithfully believe, much like science. Until you do your own experiments with "orgone energy", you will be on the side of non-believers yourself, then try and find out how difficult it is to make others believe in your what senses, common or not, have "witnessed".

I have my "proof" but no measurable device to record the event for scrutiny by science and academia.

[off/ blah blah]


edit on 2011-6-02 by pikypiky because: To correct for "proper" grammar and spelling and more "food for thought".



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Nature?

You're kidding right?


well you changed your words to include it - you tell me?!



How about just substituting REALITY?


still changing the goalposts then??


You reference, to a 'word', is to an abstract concept,



none the less the word "zero" is real - it exists in REALITY



NOT anything approaching real, as in existence, as in germane to what is being discussed...


So you mean CONCRETE, as opposed to abstract?? Well why didn't you say so in the first place??


I pointed out that your comment about zero was wrong (and easily pointed out), so you try to explain how you meant something else, and when that's still wrong you change it again....etc., until you can finally find something that fits your pre-conceived notion...and then try to say that this proves your original completely wrong point was, in fact, correct!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


We already know you can't star your own post. LOL the evidence for psuedo-science is really stacking up.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pikypiky
 


Funny! That is EXACTLY how 'Science', such as you seem to be espousing works as well.


We don't need no STINKING Scientific Method! We'll just fabricate whatever nonsense phrases come to mind, pass it off as 'reason', and then heap whatever verbal abuse we want on anyone who dares to challenge 'the word' of 'the dogma' that WE espouse...

Sorry PikyPiky... NO sale!

If you are a REAL Scientist (no quotes, my friend), you are obligated to look at everything is brought before you and listen to the framework of the proposals.

Like that would EVER happen!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Hopefully we've cleared the trolls out for a while...

BsBray11, I don't know if you saw my earlier question...

The history of folks using Orgone (and all it's derivatives
) is quiet rich...

I have two areas I've been trying to fill in for years...

The first is are there any source docs somehow put together hypothesizing about the nature of various generators, cannons, etc and the mechanics of what is at play. (There are numerous parallal analogies in electronic components, other 'generators', etc). This is real basic research (as you can see
).

The second is seriously weird. There was a guy years ago that filed a law suit claiming that clouds were alive... I can't seem to find anything on it. Google being useless for anything like that of course. It is kind of a Schauberger kind of thing.

Anyhow... Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 

You mean slyphs? Here's a video



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Hey Phage!


That's a nice vid, but the view real-time from ye old hacienda... Smoking!

Yeah, exactly in that vein... This guy filled a lawsuit, I believe, in federal court.

It got tossed pretty quick, but I would love to dig up the particulars on that lawsuit.

You gotta figure that he had to have some basic facts to spend that kind of money.

edit on 3-6-2011 by golemina because: ps stuff



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Aren't we going into the realms of energy mechanics? Anything from Kirlian photography of auras, to dowsing to homeopathy, spirits, meridians etc etc. How far do we want to take this?

The problem is that we do not really know how the universe is made and so we do not really understand how it works. If we understood more about its workings, then these phenomena would probably not be so difficult to pin down. We can measure meridian acupuncture points with a meter, but we cannot see the actual 'lines'. (Please dont keep saying it is all to do with the release of endorphins, that is most unlikely - unless endorphins are the cure-all for most diseases known to man.)

There are many zeropoint energy machines which have been built using a similar substance to orgone. People have been driving their cars around using them, but they cannot exactly describe the way these work because it involves a substance which is almost conscious and it works for some and not for others. This is the same problem that many psychics and healers have when demostrating rather nebulous things to lab scientists. The action of being a sceptic seems to inhibit the result - rather like an energy particle has been found to have different properties depending on whether it is observed or not.

There will never be definitive proof for things which are unpopular with the authorities and as with all these things, profit is king. There is no money in investigating weird and unusual things so noone will finance it.

Incedentally, why does it matter if we dont have proof? It is only to satisfy those who shout "Proof, we want proof". There are wise people who keep their own counsel and those who look to others (scientists, governments) to tell them what to believe. There always will be.

I say we dont need to have proof of chem trails, or orgone, or ghosts, or any of it. You either "know" these things inside or you dont. I just keep most of what I have experienced safely locked away and let others get on with the world they live in because I dont live in their world, and they dont live in mine.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
The first is are there any source docs somehow put together hypothesizing about the nature of various generators, cannons, etc and the mechanics of what is at play. (There are numerous parallal analogies in electronic components, other 'generators', etc). This is real basic research (as you can see
).


Reich wrote about his devices, but so far I haven't been able to find any of Reich's original technical writings online. I've found some of his work in psychology, and other subjects, but not what he wrote of how he constructed his cloudbusters or any other orgone devices. There is very basic information on his accumulators but that's about it, and the theory laid out there was that orgone is naturally present all around us, but by alternating organic material (such as cotton) with metal plates acted like a capacitor would in electronics. Capacitors alternate conducting materials with non-conducting materials, such as alternating metals with ceramics.

As for your second question, I have no idea.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
But that does not mean that "everything not yet learned" has any benefit in believing in it before it becomes accepted as workable. If that were the case, ....wow... this would be one nutty world.


Do you not believe that chemtrails don't exist? If neither of them are proven, then scientifically speaking, what difference can you show as far as one being nuttier than the other? It's not like they wouldn't have reasons to dump stuff in the upper atmosphere, or don't have the technology, or like it would look any different than a white trail behind a plane.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Neptune wasn't discovered by science but the light reflecting off of it was still reaching Earth.


And we still didn't have strong enough telescopes for a long time. Same with Pluto.

But you're already deflecting from the point I was trying to make to you, that science doesn't just automatically know all of these things instantly. Evidence did not always exist for these things. There were times when there was no evidence, for anyone on the Earth. And yet, they still managed to exist. That is what you were apparently incapable of understanding, and I hope now maybe you have remembered this basic bit of common sense.

This is why argument from ignorance is a fallacy. Just because you don't have evidence yet, doesn't mean you never will. And that, is why claiming they don't exist is no more scientific than claiming that they do at this point in time. Unless you can prove a negative, but obviously you can't, and no one expects you to.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
No one was looking for Neptune until the means to do so were available. It was predicted to exist by the observance of other planets. Five days after the prediction it was found because they knew where to look for it.


You've already lost track of what I was saying and diverted onto a completely off-topic rant.

I'll tell you the same thing I told the poster above me:


...you're already deflecting from the point I was trying to make to you, that science doesn't just automatically know all of these things instantly. Evidence did not always exist for these things. There were times when there was no evidence, for anyone on the Earth. And yet, they still managed to exist. That is what you were apparently incapable of understanding, and I hope now maybe you have remembered this basic bit of common sense.

This is why argument from ignorance is a fallacy. Just because you don't have evidence yet, doesn't mean you never will. And that, is why claiming they don't exist is no more scientific than claiming that they do at this point in time. Unless you can prove a negative, but obviously you can't, and no one expects you to.




Contrails are known to exist. The means exists to prove the existence of "chemtrails". Yet, in 20 years no one has managed to do so. No one has managed to produce any evidence of them. Why is that? No science.


That part of your post is not wrong, but if you were to ever claim categorically that chemtrails don't exist, unless you can actually prove a negative, which again, I don't expect you to, then you're making a leap of faith.




top topics



 
96
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join