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: 15
96
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Really? So why am I paying my termite inspector to tell me there's no termites. He didn't find any evidence of termites. I should demand my money back!


So what are you saying, you don't believe it's impossible for a professional to overlook something?

I just saw on TV last night where police were looking for a guy in a burned out house and were literally walking all over his dead body without even realizing it.

You live in a fantasy world where you are afforded the comfort of taking everything at face value, and being able to believe anything any authority tells you.




posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
Like there's no evidence chemtrails exist?





Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials


The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.


www.guardian.co.uk...



Try again.


You're going to have to regroup to come up with a new argument now.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Are you familiar with the concept of a "false association?" I think you are as I explained earlier how someone seeking to undermine ATS could use false associations to do so. I will recap in case you have forgotten. A false association occurs when someone attempts to take to unrelated topics and provide some sort of link in the hopes that the validation of one topic will provide validation of both topics. The use of this tactic demonstrates a great weakness in the arguments of those that employ it.

"Chemtrails", as spoken of in this thread, have no relationship in any form to the spraying conducted in Britain. "Chemtrails" as they are discussed here are loosely defined as high altitude contrail like formations which persist. The bacteria sprayed in Britain was done in complete secrecy, at lower altitudes, and without visible trails all of which are the opposite of the hallmark attributes of the "chemtrail" hoax. When you try to make the case for modern "chemtrails" using past deeds such as this (which bear no resemblance to "chemtrails" other than a shared aerial distribution method) you are forming a false association; and in doing so you have further weakened your argument.

If your argument cannot stand on its own merit I would suggest you reevaluate your position.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
Are you familiar with the concept of a "false association?"


Step back from all this petty bickering for a second and take a deep breath.


Why are chemtrails a "conspiracy theory"? Why do you people call us "paranoid"? Because we think people may be dumping things into the air that are toxic to both humans and the environment (like the article above just verified)? Why are chemtrails supposed to be bad, anyway?


Now re-read the article I just posted above.


You have just been shown a government admission of dumping this crap, and then lying about it, and yet you still go on claiming there is no evidence anyway!!!!

edit on 3-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DrunkNinja
 


When did I claim silver iodide is a metal?
Nice job calling me out, its almost as if you're sure the evidence points to life energy.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Nobama
 


I'm no moderator, but isn't this the geo-engineering forum? Shouldn't a discussion of fantastical devices that claim to control the weather (by causing rain and busting up clouds, that isn't contradictory at all) without any evidence to supper it. This discussion belongs in the grey area or skunkworks, not in geo-engineering.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
You seem to have a basic error here on how this works.


Of course, and it will constantly "seem" this way to you as long as you refuse to be critical of your own faith.




When Jupiter was discovered, someone found some evidence to suggest it was there


What are you talking about? Jupiter is visible with the naked eye.


Ancient cultures knew it existed hundreds of years before telescopes or physics were even developed.



Of course science doesn't know everything and of course it never will but the scientific method is you start from a premise that something is not true, until you provide enough evidence to refute that hypothesis. This is how all theory is made.


That is not how science works. Otherwise you would be claiming that a lack of evidence is positive evidence to the contrary, which is blatantly argument from ignorance. That's the same as saying Pluto didn't exist according to science until we first had evidence of it. This is complete garbage reasoning and an abuse of the word "science." Real science does not make assumptions in the lack of data.

Making assumptions in the lack of data is faith. It's the whole reason science was created in the first place.


I'm sorry but this is exactly how science works. I am a research physicist at a University where I got my physics degree. I spent years studying scientific methodology and apply it every day in my work. Don't try and tell me how to do my job. Everytime you come up with a new idea you assume you are incorrect until you gather enough evidence to suggest you are correct. For some reason you call this faith, it is in fact the antithesis of faith, it is a logical process that prevents you accepting things to be true before you can be sure they are. This is how science has led to the great discoveries and incredible wonders it has, it is not a hindrance. This is the methodology of Newton, Kelvin, Planck, Einstein and Hawkings. To say that it is not the methodology of true science is simply wrong, I'm sorry but you are out of your depth making such a claim. If you don't believe me go read 'works by Isaac Newton'. It explains it pretty clearly.


Read my post again, you have completely misread and twisted it. You state that I claim a lack of evidence is positive evidence to the contrary. I don't. I even told you it is possible there are chemtrails and I cannot prove otherwise. Stop twisting my words into something they are not, it is disingenuous and underhand .

In science if you have a new hypothesis, then as the claimant it is your responsibility to prove your assertion to be true using evidence. Simple. Every great scientist that ever lived used this model.

Bearing the above in mind.

Claiming that not all trails behind planes are contrails but some are part of a secret spraying programme is a new hypothesis. therefore the weight of responsibility is on the claimants to provide evidence of the claim.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No what I am stating is there is no evidence of "chemtrails" so the "chemtrail proponents" try to associate things that in no way fit with the idea of what they feel a "chemtrail" is in the hopes that by linking two unrelated topics validity can be given to both when only one topic warrants validity.

I've seen it before with people talking about cloud seeding as proof of "chemtrails"; cloud seeding or the british activities are not what "chemtrails" are spoken of as being so therefore neither can give validity to the "chemtrail hoax"



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Like there's no evidence chemtrails exist?





Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials


The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.

A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any 'inquisitive inquirer' the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.


www.guardian.co.uk...



Try again.


You're going to have to regroup to come up with a new argument now.


Great post and a good find, I read it with interest. Thanks



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Let's just say this.

The international science community is too big to not notice something like this IF IT WORKS.


Unlike politicians and other tools, scientists are more likely to be independent thinkers who wants results and scientific answers.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


So they sprayed chemicals that were known to be inert (at the time, now the toxicity is better understood) from mostly ground based generators and some low flying aircraft off the coast, and yet you are going to claim that is the same as the 'chemtrails' left by aircraft at altitude (25,000-45,000 feet)?

Can you think of why that is not a valid comparison or evidence?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
[
- www.abovetopsecret.com...

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




So, now you;ve admitted that chemtrails exist - because the word itself exists.
ROFL



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

So, now you;ve admitted that chemtrails exist - because the word itself exists.
ROFL


Now you've admitted unicorns exist!

ETA: Sorry, that was silly. The point is that you can't ever say anything exists (or not) in the physical world from simply your use of language - you've got to be able to indicate some external evidence. It's kind of like the bogus nature of the Ontological argument.
edit on 3-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen


So, now you;ve admitted that chemtrails exist - because the word itself exists.
ROFL

I don't mean to nit pick, but zero doesn't physically exist. It exists only as a concept.

'Chemtrails' exist as an idea, but you know my opinion on what kind of idea they are.

edit on 6/3/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
@SirCoxone said...

Of course science doesn't know everything and of course it never will but the scientific method is you start from a premise that something is not true, until you provide enough evidence to refute that hypothesis. This is how all theory is made.

The weight of providing evidence that a new hypothesis is true falls upon the claimant. Until there is a siffucient weight of evidence the new hypothesis is true then it is considered to be untrue, because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest it is.

...Therefore the claimant presenting the new hypothesis needs to present enough suitable evidence for that to become established fact.

Evidence should not be subjective, this means that believing and subjective opinion on what was seen is not enough.


IF ONLY this was true! Yes, (the bolded part above) it is an ideal situation but unfortunately scientists band together and poo-poo anything which is submitted from non-scientists on non-mainstream scientists. This is the way the world works at the moment and is why we have the statement given to us a couple of times on this thread already about new ideas being accepted by science.

Not wanting to go too far off topic but to illustrate this point, there is plenty of photographic and documentary evidence along with statements of opinion/belief by top scientists that aliens exist here now in our solar system. Where is mainstream science on this? Nowhere to be seen.

Money talks and is the reason why some things such as orgone is never going to be accepted because no money is going to be allocated for reasonable research into it.

There is no level playing field in science funding and so there is an immediate disadvantage to any research which does not have access to the same funding as things which are 'deemed' acceptable subjects for investigation. Who does the 'deeming'? Governments and large businesses with vested interests.

As another example why I feel the bolded statement above is rather naieve, I would point to Mars. The assumption is that nothing can live there because the conditions are (or maybe) not conducive to human life. This assumption is erroneous when considering the conditions and possibilities outside our own environment of Earth. How is this assumption a basis for searching for ET life objective?


edit on 3-6-2011 by qmantoo because: subjective->objective



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by qmantoo
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Your comment about energy/qi used in acupuncture which flows throught the meridians of the body is interesting. You are dismissing thousands of years of culture, research and circumstantial and scientific evidence with a throw-away statement.

This is the measure of your argument.

Sad really


I've had acupuncture a number of times on the NHS in the UK, seemed to work for me and was precribed by Doctors, who had the benefit of a very long scientific education.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen

So, now you;ve admitted that chemtrails exist - because the word itself exists.
ROFL


Now you've admitted unicorns exist!


Er no, not me, Aloysius the Great! That was the logic he came up with all by himself. I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it was, and you know it, even though you're trying to make out I was the one who spewed that nonsense.




T

ETA: Sorry, that was silly.


Silly, yes and dishonest too. I was illustrating how ridiculous his statement was and you knew that.




The point is that you can't ever say anything exists (or not) in the physical world from simply your use of language - you've got to be able to indicate some external evidence. It's kind of like the bogus nature of the Ontological argument.
edit on 3-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)


[

Oh, come on uncius.
Don't lecture me - lecture him, since it was he who made the ridiculous claim in the first place.

In case you don't remember, here is what he said:



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




Therefore the logical equation he is postulating as evidence is:

It has a name = therefore it exists.

By the same logic he has just admitted that chemtrails exist, because according to HIS logic, anything with a name exists.

So, why are you trying to turn this around and make it look as though I came up with this ridiculous nonsense?

Oh yes, I forgot, that's what you do.


edit on 4-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


But what has that got to do with "chemtrails"


You do understand what chemtrails are supposed to be don't you? The things the rest of us call contrails.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by wcitizen


So, now you;ve admitted that chemtrails exist - because the word itself exists.
ROFL

I don't mean to nit pick, but zero doesn't physically exist. It exists only as a concept.

'Chemtrails' exist as an idea, but you know my opinion on what kind of idea they are.

edit on 6/3/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)


Why are you addressing this comment to me? It was actually Aloysius the Great who made the nonsense comment about zero existing because it has a name.

I

edit on 4-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
Therefore the logical equation he is postulating as evidence is:

It has a name = therefore it exists.

By the same logic he has just admitted that chemtrails exist, because according to HIS logic, anything with a name exists.

So, why are you trying to turn this around and make it look as though I came up with this ridiculous nonsense?

Oh yes, I forgot, that's what you do.


Again, sorry. It was a joke. I was not intending to say that's what you thought. I was building on what I thought was a joke on your part. Then I realized maybe you were serious, so I clarified.

It's all about evidence, and linguistic constructs are not (in themselves) evidence. In that you are entirely correct.
edit on 4-6-2011 by Uncinus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join