How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

page: 23
96
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
I'm holding him to the same standards he demands from everyone else. Nothing more.

He makes a statement that something is fact, he should be able to provide evidence, since he ALWAYS expects that from others.


Not true. You can't prove a global absence, so asking for proof makes no sense.

Why are you asking for proof of something that can't be proven? That's just being pedantic. You know what the situation is with evidence that supports orgone. You are not aware of such evidence, and neither is anyone else.

So don't ask him for proof of something unprovable - just point out that he means there appears to be no proof.

Or quite wasting time, and link to some evidence.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
I'm holding him to the same standards he demands from everyone else. Nothing more.

He makes a statement that something is fact, he should be able to provide evidence, since he ALWAYS expects that from others.


Not true. You can't prove a global absence, so asking for proof makes no sense.

Why are you asking for proof of something that can't be proven? That's just being pedantic. You know what the situation is with evidence that supports orgone. You are not aware of such evidence, and neither is anyone else.

So don't ask him for proof of something unprovable - just point out that he means there appears to be no proof.

Or quite wasting time, and link to some evidence.


Your post shows me you haven't even read the thread, yet you're muscling in in defense of your buddy and throwing your weight around.

It is perfectly possible to prove something doesn't work. If a radio stops working it's possible to prove it doesn't work. He just has no evidence to support his hot air claims. I see he is not able to provide the evidence, so now you've jumped in. Pathetic.

My issue is with him, I have no intention of discussing it with you. Butt out please.











edit on 15-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
It is perfectly possible to prove something doesn't work. If a radio stops working it's possible to prove it doesn't work.


No, you can prove that one radio is not working at that one time. That does not prove that ALL radios in ALL time don't work.

You can't prove a global absence.

However, if people had been claiming radios work for 70 years, but every time they try to switch it on, then it does not seem to work, then that's pretty good evidence of absence.

The lack of working orgone demonstrations is evidence of absence. Because if it worked, they would demonstrate it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
It is perfectly possible to prove something doesn't work. If a radio stops working it's possible to prove it doesn't work.


No, you can prove that one radio is not working at that one time. That does not prove that ALL radios in ALL time don't work.

You can't prove a global absence.

However, if people had been claiming radios work for 70 years, but every time they try to switch it on, then it does not seem to work, then that's pretty good evidence of absence.

The lack of working orgone demonstrations is evidence of absence. Because if it worked, they would demonstrate it.


You can debate this with yourself if you like. Take both roles. Like I said, my issue is with AC and I have NO intention of discussing this with you..


edit on 15-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen
You can debate this with yourself if you like. Take both roles.


Okay

A: Unicorns exist!
B: No they don't!
A: Prove it!
B: You claimed it, you have to prove it.
A: But you made a claim that they don't exist, so you have to prove that
B: It's impossible to prove, I'd have to be able to view everywhere on the planet at once, and see that there's no unicorns there.
A: I win!
B: Not so fast. You could quite easily prove unicorns exist, just show me one, or some convincing evidence, like photos.
A: No, you can't prove that they don't exist.
B: Don't you think that if they existed then someone would have evidence?
A: But if they didn't exist then you'd have evidence of them not existing, where is it?
B: We went over that. You can't prove a global absence. The lack of evidence FOR unicorns, is evidence (but not proof) AGAINST unicorns.
A: Prove that there's no evidence that unicorns exist!
B: That's the same thing. You can't prove a global absence.
A: So you admit you can't prove that there no evidence unicorns exist.
B: Sure.
A: I win!
B: Not so fast. There does not appear to be any evidence unicorns exist.
A: Aha! So you are making a specific claim now, so prove it.
B: Prove what?
A: Prove that there does not appear to be any evidence that unicorns exist
B: Do you disagree with that statement? Is there evidence?
A: You can't prove it
B: But do you think it's true?
A: Doesn't matter, it's interesting, is all, but you can't prove it.
B: So
A: So if you can't prove that there appears to be no evidence that unicorns exist, then maybe they do.
B: But do YOU know of any evidence that they do
A: (pause) no, but you can't prove that they don't.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncinus
 


What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" is a matter of opinion. Your naivete in assuming that the military wouldn't still be carrying out covert operations similar to Operation LAC, ie dumping chemicals into the air for various reasons (and governments have ADMITTED means and motives for doing this), is an extraordinary claim to me.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Uncinus
 


What constitutes an "extraordinary claim" is a matter of opinion. Your naivete in assuming that the military wouldn't still be carrying out covert operations similar to Operation LAC, ie dumping chemicals into the air for various reasons (and governments have ADMITTED means and motives for doing this), is an extraordinary claim to me.


I never claimed that.

I claimed that there does not appear to be any evidence that it is happening.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Thanks, chemtrails, floriide in the water, etc..., yet how many posts here tell you a process to remove said, disperse said or any defence of any kind,

As a person whom worked for a certain chemical company whom made "ferric chloride/ferris chloride and other forms of water treatments you all are drinking, imagine taking a crane dumpinging steel into hydrochoric acid, cooking this mixtrue to put it in your water, its not any more nuts than orgone energy,
thank you again, any idea thats not a harmful one, is worth a try!

Also A. Einstein was seeking such a force or field, maybe these would think him a fool too... "unified field theory"
, I propose Concienceness = energy x constant2 / energy=mass x constant(speed of light)2 (E=MC2)
(Con=EC2) besides E=MC2 was a guess by A.E, based on the victorian held beliefs of the time(and masonic myhtos) that squaring was a secret formula...also "C(speed of light) is not a constant, if light has no mass how can a black whole attract said, if it is truely etherial-wieghtless

I am a shaman-scientist-free man of heart not fear, who meets even impossible battles as if he has already won, for to stand on feet and to die free, is better in my view than 10,000 yrs poor life on one's knees!
Pardon my misspellings I'm dislexic, but not stupid, also one last retort; how do we know that orgone is not another name for dark matter/dark energy, which we can only detect through calculation of gravitational forces, where in some invisible-undetectable(at the moument) mass and or energy must exsist to cause this with regard to gravitational forces being higher than should be due to calculated mass!

A man who is sure of what is impossible is a fool, while a man who is able to explore any thing open mindedly is a enlightened being...Poor Galleo, and the "Flat earther's all over again!" maybe, maybe not,...idk(damn good answer-IDK!)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
I never claimed that.

I claimed that there does not appear to be any evidence that it is happening.


Now you are lying through your teeth again, because any time we agree that there is no proof that the military is still engaged in these covert operations, you immediately go on the fallacious offensive asserting that therefore it must not be happening, period.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
You can debate this with yourself if you like. Take both roles.


Okay

A: Unicorns exist!
B: No they don't!
A: Prove it!
B: You claimed it, you have to prove it.
A: But you made a claim that they don't exist, so you have to prove that
B: It's impossible to prove, I'd have to be able to view everywhere on the planet at once, and see that there's no unicorns there.
A: I win!
B: Not so fast. You could quite easily prove unicorns exist, just show me one, or some convincing evidence, like photos.
A: No, you can't prove that they don't exist.
B: Don't you think that if they existed then someone would have evidence?
A: But if they didn't exist then you'd have evidence of them not existing, where is it?
B: We went over that. You can't prove a global absence. The lack of evidence FOR unicorns, is evidence (but not proof) AGAINST unicorns.
A: Prove that there's no evidence that unicorns exist!
B: That's the same thing. You can't prove a global absence.
A: So you admit you can't prove that there no evidence unicorns exist.
B: Sure.
A: I win!
B: Not so fast. There does not appear to be any evidence unicorns exist.
A: Aha! So you are making a specific claim now, so prove it.
B: Prove what?
A: Prove that there does not appear to be any evidence that unicorns exist
B: Do you disagree with that statement? Is there evidence?
A: You can't prove it
B: But do you think it's true?
A: Doesn't matter, it's interesting, is all, but you can't prove it.
B: So
A: So if you can't prove that there appears to be no evidence that unicorns exist, then maybe they do.
B: But do YOU know of any evidence that they do
A: (pause) no, but you can't prove that they don't.




If this wasn't so long I would make it my sig.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
If this wasn't so long I would make it my sig.


Obviously it doesn't bother you that his invented dialogue is a gross distortion of the actual exchange here.

Can you show me declassified documents proving that unicorns exist, similar to declassified Operation LAC documents proving that the US military has engaged in dumping chemicals into the atmosphere in the past?

No, because unicorns don't have a damned thing to do with anything.

Can you show me government reports, such as what has been presented to the UK House of Commons, to provide a means and motives for the use of unicorns?

Of course you can't. No wonder that the best argument so far, that all of the trolls and sock puppets rushed to star the hell out of, is a straw-man and a piss poor one at that.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by warriorseeker
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Thanks, chemtrails, floriide in the water, etc..., yet how many posts here tell you a process to remove said, disperse said or any defence of any kind,

It's all bunk.

Originally posted by warriorseeker
As a person whom worked for a certain chemical company whom made "ferric chloride/ferris chloride and other forms of water treatments you all are drinking, imagine taking a crane dumpinging steel into hydrochoric acid, cooking this mixtrue to put it in your water, its not any more nuts than orgone energy,
thank you again, any idea thats not a harmful one, is worth a try!

Why are you comparing an industrial, scientific process to something completely unscientific? I guess you weren't the one designing the reaction, just operating some machinery.


Originally posted by warriorseeker
Also A. Einstein was seeking such a force or field, maybe these would think him a fool too... "unified field theory"
, I propose Concienceness = energy x constant2 / energy=mass x constant(speed of light)2 (E=MC2)
(Con=EC2) besides E=MC2 was a guess by A.E, based on the victorian held beliefs of the time(and masonic myhtos) that squaring was a secret formula...also "C(speed of light) is not a constant, if light has no mass how can a black whole attract said, if it is truely etherial-wieghtless

I'll take your word for it, but the second half of this sounds like pure bullocks.

Originally posted by warriorseeker

I am a shaman-scientist-free man of heart not fear, who meets even impossible battles as if he has already won, for to stand on feet and to die free, is better in my view than 10,000 yrs poor life on one's knees!
Pardon my misspellings I'm dislexic, but not stupid, also one last retort; how do we know that orgone is not another name for dark matter/dark energy, which we can only detect through calculation of gravitational forces, where in some invisible-undetectable(at the moument) mass and or energy must exsist to cause this with regard to gravitational forces being higher than should be due to calculated mass!

I consider myself somewhat of a shaman
. Not in the traditional sense. But again, a paragraph full of more bunk, are you on drugs right now mr shaman?

Originally posted by warriorseeker
reply to post by bsbray11
A man who is sure of what is impossible is a fool, while a man who is able to explore any thing open mindedly is a enlightened being...Poor Galleo, and the "Flat earther's all over again!" maybe, maybe not,...idk(damn good answer-IDK!)

I agree with the first part, but this is not "flat earther's all over again" in the way you're thinking. It is easy to prove that the earth is not flat, with science (kind of like how the lack of evidence supports that orgone doesn't work and chemtrails aren't real).

Orgone, Chemtrails, etc, go against ALL KNOWN SCIENCE.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
It's all bunk.


Proof that it's all bunk? Or do you admit this is just your personal opinion?



Why are you comparing an industrial, scientific process to something completely unscientific? I guess you weren't the one designing the reaction, just operating some machinery.


Maybe for the same reason this man resigned from his position at a water treatment facility?

www.themorningbulletin.com.au...


I don't drink fluoridated water. There is no evidence that drinking fluoride is good for your teeth or anything else in your body in any way. It calcifies the pineal gland. You can help yourself to as much as you want though, I'm sure your pineal gland is useless to you anyway.



Orgone, Chemtrails, etc, go against ALL KNOWN SCIENCE.


No, they don't. What you mean to say is that they haven't been scientifically proven to the satisfaction of all the major educational institutions. Neither has global climate change if you ask the "right" people. Not having proof for new laws doesn't in any way contradict already-existing laws. Some "shaman."



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
It's all bunk.


Proof that it's all bunk? Or do you admit this is just your personal opinion?



Why are you comparing an industrial, scientific process to something completely unscientific? I guess you weren't the one designing the reaction, just operating some machinery.


Maybe for the same reason this man resigned from his position at a water treatment facility?

www.themorningbulletin.com.au...


I don't drink fluoridated water. There is no evidence that drinking fluoride is good for your teeth or anything else in your body in any way. It calcifies the pineal gland. You can help yourself to as much as you want though, I'm sure your pineal gland is useless to you anyway.



Orgone, Chemtrails, etc, go against ALL KNOWN SCIENCE.


No, they don't. What you mean to say is that they haven't been scientifically proven to the satisfaction of all the major educational institutions. Neither has global climate change if you ask the "right" people. Not having proof for new laws doesn't in any way contradict already-existing laws. Some "shaman."

Fluoride in water helps the development of the teeth, it's really only good for children up to 2 (funny that this came up, I was discussing this with my dentist yesterday). There's not much evidence to support that fluoridated water is harmful, especially since the death rates are the same in places with and without it.

The problem with orgone isn't that science can't test it, it's that it isn't even demonstratable. It hasn't worked once to heal anyone or bust a cloud while making it rain, in 70 years.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Can't argue with this science:

Dr. Wilhelm Reich was a major researcher into what he called "orgone energy" which is part and parcel of all life on earth, and may well be God's natural energy of life which pervades the earth and its atmosphere. While known by several names including orgone, life energy, bio-energy, etc., it is believed that the Chemtrails spraying is upsetting the balance between orgone energy and its negative counterpart D-Orgone which has a life-sapping effect. Further, Reich showed that an adequate amount of orgone energy must be absorbed by the body to maintain health and normal physical and mental function. This is notrmally done through healthy air and sunlight and contact of the skin with the earth itself. It is stated by some that Chemtrails spraying is blocking the absorption of this energy as well as blocking body function necessary to proper nutrition, elimination and absorption of necessary elements.

Source.

Scroll down to follow the money and quackery.
edit on 6/16/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
If this wasn't so long I would make it my sig.


Obviously it doesn't bother you that his invented dialogue is a gross distortion of the actual exchange here.

Can you show me declassified documents proving that unicorns exist, similar to declassified Operation LAC documents proving that the US military has engaged in dumping chemicals into the atmosphere in the past?

No, because unicorns don't have a damned thing to do with anything.

Can you show me government reports, such as what has been presented to the UK House of Commons, to provide a means and motives for the use of unicorns?

Of course you can't. No wonder that the best argument so far, that all of the trolls and sock puppets rushed to star the hell out of, is a straw-man and a piss poor one at that.


We were talking about orgone. No fish biscuit for you today.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Fluoride in water helps the development of the teeth, it's really only good for children up to 2 (funny that this came up, I was discussing this with my dentist yesterday).


If that makes you feel better, then by all means, drink up. Drink your fill of it my friend. I just hope you don't have kids, but it's not like millions aren't already being poisoned by it anyway.


There's not much evidence to support that fluoridated water is harmful, especially since the death rates are the same in places with and without it.


www.fluoridealert.org...



The problem with orgone isn't that science can't test it, it's that it isn't even demonstratable.


The same problem arises any time any new quantity is recognized by science and new instruments have to be developed. You can't measure radiation with an multimeter for electricity. You can't measure gravity field strength with a geiger counter. So you are basically only repeating the fact that the force itself that Reich termed orgone has not been rigorously isolated.


It hasn't worked once to heal anyone or bust a cloud while making it rain, in 70 years.


This is an argument from ignorance, but the main who was paid for demonstrating it some 60 years ago (Reich himself) had all his work destroyed by the federal government, including an unprecedented mass book-burning. So take that for what you will, which will undoubtedly not be enough.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone
We were talking about orgone. No fish biscuit for you today.


Unicorns are an equally abusive analogy in either case.

Let me know when the FDA descends on all unicorn literature and tries to destroy every last copy they can find, in a fascist book-burning ritual.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
We were talking about orgone. No fish biscuit for you today.


Unicorns are an equally abusive analogy in either case.

Let me know when the FDA descends on all unicorn literature and tries to destroy every last copy they can find, in a fascist book-burning ritual.


who abuses unicorns? show them to me and I'll deal with it.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SirCoxone
We were talking about orgone. No fish biscuit for you today.


Unicorns are an equally abusive analogy in either case.

Let me know when the FDA descends on all unicorn literature and tries to destroy every last copy they can find, in a fascist book-burning ritual.

Just find a unicorn who is a medical doctor, and then starts telling people they can heal all their ailments with pieces of copper and crystal.


I guess if the government was really into this population control mumbo-jumbo, they could just publish millions of alternative remedy books.





top topics
 
96
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join