Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

page: 7
96
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Via the placebo effect, unfortunately. Not that that's not a useful outcome, just a shame to you to spend enough money to trigger it.


Not to say what you're referring to is just the placebo effect (I wouldn't know), why do you downers always poo-poo the placebo effect?


wher did he poo-poo it?

He specifically said that the effect is useful - "Not that that's not a useful outcome"?

You really should try to make your dis-info less obviously trolling than this!




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
You really think there is a big market for chemtrail DVDs and T-shirts?


combined with advertising, speaking engagements, sponsorship and the like - absolutely.


You don't make money from advertising, you spend money on advertising.

Yeah, especially since I'm interested in the subject myself and have absolutely no intention of spending money on it, what a great idea for making money. Whoever came up with that one was a real genius.




Have you ever considered people might actually have a legitimate concern?


Yes I have considered wherther their concern is legitimate, and I believe it is not.

It probably is genuine however - that is how they have been sucked in - they firmly believe the hoax.


Well your first sentence was more honest -- you believe it isn't a legitimate concern.

The step between that and really being able to outright call all this a "hoax," doesn't exist.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by bsbray11

Btw why would the FDA go out of its way to take all of someone's work on this subject and burn it all?

Maybe so that gullible people wouldn't use crystals and copper pipe instead of real medicine for their medical problems?


Oh good grief. There are bazillions of "quack" purveyors with plenty of books to be had - but the FDA does NOT burn them. I would say They would only BURN books that had information They didn't want out.

Sorry for offering an explanation. Do you have any record of them destroying his works? Because there sure is a lot of information available about him, I guess they missed all of that?


ETA: Ever seen the warning label on 'quack' remedies that the FDA issues?
edit on 6/1/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



ETA 2: Did a little research, the FDA regulates devices and books that make unsubstantiated medical claims. That would include orgone energy for healing. Case Closed.
edit on 6/1/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
wher did he poo-poo it?

He specifically said that the effect is useful - "Not that that's not a useful outcome"?


I missed the second "not," but at least you aren't automatically poo-poo'ing the "placebo effect" like you are everything else here.


You really should try to make your dis-info less obviously trolling than this!


Speak for yourself man, I could do without these comments.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Do you have any record of them destroying his works? Because there sure is a lot of information available about him, I guess they missed all of that?


You can't look up as much yourself?

Judging by the chemtrail article you seemed to like so much, you're a fan of Wikipedia aren't you?


He was sentenced to two years in prison, and in August 1956 several tons of his publications were burned by the FDA - a notable example of censorship in U.S. history.


en.wikipedia.org...


They even give a reference, listed as: Wilhelm Reich," Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved July 26, 2009.



ETA: Ever seen the warning label on 'quack' remedies that the FDA issues?


Is that the same as actively tracking down all of somebody's work and burning it now?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by bsbray11
You really think there is a big market for chemtrail DVDs and T-shirts?


combined with advertising, speaking engagements, sponsorship and the like - absolutely.


You don't make money from advertising, you spend money on advertising.


a website gets money from the advertising it carries


come on dude - make the trolling less obvious - just a little.... please??!!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
you should really do some research on "orgone energy" eg spiritual energy...so cloudbusting with the holy spirit in a tube? or whatever. Seems like crack pot theory 101. look it up thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
Seems like crack pot theory 101. look it up thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience.


Not hardly. You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?

Maybe I should point out again, that a lack of evidence, is not positive evidence to the contrary. It's just a vacuum of evidence, period. I didn't claim I had proven its existence in the first place. If you want to claim it's been debunked, put up or shut up.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by CaDreamer
Seems like crack pot theory 101. look it up thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience.


Not hardly. You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?


AFAIK the lack of legitimacy has been proven over and over again by the failure of anyone to produce any ascientific evidence (ie verifiable, repeatable, etc) that orgone exists.

So yeah - I guess you were asleep on the job there.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
AFAIK the lack of legitimacy has been proven over and over again


You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Thanks for sharing this, I have never heard of Orgone energy and find it very interesting, Star and Flag!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Way to stand up to all the flack by the way, keep up the good work!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
AFAIK the lack of legitimacy has been proven over and over again


You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.


No - I mean lack of legitimacy - which was the term you used in the post I quoted.

Orgone is not legitimate science because it does not meet the requirements of legitimate science.

Yet again you have a problem with the meanings of words!!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.


No - I mean lack of legitimacy - which was the term you used in the post I quoted.


"Legitimacy" is scientifically meaningless.


Orgone is not legitimate science because it does not meet the requirements of legitimate science.


And I didn't claim that it was a legitimate (rigorously proven) science.

Once again, not being proven, is different than being positively refuted.
edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
This is amazing and i will continue on this quest until i am able to get the clouds out of my area. S&F



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
No! No! Clouds are good to look at and bring rain, which is good too. I don't like the idea of rain clouds being busted up too much. All life (plants, animals, people, etc.) need rain/water, you know.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by pikypiky
No! No! Clouds are good to look at and bring rain, which is good too. I don't like the idea of rain clouds being busted up too much. All life (plants, animals, people, etc.) need rain/water, you know.


If you look at the OP again, Reich was actually able to generate rain during a drought in Maine when none had been forecast. He took up some farmers' offer to accomplish this and was actually paid for it.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
You mean a lack of evidence. Again, is not positive evidence to the contrary.


No - I mean lack of legitimacy - which was the term you used in the post I quoted.


"Legitimacy" is scientifically meaningless.


It is a term you used - do you want to change your story again now?



Orgone is not legitimate science because it does not meet the requirements of legitimate science.


And I didn't claim that it was a legitimate (rigorously proven) science.


And I didn't say that you did - perhaps you should go read what you wrote.

You claimed, and I quote:


You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?


And I said yes - it has proved that it isn't legitmate.


Once again, not being proven, is different than being positively refuted.[


And if you were as clever as you think you are you would have noticed that I didn't actually say anything at all about it being refuted.

Now come on - I've already asked you to up the ante on your trolling - it's really geting rather too obvious....good trolling should be quite a lote more suble.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
It is a term you used - do you want to change your story again now?


I'm not changing my story, I'm reacting/responding to your constant weaseling.



And I didn't claim that it was a legitimate (rigorously proven) science.


And I didn't say that you did - perhaps you should go read what you wrote.


Right, first you say you aren't challenging what I said then you tell me to read my own posts about it.




You claimed, and I quote:


You're telling me someone proved a negative somewhere (that the idea of orgone isn't legitimate) and it missed my attention?


And I said yes - it has proved that it isn't legitmate.


If you want to split hairs, I said the idea of orgone, not the science of orgone. Have you refuted the idea of orgone or not?



Once again, not being proven, is different than being positively refuted.[


And if you were as clever as you think you are you would have noticed that I didn't actually say anything at all about it being refuted.


That's not what it looks like to me. You are constantly playing words games to make it seem as though you have refuted something which you really haven't.


Now come on - I've already asked you to up the ante on your trolling - it's really geting rather too obvious....good trolling should be quite a lote more suble.


The only trolling is going on on your end.

You can't prove a negative and you're pissed about it.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Yes, I see now. It is the word usage in Reich's "cloudbuster" that created the confusion in my mind. At first glance, I thought Reich's Orgone Generator dissipated the "good" clouds that bring rain. But I am learning that the device is supposed to disperse "chemtrails", too; hence a "chembuster" appropriate.
edit on 2011-6-01 by pikypiky because: To correct for "proper" grammar and spelling.





new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join