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.

 

Why do I spend my time posting on chemtrail threads debunking. What are my motives?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Bob Marley said "If i was an educated man, i would be a fool". None so blind as the man blinkered by his own education. Your education has provided you with the tool of rationalisation, everything can be rationalised as being something "Normal". Everything is Normal, Carry on, stop worrying about it, why do you feel the urge to correct someone if you think they are wrong?.

How does it affect you if they believe something you don't?. Leave them alone, If all you are trying to do is use your superior intellect and Education to tell someone they are wrong, when in fact all you do is prove how incapable you are of providing counter empirical "Factual Evidence".

All your rebuttals are nothing more than hypotheses based on your normalising and rationalising which your education maintains is the way to a correct answer.
Factual Evidence, i will take what you say when you get a sample from a "Chemtrail" and publish its chemical composition.
Anything else is nothing more than your opinion based on your education, which is worth no more than my opinion based on observation. Both are correct ways to formulate a hypotheses, until there is a result from collected evidence.

Until then, please understand everyone is entitled to an opinion, dont feel you have to "correct" peoples opinions, especially when facts of chemical composition, of the trails in dispute are not even being considered.
Every contrail is not a purely a contrail, there at times have been chemtrails, But a what frequency?.

I do not have a single qualification, but i have been called by the police, in court, an "excellent observer", after an accident in which i saw something multiple witnesses, missed, later confirmed to be the truth.
There are many people like myself around the world, good natural observers, with good memories, i ask you to put aside any sentiments of incredulity you may have at the people "who are seeing things", and work with them to gather empirical testable evidence in an effort to provide something more than opinion.
Don't for one second think that your educated opinion is worth any more than my observed opinion, no matter what you think, it isn't, until you have incontrivertible proof, moving it from opinion into fact, it's hot air and not worth anything.
Facts i believe, people on the internet with odd, tainted, even possibly, spurious intentions, whom may only even be here to stroke their own egos, i do not believe.
Anything other than chemical analysis of what we would describe as an "obvious chemtrail" will not do.

Personally i would love to gather evidence if only to prove to myself that i am seeing a quirk of nature, but with our current state of politics and their agendas towards population control, reduction, the global warming scam in progress, the inability of the political establishment to be honest about anything, i would not put it past them to be engaged in a clandestine war against the populace for any of the above reasons.
A couple more reasons not mentioned, such as the better response of HAARP based technologies in an enriched atmosphere, energy induction into fault lines and other subteranean/subaqua formations in the search for DUMB's or for geo observation of minerals and oil, or a combination of them may be the truth.

I can see something happening and highbrow platitudes will not make me change my mind, collected, tested, evidence will.




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
Kind of a one sided simplistic view don't you think??

I mean, what did the OP really prove other than the fact that contrails exist??

No, not at all. No matter what the topic or subject is, the burden of proof lies on those who claim it exists.

When something does not exist, evidence of non-existence is very difficult, if not impossible, to find.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by backinblack
Kind of a one sided simplistic view don't you think??

I mean, what did the OP really prove other than the fact that contrails exist??

No, not at all. No matter what the topic or subject is, the burden of proof lies on those who claim it exists.

When something does not exist, evidence of non-existence is very difficult, if not impossible, to find.


So do you have proof/evidence of a Black Hole??
Probably not but they are considered a fact by many..
Strange huh?

But that's not what I was talking about..
It was your very one sided definition that I was discussing..
Care to comment on that?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   


I raise this because I have personally seen planes fly side by side, making aerial U-turns only to backtrack and continue for hours on end, resulting in cross hatch patterns. I'm not saying they are chemtrails, but these actions are suspicious.


It sounds like military training.




What's not fine is to attempt to force others into having the same opinion as yourself.



So why have a chemtrail section on this site? Isn’t that exactly what the believers are doing?




It's impossible for people who don't share your opinion to have a discussion about it on ATS because of a group of trolls who use obvious and well known tactics to squash everyone who doesn't share their opinion.


Tactics like
The only evidence are pictures taken from 5 miles away?

Trolls like
A physics graduate?



If chemtrails are such a big secret, why are they doing it in daylight?

Why are there no telephoto pictures of the planes spraying?

Why doesn’t anyone ever see the planes take off or land?

If this was such a important topic the media would be all over it like Weiner.


This whole topic reminds me of a trailer park. Where’s Jerry Springer when you need him.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by backinblack
Kind of a one sided simplistic view don't you think??

I mean, what did the OP really prove other than the fact that contrails exist??

No, not at all. No matter what the topic or subject is, the burden of proof lies on those who claim it exists.

When something does not exist, evidence of non-existence is very difficult, if not impossible, to find.



This 'burden of proof' concept is being tossed around all the forums. It sounds 'official' so it makes people believe their argument is stronger.

That chemtrails exist is a hypothesis. That chemtrails don't exist is a hypothesis.
Therefore, there is no proof either way, because they are both HYPOTHESES.

There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peole do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.

So the 'burdern of proof' argument at this stage is a non sequitur, and they know it.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by SirCoxone



Surely this is a discussion forum and as such it is for discussion. You of course have the right not to be insulted or abused, as doI for my opinion, but this is an open forum for all to air their opinion, not a private club just for people who agree with each other.

If you write something then people who feel you are wrong have the right to day they disagree and explain why in a polite and reasonable manner.


Did you actually read what I said? My whole point is that I want discussion to be able to take place and that includes people who believe in chemtrails having the opportunity to discuss this as well..

Please read my post again, it's very clear what I'm saying. Now, the question is, why are you trying to twist it and make it sound as though I've said I don't support discussion?

Trolls have only one intention - to suppress discussion. So - if you're defending trolls, please present your argument.




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

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


Perhaps I misread your post if so I apologise. Of course people who support chemtrails have the right to a discussion but people who disagree are allowed input too.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SirCoxone
 



If you write something then people who feel you are wrong have the right to say they disagree and explain why in a polite and reasonable manner.


Keep that in mind when you read posts from BOTH sides...


Completely agree with you. If you read through my posts you will see the only time I have ever not been civil and respectful is when people have been rude to me and intimated I am spreading disinformation on purpose.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


No problems..
Debate me in a civil fashion and I'd gladly share a beer after.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by The X
Bob Marley said "If i was an educated man, i would be a fool". None so blind as the man blinkered by his own education. Your education has provided you with the tool of rationalisation, everything can be rationalised as being something "Normal". Everything is Normal, Carry on, stop worrying about it, why do you feel the urge to correct someone if you think they are wrong?.

How does it affect you if they believe something you don't?. Leave them alone, If all you are trying to do is use your superior intellect and Education to tell someone they are wrong, when in fact all you do is prove how incapable you are of providing counter empirical "Factual Evidence".

All your rebuttals are nothing more than hypotheses based on your normalising and rationalising which your education maintains is the way to a correct answer.
Factual Evidence, i will take what you say when you get a sample from a "Chemtrail" and publish its chemical composition.
Anything else is nothing more than your opinion based on your education, which is worth no more than my opinion based on observation. Both are correct ways to formulate a hypotheses, until there is a result from collected evidence.

Until then, please understand everyone is entitled to an opinion, dont feel you have to "correct" peoples opinions, especially when facts of chemical composition, of the trails in dispute are not even being considered.
Every contrail is not a purely a contrail, there at times have been chemtrails, But a what frequency?.

I do not have a single qualification, but i have been called by the police, in court, an "excellent observer", after an accident in which i saw something multiple witnesses, missed, later confirmed to be the truth.
There are many people like myself around the world, good natural observers, with good memories, i ask you to put aside any sentiments of incredulity you may have at the people "who are seeing things", and work with them to gather empirical testable evidence in an effort to provide something more than opinion.
Don't for one second think that your educated opinion is worth any more than my observed opinion, no matter what you think, it isn't, until you have incontrivertible proof, moving it from opinion into fact, it's hot air and not worth anything.
Facts i believe, people on the internet with odd, tainted, even possibly, spurious intentions, whom may only even be here to stroke their own egos, i do not believe.
Anything other than chemical analysis of what we would describe as an "obvious chemtrail" will not do.

Personally i would love to gather evidence if only to prove to myself that i am seeing a quirk of nature, but with our current state of politics and their agendas towards population control, reduction, the global warming scam in progress, the inability of the political establishment to be honest about anything, i would not put it past them to be engaged in a clandestine war against the populace for any of the above reasons.
A couple more reasons not mentioned, such as the better response of HAARP based technologies in an enriched atmosphere, energy induction into fault lines and other subteranean/subaqua formations in the search for DUMB's or for geo observation of minerals and oil, or a combination of them may be the truth.

I can see something happening and highbrow platitudes will not make me change my mind, collected, tested, evidence will.


It's a great post and I starred you. I would just like to point one thing out.

I have no intention of correcting peoples opinions, only correcting false information that is used to form opinions.

If someone says contrails last minutes and cannot last for hours that is not an opinion, it is an incorrect statement of fact. Verifiable and provable. I am not correcting their opinion if I say they are wrong I am correcting their preconceptions of how contrails form and behave under different atmospheric conditions.

My opinion is of no more or less value than yours but when I see youtube videos and posts using incorrect science and making statements of fact out of it I feel justified in pointing that out. I see no wrong in that at all.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by backinblack
Kind of a one sided simplistic view don't you think??

I mean, what did the OP really prove other than the fact that contrails exist??

No, not at all. No matter what the topic or subject is, the burden of proof lies on those who claim it exists.

When something does not exist, evidence of non-existence is very difficult, if not impossible, to find.



This 'burden of proof' concept is being tossed around all the forums. It sounds 'official' so it makes people believe their argument is stronger.

That chemtrails exist is a hypothesis. That chemtrails don't exist is a hypothesis.
Therefore, there is no proof either way, because they are both HYPOTHESES.

There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peole do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.

So the 'burdern of proof' argument at this stage is a non sequitur, and they know it.



This I disagree with.

1. You cannot prove a negative

2. The hypothesis is chemtrails exist, chemtrails not existing is not a hypothesis. Chemtrails are a new idea, chemtrails not existing is the status quo. When you create a change to accepted knowledge then you are creating a new hypothesis and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The party making a new claim are always the ones with the burden of proof.

If I say you are a thief then the onus is on me to prove it, I am making a claim, there is no onus on you to prove you are not a thief, you are not making a claim that you are not a thief, this is already the accepted situation until I, the claimant, prove otherwise.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


No problems..
Debate me in a civil fashion and I'd gladly share a beer after.


Mines a pint of black sheep please.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


Thank you for your information Sir Coxone. I find it very usefull.
I knew that contrail formation and duration was linked to weather conditions but now I got a better understanding of it. Besides that, I think that your motives are legitimate. There are only two questions that I have about the 'chemtrail' case;

(1) Are there any chemicals inside the contrails (like burned fossile fuels) or is it just condens (clouds)?
(2) If so (which I think is the case, where else would the exhaust go?), could you see any difference in the amount or composition of the chemicals inside these contrails?

Because, if you cannot see any difference it would be easy to add some 'special' chemicals to the airplains fuel.
Nobody would notice it and it would be great to spread these chemicals in the many contrails we see around lately
If so, the oil companies who can add these chemicals to the fuel would have another big 'I owe you' ticket from some powerfull organisations...

Don't get me wrong. I don't think these evil and powerfull organisations exist. Yet...
Although I think that bad oil companies are allready out there that keep society addicted to oil...


Greetings,
Rav



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


You say ,

"The hypothesis is chemtrails exist, chemtrails not existing is not a hypothesis. Chemtrails are a new idea, chemtrails not existing is the status quo. "

Dennis Kucinich, in 2001 intrduced a bill that stated that Chemtrails are an "Exotic Weapon" and asking for a ban.

Can someone put me clear on that one ?....either way.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
So do you have proof/evidence of a Black Hole??
Probably not but they are considered a fact by many..
Strange huh?
Strange?? No.
It might be strange if your strawman argument was surprising, but it is not surprising at all. What does a Black Hole have to do with anything? Why would I even pretend to have evidence to prove, or to disprove, the existence of something that I have not made a single comment about?


Originally posted by backinblack
But that's not what I was talking about..
It was your very one sided definition that I was discussing..
Care to comment on that?
I already did, but without the strawman.


 
 


Originally posted by wcitizen
There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peole do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.
Irrefutable??
Those who do not believe, are not the one's whom are name-calling.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

So do you have proof/evidence of a Black Hole??
Probably not but they are considered a fact by many..
Strange huh?


Lots of evidence of black holes:
en.wikipedia.org...

But basically the laws of physic would have to be wrong if black holes did not exist. Chemtrails not existing simply requires some conspiracy theorists being wrong. So not really a symmetrical argument.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


You say ,

"The hypothesis is chemtrails exist, chemtrails not existing is not a hypothesis. Chemtrails are a new idea, chemtrails not existing is the status quo. "

Dennis Kucinich, in 2001 intrduced a bill that stated that Chemtrails are an "Exotic Weapon" and asking for a ban.

Can someone put me clear on that one ?....either way.



He didn't write the bill. It was Alfred Webre and Carol Rosin - some UFO/Alien enthusiasts
contrailscience.com...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SirCoxone
 


I can see what you've done here. You've applied common sense, logic and a scientific approach to the "chemtrail" debate and why there is no clear evidence to their existence.

What you don't get is, chemtrail believers will refute anything you say *because* you've used common sense, logic and a scientific approach.

Instead, you need to explain the fallacy of chemtrails in fairy tales, unicorns and other nonsensical ways. That's the only way to get through to these people..



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Not to sound like a total prick, but have you ever thought of getting a more productive hobby? Seriously, learn the guitar, painting, martial arts, something that might better your quality of life?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone

Originally posted by wcitizen
So the 'burdern of proof' argument at this stage is a non sequitur, and they know it.


This I disagree with.

1. You cannot prove a negative

2. The hypothesis is chemtrails exist, chemtrails not existing is not a hypothesis. Chemtrails are a new idea, chemtrails not existing is the status quo. When you create a change to accepted knowledge then you are creating a new hypothesis and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The party making a new claim are always the ones with the burden of proof.

If I say you are a thief then the onus is on me to prove it, I am making a claim, there is no onus on you to prove you are not a thief, you are not making a claim that you are not a thief, this is already the accepted situation until I, the claimant, prove otherwise.


"You can't prove a negative" is nice and simple, but overused and inaccurate. I prefer to say:

"You can't prove a remote absence"

Because you can prove a negative. I can prove that there's no kitten in the cup on my desk. But I can't prove that there's no kitten in a cup somewhere. Of course "you can't prove a remote absence" is not very snappy. We need some kind of nice little infographic or cartoon to explain it. Black swans perhaps

"You can't prove there are no black swans".

en.wikipedia.org...


One notices a white swan. From this one can conclude:
At least one swan is white.
From this, one may wish to conjecture:
All swans are white.
It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.
Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by being falsifiable. For, if in testing many swans, the researcher finds a single black swan, then the statement all swans are white would be falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan.


The key phrase there is:

It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to verify that they are all white.

It is impractical to observe all the trails in the world to verify they are all contrails. However, you just need to find a single chemtrail to prove that some trails are chemtrails.

Perhaps if Popper had chosen kittens in cups then the notion of falsifiability might have been more popular.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirCoxone

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by SirCoxone



Surely this is a discussion forum and as such it is for discussion. You of course have the right not to be insulted or abused, as doI for my opinion, but this is an open forum for all to air their opinion, not a private club just for people who agree with each other.

If you write something then people who feel you are wrong have the right to day they disagree and explain why in a polite and reasonable manner.


Did you actually read what I said? My whole point is that I want discussion to be able to take place and that includes people who believe in chemtrails having the opportunity to discuss this as well..

Please read my post again, it's very clear what I'm saying. Now, the question is, why are you trying to twist it and make it sound as though I've said I don't support discussion?

Trolls have only one intention - to suppress discussion. So - if you're defending trolls, please present your argument.




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

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


Perhaps I misread your post if so I apologise. Of course people who support chemtrails have the right to a discussion but people who disagree are allowed input too.


Thanks and I have no problem with that. It's the trolling that I'm calling out.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join