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.

 

Bad news for the Chemtrail religion

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Without wasting my time reading all the posts, I think paraphrasing the words of another poster sums it up perfectly: 'I can't prove there are such things as chem-trails and no-one can prove that there aren't, but to come on a conspiracy website and say it's not possible is just wierd'.

You can't prove a negative, so why bother trying to?




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sungazer
reply to post by adeclerk
 


www.youtube.com...

In this video you can see the difference between contrail and aerosol or whatever else chemtrail. Again, do you believe there is no geo engineering going on at all? Your answer will result in my opinion of you as a legitimate debater or as a government agent spreading disinfo.

Interesting, all of those 'chemtrails' look like contrails.

Sure there is small scale geo-engineering going on, it's no secret. Most of the field is highly speculative, and research oriented, rather than application oriented. Some real geo-engineering is occurring though, carbon sequestration, for example.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Without wasting my time reading all the posts, I think paraphrasing the words of another poster sums it up perfectly: 'I can't prove there are such things as chem-trails and no-one can prove that there aren't, but to come on a conspiracy website and say it's not possible is just wierd'.

So you want a website where only one view is represented? I think you might find North Korea suitable.

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
You can't prove a negative, so why bother trying to?

Right, but we can use logic and lack of evidence to support that it isn't occuring.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
It's EXACTLY like claiming you know for certain there are NO ALIENS on any planets anywhere in our galaxy. And you "can argue that based on facts and evidence".

No you cannot. You argue it based on ignorance. Because you don't know the reality.

You simply do not know it.

But go ahead, tell me all about how uninhabitable the universe is. Tell me all the pseudo-facts you want. Doesn't make a difference.

I know that you have no way of knowing for sure.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
Without wasting my time reading all the posts, I think paraphrasing the words of another poster sums it up perfectly: 'I can't prove there are such things as chem-trails and no-one can prove that there aren't, but to come on a conspiracy website and say it's not possible is just wierd'.

So you want a website where only one view is represented? I think you might find North Korea suitable.

Originally posted by Robert Reynolds
You can't prove a negative, so why bother trying to?

Right, but we can use logic and lack of evidence to support that it isn't occuring.


You can't make noob mistakes like this around me. Fail.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

You lose. Try again.

Argument from Ignorance- WIKI

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false.


edit on 20-6-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

It's EXACTLY like claiming you know for certain there are NO ALIENS on any planets anywhere in our galaxy. And you "can argue that based on facts and evidence".

No? The evidence supports that life might exist elsewhere in the universe. You know, the math.

I can say with 100% certainty that no alien life is visiting the Earth, however.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
No you cannot. You argue it based on ignorance. Because you don't know the reality.

Mhmm.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You simply do not know it.

So by your logic, Unicorns exist, since we can't prove their absence. Not to mention that jesus was gay, since you can't prove he wasn't. Flawed logic, sir.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
But go ahead, tell me all about how uninhabitable the universe is. Tell me all the pseudo-facts you want. Doesn't make a difference.

We don't really know the habitability of the universe. Nice try at an irrelevant strawman, though.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I know that you have no way of knowing for sure.

How can you be so certain when you complain about debunkers being certain?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You can't make noob mistakes like this around me. Fail.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

You lose. Try again.

Argument from Ignorance- WIKI

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false.


edit on 20-6-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)

It isn't an argument from ignorance. 'Chemtrails' could exist, but there has been no evidence to support that they do, heck we even know the origin of the 'chemhoax'.

Let's use deduction, shall we.
1. If chemtrails exist there would be some evidence to support them.
2. There are no air samples, soil samples, water samples, that are anamalous, no one has proven a chemtrail, no one has gotten sick from a chemtrail, no chemtrail sprayplanes have been found, etc.
3. Therefore, we can conclude that chemtrails aren't real.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
So by your logic, Unicorns exist, since we can't prove their absence.


Noob failure. Didn't even read the quote I posted above.


It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false.


Further reading for you since you obviously don't know any philosophy at all.


Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.


Read them and weep.

That's why it's better to remain open to various possibilities rather than to assume automatically that one of the various potentials is the only way it could be.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
It has never actually been debunked.

Sure you can debunk the rantings of some uninformed imaginative idiot, but you cannot debunk clear concise claims from a level headed person so easily.

There could very easily be a spraying program.

Make fun all you want, but the truth is, you don't have a clue. You don't actually know for sure.

You just assume, like everyone else. You hope it doesn't exist.

Talk all big and tough and like you know everything all you want buddies. Because you are just scared little children afraid of the potential reality that might be floating right above our heads.

Just pointing out the facts. No one knows for sure, and you cannot prove a negative therefore it has not been debunked.


Well said....

But I am afraid that your reasoning will not be understood. These guys are on a mission and unless you have some concrete decisive evidence to show, there is no use trying to reach these people. Their minds are made up...solid, waste of time.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by adeclerk
So by your logic, Unicorns exist, since we can't prove their absence.


Noob failure. Didn't even read the quote I posted above.


It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false.


Further reading for you since you obviously don't know any philosophy at all.


Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.


Read them and weep.

That's why it's better to remain open to various possibilities rather than to assume automatically that one of the various potentials is the only way it could be.

This isn't a philosophical arguement, it is a scientific one. You are arguing against known science, meteorology and logic to reason that 'chemtrails' exist. Do you even understand the burden of proof, you have it all backwards.


Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Here is a nice example:


Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers." Jill: "What is your proof?" Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

Now then, do you understand why it is up to a 'chemmie' to support the existence of their fantasy?
edit on 6/20/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
Let's use deduction, shall we.
1. If chemtrails exist there would be some evidence to support them.
2. There are no air samples, soil samples, water samples, that are anamalous, no one has proven a chemtrail, no one has gotten sick from a chemtrail, no chemtrail sprayplanes have been found, etc.
3. Therefore, we can conclude that chemtrails aren't real.



You don't even know how deduction works apparently.


Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, sound or unsound, but are never false nor true. Deductive reasoning is a method of gaining knowledge. An example of a deductive argument: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore, Socrates is mortal The first premise states that all objects classified as "men" have the attribute "mortal". The second premise states that "Socrates" is classified as a man – a member of the set "men". The conclusion states that "Socrates" must be mortal because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a man.

Deduction wiki

You premise is unsound, therefore your entire argument collapses.
This is like Logic 101.

Your premise = " If something exists there is evidence to support it which humans can observe right now".
This premise is untrue, there are tons of things that exist that we humans have no evidence for or against at this point in time.

You are basically saying "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist".

Any conclusions you make based on this highly flawed premise will come out as completely unsound arguments.
edit on 20-6-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

This premise is untrue, there are tons of things that exist that we humans have no evidence for or against at this point in time.

Can you give an example? Oh wait, the example itself would be evidence.


The premise is actually "If a massive spraying program is occuring, there would be evidence to support it" Got any?
edit on 6/20/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by muzzleflash

This premise is untrue, there are tons of things that exist that we humans have no evidence for or against at this point in time.

Can you give an example? Oh wait, the example itself would be evidence.


The premise is actually "If a massive spraying program is occuring, there would be evidence to support it" Got any?
edit on 6/20/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)


During the Manhattan Project (Wiki), was there any evidence observable to the average citizens that such a project of a such a nature explicitly was going on? No, they did not.

Why they call it the Manhattan Project - NYTIMES

He says the borough had at least 10 sites, all but one still standing. They include warehouses that held uranium, laboratories that split the atom, and the project’s first headquarters — a skyscraper hidden in plain sight right across from City Hall. “It was supersecret,” Dr. Norris said in an interview. “At least 5,000 people were coming and going to work, knowing only enough to get the job done.”


The HQ for the Manhattan Project was right there in New York, lol.

99% of people today in 2011 do NOT know this. That's how secret one of the Early projects the Govt undertook 70 years ago is.

And you think they can't keep something secret today? Like some sort of simple yet vast air force type weather modification operation? What if they are trying to stop catastrophic climate change through chemistry? What if they are forcing the big industry businesses to help foot the bill?

See we don't know anything at all and here people constantly say it can't possibly be so.

Well sometimes I hope it is so... I hope they are spraying something to counteract the chemical pollution they are verified spraying out through the factories we know for a fact exist and buy products from.

I mean if the Government can say the words "Manhattan Project" to us for 70 years and no one really figures out the obvious (that it's HQ was across from city hall), they could hide anything from us. Anything.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sungazer
reply to post by adeclerk
 


www.youtube.com...

In this video you can see the difference between contrail and aerosol or whatever else chemtrail. Again, do you believe there is no geo engineering going on at all? Your answer will result in my opinion of you as a legitimate debater or as a government agent spreading disinfo.


So basically, If he confesses that you've convinced his uneducated opinion of chemtrails; and he agrees that they are in fact real; then youll deem him a debater but;

If he still keeps his uneducated rational opinion and still says "Nope, Chemtrails are bullspit". Then he's a disinfo agent


More great logic from a chemtrailer. I think the chemtrailers are the disinfo agents ,trying to test how many gullible sheep there are actually out there.

Sorry I get it your post was a joke and you were having a dig at the chetrailers. Because that post couldn't have been serious!
edit on 20-6-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)


EDIT: Just read your posts trying to debunk chemtrials so obviously you were just having a dig at chemtrailers, so kudos.

They're bloody contrails, stop trying to chage thier name.
edit on 20-6-2011 by Chipkin9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by muzzleflash

This premise is untrue, there are tons of things that exist that we humans have no evidence for or against at this point in time.

Can you give an example? Oh wait, the example itself would be evidence.


The premise is actually "If a massive spraying program is occuring, there would be evidence to support it" Got any?
edit on 6/20/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)


During the Manhattan Project (Wiki), was there any evidence observable to the average citizens that such a project of a such a nature explicitly was going on? No, they did not.

Why they call it the Manhattan Project - NYTIMES

He says the borough had at least 10 sites, all but one still standing. They include warehouses that held uranium, laboratories that split the atom, and the project’s first headquarters — a skyscraper hidden in plain sight right across from City Hall. “It was supersecret,” Dr. Norris said in an interview. “At least 5,000 people were coming and going to work, knowing only enough to get the job done.”


The HQ for the Manhattan Project was right there in New York, lol.

99% of people today in 2011 do NOT know this. That's how secret one of the Early projects the Govt undertook 70 years ago is.

And you think they can't keep something secret today? Like some sort of simple yet vast air force type weather modification operation? What if they are trying to stop catastrophic climate change through chemistry? What if they are forcing the big industry businesses to help foot the bill?

See we don't know anything at all and here people constantly say it can't possibly be so.

Well sometimes I hope it is so... I hope they are spraying something to counteract the chemical pollution they are verified spraying out through the factories we know for a fact exist and buy products from.

I mean if the Government can say the words "Manhattan Project" to us for 70 years and no one really figures out the obvious (that it's HQ was across from city hall), they could hide anything from us. Anything.

But you're talking about 'chemtrails', a massive spraying operation that is apparently observable (you've seen the youtube videos).

Or is it not observable now?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
There is also a logical process called evidence of absence - if there SHOULD be evidence of something that is supposedly happening, but there is not, then that is acceptable as evidence that whatever it is is actually not happening.

And of course the proposition that denying chemtrails is an argument from ignorance is itself false.

It is up to those proposing that something DOES exist to provide some evidence, and it is THEM saying that "you can't prove it doesn't exist" that is the argument from ignorance, not the debunkers say "there is no evidence".

Trying to turn these around so that somehow they prove that chemtrails "could" exist is sophistry, in hte modern sense - making arguments intended to deliberately deceive.

My take on chemtrails is as follows:

1/ Contrails are known to exist.
2/ Nothing else is known to exist that looks and behaves like a contrail
3/ therefore if you see something that looks like a contrail it is reasonable to conclude that it is a contrail, and not reasonable to conclude that it is anything else.

It is obvious that showing the existence of something that looks like a contrail but it not a contrail will completely falsify my position, and if that evidence is actually presented then that is fine - I will change my mind accordingly.

Back to real evidence:

1/ Could something exist to spray something from commercial airliners?

Of course it could - technically it would be trivial to achieve - the technology for "spraying" has been around for 70+ years, and aircraft spray agricultural chemicals, etc., every day. However no such equiment has ever been shown to be fitted to commerial airliners that make persistent contrails, and the trails so generated do not look like contrails either.

2/ Could there be something nefarious put through engines in the fuel?

Yes there could. In which case you could go down to your local airport, buy 100 litres of aviation fuel and test it to see what is in it.

3/ Could something be added to the fuel between the airport fuel farm and the aircraft, or on board the aircraft?

Again yes. and there would be some system to do so - tanks or other containers for "something" on the aircraft or on the delivery truck/tanker, or crew carrying something they add at some point, or something along those lines connected to the underground delivery pipes.


Basically any method of adding something to fuel or spraying something from aircraft COULD exist - but any that I can think of would have physical evidence of their existence.

They would require materials, handling, probably manuals (procedures, mixing ratios, handling precautions, etc), they would certainly require people to be involved at some point.

If you think chemtrails exist, and you think you know how or why they exist, then you should be able to get together and find such physical evidence - or at least figure out what that evidence would be and start teh search for it.

Mangling logic doesn't prove they exist, and proving they COULD exist is just a trivial exercise in stating the blindingly obvious.


edit on 20-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: still crappy typing



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

Sure you can debunk the rantings of some uninformed imaginative idiot, but you cannot debunk clear concise claims from a level headed person so easily.


Sadly, thus far there have been nonr is support of "chemtrails." Do you have one?


There could very easily be a spraying program.


Great, please state your hypothesis.
Here's an outline for how to do it with credibility:
[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread701630/pg1]"Chemtrail" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?


Make fun all you want, but the truth is, you don't have a clue. You don't actually know for sure.


Are you referring to "chemtrail" advocates? Your statement applies perfectly[/n] to the "state of the art" in "chemtrails."


Talk all big and tough and like you know everything all you want buddies. Because you are just scared little children afraid of the potential reality that might be floating right above our heads.


No, it's the gullible who cry , " my ---- hurts;" and ""I feel like ... ," and "I believe that ... ," that are the scaedy-cats who are frightened by clouds. I know what is happening, I am not afraid of what I do not understand, and I know how to find the truth, instead of insiting on fairy tales.

jw



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

.....After several years here you will realize these "people" (debunkers) do not listen to reasonable debates or argue pertinent points. They use character assassination tactics and always ignore the pertinent points.


And you are leading by example ?

Originally posted in this thread by muzzleflash

"...the rantings of some uninformed imaginative idiot"
"...Because you are just scared little children..."
"...common sense also says these loud-mouth nay-sayers are actually just spouting the crap they heard heard from the last guy."
"...the jerk squad.."
"...But I have attempted to debate these jokes 100 times ..."
"..."noob mistakes.."
"...Noob failure...."

You won't find me name-calling or sloshing insults at all. I only want to get to the evidence, and talk about it.....calmly and without insult.


Originally posted by muzzleflash

....Every single "debate" ends in a character assassination attempt on muzzleflash. I wonder why?

.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Regarding the definition of Argument from Ignorance.....I think it is defines Muzzleflash's position, not the debunkers...


It (Muzzleflash) asserts that a proposition (chemtrail operation) is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).


Am I wrong here ? Isn't that what he is claiming ?







posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
Am I wrong here ? Isn't that what he is claiming ?

Seems to be. And he was oddly emotionally invested in it. Hmmm.




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join