Bad news for the Chemtrail religion

reply to post by adeclerk


A lot of chemmies make appeals to emotion, especially when facts start getting in the way - i shouldn't be a surprise by now!

reply to post 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.

The problem here is that the "chemtrail" advocates are afraid to state their hypotheses, so that they may be tested, or "falsified."

If you're so confident, try this simple outline:
"Chemtrail" advocates and believers, which of you will state your hypothesis?

Why can't any of the strongest chemtrail advocares frame a simple hypothetical statement that sets forth:
1. WHO is behind this (examples - TPTB, the Dept. of Agriculture/FDA, the US military, NWO, scientists, Battelle, et c.)
2. WHAT they are using (ex. - military aircraft, airliners, private planes, rockets, et c.)
3. WHAT substance is being sprayed (ex. - barium, aluminum, sulfur, smoke, chaff, filaments, drugs, pathogens, et c.)
4. HOW they are doing this (ex. - mixed in jet fuel, from tanks, in cloud seeding substances, in rocket fuel, et c.)
5. WHY they are doing it (ex. - to kill people, to poison crops, to hide Nibiru, to alter minds, to change weather, et c.)
6. WHERE it is (ex. - US, industrial nations, worldwide, Atlanta, the Midwest, et c.)
7. RESULTS that have been documented (ex. - death, poison food, dumb people, warm weather, cold weather, et c.)

Since you offer no single hypothesis, there is nothing to debunk; just an agglomeration of "what ifs" and "I believes" and "couldn't theys." "Chemtrails" are nothing without a premise in their support.

It's not a lack of evidence, it's a lack of substance! Fears and imaginations and paranoias are individualized and incapable of "proof," they are what they are to the beholder.

If "chemtrail" faithful had a consistent premise or hypothesis, it would be susceptible of proof. Offer one, and let's see how it stands up.

Here's portions of some that have been attempted and disproven:

Proposition: "Chemtrails" are to reduce the population.
Fact: The countries with the highest population growth do not report "chemtrails." Overall, the population has increased by 2 billion since "chemtrails" became a topic of discussion.

Proposition: "Chemtrails" are to control the weather/fight AGW.
Fact: AGW proponents and a "consensus" of "climate scientists" insist that global mean temperatures have increased during the "chemtrail" era. Most "climate scientists" point to increasingly unpredictable and dangerous weather patterns as "proof" of AGW during the same period.

"Chemtrail" advocates offer, at best, their belief or faith to "prove " the existence of their icon.

It's not that "you can't prove/disprove a negative (some people mistakenly use these interchangeably);" it's that "chemtrail"advocates have nothing to be tested.
Science has established the contents of jet contrails many times over. Replicated with predictable outcomes.
"Chemtrail" faithful have yet to offer a working hypothesis, much less a repeatable study of their contents or effects.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by adeclerk
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.

Oh but it can be - if the evidence SHOULD be tehre, and it isn't, then that can be used to deduce absence - evidence of absence is an acceptable logical argument when ussed for inference or deduction.

In this case if there SHOULD be something in the air from spraying (because ther's enough to affect our health or whatever) , it seems quite reasonable to deduce that the lack of anything nefarius in the air means that no such spraying is being carried out.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


This is precisely the same as Fermi's paradox:"If there are billions of advanced civilizations, capable of interplanetary colonization, where are they?"

With "chemtrails," if there is such widespread application, with worldwide effects, and a world-wide apparatus of implementation; where are they?

As Willy Wonka (and Maroon 5) sang, "Pure Imagination."

deny ignorance
jw

reply to post by muzzleflash


So your whole argument is "there could be a secret plan to spread elf piss on people to make them magical". You cant prove that there isn't one. Therefore it must be a legit conspiracy theory even though there is 0 evidence to support it.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I don't know that anyone can meet your criteria for evidence. I read about civilian casualties in Libya, but I have no evidence. Perhaps you doubt that as well since there is no evidence.
There is no evidence that Bin Laden is dead. There is no evidence that Obama is a human, at least no evidence that you could bring that would satisfy anyone that believes he is not human.
Or, you could prove me wrong.
What actually do you have evidence of? Do you have evidence that the air that you breathe is something similar to the air I breathe? Do you even know what you breathe?
No, I bet you don't. You trust others to tell you that it is safe.
I bet I know who you trust, based upon who you don't.
But, I could be wrong I suppose.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I don't know that anyone can meet your criteria for evidence. I read about civilian casualties in Libya, but I have no evidence. Perhaps you doubt that as well since there is no evidence.

Quite clearly there IS evidence - there are videos, eyewitness accounts, admissions by NATO....

Why do you say there is no evidence??

There is no evidence that Bin Laden is dead.

Yes there is - there is the POTUSA on TV saying so.

You may choose to not believe he is telling the truth - but that is a matter of weighing up the evidence - not a matter of their being no evidence at all.

You seem to ahve a very peculiar idea of what it is I actually think.

for example I think there IS evidence of chemtrails - ther are people saying they exist, there are chemical analysies saying they prove chemtrails, tehr is teh video "What in eth world are they spraying".

this is all evidence.

Even someone coming on here saying "chemtrails exist" and never making another post is evidence.

the question to be asked about evidence is HOW GOOD IS THE EVIDENCE? Is it accurate? Is it verifiable? Is it credible? Is it true? Does it support the contention being made?

In the case of the evidence that has been presented supporting the existence of chemtrails, my assessment is that it is not very good at all.

Tests of the amount of aluminium and barium in various things have been easily shown to be bad science, or even outright fabrications. Photos all seem to show things that look like contrails - I believe contrails exist, so if it looks like a contrail I'm going to think it is a contrail until you can provide me sufficient evidence to think otherwise.

Lots of people say chemtrails exist - but they are unable to provide evidnce that SHOULD exist if the proposition were true. If it were true it should be easy to get air samples - proper ones not like Arizona Skywatch's efforts - that contain something out of the ordinary that can be traced to aircraft.

There should be materials that can be found, aircraft equipment that can be photographed, whistleblowers that can come forward (as opposed an unknown pilot making a pickup line in a bar reported second hand at best, an anonymous mechanic who's description of aircraft systems sounds nothing like what I recognise as such having been a mechanic myself for 36 years). there should be documents, manuals, bills of sale, trucks or pipelines or tanks for storage and distribution - there should be a massive infrastructure that leaves very real traces in the real world.

This stuff should not be impossible to get at all - even if it's secret and compartmentalised it's apparently happening to every airline in the world that flies jets so there has to be some gaps somewhere - if only because this "stuff" has to actually be in the air we breathe in order to do anything!!

So I don't see that I am asking for a particularly onerous level of evidence at all - I am jsut asking for what should be there!

There is no evidence that Obama is a human, at least no evidence that you could bring that would satisfy anyone that believes he is not human.

So which is it? Is there no evidence at all, or is there insufficient evidence to convince someone who will not believe any evidence of it?

Those are 2 extreme positions and cannot both exist at the same time - although the 2nd one may even be true.

What actually do you have evidence of? Do you have evidence that the air that you breathe is something similar to the air I breathe? Do you even know what you breathe?
No, I bet you don't. You trust others to tell you that it is safe.
I bet I know who you trust, based upon who you don't.
But, I could be wrong I suppose.

Indeed you could - here's some evidence for you:

1/ I think you are probably a human being - based upon the evidence of a post on here.
2/ human beings breathe air (based upon the evidence provied by a number of people having been suffocated to death, drowning, etc)
3/ I am a human being (based upon teh evidence I can see and feel)
4/ therefore I conclude that I breathe air simlar to the air you breathe.

Now was this related to chemtrails somehow? 'cos if so I missed it sorry....

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I only find it funny that you give more credence to what the government and, in this case, NATO says, and you postulate what is evidence.
I could say that there is evidence that Bin Laden is dead, because you posted your belief that he is dead. So, if most people believe he is dead, the preponderance of evidence is on the side of people that believe he is dead? That is no justification for chemtrails, nor is it justification for the death of Bin Laden.
It doesn't matter who says Bin Laden is dead, that is not proof. So, it follows that you have no proof that Bin Laden is dead.
Nor that Obama is human. Nor do you have proof that the air that you, or I breathe is fit to breathe.
Do you have evidence that the air you breathe is fit to breathe?

I'm sorta not seeing what you're getting at. More airplanes are being sold so this is bad news for the "religion" of chemtrailology? Wouldn't this be a good thing? More planes in the sky, more opportunities to hide the chemtrails within the contrails.

Wow, it's really the same song and dance with you few. Yes, you stubborn few know who you are. As an aside, I found this post to have little to no content within it. Boeing continues to manufacture airplanes. Okay, so? And then the same few enter thinking their word is law on anything they speak of, sparking arguments with whomever/wherever. This thread is another good example of it.

firepilot, shouldn't this be in the Aircraft projects forum since it has nothing to do with geo-engineering? And it's so transparently obvious that you are posting this here in this manner just to try to get a rise out of this "chemtrail religion", as mods have said it would be helpful if you actually added content also.

Meanwhile adeclerk/firepilot/alysious the gaul continue to star themselves on the back day after day. Great job guys, you put that whole chemtrail thing to rest.

Oh by the way, only when you can prove that chemicals cannot be unloaded from an aircraft while in flight, can you claim "chemtrails cannot exist". Until then you same few will (mind boggingly) continue to combat the 'chemtrailers', seemingly with more effort than those who try to claim that they do exist. Your agenda is showing.

Chemtrailers can't prove they exist, but you chemtrail debunkers cannot prove that they don't or couldn't exist.

No one wins.

Originally posted by Sek82

Oh by the way, only when you can prove that chemicals cannot be unloaded from an aircraft while in flight, can you claim "chemtrails cannot exist".

I don't claim chemtrails cannot exist - I am quite certain that they could exist - why do you write this??

What I am also quite certain about is that there is no credible or verifiable evidence that they DO exist.

Chemtrailers can't prove they exist, but you chemtrail debunkers cannot prove that they don't or couldn't exist.

Any why should we have to?

someone is claiming somethnig exists - so there must be some reason for making that claim - why else make it??

And if the reasons given do not actually stack up - they do not support the claim - why should we believe it?

the chetmrail claim says that I am part of a worldwide conspiracy to do something evil - I am an aricraft mechanic, and have worked for a national regulatory agency (the equivalent of the FAA) - I haev been deep in the bowels of jet aircraft that hav made persistent contrails, I have planed maintenance on them, and performed audits over all aspects of their maintenance, and I have analysed safety information.

so according to the claim I must be part of the conspiracy. And please spare me the "comparmentalisation" line - I've had the kerosene on my hands, I've literally crawled inside fuel tanks, I've overhauled fuel pumps, fuel control units and combustor nozzles, I've been part of teams that have stripped aircraft back to bare metal and taken every single removable panel off them, I've dis- and ass-embled and overhauled engines and APU's, and gotten down to the elvel of repairing threads in compressor cases.

I've audited parts inventories down to the individual materials stored in segregated DG stores, refrigerated stores, humidity controled stores, the facilities used to maintain aircraft, the materials used, the paperwork, the qualifications of the people employed - there has been no part of aircraft maintenance that has been off limits to me in the auditing roles I have performed.

and all those jet aircraft have made persistent contrails - I know this because there's never been many more than 20-25 domestic jets here, and while I was working on them in various roles they have all left those persistent contrails. In some cases those aircraft came to us directly out of domestic service in the USA, and in a couple of cases they went straight back into it after a year or 2 on lease.

so I utterly reject that I am part of any conspiracy, that I have ever seen anything that would qualify as part of any conspiracy, and as far as I am concerned you are slandering me by continuing with the idea that it exists and not actually providing any decent evidence of it!

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I only find it funny that you give more credence to what the government and, in this case, NATO says, and you postulate what is evidence.

Are you saying that NATO's acknowledgement of civilian casualties is not evidence of civilian casualties??

Are you saying what I consider to be evidence is not actually evidence??

What is it that you consider to be evidence then??

I only find it funny that you give more credence to what the government and, in this case, NATO says, and you postulate what is evidence.
I could say that there is evidence that Bin Laden is dead, because you posted your belief that he is dead. So, if most people believe he is dead, the preponderance of evidence is on the side of people that believe he is dead?

the number of people believing something is irrelevant - did you not read the bit I wrote about the quality of the evidence? Is it supported by something else? Is it verifiable?

Why do you ignore those questions and go off on tangents I do not actually postulate?

That is no justification for chemtrails, nor is it justification for the death of Bin Laden.

Indeed - I even say so in my sig......

It doesn't matter who says Bin Laden is dead, that is not proof. So, it follows that you have no proof that Bin Laden is dead.

I didn't say I had proof - I said I have evidence.

Evidence becomes proof if you accept it as such - after evaluating its worth and deciding it is credible, relevant, preferably verifiable, and such things.

I choose to accept that Obama's statement about the death of bin Laden is sufficient evidence for me to accept bL's death.

Nor that Obama is human. Nor do you have proof that the air that you, or I breathe is fit to breathe.
Do you have evidence that the air you breathe is fit to breathe?

Which do you want - evidence, or proof?

Now what has this got to do with chemtrails??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

It appears that you have no evidence to substantiate anything at all, unless I am supposed to believe that evidence, or proof for that matter, is based upon whom are making the claims.
You cannot prove that you exist. A computer program could be making posts in your name. So, there is no reason to believe anything you post. There is no evidence, and you cannot provide any.
Everything you post is pure speculation. All of your evidence is pure speculation.
Apparently, the chemtrail discussion revolves around whom, or what, anyone chooses to believe. It makes me wonder why you could take the position that your sources are better, when you cannot prove that they indeed are better. Where is the evidence?
It appears to me that you stake out a position based upon hearsay. That is all.

An assertion is made, based upon a link to a website? Without comment.
And this is somehow "bad news for the chemtrail religion"?
It appears that it is bad news for an otherwise great website that posts like this exist here if we are denying ignorance.

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It appears that you have no evidence to substantiate anything at all, unless I am supposed to believe that evidence, or proof for that matter, is based upon whom are making the claims.

I'm sorry you have not been able to understnd what I wrote.

I'll try to simplify it as much as I can:

1/ There is lots of evidence around for all sorts of things
2/ evidence needs to be evaluated as to it's validity, credibility, relevant and support for the contention it is supposedly supporting
3/ If you find that the evidence is sufficiently credible, relevant and supportive then you can reasonably infer or deduce that the original proposition is true, and you can consider the evidence as proof of that proposition.

I can't do much better than that sorry - I think you are probably not actually interested in my point of view tho - you have consistently posted answers that show you do not understand me, or are jsut ignoring my actual writing.

so if you still think that I have no evidence or proof then so be it.

I'm happy to discuss actual evidence, and whehter and why I consider it sufficient to be proof should you wish to do so in some vaguely reasonable fashion - whether we agree or not.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

To mend fences, you can first bring me evidence of anything at all.
Anything.
I believe you started this exchange by asking for evidence of chemtrail spraying. You seem to require evidence, and I am not saying that is a bad thing, I am only asking how.
But, let's keep it practical.
Let's start really basic. You provide evidence of anything at all, and then we can move to chemtrails.
Remember, who states they exist, or don't exist, is not evidence. So, why do you believe you are not being slowly poisoned? Do you test the air? Do you know how?
If you are trusting others to do this for you, I must ask you why?
And, why would you counsel others?????
I don't get it.

reply to post by SirClem


Oh right - you're another who says that debunkers need to prove that chemtrails don't exist.

Sorry - I had thought you had something serious to add and not jsut another chemmie arguing from ignorance, and claiming that the burden of proof doesn't lie with those claiming chemtrails exist.

I'm pretty sure discussing the philosophical nature of evidence is OT for the thread and not appropriate to this forum, so I think we should stop derailing it along those lines - but feel free to start another one on that topic in an apporpriate forum.

reply to post by SirClem


Here.... are two references...
www.wrh.noaa.gov...

contrail.gi.alaska.edu...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Aloysius the Gaul
Member Registered: 5-10-2010
Location: Mood: doubtful
P 2,387 F 135 S 2,710 W 21 K 18

I'll try to simplify it as much as I can: 1/ There is lots of evidence around for all sorts of things 2/ evidence needs to be evaluated as to it's validity, credibility, relevant and support for the contention it is supposedly supporting 3/ If you find that the evidence is sufficiently credible, relevant and supportive then you can reasonably infer or deduce that the original proposition is true, and you can consider the evidence as proof of that proposition.

As I and many other chemtrail believers on ATS have spoken of before. We have provide pictures, videos, documents, and eye witness accounts. We have more evidience that prove that chemtrails are real and are going on right now!

Go outside and look at the sky. Those long white lines that stay in the sky for hours are CHEMTRAILS and not contrails. It blocks out the sun making the sky a gray haze.

Originally posted by SirClem
An assertion is made, based upon a link to a website? Without comment.
And this is somehow "bad news for the chemtrail religion"?
It appears that it is bad news for an otherwise great website that posts like this exist here if we are denying ignorance.

Well, since the fleet of large airliner/freighter type aircraft is doing to double, and since these will also be more prone to contrailing due to greater engine efficiency, it does bode badly for those who get scared when they see contrails and airplanes.