Chemtails and Goal Posts

reply to post by Tucket


I'm just saying in general to those of us the don't believe. There isn't even a residue of evidence to even theorize that "chemtrails" could be real, let alone screaming that they are real.

Tucket



Ok. I should've included the word "theory" in my initial post. My bad. But the chemtrail theory will never be proven to the skeptic here on ATS. More than a decade after 9/11, the event is still considered a conspiracy theory.

You are making two common mistakes with this.

Firstly, like several other skeptics, I came to this forum out of interest in the claimed chemtrail theory, I came here to see what there was to support the theory as I had experienced many enlightening conversations elsewhere on ATS.

What I found was Flim flam, supposition and lies. The lies were the most damning, they were so transparent and obvious that it clear this was all a made up hoax, and yet those same lies are trotted out by believers as reasons to believe in chemtrails, there is nothing new, original or that even stands up to logic. This is not convincing me now if it didn't before. However, any real substantial evidence that stands up to scrutiny WILL change my mind. It would have to. But it's utterly absent.

The second mistake is to try and rope in a completely different CT as if it somehow supports your point. Mentioning 9-11 in relation to chemtrails is like saying "well if you don't believe in Father Christmas why do you believe in WW2?" Do you see the silliness? It is, however a sign that you haven't actually got anything to say about chemtrails and so 9-11 is being brought on as a late substitute to try and score an equaliser when you are trailing in the big match.

waynos

Tucket



Ok. I should've included the word "theory" in my initial post. My bad. But the chemtrail theory will never be proven to the skeptic here on ATS. More than a decade after 9/11, the event is still considered a conspiracy theory.

The second mistake is to try and rope in a completely different CT as if it somehow supports your point. Mentioning 9-11 in relation to chemtrails is like saying "well if you don't believe in Father Christmas why do you believe in WW2?" Do you see the silliness? It is, however a sign that you haven't actually got anything to say about chemtrails and so 9-11 is being brought on as a late substitute to try and score an equaliser when you are trailing in the big match.

I compared it to 9/11 they are both ongoing and well known conspiracy theories.

The big match?
Ok, You win. The next time I post in here I'll bring some air samples.

Tucket
[ Ok. I should've included the word "theory" in my initial post. My bad. But the chemtrail theory will never be proven to the skeptic here on ATS.

not at all - there is clearly the possibility of finding verifiable evidence of any "spraying" that is going on.

I am a skeptic because I see no such evidence and yet people claim that it is "proven" and say that all I have to do is "look up" to see it for myself, and those claims lack substance.

I am certainly concerned about being poisoned as much as anyone else - and if there is actual evidence it is happening then I will accept the "theory" as proven.

More than a decade after 9/11, the event is still considered a conspiracy theory.

the event is not considered a conspiracy theory.

Baseless assertions that the buildings were demolished, that there was no aircraft that hit the Pentagon, that it was all arranged by GB Jr, etc. - THOSE are considered conspiracy theories.

Tucket
I compared it to 9/11 they are both ongoing and well known conspiracy theories.

With 9/11, there's a plethora of evidence to suggest inside job. With "chemtrails", there's zero, absolutely zero evidence to suggest even a theory. "Chemtrails" can't even be called a conspiracy theory because there needs to be some sort of evidence to theorize.

Again, seeing contrails in the sky, and/or elevated natural elements in the ground is not evidence, and not proof of "chemtrails".

_BoneZ_

Tucket
I compared it to 9/11 they are both ongoing and well known conspiracy theories.

With 9/11, there's a plethora of evidence to suggest inside job. With "chemtrails", there's zero, absolutely zero evidence to suggest even a theory. "Chemtrails" can't even be called a conspiracy theory because there needs to be some sort of evidence to theorize.

Again, seeing contrails in the sky, and/or elevated natural elements in the ground is not evidence, and not proof of "chemtrails".

I really don't see how any comparison can be made between 9/11 and chemtrails. Without getting into any discussion about 9/11, there is at least a chance that it might not have been as the official story would have it. It was a one off. There could have been years of careful planning and preparation involving only a handful of people. Chemtrail theory would have us believe that it has been going on 24/7/365 for over 15 years around the globe involving tens or even hundreds of thousands of people and thousands of aircraft.

No comparison.

reply to post by Tucket


I don't want to win, merely to discuss.

reply to post by Tucket

Ok, You win. The next time I post in here I'll bring some air samples.

Just make sure it is from 35000 ft, so that it will be accurate.

Anything else will not be an accurate sample.

Good Luck!!!

mrthumpy
I really don't see how any comparison can be made between 9/11 and chemtrails.

There is no comparison. The previous poster I quoted brought it up just to claim that both are conspiracy theories. But, as I explained in my earlier reply, there has to be some sort of evidence to theorize, let alone claim "chemtrails" are real. And there is no evidence thus far.

Therefore, "chemtrails" can't be a conspiracy "theory".