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.
Korg Trinity
network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity
Wait a minute. You have not seen a shred of evidence to disprove the theory?
The theory is based on the white lines in the sky.
I guess this is where the debunkers have it all wrong and maybe why they get so frustrated...
Chemtrails are as much to do with the while lines in the sky as black rubber rings have to do with driving.
The chemtrail subject is about Geo-Engineering and driving is about getting from point a to point b....
Totally different argument....
Korg.
Mikeultra
Follow the money and you'll discover the origins of chem-trails.
Korg Trinity
network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity
Wait a minute. You have not seen a shred of evidence to disprove the theory?
The theory is based on the white lines in the sky.
I guess this is where the debunkers have it all wrong and maybe why they get so frustrated...
Chemtrails are as much to do with the while lines in the sky as black rubber rings have to do with driving.
The chemtrail subject is about Geo-Engineering and driving is about getting from point a to point b....
Totally different argument....
Korg.
What would be to gain from a hoax and more importantly whom is gaining from the hoax?
network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity
how long have "chemtrails" been around?
as long as contrails have perhaps? or did their properties suddenly change when someone found out they could get concerned citizens to donate money to help the "cause"?
Who get's paid here? Do you see a donate button on contrailscience? Follow the money.
From Chemtrails to Pseudo-Life: The Dark Agenda of Synthetic Biology - See more at: www.zengardner.com...Chemtrail Crimes As the natural world dies around us, what will take its place? Planetary engineering includes bioremediation measures to bring us genetically engineered trees and crops. And what of humans themselves? How are we being transformed from the inside out?Presented at Conspiracy Con 2011, this 1 hour power point presentation by Sofia Smallstorm introduces primary and scientific findings hidden in the muffles of mainstream alternative media.People around the world are observing aerosol spraying (also called “chemtrials”) and strange man-made clouds. White skies filter sunlight as trees around the country sicken and die. Soil and water tests high for heavy metals, and artificial fibres fall on us from the sky.Is aerosol spraying only about experimenting with weather?…
Korg Trinity
I have found it quite incredible the lengths that some people will go to attempt to debunk the subject of chemtrails.
It's almost as if the very idea of chemtrails upsets these individuals sooooo much that they would do literally anything to even deny the possibility.
Some may say that they do not deny the possibility but then say in the same sentence that chemtrails are not true.
So I have a few questions....
The Debunkers do not believe chemtrails are real soooo....
Could the debunkers and people whom do not believe in Chemtrails please explain who they think is responsible for this hoax?
Also, why is there so many sources of information on Chemtrails and where are they originating from???
What would be to gain from a hoax and more importantly whom is gaining from the hoax?
www.greatdreams.com...
I have found certain "skeptical" arguments confusing. Part of the confusion seems to involve the use of certain words, such as "believe" and "evidence." Because of this, I have come to call people with a certain viewpoint "selective skeptics." They seem to be extremely skeptical of claims of the paranormal, but, are not equally skeptical in other areas, such as the claims of supposed "circlemaker" hoaxers.
The selective skeptics tend to use techniques similar to political spin doctors. They often setup their arguments by painting a picture of their opponents as "believers" in various paranormal claims. This hints that the claim is to be taken as an absolute belief. The suggested "spin" is that such a big claim must be proven absolutely. In most cases, I think, the word "belief" is not intended to be an absolute. It is not claimed to be a scientific fact that everyone should accept. In most cases the claim is simply that there is some evidence or reason to think that a certain phenomenon is paranormal.
Theories presented are often attacked as if they were claims of fact. The "spin" suggests that absolute proof must be given along with the theory, otherwise the theory is to be rejected. In my view, various theories should be presented, including non-paranormal theories, and then the evidence can be compared to the theories. Each person can determine for themselves which theory, if any, seems most supported by the evidence.
Selective skeptics sometimes say that there is no "evidence" at all to support certain paranormal claims. The "spin" seems to be that the "evidence" must absolutely prove the claim. In my view, the word "evidence" in these cases is intended more like that used in a court of law. The "evidence" can always be disputed. Judgments are made based on the convincing power of the evidence, but the judgments are not considered absolute. Yet, we act on the results, such as a death sentence based on a single reliable witness.
By carefully setting up the "spin," the selective skeptics attempt to put their opponents in the position of having the burden to "prove" the paranormal claim. The "spin" is that the selective skeptics must be considered "right," if such proof is not presented. The "spin" is that all science is on the side of the selective skeptics. As I see it, the selective skeptics simply have alternative theories, not a case that has been scientifically proven. They are in the same boat as the rest of us.
In the worst cases, the selective skeptics use the technique of ridicule. This is sometimes subtle, such as statements indicating that the opponent is childish or gullible. Another "spin" technique is to suggest the opponent's motive is to make money , get attention, or the like.
Another technique is to offer alternative explanations that fit with accepted views. In the case of crop circle formations, human hoaxing is the common explanation. There is nothing "wrong" with this, of course. But, one should keep in mind that it is just one theory that is also not conclusively proven.
In my view, the spin doctoring of the selective skeptics make them suspect. It would seem that they or those they follow intend to turn attention away from certain paranormal claims. For some reason, they seem bent on halting research into claims of the paranormal.
There may be "military" or "religious" reasons behind the position of the selective skeptics at the inner core. Howard Blum, in his "UFO" book, Out There, dealt with people in the secret elements of government. He proposed that such people approached the subject from a "national defense" point of view. If extra terrestrials do indeed exist, from their perspective, it is imperative that the information be kept secret. Otherwise, a high technology could fall into the hands of our enemies and put us at risk. Established religions may have reason to suppress information of a paranormal nature, as it may tend to pull followers away.
In my view, this is not the "proper" scientific approach. A true scientist is skeptical, yet he or she remains open minded. A true scientist does not approach a subject with an axe to grind, or an agenda to force. True scientists do not cause confusion by setting up "spins." They do not attempt to shut down investigations or attention to investigations with techniques of ridicule.
Imagine if such techniques were used in other areas, such as history, psychology, or sociology. Would we turn away from these areas of research because each claim cannot be absolutely, scientifically proven, or from fear of ridicule? I doubt it.
Do not be fooled. Most crop circle researchers are not claiming scientific proofs. They present evidence (that can be questioned), such as photographs and reports of crop circle formations, indicating that the phenomenon is worthy of further attention and research by those interested.
I say, be skeptical of the selective skeptics.
Korg Trinity[/i
What would be to gain from a hoax and more importantly whom is gaining from the hoax?
To: The Learning Channel (TLC)
Dear Program Director:
My name is Gary V. T. I'm a freelance writer. I am assembling information for a possible article to be published in a national magazine (FATE Magazine) as well as for BEYOND Magazine in the UK. The article, which will focus on the relationship between mainstream media and unusual phenomena such as UFOs and crop circles, will feature what I believe was a masterful bit of disinformation on the part of TLC in an attempt to deceive the American public regarding the crop circle phenomenon. I would like to give you the opportunity to respond, point-by-point, to the comments below:
1) The promo for the program seemed to emphasize the crop circle portion of the show, yet that part of the program was left until the very end. One can't help but ask if this was intentional with two main goals: (a) it was a typical "hook" to get viewers to watch the whole program and, more to the point, (b) it set the viewer up, psychologically, for the big finale. How? Simply by convincingly demonstrating hoax after hoax after hoax in an attempt to "condition" the viewer to believe what they would finally be shown regarding the crop circles, i.e., that they are unquestionably a scam of some kind. This was, in essence, a similar method used by the very hoaxers the program exposed, segment by segment, as it inched its way to the big finale: the crop circles.
2) The host exclaimed, (quote) "No one has been caught in the act of making one... (dramatic pause) ...until now". That statement, in itself, was a bold faced lie right off the bat. Your program DID NOT "catch" anyone making a crop circle. Your crew set up the entire demonstration with cameras rolling! No one was "caught" doing anything! The real truth is no one ever has been "caught" creating a crop circle (at least not that I'm aware of) and the producers of the program most certainly must know that. Otherwise some attempt would have been made to interview such culprits. No such interview was presented. Why?
3) The host claimed the hoaxers used (quote) "...rope, a wood plank and surveyor's tape, and nothing else." But there certainly appeared to be something else; there seemed to be a considerable amount of light on the field where they were working. This was attributed to natural moonlight. I don't think it was. The lighting appeared to encompass only the area in which the men were working. Still, if it was moonlight (which, again, I doubt), it is not likely that moonlight of such magnitude was available on each of the nights when the thousands of crop circles were formed over the past dozen years or so. Could your band of hoaxers have created their design in the pitch black darkness of night without the aid of the kind of lighting we saw in your program? I'd like to see that.
4) The crop design created by the hoaxers was noted to be similar to the huge formation which appeared near Stonehenge and which has been dubbed the "Triple Julia Set" because of it's mathematical properties. In fact, the comparison was not a fair one. The Triple Julia Set consisted of something like 192 circles and covered an area much larger than the design created by the TLC hoaxers. Furthermore, TLC proudly announced it took only six hours for their hoaxers to create their formation but neglected to mention that the Triple Julia Set (which was considerably larger) may have been created in fifteen minutes or less, according to a pilot who flew over that field. On his first pass over the field, he saw no design whatsoever. On his second pass over the field, some fifteen to twenty minutes later, the design was fully visible. [See corrective note below] An interview with that pilot would have been in order. However, no such interview was presented. Why?
Korg Trinity
I guess this is where the debunkers have it all wrong and maybe why they get so frustrated...
Chemtrails are as much to do with the while lines in the sky as black rubber rings have to do with driving.
The chemtrail subject is about Geo-Engineering and driving is about getting from point a to point b....
Totally different argument....
Korg.
Metaphysique
network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity
how long have "chemtrails" been around?
as long as contrails have perhaps? or did their properties suddenly change when someone found out they could get concerned citizens to donate money to help the "cause"?
Who get's paid here? Do you see a donate button on contrailscience? Follow the money.
Where's all that money coming from?