posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:10 AM
“…many people…whose thought processes are so limited … their preconceived, simplistic perception of the universe … narrowed [sic] minded and
quite frankly dimwitted…”
Abdul, one of the reasons I have always enjoyed your posts is that you typically present your point of view without resorting to insulting others.
Thank you for sharing.
“I am aware that there are a lot of people out there that have a problem with reality. However I believe you are missing my point. IMO it would
have been better to say "I believe that is wrong, here are my sources etc etc"
Netstorm, I do not understand. I didn’t say that the “chem-trail” devotees are “delusional” as we usually define “delusional”, i.e., crazies. If
they were that kind of delusional, I would respond as I do those very few people here whom I believe are divorced from reality, which is not to
even communicate with them. I don’t think I have told anyone on this board that they were “nuts”.
Furthermore, I believe that the vast majority of "chem-trail" believers are not hoaxers or scam artists; they are simply people who have been
deluded by the scam-artists like Jeff Rense, Will Thomas, Cliff Carnicom, et. al. and simply don't understand basic physics and meteorology, how
aircraft work, etc.
Understand that, forty years ago, as a young man, I was deluded by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara into believing that I should kill Asian people
in black pajamas; that did not make me delusional!
“The whole motto here is to deny ignorance (which is where the sources to counter the claim come into )”
Not necessarily. We are not medieval churchmen quoting conflicting sources to win an argument. You simply can’t do that with “chem-trails” anyway.
Some guy says he talked to a pilot who told him “chem-trails” were real. Another guy says he talked to that pilot’s boss who said that
chem-trails aren’t real. Who wins the argument? Neither; probably both “sources” are made up, anyway!
And no one can prove that there aren’t “chem-trails”; you can’t prove a negative. If I say I’m the long-lost King of France or that the
mushrooms in my back yard were put there by The Little Fairies of the Moonlight, you can’t prove that they [n]weren’t, can you? Of course not!
Therefore, since you can’t prove me wrong, that means I’m right? I don’t think so LOL!!
The only way that you can argue against the “chem-trail” hoax is to show, using basic science and Occam’s Razor, that the “chem-trail” believer’s
views simply don’t make any logical sense, and that his “evidence” for “chem-trails”, such as “so-and-so got a patent for something like it ten years
ago” or “I never saw any “chem-trails” anywhere else” are not evidence at all.