In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality

a reply to: Petros312

Isn't discouragement of this type just a little too harsh, not to mention in violation of what the moderator of the subforum said HERE:

did you alert my post, if you have then its still up for a reason.

Its not discouragement but a question about why its in this forum when its got nothing to do with geo-engineering or chemtrails really other than the word Chemtrail and a suggestion of how to improve your argument on what you want to discuss/debate instead of grasping for straws like you are with thread titles "in defense of...".

It shows that the conspiracy is weak and needs defending from the stronger facts that are shown to debunk the chemtrail conspiracy.

Like I suggested debunk the science and facts or show them to be wrong and you might have a foot to stand on,

I make suggestions (which would improve your stance if you made the topic wider than just chemtrails) and asked questions for clarity and you take that as an insult to have to quote what you have from the Mod.



From your OP

Notice the exposé type tone of the topic as if it's something believed only by people who are illogical, unscientific, or who suffer from paranoid delusions:

Could it be because the way people in your camp that believe chematrails ??? (still not sure as it seems its an individual and different belief for those that know they are real and can see them) respond to questions, sometimes very basic question and suggestions.


I am not calling you illogical, unscientific or that you suffer from paranoid delusions, no one needs to.

A persons actions and reactions do so or show what ever one has on their mind on their own without the need for it to said.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Like I suggested debunk the science and facts or show them to be wrong and you might have a foot to stand on...

--I am no "debunker" for ethical reasons, and if you disagree with approaching the issue of who gets labelled as a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" from a socio-political perspective then that's your own humble opinion. This subforum at ATS, Geoengineering and Chemtrail Conspiracies, is a matter of politics, history, social psychology, environmental policy, and even a matter of spirituality. If these approaches are too "girly" for you, and you support the bizarre notion that to "be a man" requires only a debate around sheer fact, then I wish you luck in finding a discussion that doesn't exist.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Like I suggested debunk the science and facts or show them to be wrong and you might have a foot to stand on...

--I am no "debunker" for ethical reasons,

Well that's a strange thing to say. The ethical thing to do IS to debunk. Get rid of all the bunk and what you have left is the truth, the reality. I'm very suspicious of anyone who is in favour of bunk to the degree they have "ethical" reasons not to expose it. That sounds like Bull to me.

and if you disagree with approaching the issue of who gets labelled as a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" from a socio-political perspective then that's your own humble opinion. This subforum at ATS, Geoengineering and Chemtrail Conspiracies, is a matter of politics, history, social psychology, environmental policy, and even a matter of spirituality. If these approaches are too "girly" for you, and you support the bizarre notion that to "be a man" requires only a debate around sheer fact, then I wish you luck in finding a discussion that doesn't exist.

Your faux grandiosity is quite amusing. You take a lot of words to say very little. A chemtrail conspiracist is anybody that believes they are seeing chemtrails. Socio political perspectives matter not a jot. Anyone can fall for a lie.

You would think the stigmatization of chemtrail conspiracy theorists is bad enough to show these people a bit of sympathy, maybe understand that some of their concerns are reasonable, but no. While relentless opponents of chemtrailers continue to disseminate information about what is a contrail, what is a persistent contrail, and why do contrails sometimes turn into cirrus clouds, they are essentially saying that all jet aircraft activity and its associated condensation trails and the clouds that develop from them sometimes filling the sky is only "normal." However, the truth is that this informational evidence debunkers present does not support anything except an explanation of what is a "normal" contrail. They have no more empirical observation for what is the result of "normal" jet aircraft activity than what chemtrailers have in lacking the all-important air sample of a contrail that contains chemical toxins of some kind. Again, it's an attempt to discredit anyone who suspects what is happening in the sky is not "normal" and then label them a chemtrail conspiracy theorist. Read more about why repeatedly asserting that the jet activity in the air is only "normal" requires the same burden of proof assigned to chemtrailers: In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof

a reply to: Petros312

No, what it says is that any trail you can point to in the sky has a rational, established explanation that you may be unaware of. You cannot simply point to a trail or post a photograph of one and declare it to be a chemtrail because "I know the difference". This is impossible.

Therefore, what is the reason to believe in chemtrails, given there is no evidence and no means of visual identification. That is why there is no reason to suppose that chemtrails are real until someone ponies up up some kind of actual evidence. It's all very simple really.

Any stigmatisation is all your own as you appear hell bent of stigmatising rational thought and critical thinking.

originally posted by: Petros312
You would think the stigmatization of chemtrail conspiracy theorists is bad enough to show these people a bit of sympathy, maybe understand that some of their concerns are reasonable, but no. While relentless opponents of chemtrailers continue to disseminate information about what is a contrail, what is a persistent contrail, and why do contrails sometimes turn into cirrus clouds, they are essentially saying that all jet aircraft activity and its associated condensation trails and the clouds that develop from them sometimes filling the sky is only "normal." However, the truth is that this informational evidence debunkers present does not support anything except an explanation of what is a "normal" contrail. They have no more empirical observation for what is the result of "normal" jet aircraft activity than what chemtrailers have in lacking the all-important air sample of a contrail that contains chemical toxins of some kind. Again, it's an attempt to discredit anyone who suspects what is happening in the sky is not "normal" and then label them a chemtrail conspiracy theorist. Read more about why repeatedly asserting that the jet activity in the air is only "normal" requires the same burden of proof assigned to chemtrailers: In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof

I saw a really big mountain the other day.It must've been made by a really big gigantic mole. Everyone knows moles make molehills,so this mountain can only have been the result of this gigantic mole. I'll show you the picture of this mountain as evidence, if you want to.

You have no evidence that it was made by geological activity, any more than I have evidence that it was made by agiant mole. Sure there are all these scientific theories on how mountains come into being, but what's to say those are valid for the mountain I saw? You have no evidence, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't made by a giant mole as much as it is on me to prove that it was.

By stating that I need evidence for said giant mole you're just trying to stigmatize me as a mole-believer and trying to make me look like a fool. It's an attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn't believe mountains are made by super-giant moles.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312

No, what it says is that any trail you can point to in the sky has a rational, established explanation that you may be unaware of.

Prove it.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Therefore, what is the reason to believe in chemtrails, given there is no evidence and no means of visual identification. That is why there is no reason to suppose that chemtrails are real until someone ponies up up some kind of actual evidence. It's all very simple really.

What's simple is your blind dedication to the status quo.

originally posted by: payt69

originally posted by: Petros312
You would think the stigmatization of chemtrail conspiracy theorists is bad enough to show these people a bit of sympathy, maybe understand that some of their concerns are reasonable, but no. While relentless opponents of chemtrailers continue to disseminate information about what is a contrail, what is a persistent contrail, and why do contrails sometimes turn into cirrus clouds, they are essentially saying that all jet aircraft activity and its associated condensation trails and the clouds that develop from them sometimes filling the sky is only "normal." However, the truth is that this informational evidence debunkers present does not support anything except an explanation of what is a "normal" contrail. They have no more empirical observation for what is the result of "normal" jet aircraft activity than what chemtrailers have in lacking the all-important air sample of a contrail that contains chemical toxins of some kind. Again, it's an attempt to discredit anyone who suspects what is happening in the sky is not "normal" and then label them a chemtrail conspiracy theorist. Read more about why repeatedly asserting that the jet activity in the air is only "normal" requires the same burden of proof assigned to chemtrailers: In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Proof

I saw a really big mountain the other day.It must've been made by a really big gigantic mole. Everyone knows moles make molehills,so this mountain can only have been the result of this gigantic mole. I'll show you the picture of this mountain as evidence, if you want to.

You have no evidence that it was made by geological activity, any more than I have evidence that it was made by agiant mole. Sure there are all these scientific theories on how mountains come into being, but what's to say those are valid for the mountain I saw? You have no evidence, and the burden of proof is on you to prove that it wasn't made by a giant mole as much as it is on me to prove that it was.

By stating that I need evidence for said giant mole you're just trying to stigmatize me as a mole-believer and trying to make me look like a fool. It's an attempt to stigmatize anyone who doesn't believe mountains are made by super-giant moles.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

I read this as
"You believe something I don't want to believe so you are a crackpot, now prove to me that im right"

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Sure. I offer NASA, appleman and Contrailscience for every con/chemtrail photograph on the Internet. Now you find a trail picture those explanations don't fit.

If my dedication to the status quo means I don't blithely swallow any old crap just because someone says so, so be it.

So,if you disagree, what is the reason to think CHEMTRAILS are real?

Besides, what's wrong with a bit of status quo? Never Too Late was a decent album.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Sure. I offer NASA, appleman and Contrailscience for every con/chemtrail photograph on the Internet. Now you find a trail picture those explanations don't fit.

I see you haven't read the thread, In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dread Burden of Proof if you still make that statement, but then I don't expect debunkers to back up their claims about how all jet aircraft activity and all contrails in the sky are only "normal" at any given time and location with actual empirical evidence. I expect cut and pasted info no better than propaganda and links to research studies about the "basic science" of contrails. I expect angry responses. And most of all, I expect them to debunk chemtrail conspiracy theory when clearly the topic of the thread is about how a segment of the population that has a wide diversity of concerns are all labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" and are being stigmatized not by any great fact but through social reality.

The tactic in that italicized statement is also known as sabotaging a thread.

a reply to: Petros312

Yes I have read it. It does not influence the way I respond because it is not definitive or authoritative, merely your own misguided opinion.

Maybe you didn't read the post that asked me to prove there is an explanation that fits every chemtrail photograph? I merely offered those sources of proof of such explanations. In not calling out the member who made that request you are being a hypocrite and you expose your own bias and devious tactics. Oops.

Also, if you really are writing about genuine wider concerns, such the things we all agree on pollution and geoengineering, why do you keep pulling chemtrail conspiracy into it? Why are you so desperate to try and legitimise a fake fantasy issue by mixing it in with the real stuff? What's in it for you?

a reply to: Petros312

Can high bypass turbofans produce contrails?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312

Can high bypass turbofans produce contrails?

A bizarre question within the context of this thread topic, has absolutely nothing to do with my discussion about how people labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are being stigmatized in various ways, but the answer to this type of question designed to "debunk" someone suspected of being an ignorant chemtrailer is (arguably) yes, with a qualifier: Depends on the altitude and corresponding temperature where the jet is flying as well as the relative humidity.

a reply to: Petros312

A bizarre question within the context of this thread topic, has absolutely nothing to do with my discussion about how people labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are being stigmatized in various ways,

Not bizarre at all if you're aware of the claims of some CCTs.

Dig this: High-Bypass Turbofans DO NOT Produce Contrails. So What Are Those Lines in the Sky?

Let's see who still has a page regurgitating and linking that swill www.geoengineeringwatch.org...

The "Great Dane", he's so intrepid, and a major pusher of the CCT, no?