How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

Originally posted by adeclerk
Acupuncture works by the needles causing pain that prompts the body to respond by releasing endorphins, which incidentally relieve pain.

Oh no You di'n't! If acupuncture worked as You say, heck, to stop the pain We could just poke Ourselves with needles when we break a leg...wait...that's pain, breaking a leg, and We wouldn't need needles because the body will produce the endorphins. Right?

I'm guessing You have never had acupuncture. The needles, surprisingly, DON'T hurt. You might want to steer clear of commenting on something You know nothing of.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
But that does not mean that "everything not yet learned" has any benefit in believing in it before it becomes accepted as workable. If that were the case, ....wow... this would be one nutty world.

Do you not believe that chemtrails don't exist? If neither of them are proven, then scientifically speaking, what difference can you show as far as one being nuttier than the other? It's not like they wouldn't have reasons to dump stuff in the upper atmosphere, or don't have the technology, or like it would look any different than a white trail behind a plane.

I believe that contrails DO exist. There is evidence for that, there is a history of it, and there is a consensus of it's existence -- that is ONLY contested by this relatively new "chemtrail" theory.
This "chemtrail" theory has no evidence, and on top of that, has many versions of it's composition and purpose.
So when I compare one-to-the-other, (contrails, to chemtrails)...the contrails clearly seem the most reasonable, and continue to be the most reasonable.

BTW...I do believe the scientific explanation of a phenomenon. Science can also be used to "discount" a phenomenon, or eliminate it from serious consideration.. In fact science can be used to discount prior scienctific belief. Although not perfect, science strives to be self-checking.

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

This IS delicious...

DO provide me with evidence of 'zero' in nature.

C21H30O2I a star!

You are too kind.

edit on 2-6-2011 by golemina because: ps comment

To be fair this question is a little disingenuous. You cannot provide evidence of zero in nature because zero is an abstract concept created by humans to denote the lack of something. In effect you are asking someone to prove a negative.

A more apt comparison would be to provide evidence of magnetism or a similar invisible force that is universally accepted as existing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
(....)
This is why argument from ignorance is a fallacy. Just because you don't have evidence yet, doesn't mean you never will. And that, is why claiming they don't exist is no more scientific than claiming that they do at this point in time. Unless you can prove a negative, but obviously you can't, and no one expects you to.

But if a proposal goes against the current known laws and knowledge of science, it needs to provide new information. If that new information is not compelling somehow, how do you expect to be taken seriously ?

(please substitute "ufo" for the current subject here...the "gist" in the same.)

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Neptune wasn't discovered by science but the light reflecting off of it was still reaching Earth.

And we still didn't have strong enough telescopes for a long time. Same with Pluto.

But you're already deflecting from the point I was trying to make to you, that science doesn't just automatically know all of these things instantly. Evidence did not always exist for these things. There were times when there was no evidence, for anyone on the Earth. And yet, they still managed to exist. That is what you were apparently incapable of understanding, and I hope now maybe you have remembered this basic bit of common sense.

This is why argument from ignorance is a fallacy. Just because you don't have evidence yet, doesn't mean you never will. And that, is why claiming they don't exist is no more scientific than claiming that they do at this point in time. Unless you can prove a negative, but obviously you can't, and no one expects you to.

You seem to have a basic error here on how this works.

When Jupiter was discovered, someone found some evidence to suggest it was there, they then worked on gathering evidence and presented a cohesive argument, backed by a weight of evidence that it existed and then the evidence proved the existence.

Of course science doesn't know everything and of course it never will but the scientific method is you start from a premise that something is not true, until you provide enough evidence to refute that hypothesis. This is how all theory is made.

The weight of providing evidence that a new hypothesis is true falls upon the claimant. Until there is a siffucient weight of evidence the new hypothesis is true then it is considered to be untrue, because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest it is.

Within the Chemtrail debate the claimants are the people that believe in chemtrails. The new hypothesis is that not all high flying jet trails are contrails, some are part of a secret conspiracy to spray chemicals into the atmosphere for an undefined purpose.

The people who say they are contrails are not presenting a new hypothesis, contrails are known to exist and have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be able to linger, spread, stop, start and change.

Therefore the claimant presenting the new hypothesis needs to present enough suitable evidence for that to become established fact.

Evidence should not be subjective, this means that believing and subjective opinion on what was seen is not enough.


Of course it is entirely possible that they are spraying chemicals at high altitude, I totally accept that is a possibility, I cannot preclude it. there are many many things I cannot totally preclude from happening or being true. Like the robot cat.

What I can say is that there is no weight of evidence to suggest it is happening, and there is nothing I have seen that cannot be explained by existing knowledge. Therefore, in my opinion, I see no reason to suggest it is happening.

(self edit, delete post)

Originally posted by qmantoo
Aren't we going into the realms of energy mechanics? Anything from Kirlian photography of auras, to dowsing to homeopathy, spirits, meridians etc etc. How far do we want to take this?

The problem is that we do not really know how the universe is made and so we do not really understand how it works. If we understood more about its workings, then these phenomena would probably not be so difficult to pin down. We can measure meridian acupuncture points with a meter, but we cannot see the actual 'lines'. (Please dont keep saying it is all to do with the release of endorphins, that is most unlikely - unless endorphins are the cure-all for most diseases known to man.)

There are many zeropoint energy machines which have been built using a similar substance to orgone. People have been driving their cars around using them, but they cannot exactly describe the way these work because it involves a substance which is almost conscious and it works for some and not for others. This is the same problem that many psychics and healers have when demostrating rather nebulous things to lab scientists. The action of being a sceptic seems to inhibit the result - rather like an energy particle has been found to have different properties depending on whether it is observed or not.

There will never be definitive proof for things which are unpopular with the authorities and as with all these things, profit is king. There is no money in investigating weird and unusual things so noone will finance it.

Incedentally, why does it matter if we dont have proof? It is only to satisfy those who shout "Proof, we want proof". There are wise people who keep their own counsel and those who look to others (scientists, governments) to tell them what to believe. There always will be.

I say we dont need to have proof of chem trails, or orgone, or ghosts, or any of it. You either "know" these things inside or you dont. I just keep most of what I have experienced safely locked away and let others get on with the world they live in because I dont live in their world, and they dont live in mine.

Show me proof of someone running a car off of ZPE, That I would like to see.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I've been receiving acupuncture treatments for a few years now so I thought I would comment. The needles, while not causing a level of pain so as to be physically felt (yes sometimes you do feel them) do cause stimulation of the nerve endings which leads to the release of endorphins.

It is also a well known fact that pain in one place can distract us from pain in another. A prime example of this is a swimmer getting a muscle cramp while in deep water. It is a commonly practiced tactic to bite one's tongue in this circumstance as the pain from the tongue bite will "override" the cramp pain and save the swimmer from drowning in the process.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by adeclerk
Acupuncture works by the needles causing pain that prompts the body to respond by releasing endorphins, which incidentally relieve pain.

Oh no You di'n't! If acupuncture worked as You say, heck, to stop the pain We could just poke Ourselves with needles when we break a leg...wait...that's pain, breaking a leg, and We wouldn't need needles because the body will produce the endorphins. Right?

I'm guessing You have never had acupuncture. The needles, surprisingly, DON'T hurt. You might want to steer clear of commenting on something You know nothing of.

edit on 6/3/2011 by Amaterasu because: clarification

I was a little inaccurate in my wording, but here is how it works:

The modern scientific explanation is that needling the acupuncture points stimulates the nervous system to release chemicals in the muscles, spinal cord, and brain. These chemicals will either change the experience of pain, or they will trigger the release of other chemicals and hormones which influence the body's own internal regulating system.

If I were you I wouldn't make daft claims of life energy when theres no evidence to support that it exists.

self delete my bad

reply to post by adeclerk


Good job guy, from page 1 all the way to page 14 you've manage to bash this thread and everyone in it, people like you are the ones who ruin this site. If you cant prove Orgone doesn't exist dont spend hours trolling people that believe in it, it just makes you look like a narrow minded fool.

reply to post by Nobama


No one can prove a negative. If you make the claim that something is real it is up to you to support that claim. One cannot say "this is how it is and if you think I'm wrong prove it" without giving the impression that they are unfamiliar with the fundamental concepts of science, debate, and logic.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


OP created a thread to spark discussion on the subject he posted about, but when you have people like adeclerk who spend their time attacking everyone who posts instead of providing info in a helpful manner, it destroys this site.

reply to post by adeclerk


You cant say this is how acupuncture works when no testing of any of the 15 theories on how acupuncture works have shown any clear results. I love how you present your material as a fact after being wrong about it in the first place just so that you can be wrong about it yet again. www.acupropress.com... You come across as someone that needs to spend less time researching others presentation's of information and start spending more time researching your own. Kinda like when you claimed that silver iodide isn't a chemical and that it's a metal. I didn't bother correcting you at the time but I will now, www.chembase.com...
Funny how you don't bother to learn about things before you form an opinion of what they are and what they are not ?
Isn't it ?

Originally posted by EyeDontKnow
So when I compare one-to-the-other, (contrails, to chemtrails)...the contrails clearly seem the most reasonable

No one is asking you to pick one or the other. No one is saying every single contrail in the history of mankind, has all been chemtrails. So reducing your "reasoning" to this level makes no sense.

BTW...I do believe the scientific explanation of a phenomenon. Science can also be used to "discount" a phenomenon, or eliminate it from serious consideration.. In fact science can be used to discount prior scienctific belief. Although not perfect, science strives to be self-checking.

Right, this is generally called proving a negative. How is it been proven, or what evidence is there at all, that chemtrails don't exist? A lack of evidence is not the same as evidence to the contrary. That is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Originally posted by bsbray11
A lack of evidence is not the same as evidence to the contrary.

It is for unicorns, so explain why it is not for chemtrails?

Originally posted by SirCoxone
You seem to have a basic error here on how this works.

Of course, and it will constantly "seem" this way to you as long as you refuse to be critical of your own faith.

When Jupiter was discovered, someone found some evidence to suggest it was there

What are you talking about? Jupiter is visible with the naked eye.

Ancient cultures knew it existed hundreds of years before telescopes or physics were even developed.

Of course science doesn't know everything and of course it never will but the scientific method is you start from a premise that something is not true, until you provide enough evidence to refute that hypothesis. This is how all theory is made.

That is not how science works. Otherwise you would be claiming that a lack of evidence is positive evidence to the contrary, which is blatantly argument from ignorance. That's the same as saying Pluto didn't exist according to science until we first had evidence of it. This is complete garbage reasoning and an abuse of the word "science." Real science does not make assumptions in the lack of data.

Making assumptions in the lack of data is faith. It's the whole reason science was created in the first place.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
A lack of evidence is not the same as evidence to the contrary.

It is for unicorns, so explain why it is not for chemtrails?

Actually the same logic applies to unicorns as everything else. There is simply no evidence that unicorns exist.

You will never learn that mockery and ridicule are not logical arguments.

Originally posted by bsbray11
That is not how science works. Otherwise you would be claiming that a lack of evidence is positive evidence to the contrary, which is blatantly argument from ignorance.

Really? So why am I paying my termite inspector to tell me there's no termites. He didn't find any evidence of termites. I should demand my money back!

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
A lack of evidence is not the same as evidence to the contrary.

It is for unicorns, so explain why it is not for chemtrails?

Actually the same logic applies to unicorns as everything else. There is simply no evidence that unicorns exist.

Like there's no evidence chemtrails exist?