|
 sloantbone
Stranger from the Cosmos
 
Registered: 02/15/11
Posts: 423
Loc: Canada 
|
 The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails  1
#15695761 - 01/20/12 11:12 PM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Edited by sloantbone (01/21/12 09:04 AM)
|
 Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/23/03
Posts: 13,387
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill 
Last seen: 6 minutes, 40 seconds
|
Re: The Conspiracy of None Believers in Chemtrails [Re: sloantbone] 7
#15695979 - 01/21/12 12:42 AM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Man,
You bring me a report of an air sample. Then do YOUR OWN. Then show me ten others. It will not cost much or take long.
And you will have yourself a firm believer.
Also, yet another WINTER chemtrail thread...
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/23/03
Posts: 13,387
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill
Last seen: 6 minutes, 40 seconds
|
Re: The Conspiracy of None Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Cervantes]
#15695986 - 01/21/12 12:46 AM (4 months, 6 days ago) |
|
|
Also, there is a typo in your thread title.
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
Batty Koda
Stranger
Registered: 08/16/09
Posts: 113
Loc: england, yorkshire 
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: sloantbone]
#15719866 - 01/26/12 07:06 AM (4 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
I've noticed this too, it's a massive  on their behalf. They seem to believe that a shady circle of elite scientists, filmakers and seemingly normal people who walk among us meet together somewhere in secret and plot how to fool people into thinking the military sprays chemicals in the sky. If you have an elemetary grasp of Occam's razor you can debunk this straight away, if they were really lying about chemtrails then why wouldn't somebody come out and say so? There must be thousands of people involved and it would be a massive story if it turned out to be fake.
I think the deniers have psychological problems probably related to lack of attention from their parents at a young age, I read an amatuer psychology book once that said this happens sometimes and there was an article in the a major paper by a journalist who backed this up. They seek comfort in the though that they understand exactly how the world operates because they believe in a completely honest media that puts truth and knowledge before profit and vested interests.
It pretty LOL really! but also sad...
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
Watch out for those crazy filmakers cervantes, I can hear them coming for you in the black helicopters right now! Lol.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,298
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: sloantbone]
#15720154 - 01/26/12 09:10 AM (4 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out...
[citation needed]
I've not heard any expert give this claim any serious consideration, let alone anything near the magnitude you suggest, probably because there's apparently no evidence to support the vague claims made.
What are the videos supposed to demonstrate that would make it unreasonable to not believe or suspect chemtrails are a legitimate phenomenon? (if you aren't going to back this claim up, please don't start with the equivocations and misdirection tactics)
=I like how a poster has allready started with the straw man ad hominems- suggesting that those who don't believe in chemtrials believe they understand the phenomena, believe the media, and so forth. Why is it these threads always use fallacious arguments and don't present evidence for chemtrails on their own merits?
|
Batty Koda
Stranger
Registered: 08/16/09
Posts: 113
Loc: england, yorkshire
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: johnm214]
#15720268 - 01/26/12 09:38 AM (4 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
=I like how a poster has allready started with the straw man ad hominems- suggesting that those who don't believe in chemtrials believe they understand the phenomena, believe the media, and so forth. Why is it these threads always use fallacious arguments and don't present evidence for chemtrails on their own merits?
Am I part of the conspiracy?
|
 Luueschen
bananadine
Registered: 07/11/11
Posts: 328
Loc: Southern CA
Last seen: 15 hours, 23 minutes
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Batty Koda]
#15721042 - 01/26/12 01:43 PM (4 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exits” — J. Edgar Hoover
|
DieCommie
El Guapo
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 22,841
Loc: Street of Dreams
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Luueschen]
#15721045 - 01/26/12 01:45 PM (4 months, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Its so crazy it must be right than huh?
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,735
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: sloantbone]
#15722528 - 01/26/12 07:20 PM (4 months, 18 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sloantbone said:
One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out and reporting the Governments are spraying chemicals over civil populations
where's the reports of the air samples, no one can be an expert without them,
even the fuys flying in the plane behind the jet couldnt be bothered to get
an air sample. why he fuck not, wouldnt that prove beyond a reasonable doubt
the claims being made
--------------------
|
Batty Koda
Stranger
Registered: 08/16/09
Posts: 113
Loc: england, yorkshire
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Prisoner#1]
#15723911 - 01/27/12 05:19 AM (4 months, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
sloantbone said:
One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out and reporting the Governments are spraying chemicals over civil populations
where's the reports of the air samples, no one can be an expert without them,
even the fuys flying in the plane behind the jet couldnt be bothered to get
an air sample. why he fuck not, wouldnt that prove beyond a reasonable doubt
the claims being made
You are exhibiting some key traits of the conspiracy theorist. Let me point them out for you.
1. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
The "phrase beyond reasonable doubt" crops up incessantly within the chemtrail fringe. It really hurts whatever argument you have.
8. Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "unofficial" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "unofficial" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
And finally.
7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
You must know that opening a plane door to collect a sample would be a little silly so why suggest it? Don't try and wriggle out of this or you'll be employing NO. 7
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,735
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Batty Koda] 1
#15724446 - 01/27/12 09:28 AM (4 months, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Batty Koda said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
sloantbone said:
One would think that with hundreds of thousands of videos and experts coming out and reporting the Governments are spraying chemicals over civil populations
where's the reports of the air samples, no one can be an expert without them,
even the fuys flying in the plane behind the jet couldnt be bothered to get
an air sample. why he fuck not, wouldnt that prove beyond a reasonable doubt
the claims being made
You are exhibiting some key traits of the conspiracy theorist. Let me point them out for you.
so what you're saying is that with the millions of people that believe,
some obviously capable of obtaining the use of aircraft that no one has
bothered to test these so called chem trails out side of water collected
from a potato salad bowl that was left on a picnic table in lester
greenfields back yard since the 4th of july cookout in 1997
what I'm asking is "where is the analysis of the contents of these chem
trails taken directly from the streams?" it's actually easy to answer with:
"I dont know" -there are none
"There are none" -there are none
"They are inconclusive" -means there's nothing there but jet exhaust
"I cant be bothered to show you everything, should I hold you're pen0r
while you pee" -meaning there are none
"I prefer to take it on faith because it's on the internet so it must be
true unless you're a denier in which case it's gotta be false and you're
an NWO shill trying to destry mankind so you can be rich" -there are none
--------------------
|
Cervantes
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/23/03
Posts: 13,387
Loc: Dark Side of the Windmill
Last seen: 6 minutes, 40 seconds
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Batty Koda]
#15726342 - 01/27/12 05:22 PM (3 months, 30 days ago) |
|
|
This theory is EASILY proved.
Get an air sample or ten. Then repeat.
In this case, the lack of proof is very telling.
It isn't like y'all have to fly to the moon to prove it!
--------------------
I know you think you understand the words I have just said to you but, what you fail to realize is, what you thought I said is not what I actually meant by saying what I said, when I said it.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 16,174
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Cervantes]
#15727954 - 01/28/12 01:10 AM (3 months, 30 days ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure if I should be posting here, but I have kinda fallen out of the loop, so here goes: tonight's periodical meeting of the Chemtrail Obfuscation Committee, is that still on or can I tell my gf we can go to the movies? I figured that if I posted this here, it would be read by those for whom it's relevant.
If you have no idea what the above is about: don't worry about it. Just carry on.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 14,298
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Batty Koda]
#15728694 - 01/28/12 09:04 AM (3 months, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Batty Koda said:
You are exhibiting some key traits of the conspiracy theorist. Let me point them out for you.
What is the relevance of this? This seems to be nothing but personal commentary of no relevance to the issue being discussed.
Quote:
You must know that opening a plane door to collect a sample would be a little silly so why suggest it? Don't try and wriggle out of this or you'll be employing NO. 7
So what? If we accept that this is true, it has no relevance, since you've failed to tie this methodology to anything suggested by Prisoner. There are any number of methods one could use to measure the contents of a volume of space and compare that to controls- I don't see any reason you'd need to be at altitutde at all. If you did wish to go to altitude, there are any number of mechanisms you could use to sample the atmosphere at a particular place, and there's no reason a plane nor a door would need to be used.
This is all irrelevant. Its the burden of the one putting forth the claim to demonstrate it, and no positive evidence other than antecdotal conclusions (not even clear factual testimony showing why the conclusion was formed) has been put forth. It is not Prisoner's, or anyone else's, burden to suggest ways such a claim might be proven if it were true.
|
Whiteydr
Interrobang
Registered: 11/25/09
Posts: 314
Loc: Wisconsin, USA
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: johnm214]
#15731677 - 01/28/12 09:57 PM (3 months, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Isn't there enough proof in the visual trails that some planes leave behind? From what I understand, there is a clear difference between a chemtrail and a contrail. Even though simply seeing a trail in the sky would not provide information on what its contents are, an abnormally long trail should provoke some curiosity in a mind not yet zionistically indoctrinated.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 16,174
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Whiteydr]
#15732421 - 01/29/12 03:36 AM (3 months, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Whiteydr said:
Isn't there enough proof in the visual trails that some planes leave behind?
No.
Quote:
From what I understand, there is a clear difference between a chemtrail and a contrail.
Your understanding is flawed and incomplete.
Quote:
Even though simply seeing a trail in the sky would not provide information on what its contents are, an abnormally long trail should provoke some curiosity in a mind not yet zionistically indoctrinated.
Certainly. Read up on meteorology. It's perfectly normal that contrails can sometimes be persistent.
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!
Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 152,735
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: johnm214]
#15732895 - 01/29/12 08:39 AM (3 months, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Whiteydr said:
Isn't there enough proof in the visual trails that some planes leave behind? From what I understand, there is a clear difference between a chemtrail and a contrail.
that difference isnt clear until an analysis is done, just because some
people in the internet tell you the lingering trails are chem trails
doesnt make it a fact and not one of these people have offered up any
evidence other than empty claims or claims of proof that are twisted to
provide their evidence such as soil samples claiming to be high in
aluminum and beryllium in some regions without providing the data from
prior to the alleged spraying starting, no data on the actual levels they
claim to be unusually high or giving people information such as some areas
naturally contain higher levels of some elements and minerals than others
Quote:
johnm214 said:
So what? If we accept that this is true, it has no relevance, since you've failed to tie this methodology to anything suggested by Prisoner. There are any number of methods one could use to measure the contents of a volume of space and compare that to controls- I don't see any reason you'd need to be at altitutde at all.
for starters, being at altitude would place you in the vicinity of these
so called chem trials as opposed to at ground level where anything could
contaminate your sample even further. if I want evidence that XYZ company
is dumping arsenic into some river wouldnt it make more sense to take my
sample withing a few miles of XYZ company as opposed to 300 miles down
stream where a hundred other companies have discharge pipes dumping a host
of other things into the river. wouldnt it be possible that the bulk of
the arsenic would settle out before the location where I took my sample
it's no different than with chemtrails, to take a sample on the ground at
the very least it would be so diluted that nothing would be found if doing
it directly under the location. these trails could drift for hundreds of
miles before anything began to fall and depending on wind patterns you
might have the materials spreading over thousands of miles in which you'd
never get a valid sample. the best way to collect would be to get a
sampler into the stream or at least in the areas below
--------------------
|
hidenseek
loafter
Registered: 06/10/09
Posts: 4,173
Loc: Etoba-mi-coke
Last seen: 2 days, 3 hours
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Prisoner#1]
#15732919 - 01/29/12 08:50 AM (3 months, 29 days ago) |
|
|
anyone think that the chemtrails(jet exhaust)scare
could just be lingering fear from the agent orange shit in the 70's?
edit: iif your worried about aluminum maybe you should stop drinking cans of pop, notice the difference in taste between cans and bottles?
Edited by hidenseek (01/29/12 08:52 AM)
|
Whiteydr
Interrobang
Registered: 11/25/09
Posts: 314
Loc: Wisconsin, USA
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Prisoner#1]
#15733836 - 01/29/12 01:02 PM (3 months, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
that difference isnt clear until an analysis is done
See, this is what I'm talking about. Why must a chemical analysis be done when the most telling evidence is clearly in view. I've watched these trails for hours. They linger and dissipate over long periods of time. I understand the properties of exhaust and water vapor, and I see it is clearly neither of those. That's evidence enough for me to understand that SOMETHING is causing these trails. That something's contents cannot be proven to me, since I don't own a machine to analyze its contents. To me, the fact that these trails simply exist is more relevant to the chemtrail conspiracy than its actual contents (to me anyway). Some people need more data to make any sort of conclusion. I don't know how these people can function in society. It'd be like being greeted by a stranger and asking for a DNA sample so they can conclude that this stranger is real before returning a greeting.
|
koraks
Registered: 06/02/03
Posts: 16,174
|
Re: The Conspiracy of Non Believers in Chemtrails [Re: Whiteydr]
#15733907 - 01/29/12 01:19 PM (3 months, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Whiteydr said:
I understand the properties of exhaust and water vapor, and I see it is clearly neither of those.
Again, your understanding is incomplete. Clouds of small water droplets can be very persistent if the conditions are right. And that happens a lot. I don't see anything suspicious in that. Clouds can be persistent too, can't they? So why would you believe that vapor trails are suspect, while completely natural clouds are persistent in exactly the same fashion? Or are all clouds suspect and should we fear a conspiracy of weather gods who are trying to control humanity by hovering clouds over our heads?
Quote:
Some people need more data to make any sort of conclusion. I don't know how these people can function in society.
They don't jump to conclusions based on hearsay and unconfirmed suspicions, and therefore usually function pretty well in society. They are also less susceptible to ridicule by people who _do_ know what they are talking about.
Perhaps it sounds paradoxical to you, but the problem with people who believe in chemtrails are too close-minded to get a good grip on what's really going on. I have to grant to them that they exhibit very flexible minds that allow them to believe things that go against all credible knowledge and evidence.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
sight?
