In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

I've been to the westcoast in the USA in 2008 and 2009, but didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. What did I miss?

I really do not have time for this at the moment, but THIS response is such total denial and such a blatant lie I cannot wait:

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
It is entirely your fault that you are trying to broaden the meaning of the term "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" to include pollution and environmental concerns and even quoting yourself as a source to back yourself up. You demonstrated nothing. The articles you link to don't even mention chemtrails at all. The link is only that YOU say they are talking about chemtrails. Unfortunately for you, they aren't. I can only guess that this is a concerted effort on your part to leverage some credibility into the chemtrail conspiracy, as it has none by itself.

--Wow. The disinformation rhetoric is working beyond capacity above.

I clearly distinguish at the thread In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality that this is exactly what Wikipedia says:

Believers in the [chemtrail] conspiracy theory speculate that the purpose of the claimed chemical release may be for solar radiation management , psychological manipulation, human population control, weather modification, or biological or chemical warfare, and that the trails are causing respiratory illnesses and other health problems.

I then PARAPHRASED this quote with the following claim, which I also said ABOVE:

Consider the diversity of the claims all being lumped into "chemtrail conspiracy theory" and you see everything from mind control to respiratory illness. The people accused of being unscientific and unreasonable if not flat out delusional include the people who claim that the EPA needs to regulate air traffic for reasons that include jet engine exhaust and contrail formation.

So, now that this info is clear of misrepresentation, it is not MY doing at all (i.e., despite your desperate accusation of "entirely your fault that you are trying to broaden the meaning of the term"). At In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 2. Social Reality I presented info from Wikipedia as well as The Washington Post as CONCRETE EVIDENCE that chemtrailers are publicly being distinguished to include people who are concerned that contrails are a source of pollution causing respiratory and other health issues.

You know it's one thing to misunderstand, disagree, etc., but it's entirely something else to intentionally misrepresent what someone says and lie.

originally posted by: waynos
So you find it a logical fallacy to say that something that looks and behaves and was created exactly like a contrail is probably just a contrail?

--Indeed I do, but there are more details than this. The logical fallacy comes in two common forms, both are non-sequitur arguments, and they have been covered in the appropriate thread RIGHT HERE.

a reply to: Petros312

How on earth can you accuse me of lying? You linked a Washington Post article that you held up as a mainstream article that is talking about chemtrails, WHEN IT DOESN'T. As an example of chemtrail conspiracy theory, WHEN IT ISN'T. That is a lie. Stating that chemtrail conspiracy is about concerns with pollution and air quality and the like is just one of myriad examples of chemmies constantly moving the goalposts because their pet conspiracy theory sucks. Many people have harboured genuine environmental concerns for decades and by your reckoning this makes them chemtrail conspiracy theorists. This simply doesn't work as I have these same concerns myself but, at the same time, know that chemtrails are only believed by people who don't know any better. If your case was sound, why are chemtrail conspiracy theorists only concerned with white lines in the sky from planes? THERE is your lie.

Your attempt at character assassination in place of debate is transparent and cowardly and does you no favours. You are responsible for the choices you make. Shame on you.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
How on earth can you accuse me of lying?

--In this manner as previously explained, which you are in complete denial about:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
You linked a Washington Post article...

--Ah not so fast there. You see, you're already indicating that you made a serious error because above you glossed over your previous accusation. You questioned the info I paraphrased about chemtrail conspiracy theorists from Wikipedia saying:

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
You demonstrated nothing. The articles you link to don't even mention chemtrails at all. The link is only that YOU say they are talking about chemtrails. Unfortunately for you, they aren't.

--But indeed both Wikipedia and The Washington Post articles indeed focus on chemtrail conspiracy theory, and the fact is that I QUOTED wikipedia HERE Hence, when you say above:

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
The link is only that YOU say they are talking about chemtrails. Unfortunately for you, they aren't.

--It's a blatant lie. You know it, and you're spinning the disinformation like mad to defend yourself. So, strike ONE with your deliberate untruth, but let's continue on with your folly of words:

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
You linked a Washington Post article that you held up as a mainstream article that is talking about chemtrails, WHEN IT DOESN'T. As an example of chemtrail conspiracy theory, WHEN IT ISN'T. that you held up as a mainstream article that is talking about chemtrails, WHEN IT DOESN'T. As an example of chemtrail conspiracy theory, WHEN IT ISN'T. That is a lie.

--A newspaper (as well as Wikipedia) IS a mainstream source of information, and because of this it's also used as a tool to manufacture social reality. At In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory: Part 2. Social Reality any non-biased person can see I clearly provided evidence that 2 popular sources widely read by the public are stating that chemtrail conspiracy theorists include people concerned about an association between jet activity, contrails, pollution, and geoengineering. So, strike TWO on the lies.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312Stating that chemtrail conspiracy is about concerns with pollution and air quality and the like is just one of myriad examples of chemmies constantly moving the goalposts because their pet conspiracy theory sucks.

--My observations are that the people swiftly labelled as "chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are those concerned about jet activity, jet exhaust, contrails, persistent contrails, soot and particulate matter, the history of open air testing in the USA, solar radiation management, and the proposed experiments for geoengineering. These are all examples of (potential in the case of geoengineering) that contribute to air pollution. There is no "pet" chemtrail conspiracy theory except for the one that YOU keep trying to enforce for the sake of a) placing faceless individuals into the same box of freaks, and b) stigmatizing anyone who could in some way be labelled a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist." Despite you're denial, the Wikipedia info tells the public this group that wants to know what is happening in the sky is one that actually voices a wide diversity of concerns.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Many people have harboured genuine environmental concerns for decades and by your reckoning this makes them chemtrail conspiracy theorists. This simply doesn't work as I have these same concerns myself but, at the same time, know that chemtrails are only believed by people who don't know any better. If your case was sound, why are chemtrail conspiracy theorists only concerned with white lines in the sky from planes? THERE is your lie.

--The focus is not simply on "chemtrails," as you reductionistically state. Watch the Shade video. Look at the video in which Rosalind Peterson speaks to the UN . She's not simply talking about the condensation trails left behind by jet activity. She's talking about much more. Are you going to tell me that Rosalind Peterson has not been labelled a "chemtrail conspiracy theorist" by you debunkers? Come on! Your reductionism serves the purpose of trying to make sure nobody questions how chemtrail conspiracy theory has supposedly all been "debunked." Your narrow-minded understanding of the issue is only self-serving at this point.

originally posted by: waynos
a reply to: Petros312
Your attempt at character assassination in place of debate is transparent and cowardly and does you no favours.

--Debate with people who resort to lies is futile. And regarding "character assassination," if YOU want to overgeneralize about your whole character because someone easily demonstrated how you lied, that's your issue not mine. But you are at two strikes with the lies, so I'd be careful at this point.

a reply to: Petros312

You do understand that posting links to your other threads doesn't make what you say any more the truth than the thread did in the first place, but it is fun watching you do it.

a reply to: Petros312

Look at the video in which Rosalind Peterson speaks to the UN .

And look at what she says here...



See how that works?

a reply to: Petros312

--Debate with people who resort to lies is futile.

Yes,

not sure why so many reply to you and try helping you see with open eyes instead of seeing with your eyes shut.


I just got a weekly bonus far that disinfo, woohoo I get live it this weekend

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312

You do understand that posting links to your other threads doesn't make what you say any more the truth than the thread did in the first place, but it is fun watching you do it.

--Complete Garbage.

I posted to my other thread, which clearly links to Wikipedia and The Washington Post.

What is the point of this garbage if not for sheer thread sabotage? You're only making it more clear why it's a waste of time to attempt any real discussion with you professional debunkers.

originally posted by: Petros312

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312

You do understand that posting links to your other threads doesn't make what you say any more the truth than the thread did in the first place, but it is fun watching you do it.

--Complete Garbage.

I posted to my other thread, which clearly links to Wikipedia and The Washington Post.

What is the point of this garbage if not for sheer thread sabotage? You're only making it more clear why it's a waste of time to attempt any real discussion with you professional debunkers.

Perhaps we could discuss science instead of nonsense then. You stopped using science long ago.

Could you at least refer to yourself in the third person to make this more interesting.

originally posted by: anton74
a reply to: Petros312
... You stopped using science long ago.

--Within the context of THIS thread, the above is a statement made by someone who objects to my questioning the use of the question "Where's the evidence for that" as nothing but rhetoric for the sake of winning some kind of debunking contest:

originally posted by: Petros312
1. Where's the Evidence for that?
It is a valuable tool of rhetoric when engaged in a debate to always resort to the question, "Where's the evidence for that," after your opponent makes a statement. The problem with this is that empirical evidence of a scientific type (directly or indirectly observable) is not always possible or practical for someone to attain. Debunkers know this and often use it to their advantage. However, this is not to say that certain evidence derived from research using the scientific method has no place in trying to uncover the truth. The questions are: What specific evidence is RELEVANT? What SOURCE is this scientific research from? Is the evidence CONCLUSIVE or is it only NON-REPLICATED research with no real consensus over the matter? Are there LIMITATIONS in interpreting certain data when used as evidence for something? The above questions are often ignored by individuals who see themselves as champions of the scientific method, and they place unrealistic and heavy demands on others to ignore the above questions and appraise the scientific method to the extent that they can ask, "Where's the evidence for that," whenever it becomes most advantageous for winning an argument.

--Within the context of THIS thread, the first quote above accusing me of being unscientific is a statement made by someone who objects to my questioning the limitations of the scientific method in being able to gather conclusive evidence over what is happening in the sky:

originally posted by: Petros312
4. The Limitations of the Scientific Method
When someone with respiratory illness has a test done indicating a certain level of barium is present and suspected of being unusually high, then they are retested when symptoms abate and barium levels have gone down, this is not exactly proof of a cause and effect relationship. However, the barium level can still be a marker of someone who was exposed to an airborne source of barium as particulate matter, and the level that the blood contains is not what causes cellular damage to a person's respiratory system, such as the tiny alveoli of the lungs. Debunkers believe that as long as there is some way to discredit these reports then we shouldn't suspect that something in the air is causing these phenomenon. The limitations of the scientific method, i.e., not being able to isolate a factor that can come from multiple sources, works to their advantage. They over-confidently tell people we should not only forget about any cause and effect relationship; we should also forget about the correlation that exists between a) increased respiratory illnesses, b) increased levels of aluminium, barium, strontium, or sulphur type chemicals found in the soil or water, and c) the chemical elements being proposed for geoengineering experiments. No matter how much comfort you derive from their analysis, we cannot logically conclude there is no threat to the public or the environment without a) resorting to logical fallacies, and b) ignoring the limitations of the scientific approach.

--The first quote above is a statement I suspect is being made by someone who believes the only scientific method is the one being encouraged by the New Atheists:

originally posted by: Petros312
2. The Science of New Atheists
Despite sufficient evidence to conclude so, the basic message to ATSers from chemtrail "debunkers" appears to be that anything chemtrail believers posit may be happening in the sky is impossible to be happening, and it becomes a circular argument among debunkers: It's not happening because there's no evidence for it, and if there's no evidence for it then it's not happening. That's the same reasoning as the new atheists. Their influence is all over the Internet, and whether you believe in God or not this approach is not a good thing. It disarms people, and nobody is allowed to have an open mind unless they want to risk being called "delusional." The truth can no longer be tentative. We must come to immediate firm conclusions when direct evidence is absent. The absence of directly observable evidence becomes grounds for condemnation of both people who are concerned about so-called chemtrails as well as those who believe in God. The new atheists do not simply believe knowledge is power, which can become corrupting enough. They act as if having knowledge makes you a God. Hence, they are not simply disseminating scientific knowledge, nor are they always putting the scientific method to good use. They are spreading scientism.

--and within the context of THIS thread (at page 20) it's a statement reinforcing the notion that we should all be coming to firm conclusions that all is simply "normal" about jet activity in a sky with ever increasing amounts of persistent contrails and human-made clouds.

All within the context of debunking "thugs" sabotaging this thread and resorting to lies and misrepresentation of what I actually wrote in this and other related threads.

And yet, you have the nerve to say:

originally posted by: anton74
Perhaps we could discuss science instead of nonsense then.

Why do I even waste my time here?

I will, however, remind everyone that there's a difference between discussing chemtrail conspiracy THEORY vs. speaking about the people who are labelled chemtrail conspiracy THEORISTS. Take a look at the title of the thread topic and you'll see which one I am primarily focusing on.

I gotta say Petros....you are talking/typing/pasting a LOT and not really providing or saying anything of any real substance. I know im not either, but i haven't started 5 HUGE threads.

You guys need to start being civil with each other.

Now.

Drop the childish pot shots and have a discussion.

If you can't do that, don't post.

a reply to: Petros312

I will, however, remind everyone that there's a difference between discussing chemtrail conspiracy THEORY vs. speaking about the people who are labelled chemtrail conspiracy THEORISTS.

Kind of like the difference between discussing "chemtrail" conspiracy DEBUNKING vs speaking about the people who are labeled "chemtrail" conspiracy DEBUNKERS, creating a "Social reality" that stigmatizes DEBUNKERS?

How about discussing information rather than posters?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Petros312
How about discussing information rather than posters?

Every one of the following threads contains information:

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

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

n Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 3. Experiments in the Sky

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 4. Matters of "National Security"

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 5. The Dreaded Burden of Evidence

In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists: Part 6. Contrail vs Chemtrail

--albeit, it's not the information that professional debunkers want to know anything about. Instead, their goal is to sabotage the person who is finding the flaws in their conclusions that all is "normal" in the sky. How about addressing the actual thread topics in all of the above...I mean rather than sabotaging threads with nothing but:

a) the same "debunking" approaches that use bad science and confirmation bias
b) the same attempts to continue stigmatizing anyone who is suspected of being a chemtrail conspiracy theorist (and even an apologist for them)
c) ignoring the evidence that open air testing is a reality to this day and the implications of which mean you have no clue when and where experiments will occur
d) demanding the kind of air sample evidence that debunkers have the same burden of evidence to provide
e) refusal to believe that a contrail can indeed be considered a type of "chemtrail" that even has harmful effects.

Above, I'm accused of grandstanding, having a previous user account; my information is misrepresented by lies...and I'm NOT supposed to point this out? You have got to be kidding me.

a reply to: Petros312

How about addressing the actual thread topics in all of the above...I mean rather than sabotaging threads with nothing but:

Are you accusing me of "A" through "E" in the list or just some, or none?

ETA:

albeit, it's not the information that professional debunkers want to know anything about.

Who the # are you calling "Professional debunkers"? Grow the # up and discuss the topic.

I'll just quickly reply to the following points:

d) demanding the kind of air sample evidence that debunkers have the same burden of evidence to provide
e) refusal to believe that a contrail can indeed be considered a type of "chemtrail" that even has harmful effects.

D: To prove what? If your claim is that a contrail is something other than what the name implies, YOU'RE the one who needs to provide evidence for that. Shouldn't be too hard to understand.

E: No, A Contrail is a condensation trail, and contains mainly H2O. If you're talking about pollution caused by burning kerosine, then that pollution is there whether there's a visible contrail or not. To call such a contrail a 'chemtrail' is just moving the goalposts so you can still use the term 'chemtrail' despite there being a lack of evidence for chemtrails, a chemtrail being a trail of chemicals other than those one should expect from a contrail.

a reply to: payt69

Not only that but there ARE samples of contrails that have been done...but I'm not going to give you an easy out by linking to them - do your own research!!

a reply to: Petros312

--Complete Garbage.

Yes the evidence you think backs your claim is exactly that.

What is the point of this garbage if not for sheer thread sabotage? You're only making it more clear why it's a waste of time to attempt any real discussion with you professional debunkers.

So unless someone agrees with you you refuse to debate with them and find it easier to call them liars...why is that not surprising.

Thread sabotage you say...so anyone who has differing views than you are sabotaging your thread, do you see what your saying?

Professional debunker would mean I get paid to do so, but since I don't I am the non professional debunker...sorry to burst your bubble there.