Chemtrails, Trolls, and Deer Poop.

reply to post by Stewie


congratulations, still halfway, but it looks like you've got the whole alphabet here and even from other languages and the odd ideogram


am signing on to frater210's silence till September 1st
don't feed the controllers!




reply to post by weedwhacker


you sir, continue to presume upon my level of education
and/or my "beliefs" [without a shred of evidence to bolster your claims, as your not examining my posting history shows]
so i won't bother
for now

see you sep 1 when i post the Contrails do not exist thread

signing off

reply to post by muzzleflash


Baloney...

It blew their cover....

No.....this member (the author of this OP) has been in the trenches, before.....shown the reality, the science, the facts....has been educated for many months on his mistaken stance, the ignorant beliefs. So, seeing yet another iteration of more nonsense?? Resulted in reaction.

Oh, and the analogies are silly, too....and, not even logically connected to what is trying to be asserted.

This is being covered up by the Air Force specifically.

Oh, how quaint. Of course, why not? Assertion, no proof, no source, no nothing.

Sure.....take your word for it.....

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Here is where the disinfo agents fouled up, they took "too strong" of a stance against the topic. It blew their cover, now everyone knows it must be true since the full time disinfo brigade is here to lie about it constantly and scream at the top of their lungs "Your WRONG!" a million times.

well if wrong crap gets punted up a million times then "You're WRONG" a million times actually IS an appropriate response.

This is being covered up by the Air Force specifically. In case any of you wanted to know who is behind this.

Oh gosh - well thanks for that - er........got any actual evidence to support that? You must have made that statement for a reason, so why not share it with us??

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

you sir, continue to presume upon my level of education and/or my "beliefs" [without a shred of evidence to bolster your claims, as your not examining my posting history shows]

I think that is pretty standard operating procedure for this group. Earlier in the thread TSurfer accused me of having a history of not watching the videos that I have posted, eventually using some short video as "proof" because what the video showed was "contrails" (how that proves I don't watch the videos I post I'm not sure). But it's derision and dismissal all the way.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
see you sep 1 when i post the Contrails do not exist thread

What are you hiding until Sept 1??

Why are you part of the cover up??

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Good points.

A B and C have no credibility.

I agree with the OP.

Here is where the disinfo agents fouled up, they took "too strong" of a stance against the topic. It blew their cover, now everyone knows it must be true since the full time disinfo brigade is here to lie about it constantly and scream at the top of their lungs "Your WRONG!" a million times.

This is being covered up by the Air Force specifically. In case any of you wanted to know who is behind this.

Another unsubstantiated claim. How do you know it is the Air Force? Where can I contact them about this job? I need a job, and getting paid to debunk this 'chemtrail' nonsense would be a blast.

I guess if someone disagrees with you and has evidence, your faith gets threatened and you cry disinfo.

reply to post by adeclerk

I guess if someone disagrees with you and has evidence, your faith gets threatened and you cry disinfo.

See, that's just it. I've seen very little in the way of evidence from the debunkers. I've seen ridicule, derisiveness, blanket statements, and "I'm an expert and you don't know what you are talking about" tactics. I've seen semantic tricks and twisting other people's words, but evidence? Rarely. That is why people call disinfo, not because they feel threatened but because those are all disinfo tactics. I'm open minded, but I have yet to see "evidence" that ALL chemtrails are contrails, just a lot of verbal acrobatics.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by adeclerk

 

I guess if someone disagrees with you and has evidence, your faith gets threatened and you cry disinfo.

See, that's just it. I've seen very little in the way of evidence from the debunkers. I've seen ridicule, derisiveness, blanket statements, and "I'm an expert and you don't know what you are talking about" tactics. I've seen semantic tricks and twisting other people's words, but evidence? Rarely. That is why people call disinfo, not because they feel threatened but because those are all disinfo tactics. I'm open minded, but I have yet to see "evidence" that ALL chemtrails are contrails, just a lot of verbal acrobatics.

edit on 30-5-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)

There has been so much evidence, but its gets disregarded. The Chemtrailers not only offer up ZERO evidence, but ignore actual science, facts and data that contradict their faith in being sprayed.

Its the chemtrailers who are making the claim of a vast secret spray program, and can only support it by such outlandish statements such as contrails not persisting before X date, which seems to be different based on the persons memory, or that a claim that contrails should not cross, or that aluminum and barium are not natural and should not be found anywhere.

What evidence have you seen them give? Or do you have a seperate standard for them? Are you also ignoring the constant refrain from the chemtrail believers, that people who do not believe in it, are government paid agents? I mean that got old from them back in 2001, but they keep insisting that if you know enough about aviation and science to tell them that chemtrails do not exist, then you have to be from the government. Even Dplum insisted that I was a member of the KKK and a racist, but then the mods got after him pretty fast over that one.

Any of those are ludicrous, persistent contrails have been seen since the 1930s, its impossible for aircraft contrails not to cross at times, and of course Aluminum and barium are found in nature, where else would they come from?

We have also seen chemtrailers who insist it is not cold at up 35,000 ft over deserts,or that imply that all aircraft up high are at the same altitudes, and that places not near an airport, should have no air traffic overhead, which makes no sense whatsoever. Or they offered up doctored photos, or repost the same debunked photos, or steal photos from airliners.net and cut out all the information, such as the KLM 747 photo.

They have this idea that contrails can only last a couple of seconds, because some chemtrail websites say so, and of course if it is on a chemtrail site, it must be true apparently. But contrail prediction charts have existed since the 1950s.

reply to post by coyotepoet


So, you have evidence that the Air Force is paying people to debunk 'chemtrails' on ATS? Please share this evidence with me, I want to apply for the job!

reply to post by adeclerk



You said:

I guess if someone disagrees with you and has evidence, your faith gets threatened and you cry disinfo.

While in the same post as the Air Force claim (which I did not make), clearly is referring to chemtrails in general

I responded by saying:

I've seen semantic tricks and twisting other people's words

And talking about the "evidence" to which you were referring which was clearly about "evidence" that all chemtrails are contrails as shown by another part of my response:

but I have yet to see "evidence" that ALL chemtrails are contrails, just a lot of verbal acrobatics.

No where in the post did I mention the Air Force because I wasn't responding to that part of your post, I was responding to the "evidence" you claimed in the above sentence for the "non-existence" of Chemtrails,

And you responded with:

So, you have evidence that the Air Force is paying people to debunk 'chemtrails' on ATS? Please share this evidence with me, I want to apply for the job!

This is a clear example of semantic tricks and putting words in peoples mouths. I never said anything about the Air Force and was clearly responding to the part of your post that was clearly referring to chemtrails in general. And yet you respond with an Air Force comment that I didn't say anything about. Be kind enough to point out the part of my post that led you to think I was referring to the Air force at all. In fact, the only thing I said about disinfo in general was saying that people call disinfo because those are disinfo tactics. I said nothing about the Air Force just pointing out that all the verbal and semantic tricks that are so common here are right out of the disinfo playbook. Nice. You just proved my point about semantics and acrobatics. If you are not a paid disinfo agent you should be, you are very good at their techniques.

reply to post by coyotepoet


So no, you don't have any evidence? Didn't think so. I guess that is why you have to start claiming you were talking about the existence of 'chemstuff' when you were responding to a post of mine that referred to someone making daft claims of the Air Force paying debunkers.

Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Indecent

 

Well, the topic is the metaphor. I have tried to keep the subject on topic.
It appears that some would like it to proceed in the same manner all chemtrail threads proceed, but I am trying NOT to bite.
Thanks for posting. (See, I HAVE to respond, don't I?)

I was hoping you would not respond to me OP, the trolls are far more persistent than I would ever be.

reply to post by Indecent


As OP said, "...well, the topic is the metaphor..." And, it's been clearly pointed out, time and again, that the analogy/metaphor is horribly, laughably inane.....not even close to accurate, to the situation as it exists.

The premise is flawed, from the outset.

A star and flag machine, is what this thread is about.....

reply to post by adeclerk

So no, you don't have any evidence? Didn't think so. I guess that is why you have to start claiming you were talking about the existence of 'chemstuff' when you were responding to a post of mine that referred to someone making daft claims of the Air Force paying debunkers.

So what evidence were you referring to? Because I didn't start claiming anything, that is how I read it. There you go again with the twisting words. How would you read the below phrase?

I guess if someone disagrees with you and has evidence, your faith gets threatened and you cry disinfo.

I would and did read it as you referring to chemtrails in general.

reply to post by adeclerk

So no, you don't have any evidence? Didn't think so. I guess that is why you have to start claiming you were talking about the existence of 'chemstuff' when you were responding to a post of mine that referred to someone making daft claims of the Air Force paying debunkers.

Just to point out that either you were intentionally twisting my words and my intent or you really can't read I stated in my FIRST response to you (which means that your "have to start claiming" comment makes no sense

I'm open minded, but I have yet to see "evidence" that ALL chemtrails are contrails, just a lot of verbal acrobatics

And in my second response to your word twisting:

No where in the post did I mention the Air Force because I wasn't responding to that part of your post, I was responding to the "evidence" you claimed in the above sentence for the "non-existence" of Chemtrails,

I didn't use that as a fall back position due to lack of evidence about the Air Force because I very clearly wasn't talking about the Air Force in the first place.

Again, how would you read this phrase of yours?

I guess if someone disagrees with you and has evidence, your faith gets threatened and you cry disinfo.

Because I read it as you saying that you have evidence that all chemtrails are contrails and that because you have this "evidence" people who believe in chemtrails have their faith threatened and "cry disinfo" (in that case by bringing up the Air Force paying disinfo agents.) All I was saying in response to that in my first response was that I haven't seen any such evidence of the sort you claim in that statement-only semantics and twisting peoples words, which you supported with...twisting peoples words.

Are you capable of responding to something without semantic tricks and twisting words? Because almost every post of yours I see falls back on that same tactic.

reply to post by adeclerk

Please share this evidence with me, I want to apply for the job!

Do you have time? It appears that you have been very busy over the past 15 days with a little over 300 of your almost 500 posts on chemtrails alone. Plus, you are very good at twisting people's words and then just disappearing into other chemtrail threads. If I were you I'd look into applying for sure.

reply to post by coyotepoet


So you don't have evidence that a job like that exists? Can't say I'm surprised, it isn't the first time you have come up short on any form of evidence.

reply to post by adeclerk

So you don't have evidence that a job like that exists? Can't say I'm surprised, it isn't the first time you have come up short on any form of evidence.

Boy, that was a quick response. Faster than I expected, but using the same techniques-twisting, blanket statements, disparaging. You've trained and practiced well. I will now join Frater210 on his social experiment, not for any lack of evidence or ducking out of a losing argument as I'm nearly positive you will be quick to claim (I'd almost be disappointed if you didn't claim that-it would be so in keeping with the debunker MO) but because I too have become very tired of the same dynamic on EVERY chemtrail thread and I think it's an interesting experiment. See you in September (or on another thread.)

reply to post by coyotepoet


Thank god, I won't have to debunk more of the same brainwashed, fearmongering 'chemtrail' rhetoric. Not to mention the baseless claims without so much as a shred of evidence. Happy day!

reply to post by adeclerk

Thank god, I won't have to debunk more of the same brainwashed, fearmongering 'chemtrail' rhetoric. Not to mention the baseless claims without so much as a shred of evidence. Happy day!

And I won't have to deal with the same sarcastic comments, word twisting, and baiting, not to mention the repetitive use of the word "evidence" when really what is meant is towing the party line and attempts to convince people to dismiss their observations (many of them educated observations) with shallow scientific mantras that really provide no evidence at all beyond "if you repeat it enough people might believe it". Happier day!