How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

reply to post by Griffo


... and I suppose you can provide links to this discrediting by reputable scientists?
As I said before, many things are not accepted by science but that does not mean they have no validity in the real world. It is really sad that nothing exists for some people unless it is proven by those they feel are authorities in the subject.

Like the absolute and utter rubbish data we sometimes get from NASA, there are 'authorities' which have larger agendas than telling you and I the real picture about what is going on. Pay enough for a report and get what you want. There are prostitutes in every business. not least the petrochemical and pharmacutical industries.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Yeah we've noticed that your entire argument is from ignorance - you claim to be using logic and yet the basis of your possition is a hoary old logical fallacy and you keep advertising the fact.

I've corrected you on this numerous times yet you continue to spread blatant lies anyway.

The fact that you cannot prove a negative, is not an argument from ignorance. It's a fact.

If it was an argument from ignorance I would be saying, "Chemtrails exist because you can't prove me wrong!" But I'm not. You just wish I was because you want to be right about something.

Are you trying to definitively argue that chemtrails don't exist (as if you have evidence of this?), or not?

We actually can prove a negative, it is known by logicians.
Let's prove that 'orgone cloudbusters' don't work using simple logic.
1. If cloudbusters worked there would be some sort of evidence that they did.
2. No evidence exists to show that a cloud buster has created nor destroyed clouds.
3. Therefore, we must conclude that cloudbusters are bunk.

There are plenty of other ways that we could make this argument.

Originally posted by qmantoo
... and I suppose you can provide links to this discrediting by reputable scientists?

The burden of proof is on the claimant, you need to provide a link of a reputable scientist's experiment that supports that cloud busters or orgone energy works.

Originally posted by qmantoo
As I said before, many things are not accepted by science but that does not mean they have no validity in the real world.

What isn't accepted by science but has validity in the real world? Can you provide some examples?

Originally posted by qmantoo
It is really sad that nothing exists for some people unless it is proven by those they feel are authorities in the subject.

I disagree, more people should be listening to scientific evidence. It would increase the number of critical thinkers in our society.

Originally posted by qmantoo
Like the absolute and utter rubbish data we sometimes get from NASA, there are 'authorities' which have larger agendas than telling you and I the real picture about what is going on.

What rubbish? How does this relate to things that are scientifically unprovable?

Originally posted by qmantoo
Pay enough for a report and get what you want. There are prostitutes in every business. not least the petrochemical and pharmacutical industries.

It's more like, pay for a report and don't publish it if it doesn't support your agenda.

I've been hearing about this for a while now, and I'm not going to lie I'm still a bit skeptical, but with everything I've learned from ats about frequency and vibration, it makes enough sense to at least give it a try.

Does anyone else notice anything odd in the helicopter videos? That's right clear blue sky!!! I can say that I haven't seen that in a while, and it does stand out in the videos, Maybe the stats could learn something from the hats.

Originally posted by someguy420
I've been hearing about this for a while now, and I'm not going to lie I'm still a bit skeptical, but with everything I've learned from ats about frequency and vibration, it makes enough sense to at least give it a try.

Does anyone else notice anything odd in the helicopter videos? That's right clear blue sky!!! I can say that I haven't seen that in a while, and it does stand out in the videos, Maybe the stats could learn something from the hats.

Interesting, I almost am believing that cloudbusters work. Or maybe helicopters have a tendency to not fly in inclement weather.

Correlation without causation.

reply to post by adeclerk


Your comment about energy/qi used in acupuncture which flows throught the meridians of the body is interesting. You are dismissing thousands of years of culture, research and circumstantial and scientific evidence with a throw-away statement.

This is the measure of your argument.

Sad really, because the obvious adherence to science and logic will save us all from being hoodwinked and scammed - wont it?.

I have noticed there must be a lot of fear in the lives of some people. It emerges as a dogmatic clinging to the known scientific concepts and current understandings. The ability to move past these and into new and greater understandings is only achieved by letting go of old paradigms and embracing new ones.

Of course, there is also fear that we may make a mistake and that wont do... will it? The need to be super-human and NEVER make a mistake is driving force for a lot of people and it is a constraint which they would do well to release for their health's sake.

Greetings Bsbray!

(Long time, yada... yada )

Thanks for the thread/subject.

I think it's fairly safe to say you have a pest infestation!

I made it as far as page 8... with their gibberish comments.

Orgone energy (or any references to the great searcher Reich ) tends to bring 'em out.

They are pretty much religious fanatics, always trying to hog the microphone, babbling things the whole time things like 'placebo effect!', 'double blind!', etc.

My personal favorite is, of course, 'it violates the law of... (insert appropriate nonsensical axiom/theory/etc)'

I like to call them 'peer review' thumpers!

It's a shame these 'scientists' are ruining your thread.

In your travels have you run into anyone who has offering any info on the theory vis-a-vis the mechanics of the busters?

Thanks big guy.

Hmmm, so how many of you that support this Orgone energy are willing to do more than just talk about it online. I mean to demonstrate how much you believe in it, by actually buying the products.

Don Croft has long promoted chemtrails, and he just by sheer coincident, happens to sell orgone products too.
www.worldwithoutparasites.com...

Do any of you believe in it enough to to buy one of his Orgone pyramids for $170
www.worldwithoutparasites.com...

I mean anyone can support something when its just talking about it online. But how many of you believe in it enough to financially support it too?

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Amaterasu

I'm probably more broke than You... But the shooter costs maybe $15 to construct and is very easy to build. See the thread SX linked to.

Maybe someone can buy this for me. Several dollars worth of parts for mere hundreds! And a free ridiculous description that has no basis in fact.

Good luck with that. I would be more likely to try and build it. Still, the shooter is far easier and cheaper.

Just sayin'.

Originally posted by adeclerk
We actually can prove a negative, it is known by logicians.
Let's prove that 'orgone cloudbusters' don't work using simple logic.
1. If cloudbusters worked there would be some sort of evidence that they did.

Appeal to Ignorance

...

There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.

www.fallacyfiles.org...


Your first point is a logical fallacy.... strike one...

2. No evidence exists to show that a cloud buster has created nor destroyed clouds.

A different form of the same fallacy... strike two...

3. Therefore, we must conclude that cloudbusters are bunk.

A conclusion following two logical fallacies... strike three, you're out.

Originally posted by firepilot
Hmmm, so how many of you that support this Orgone energy are willing to do more than just talk about it online. I mean to demonstrate how much you believe in it, by actually buying the products.

Buying the products is the lazy way of doing it. You could make the stuff yourself with a few inexpensive things from Lowe's. I guess next you'll tell me that Lowe's is making all of this stuff up to make money selling resin and scraps of metal.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Yeah we've noticed that your entire argument is from ignorance - you claim to be using logic and yet the basis of your possition is a hoary old logical fallacy and you keep advertising the fact.

I've corrected you on this numerous times yet you continue to spread blatant lies anyway.

The fact that you cannot prove a negative, is not an argument from ignorance. It's a fact.

Argument from ignorance is a shifting the discussion to having to prove the negative in order to change the Burden of proof.

You have asserted that "we" cannot differentiate between contrails and chdemtrails - therefore it is up to you to substantiate that claim - that is the nature of Burden of proof - you have to prove your claim.

You refuse to do so and insist that, instead, everyone else has to prove that your claim is NOT true.

Hence you are absolutely arguing from ignorance - lock stock and barrel.

And you saying that we "claim" that chemtrails do not exist is a crock - the ACTUAL "claim" about chemtrails is that they exist in the first place - again something that no-one has ever been able to show, and one which chemmies usually try to shift the Burden of proof onto debunkers for by making the same argument from ignorance - "Prove it isn't true"

constant themes from chemmies and you - failure to prove that chemtrails exist in the first place, which is the fundamental claim upon which everything you prattle on about rests - until you substantiate that claim ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING YOU CLAIM is pure conjecture that requires no negative proof to debunk.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
We actually can prove a negative, it is known by logicians.
Let's prove that 'orgone cloudbusters' don't work using simple logic.
1. If cloudbusters worked there would be some sort of evidence that they did.

Appeal to Ignorance

...

There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.

www.fallacyfiles.org...


Your first point is a logical fallacy.... strike one...

Those two things are not the same. You might want to read more of the article you linked:

There are a few types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it:
...
Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premisses about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is:
If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.

For instance, one might reason:
If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now.
I don't know that I'm adopted.
Therefore, I wasn't adopted.

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:
If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

So by your own link, this is auto-epistemic, and not a fallacy.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by firepilot
Hmmm, so how many of you that support this Orgone energy are willing to do more than just talk about it online. I mean to demonstrate how much you believe in it, by actually buying the products.

Buying the products is the lazy way of doing it. You could make the stuff yourself with a few inexpensive things from Lowe's. I guess next you'll tell me that Lowe's is making all of this stuff up to make money selling resin and scraps of metal.

So, we can assume with that statement, that you will show us where Lowes has promoted "Orgone" energy.

Or was it that they actually didnt, and your comparison makes no sense.

Lol guys I just thought of something funny.


That thing looks like and could function like a pipe organ (the instrument), which sounds like "orgone" XD.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Argument from ignorance is a shifting the discussion to having to prove the negative in order to change the Burden of proof.

The burden of proof lies on whomever is making the claim.

I am not claiming to have proof.

You, however, continue to unequivocally state that chemtrails do not exist.

That is a claim, and you are simply trying to weasel out of your own burden of proof by claiming that I am trying to prove that they do exist, which is a blatant lie you are perpetuating.

Nice thread, and lovely trolling by certain posters too.


I'll start with the troll first:
"We actually can prove a negative, it is known by logicians.
Let's prove that 'orgone cloudbusters' don't work using simple logic.
1. If cloudbusters worked there would be some sort of evidence that they did.
2. No evidence exists to show that a cloud buster has created nor destroyed clouds.
3. Therefore, we must conclude that cloudbusters are bunk.

There are plenty of other ways that we could make this argument. "

Your logic is flawed, adeclerk, here is my evidence:
1.) "If cloudbusters worked there would be some sort of evidence that they did."
Evidence: noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
^^ this is a dictionary.com definition of evidence. Who are you, adeclerk, to say that there is no evidence that orgone devices work? If you make that claim, you are operating under the assumption that you have some sort of objective knowledge about the world and how it works. My point is, how do you know there is no evidence to support orgone devices?

2.) "No evidence exists to show that a cloud buster has created nor destroyed clouds."
Again, this is just a baby-step away from your original point in number one. The point made in #2's statement is just redundant.

3.) "Therefore we must conclude that cloudbusters don't work."
-- What? Why? You have showed absolutely ZERO evidence for this to be true.



I have used orgone devices for years and I have seen them work. I believe it has something to do with the crystals, the metals, and the proper proportions of materials. Also the suspension of metals and crystals may be key too.
I don't know how orgone works, but I am a firm believer that it does. As I said, I have been using orgone for about 9 years now and have seen chemtrails broken up above my house, noticably bluer skies, and perhaps much more, possibly subtle effects which have changed things for the better here on my hill that I live.

Originally posted by qmantoo
Your comment about energy/qi used in acupuncture which flows throught the meridians of the body is interesting. You are dismissing thousands of years of culture, research and circumstantial and scientific evidence with a throw-away statement.

Qi energy hasn't been proven or even supported by science. Make up your mind. Acupuncture works by the needles causing pain that prompts the body to respond by releasing endorphins, which incidentally relieve pain.

Culture, irrelevant. Research, where? Scientific evidence, where?

Originally posted by qmantoo
Sad really, because the obvious adherence to science and logic will save us all from being hoodwinked and scammed - wont it?.

I believe in what can be proven. So far I haven't been wrong. It seems a lack of scientific knowledge causes a lot of "hoodwinking", you know, belief in 'chemtrails', 'aliens', 'qi', 'psychics', 'orgone'. All unfalsifiable claims that allow certain people to get rich off of others ignorance.

Originally posted by qmantoo
I have noticed there must be a lot of fear in the lives of some people. It emerges as a dogmatic clinging to the known scientific concepts and current understandings. The ability to move past these and into new and greater understandings is only achieved by letting go of old paradigms and embracing new ones.

It's not fear, it is critical thinking and logic. One should have a concrete understanding of both, and should apply them everyday. A lot of people on this site seem to not understand that, which isn't denying ignorance at all.
Science is provisional, if new data and evidence arises I will gladly change my mind.

Originally posted by qmantoo
Of course, there is also fear that we may make a mistake and that wont do... will it? The need to be super-human and NEVER make a mistake is driving force for a lot of people and it is a constraint which they would do well to release for their health's sake.

I've noticed the fear of making a mistake in a lot of bunk claims. Most people who believe them are not even willing to consider that they are wrong (or consider any evidence to the contrary ).

Originally posted by Uncinus
So by your own link, this is auto-epistemic, and not a fallacy.

Nope. This is exactly your argument:

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

www.fallacyfiles.org...


You are claiming this excuses you:

Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premisses about what one knows and what one would know if something were true.

Nope, sorry, because you have not demonstrated you would have any reason to know, or have any ability to necessarily tell the difference between a chemtrail, contrail, or any other white trail following a plane in the sky.

That's just wishful thinking on your part.

Originally posted by firepilot
So, we can assume with that statement, that you will show us where Lowes has promoted "Orgone" energy.

I never said they did, and I don't believe they have. That was my whole point.

reply to post by light_circle


Have you considered the possibility that the changes you have noticed have something to do with the difference between climate and weather?

Do you know the distinction?