How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

reply to post by bsbray11


Well, surely we can agree on this:

If they existed there would probably be some good evidence
There's no good evidence
They probably don't exist.

And the corollary

If they did not exist there would probably be no evidence that they did exist
There's no good evidence
So they probably don't exist

Originally posted by Uncinus
Well, surely we can agree on this:

If they existed there would probably be some good evidence

No, I do not agree with that, because that is not always the case.

That is why science is constantly learning new things.

Because we don't already have evidence for everything that exists, obviously, and every time you suggest "we don't have evidence therefore they don't exist," you committing a blatant fallacy that you should well know by now.

There's no good evidence
They probably don't exist.

Adding the word "probably" doesn't mean it makes any more sense.

Double post

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
Well, surely we can agree on this:

If they existed there would probably be some good evidence

No, I do not agree with that, because that is not always the case.

That is why science is constantly learning new things.

Because we don't already have evidence for everything that exists, obviously, and every time you suggest "we don't have evidence therefore they don't exist," you committing a blatant fallacy that you should well know by now.

There's no good evidence
They probably don't exist.

Adding the word "probably" doesn't mean it makes any more sense.

Not always the case? So you're saying things exist that have no evidence? That is impossible, their existence itself is evidence.

No one is denying that science learns new things, after all, knowledge is provisional.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because we don't already have evidence for everything that exists, obviously, and every time you suggest "we don't have evidence therefore they don't exist," you committing a blatant fallacy that you should well know by now.

But that's not what I suggest. I suggest that if we expect something to leave evidence if it exists, and it does not, then it's reasonable to assign a high likelihood it it not existing.

Let me simplify it further:

There is no evidence that chemtrails exist
Draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by adeclerk
Not always the case? So you're saying things exist that have no evidence?

Exactly. This is how science is able to learn new things over time. Evidence of various things is constantly being gathered.

You, in taking science as your modern-day religion, apparently think you already know it all, and whatever you don't already know, can't exist, period.

No one is denying that science learns new things

Yes, that is actually exactly what you are suggesting when you ask this:

"So you're saying things exist that have no evidence?"

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because we don't already have evidence for everything that exists, obviously, and every time you suggest "we don't have evidence therefore they don't exist," you committing a blatant fallacy that you should well know by now.

But that's not what I suggest. I suggest that if we expect something to leave evidence if it exists, and it does not, then it's reasonable to assign a high likelihood it it not existing.

Once again you argue from ignorance.

You should call up Guinness, this may be a world record.

Let me simplify it further:

There is no evidence that chemtrails exist
Draw your own conclusions.

Oh okay, so now you don't come right out and say it, you just say "draw your own conclusions"?

I already have, buddy.

reply to post by bsbray11


So what do you conclude from the absence of evidence for chemtrails? Or orgone energy for that matter?

Originally posted by Uncinus
So what do you conclude from the absence of evidence for chemtrails? Or orgone energy for that matter?

What do I conclude is scientifically proven?

Nothing.


I have opinions but I don't push them on you, because you're too rabid to have the same honesty about your own opinions. You apparently think your opinions are automatically facts just because you believe them, even if it requires you to argue constantly from fallacies.

Originally posted by adeclerk
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?

Just because phenomena are not observed, measured, or proven by science does not negate their existence. In other words, what science does not prove does not mean they do not exist, do you understand?
Adeclerk, it seems that you are operating under the assumption that science must prove something for it to exist. It is entirely possible that science isn't just aware of some phenomena or has incomplete knowledge.

Is it such a stretch of the imagination to imagine a circumstance where science doesn't prove something, yet it still exists objectively? Science can only operate through physical operations, limited by our senses. What lies beyond the senses science cannot really accurately explained by science.

reply to post by bsbray11


Thanks for posting bro! I haven't watched all the vids yet. Star n Flag, for the hard work and effort, put fourth in this, thread. I think, its sad all the trolls on these posts. They know who they are. I say, we put them all on ignore and they, can post and talk to themselves. their comments, are ignorant, makes them look like children, this site, Ive been coming to for 8 years Its about discussion, from intellectual minds, not children. As many, have shown, they are. One in particular, here in this thread, You know, who you are. At least, respect, other members threads. Don't participate, if you don't like the topic. or, post your own thread and spew your BS!

OP, sorry for the troll rant, and thanks again, for the great job, you have done here, I appreciate it. as others should.

Originally posted by light_circle
Is it such a stretch of the imagination to imagine a circumstance where science doesn't prove something, yet it still exists objectively? Science can only operate through physical operations, limited by our senses. What lies beyond the senses science cannot really accurately explained by science.

So "chemtrails" which are variously claimed to be poisoning us, or creating some short of shield, or are for the purpose of geoengineering are beyond the realm of science to detect. They can only be observed by human senses. How does that work exactly? Doesn't it require some sort of science to "spray" these things?

Yes, it is quite a stretch.

Originally posted by Phage
Doesn't it require some sort of science to "spray" these things?

Yes, I would say a form of military technology before anything civilian or commercial, but there's no way to know.

At any rate many military and commercial technologies are also not released to the public for obvious reasons. I guess that means they automatically don't exist either.

reply to post by bsbray11


Can you give an example of something that exists without evidence?

Originally posted by adeclerk
Can you give an example of something that exists without evidence?

I can give you historical examples, yes.

Try... everything ever proven in the history of science, ever.

Before anything and everything was proven, there were periods when there was no evidence of it.


Therefore, just because there is currently a lack of evidence of something, does not mean it therefore doesn't exist. Unless you seriously think Neptune didn't exist before it was discovered, or that EM energy didn't exist before science discovered it, or any other hilariously ignorant consequences of your "reasoning."

reply to post by doctornamtab


I'm in lakewood and I'm down...I can build about anything and this seems interesting!

reply to post by bsbray11

No one was looking for Neptune until the means to do so were available. It was predicted to exist by the observance of other planets. Five days after the prediction it was found because they knew where to look for it. Science.

Until the tools were available to study electromagnetic energy, it was known to exist. It wasn't really "discovered" any more than electricity was. Its nature was revealed through science.

Contrails are known to exist. The means exists to prove the existence of "chemtrails". Yet, in 20 years no one has managed to do so. No one has managed to produce any evidence of them. Why is that? No science.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by adeclerk
Can you give an example of something that exists without evidence?

I can give you historical examples, yes.

Try... everything ever proven in the history of science, ever.

Before anything and everything was proven, there were periods when there was no evidence of it.


Therefore, just because there is currently a lack of evidence of something, does not mean it therefore doesn't exist. Unless you seriously think Neptune didn't exist before it was discovered, or that EM energy didn't exist before science discovered it, or any other hilariously ignorant consequences of your "reasoning."

Neptune wasn't discovered by science but the light reflecting off of it was still reaching Earth. There was evidence. EM waves weren't discovered, but there was evidence (microwaves from meteors causing a crackling sound because they heat up part of the inner ear).

The difference here is that orgone, psychic, qi, skittle, and mind control energy all has no evidence. Period.

ETA: Phage's explanation was better than mine. Good job! I'm sure he'll bend his argument to make him right in some aspect of it, anyway.

Originally posted by light_circle
Just because phenomena are not observed, measured, or proven by science does not negate their existence.

Actually, for all practicality, it does "negate their existence". At that point, it only lives in the mind of the believer.

Originally posted by light_circle
In other words, what science does not prove does not mean they do not exist, do you understand?

But if you believe in anything that cannot be "observed, measured, or other physical evidence" then that leaves *everything you can imagine* open to the possibility that it exists. If you live by that set of possibilities, doesn't that leave you floating around this world with no opinions and no stances on anything ? How do you decide what to do each day ? Don't you have to make some decisions on what is possible, and what is impossible, to make it alive until the next day ?

Example....Do you walk in front of that moving bus, because it "might" be possible it would pass right through you and leaving you unharmed ? Isn't that a decision based on the evidence of observations and measurements ?

Originally posted by light_circle
Adeclerk, it seems that you are operating under the assumption that science must prove something for it to exist. It is entirely possible that science isn't just aware of some phenomena or has incomplete knowledge.

I think you make decisions based on scientific knowledge and testing every day.
For me, until I see that scientific evidence assures me that it is safe for a bus to pass right through me, I will not try it.
Therefore, I apply this same belief system to something as harmless as orgone. It's just a principle I operate by in the physical world.

Originally posted by light_circle
Is it such a stretch of the imagination to imagine a circumstance where science doesn't prove something, yet it still exists objectively? Science can only operate through physical operations, limited by our senses. What lies beyond the senses science cannot really accurately explained by science.

Your above statement is about belief systems, and is remarkably the same argument for spirituality and/or religions.
You said, "yet it still exists objectively" .......
The point here is that if something HAS had attempts to be tested, but failed those tests, I will not believe in it.
The orgone and chemtrails have had attempts to be tested, or other attempts of evidence gathering....but they have come-up empty.

It's so ridiculously obvious how the non-believers go around starring each other just for the sake of it, even when the post lacked any significant point. So guess what? I went around starring everything bsbray11 said. Mainly because he seems like a more centered person than the others