Why do I spend my time posting on chemtrail threads debunking. What are my motives?

Originally posted by SirCoxone

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by SirCoxone



Surely this is a discussion forum and as such it is for discussion. You of course have the right not to be insulted or abused, as doI for my opinion, but this is an open forum for all to air their opinion, not a private club just for people who agree with each other.

If you write something then people who feel you are wrong have the right to day they disagree and explain why in a polite and reasonable manner.

Did you actually read what I said? My whole point is that I want discussion to be able to take place and that includes people who believe in chemtrails having the opportunity to discuss this as well..

Please read my post again, it's very clear what I'm saying. Now, the question is, why are you trying to twist it and make it sound as though I've said I don't support discussion?

Trolls have only one intention - to suppress discussion. So - if you're defending trolls, please present your argument.

edit on 15-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

Perhaps I misread your post if so I apologise. Of course people who support chemtrails have the right to a discussion but people who disagree are allowed input too.

Thanks and I have no problem with that. It's the trolling that I'm calling out.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Not to sound like a total prick, but have you ever thought of getting a more productive hobby? Seriously, learn the guitar, painting, martial arts, something that might better your quality of life?

believe it or not, writing stuff on the internet is not my be all and end all but its raining outside and I have little work on today.

reply to post by wcitizen


what utter twaddle - do you actually believe that ??????

There is no definate proof that there is or there isn't. The Earth was flat until proven it wasn't. But I tend to lean towards the theory of chemtrals. There is more evidence of the existence of them, than not. Cloud seeding & trying to reverse global warming to name a couple reasons. Honestly, I think this topic is as debatable as religion and there is no clear winner or loser.

Originally posted by SirCoxone

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by backinblack
Kind of a one sided simplistic view don't you think??

I mean, what did the OP really prove other than the fact that contrails exist??

No, not at all. No matter what the topic or subject is, the burden of proof lies on those who claim it exists.

When something does not exist, evidence of non-existence is very difficult, if not impossible, to find.

This 'burden of proof' concept is being tossed around all the forums. It sounds 'official' so it makes people believe their argument is stronger.

That chemtrails exist is a hypothesis. That chemtrails don't exist is a hypothesis.
Therefore, there is no proof either way, because they are both HYPOTHESES.

There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peole do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.

So the 'burdern of proof' argument at this stage is a non sequitur, and they know it.

This I disagree with.

1. You cannot prove a negative

Actually you can, many negatives can be proven. In this case, however, since this particular negative can't be proven it remains a hypothesis.

2. The hypothesis is chemtrails exist, chemtrails not existing is not a hypothesis. Chemtrails are a new idea, chemtrails not existing is the status quo. When you create a change to accepted knowledge then you are creating a new hypothesis and the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. The party making a new claim are always the ones with the burden of proof.

If I say you are a thief then the onus is on me to prove it, I am making a claim, there is no onus on you to prove you are not a thief, you are not making a claim that you are not a thief, this is already the accepted situation until I, the claimant, prove otherwise.

Since there is no proof on either side of the argument, they are both hypotheses. There is evidence of chemtrails - not proof - but evidence. Some people believe that evidence is compelling. Some don't. It really is as simple as that.

I know that deniers don't like it - but that's the way it is.

Have you seen all the blurb on Bilderbergers recently in the msm? Up until just a couple of years ago those who insisted the Bilderbergers existed were labelled the worst kind of conspiracy nuts and were ridiculed and rubbished.

People in power rely on that kind of rhetoric to cover up what they are really doing and to build public opinion against those who can see what's going on.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by wcitizen

 

what utter twaddle - do you actually believe that ??????

That one goes on the long list of the most unintelligent rebuttals, although, typical, I have to say.

Why on earth do you think I'm going to take any notice of this kind of rispost which belongs in the kid's playground?

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

 

 

Originally posted by wcitizen
There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peole do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.

Irrefutable??

Your word, not mine. I never even suggested it was irrefutable.
You obviously didn't read my post properly.

Those who do not believe, are not the one's whom are name-calling.

I expect you're going to back up that statement with proof?

Originally posted by wcitizen
Since there is no proof on either side of the argument, they are both hypotheses. There is evidence of chemtrails - not proof - but evidence. Some people believe that evidence is compelling. Some don't. It really is as simple as that.

I know that deniers don't like it - but that's the way it is.

No it's not. It's not a symmetrical argument. It's exactly the same as with unicorns. There's some (very bad) evidence that unicorns exist - so would you say chemtrails are as likely to exist as unicorns?

What is the balance of the evidence? What does the evidence seem to indicate?

reply to post by wcitizen


sigh - given your utter lack of any logic - its all you really deserved .

but as you insist on being prissy - i will spell it out for you .

proving the position " chemtrails do not exist " requires omniscience

all we skeptics can do is point by point , rebut the alleged evidence that chemtrail believers offer

reply to post by SirCoxone

The title of the thread is not indicative of the content of your post. Just because you have one or two sentences about your motives, and they are lousy motives btw. you want to make people stop making money from chemtrails?
No one's making money off of it. Next, 99% of your post is just why you think chemtrails arent' real.

Your real motive is the same as most of the other debunkers: you do it because it makes you feel better about yourself.

It's much easier to prove that chemtrails exists then to prove they never existed.

Originally posted by wcitizen
There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peole do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Irrefutable??

Originally posted by wcitizen
Your word, not mine. I never even suggested it was irrefutable.

These ~> '????' mean that it is a question. You say there is evidence.
I am asking- Is this evidence irrefutable?
or in other words- Is this evidence indisputable, or undeniable?

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Those who do not believe, are not the one's whom are name-calling.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I expect you're going to back up that statement with proof?

You can keep expecting that all day if you want to.
I am not gonna waste my time searching for something that we both already know is true. Even if I did take the time to search for specific posts, you would find some sort of way to blow it off, so there is absolutely no reason for me to try.

reply to post by SirCoxone


travel.latimes.com...
I hear cloud seeding thrown around alot. Something I'm believe you would be aware is a common practice. These are planes rigged to spray chemicals in clouds, or I'm sure any aerial environment should 1 choose to try. I hear rumors there are only 3 or so planes in existence.
So, given the explosion of witnesses to these appearances of chemtrails with no previous memory of them before 5 to 10 yrs ago from around the world, the 2 videos you've seen, given a # of corrupt world govs under the guise of the UN with possible diabolical agenda toward concealment of facts, etc., etc.,
Do you think it may just be possible that this is all the same thing? Plausible deniability is the only reason there is a mystery. Why hide something if there is no down side to it?

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by wcitizen
Since there is no proof on either side of the argument, they are both hypotheses. There is evidence of chemtrails - not proof - but evidence. Some people believe that evidence is compelling. Some don't. It really is as simple as that.

I know that deniers don't like it - but that's the way it is.

No it's not. It's not a symmetrical argument. It's exactly the same as with unicorns. There's some (very bad) evidence that unicorns exist - so would you say chemtrails are as likely to exist as unicorns?

What is the balance of the evidence? What does the evidence seem to indicate?

No it's not. Yes it is. No it's not. blah, blah.

Like it or not, that is the way it is. It's a totally valid argument. Both are hypotheses until it's proven either way. Live with it.

The balance of the evidence is a subjective opinion. You interpret the evidence one way, I interpret it another. That's also a fact you don't like. Live with it.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by wcitizen

 

sigh - given your utter lack of any logic - its all you really deserved .

but as you insist on being prissy - i will spell it out for you .

proving the position " chemtrails do not exist " requires omniscience

all we skeptics can do is point by point , rebut the alleged evidence that chemtrail believers offer

Exactly. therefore the position' chemtrails do not exist' is NOT fact, it's a position, an opinion, a hypothesis.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Like it or not, that is the way it is. It's a totally valid argument. Both are hypotheses until it's proven either way. Live with it.

The balance of the evidence is a subjective opinion. You interpret the evidence one way, I interpret it another. That's also a fact you don't like. Live with it.

no, actually, "we" dont' have to "live with it".

ther is this thing called deductive reasoning which can be used on any evidence. There is also burden of proof, and the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

I know you don't like them, because they require the people saying "chemtrails exist" to prove the statement, , allow people who say "chemtails do not exit" to reasonably conclude that their statement is true, and say that the constant carping of chemmie believers "you can't prove it isn't true" is a fallacy.

but that's just tough - it is you who have to "live with it".

you claim occasionally to not actually believe chemtrails exist - to be "on hte fence" - but yuo never actually dispute het existence of chemtrails with people who say they exist - you only ever dispute teh statements of debunkers who say they are not known to exist.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Exactly. therefore the position' chemtrails do not exist' is NOT fact, it's a position, an opinion, a hypothesis.

It is a reasonable conclusiong derived by deductive reasoning. Put simplistically it amounts to this:

1/ Contrails are known to exist
2/ nothing else is known to exist that looks and behaves like a contrail
3/ therefore it is reasonable to conclude that anything that looks & behaves like a contrail is a contrail.

Now be a good little closet chemmie and live with it

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by wcitizen
There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peole do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Irrefutable??

Originally posted by wcitizen
Your word, not mine. I never even suggested it was irrefutable.

These ~> '????' mean that it is a question.

One word followed by several question marks is, as I'm sure even you are aware, open to more than one possible interpretation. If you're not clear, don't blame others for not being able to guess exactly what you wanted it to mean.

You say there is evidence.
I am asking- Is this evidence irrefutable?
or in other words- Is this evidence indisputable, or undeniable?

What don't you understand about what I said in my post, specifically: 'There is evidence in support of chemtrails, but some peolpe do not find that evidence convincing. Others do.'

Read it again, it answers your question.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
Those who do not believe, are not the one's whom are name-calling.

Originally posted by wcitizen
I expect you're going to back up that statement with proof?

You can keep expecting that all day if you want to.

Yes, I thought so.

I am not gonna waste my time searching for something that we both already know is true. Even if I did take the time to search for specific posts, you would find some sort of way to blow it off, so there is absolutely no reason for me to try.

No, it doesn't work that way. You're stating your own subjective opinion as fact here. If you aren't prepared to back it up with evidene, it rubbishes your statement.

But don't bother. That's fine.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by wcitizen
Exactly. therefore the position' chemtrails do not exist' is NOT fact, it's a position, an opinion, a hypothesis.

It is a reasonable conclusiong derived by deductive reasoning. Put simplistically it amounts to this:

1/ Contrails are known to exist
2/ nothing else is known to exist that looks and behaves like a contrail
3/ therefore it is reasonable to conclude that anything that looks & behaves like a contrail is a contrail.

Now be a good little closet chemmie and live with it

Nothing closet about me...I believe they exist.

reply to post by wcitizen


Ah - my mistake then - my apologies - there is someone on here who makes the claim & I am sorry for wrongly identifying you as that person.