Dailymail UK Thread On Chemtrails: How Jet Trails Block Out The Sunshine

Originally posted by djcarlosa

now i know this is off thread to a degree but i use it to point out that even the smartest minds can be wrong and the fact that the person who proved t started his working life as a plumber [a layman]
so don't discount someone because they are a layman because a layman has one advantage over you he can admit when he is wrong and therefore has the ability to learn.

Oh i have admitted on here when I am wrong. I have even asked chemtrails to point out things that I have posted wrong, because I stand behind my statements.

If layman can learn, then why do no chemtrailers seem to have any knowledge of aviation of meteorology? Its like they intentionally avoid learning about it at all cost. And I do not mean a pilot level of knowledge, I just mean some basic knowledge.

Its the chemtrails who post a hoaxed or misleading picture, and then when the correct information is actually posted, do not admit they are wrong and instead call names to whoever corrected them.

If chemtrailers were truly interested in learning more about the topics that make up their conspiracy, they would not be reposting the same debunked photos, over and over and over and over.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
You know i hear that we don't have the intelligence to understand and therefore nothing we say or post can be classed as prof after all we are just layman normal folk who don't understand the big wide world and what goes on is above our pay grade

No one's word is proof. The examples you gave involved evidence, not wild speculation.

Originally posted by firepilot

If chemtrailers were truly interested in learning more about the topics that make up their conspiracy, they would not be reposting the same debunked photos, over and over and over and over.

You do realise new members join all the time and are newly exposed to conspiracy theories right. Everyone starts somewhere and its perfectly normal for people to make fools of themselves while learning. I'm sure you have at some point right?

If posted pictures of contrails claimed to be chemtrails bother you enough that you can't help yourself from posting rudely or dismissively, take a break. You are not the only debunker here and I'm sure someone else will point out the facts eventually.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
You know i hear that we don't have the intelligence to understand and therefore nothing we say or post can be classed as prof after all we are just layman normal folk who don't understand the big wide world and what goes on is above our pay grade

Steven Hawkins considered one of the greatest minds of our time created a theory on black holes that all matter that entered the hole the information would be lost forever and all that would remain is hawking's radiation this has been classed as factual science for the last 30 years and has been proven wrong by a man who spent most of his life as a plumber.
John Preskill when he saw a lecture by hawking's he made a bet that he could prove him wrong and now 30 years later he has [i know it was life changing for him and he restudied and is now a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology]
now i know this is off thread to a degree but i use it to point out that even the smartest minds can be wrong and the fact that the person who proved t started his working life as a plumber [a layman]
so don't discount someone because they are a layman because a layman has one advantage over you he can admit when he is wrong and therefore has the ability to learn.

edit on 22-6-2011 by djcarlosa because: (no reason given)

That's an interesting story, but not entirely correct. The bet was not that Preskill would prove Hawkins wrong, just that when a proof of what happened to the information emerged, then it would favor quantum mechanics, rather than General Relativity (which Hawkins favored).

en.wikipedia.org...

This may seems like a semantic point, except that the person who eventually proved what would happen was actually Stephen Hawkins.

prd.aps.org...

So Hawkins proved himself wrong, which is the mark of a good scientist, and a good debunker.

It's also rather incorrect to classify Preskill as a layman at the time. The bet was made in 1997, Prekill was made a full professor of physics back in 1990.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by firepilot

If chemtrailers were truly interested in learning more about the topics that make up their conspiracy, they would not be reposting the same debunked photos, over and over and over and over.

You do realise new members join all the time and are newly exposed to conspiracy theories right. Everyone starts somewhere and its perfectly normal for people to make fools of themselves while learning. I'm sure you have at some point right?

If posted pictures of contrails claimed to be chemtrails bother you enough that you can't help yourself from posting rudely or dismissively, take a break. You are not the only debunker here and I'm sure someone else will point out the facts eventually.

But my point stands, when they get the correct information, are they relieved about it and thankful for the correction, and upset at the websites that mislead them?

More often than not, they get upset at whoever offered the correct information, then call them names, and then refuse to learn from it. Do they get upset at the chemtrail promoters who knowing leave up wrong photos, wrong videos and misleading info, in order to sell things to people who would believe in chemtrails?

If they actually learned from the correction is one thing. Sometimes something as simple as identifying an aircraft type, or an airline from a chemtrail video, or explaining that yes the air is ALWAYS cold up high, or that even WW2 aircraft made persistent contrails, is enough to earn the government agent label.

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

There is a small number of debunkers here who seem to thrive on being rude, arrogant, and conceited. There are also some very good debunkers, like Uncinus, who will actually teach you something and thats because he doesn't waste time exhibiting those unsavoury attributes I mentioned. The debunkers who like to be offensive claim to be here to enlighten us "chemmies" about our misguided belief in chemtrails, but who has ever listend to somebody who to takes continuas shots at one's intelligence and beliefs?

If these debunkers actually wanted to change peoples minds they would post civily and patiently, not with rudeness and arrogance.

I agree. Being rude or arrogant - or even saying things that run the risk of appearing that way - is counterproductive for all involved. I deliberately try to be polite and informative, not just because that's how I naturally act, but because I think it works best. Debunkers should focus on the facts, not the people.

And just because someone is rude to you, it's not helping anything to be rude back to them.

reply to post by firepilot


Have i ever called you a name or anyone else who dose not share my views no never.
Have i used the words dissinfo debunker shrill of troll when describing anyone here again no never.
i have always tried to be fair in my posts not get to upset when personally attacked and not resort to name calling even when baited.
You, weedwacker and aloysius the gaul have on many occasion's attacked my character my intelligence and my mental heath and my memory.
So i find it hard to swallow when you post that it is us that attacks you and that you are victimised when the complete opposite is true.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by firepilot

 

Have i ever called you a name or anyone else who dose not share my views no never.
Have i used the words dissinfo debunker shrill of troll when describing anyone here again no never.
i have always tried to be fair in my posts not get to upset when personally attacked and not resort to name calling even when baited.
You, weedwacker and aloysius the gaul have on many occasion's attacked my character my intelligence and my mental heath and my memory.
So i find it hard to swallow when you post that it is us that attacks you and that you are victimised when the complete opposite is true.

What names have i called you, and I want proof from a posting.

Victimized? Not hardly, however I think if you look at the postings removed for namecalling, more of them are going to come from chemtrailers.

I have seen less that you are actually getting attacked, but more that you get offended at your views being debunked, and you percieve that as an attack

reply to post by djcarlosa


Where did you hear that version of the Hawkins/Preskill bet story?

Originally posted by Uncinus

I agree. Being rude or arrogant - or even saying things that run the risk of appearing that way - is counterproductive for all involved. I deliberately try to be polite and informative, not just because that's how I naturally act, but because I think it works best. Debunkers should focus on the facts, not the people.

And just because someone is rude to you, it's not helping anything to be rude back to them.

After reading the forum for a few weeks now it seems pretty clear the insulting remarks being made by both sides is hampering true debate. To tell the truth, when I first came into this forum I was shocked at the "atmosphere" in most threads and was, and still am, surprised the mods haven't address it.

reply to post by NightGypsy

Uncinus, I get that.....and I have no problem with that if the evidence presented to "debunk" is accurate and truthful. I only have problems with debunkers when their demeanor is rude and condescending.

The tone here has gotten very negative, and there is a great deal of pointless badgering going on here. Who started all this un-provoked name calling here?

Either they are assisting in the cover-up, or it makes them feel important. Anyone with a shred of self-esteem wouldn't feel the need to spend so much time arguing an issue if they truly believed it was a joke.

I believe one would find the definition of such a person under the word "pathetic" in any dictionary of the English language.

You. As you correctly perceived, my reference to the word "pathetic" was not directed at the OP. If you want to criticize the article, fine. Instead, you came roaring out of the gate with barrage of over generalized ad homs. Not only are you negative, rude and condescending, you are hypocritical. Now please address the issues.

reply to post by firepilot


show me where i have had a post removed for being rude or offence in fact i have only one post removed because i posted a mail from a banned member.
quote1: posted by you on 16-3-2011 @ 09:05 PM
Uh huh...typical. You chemmies just want to live in an echo chamber where you can all just agree with each other, and live comfortable in your delusions, rather than deal in reality and live with science.
quote2: posted by you on 14-3-2011 @ 01:43 PM
The whole "look up, I know what I see" meme got tired out a long time ago. Chemmies have a long history of not having the slightest clue what they actually see
there are many more but due to lack of time i won't trail through to find them all.

Originally posted by firepilot

But my point stands, when they get the correct information, are they relieved about it and thankful for the correction, and upset at the websites that mislead them?

Some may be as I was when you convinced me to disregard cloud seeding as a possiblity for the behaviour I have witnesses.

Originally posted by firepilot
More often than not, they get upset at whoever offered the correct information, then call them names, and then refuse to learn from it. Do they get upset at the chemtrail promoters who knowing leave up wrong photos, wrong videos and misleading info, in order to sell things to people who would believe in chemtrails?

I believe they are getting upset and refusing to learn becuase some of you debunkers seem to have fun insulting and humiliating them. Humiliation is generally not a good way to teach.

Originally posted by firepilot
If they actually learned from the correction is one thing. Sometimes something as simple as identifying an aircraft type, or an airline from a chemtrail video, or explaining that yes the air is ALWAYS cold up high, or that even WW2 aircraft made persistent contrails, is enough to earn the government agent label.

Its a favourite theory on ATS these days. Dis-info guys everywhere and in every forum apparently. Some of you have earned the label because of your own behaviour. Spend less time trying to humiliate people and they are less likely to claim you are a government agent.

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by firepilot

 

show me where i have had a post removed for being rude or offence in fact i have only one post removed because i posted a mail from a banned member.
quote1: posted by you on 16-3-2011 @ 09:05 PM
Uh huh...typical. You chemmies just want to live in an echo chamber where you can all just agree with each other, and live comfortable in your delusions, rather than deal in reality and live with science.
quote2: posted by you on 14-3-2011 @ 01:43 PM
The whole "look up, I know what I see" meme got tired out a long time ago. Chemmies have a long history of not having the slightest clue what they actually see
there are many more but due to lack of time i won't trail through to find them all.

If chemmies is name calling, then guilty. I do not think chemmie is acually name calling though, since it does not have any inherent meaning to it, other than chemtrail believer.

Do i think that chemtrail believers find some comfort in their conspiracy? Yes. And why would they get hostile when something that should put their mind at ease (thats not a chemplane, it is a United 757 for example so its not spraying) makes them upset.

Do chemtrailers more often than not, get details entirely wrong when it comes to aviation and weather? Yes, over and over. If you can find me ANY chemtrail believer who can write knowledgably about aviation and aircraft, and not get most of it all wrong, let us know.

You dont know how many times I have pleaded with chemtrailers to learn about aviation and meterology. Practically begged and pleaded for you to take some time away from chemtrail sites, and take some time to learn about aircraft, weather, anything like that.

reply to post by DJW001

As you correctly perceived, my reference to the word "pathetic" was not directed at the OP. If you want to criticize the article, fine. Instead, you came roaring out of the gate with barrage of over generalized ad homs. Not only are you negative, rude and condescending, you are hypocritical. Now please address the issues.

Exaggerate much?

Jeez......I'm halfway expecting you to stomp away crying after that post. You should get a job with the MSM. Your skills in "sensationalism" are quite exceptional.....just the kind of skill they seek.

reply to post by Uncinus


i watched a documentary on sky as the subject of black holes and space as a whole is really interesting i will try and find the title of the show but it went into the whole debate and interviewed John Preskill and he said that it was his experience as a plumber that convinced him that hawking's theory was wrong and it took him years to prove that hawkin's was wrong and he was right there is an article that touches on the subject but the information is limited.
It was the reason he became a theoretical physicist. the program was brilliant and well worth watching.
link:www.rferl.org...

Originally posted by FreeSpeaker

Originally posted by firepilot

But my point stands, when they get the correct information, are they relieved about it and thankful for the correction, and upset at the websites that mislead them?

Some may be as I was when you convinced me to disregard cloud seeding as a possiblity for the behaviour I have witnesses.

Originally posted by firepilot
More often than not, they get upset at whoever offered the correct information, then call them names, and then refuse to learn from it. Do they get upset at the chemtrail promoters who knowing leave up wrong photos, wrong videos and misleading info, in order to sell things to people who would believe in chemtrails?

I believe they are getting upset and refusing to learn becuase some of you debunkers seem to have fun insulting and humiliating them. Humiliation is generally not a good way to teach.

Originally posted by firepilot
If they actually learned from the correction is one thing. Sometimes something as simple as identifying an aircraft type, or an airline from a chemtrail video, or explaining that yes the air is ALWAYS cold up high, or that even WW2 aircraft made persistent contrails, is enough to earn the government agent label.

Its a favourite theory on ATS these days. Dis-info guys everywhere and in every forum apparently. Some of you have earned the label because of your own behaviour. Spend less time trying to humiliate people and they are less likely to claim you are a government agent.

I can not make someone wrong, its information, facts, science and knowledge that make someone wrong.

If someone felt humilated, because they posted something totally incorrect, they should man up and take that as a reason to be better informed. We are adults here, and anywhere in life, if someone is posting bunk and accusing others of taking part in some vast plot, they will get called on it.

So the "government agent" label, (which is against ATS rules by the way to accuse people of) has actually nothing to do with being from the government, and is a reaction to ones feelings getting hurt when they got corrected?

Interesting...

reply to post by NightGypsy

Exaggerate much?

Jeez......I'm halfway expecting you to stomp away crying after that post. You should get a job with the MSM. Your skills in "sensationalism" are quite exceptional.....just the kind of skill they seek.

So in other words, no, you don't want to address any actual issues. Thanks for making that clear in your inimitable, understated fashion.

reply to post by firepilot


my earlier post should already tell you that i have gone to great lengths to get educated on contrail's and how they form you should also notice that you won't see me linking to chemtrail's sites as i don't use them and never have a key point here should be that i have never watched what in the earth are they spraying.
so i do get rather annoyed when you pigeon-hole me as a chemmie especially as i use he term persistent contrail's and not chemtrails in my posts so yes i do get offended when you post such things as

quote:If chemmies is name calling, then guilty. I do not think chemmie is acually name calling though, since it does not have any inherent meaning to it, other than chemtrail believer.

The whole "look up, I know what I see" meme got tired out a long time ago. Chemmies have a long history of not having the slightest clue what they actually see

Uh huh...typical. You chemmies just want to live in an echo chamber where you can all just agree with each other, and live comfortable in your delusions,

Take the time to look through my posts and stop placing me a predesignated group where i do not belong.

reply to post by firepilot

So what is your take on when chemtrailers post completely dishonest things or call for pilots to be executed and planes shot down?

I don't support the posting of anything that is dishonest, whether it's coming from chemtrail believers or not. And I certainly have a problem with anyone suggesting pilots be shot down.

If you were to peruse my posts on this topic and many others, you would find I have no problem publicly disapproving of the kind of posts you are talking about, particularly when they are coming from someone who's viewpoints I generally agree with. This has occurred several times in the past few days, as a matter of fact. If I am proven wrong about something, I will admit it.

As much as you might want to lump me into the same group of "chemtrailers" you have experienced in the above examples, I do not have the same approach to these conspiracy issues that you might presume. You will see this in time.

The bottom line is, whether one is a government agent or not is irrelevant if the information they present is factual. I take into consideration evidence of any kind that is credible, whether the information pleases me or not. Anyone who does otherwise is not being objective in their search for truth.