It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
you Chemtrails deniers will eat your own Sh%*
Would you humour me and tell me please if you can cite one thing from the last 3 months that has contributed in any way to supporting the theory that these 'Chemtrails' are poisonous and intended to kill us?
Knowing what I know now, I wonder whom that served.
Originally posted by Frater210
Would you humour me and tell me please if you can cite one thing from the last 3 months that has contributed in any way to supporting the theory that these 'Chemtrails' are poisonous and intended to kill us?
Originally posted by dplum517
Minus all the anecdotal evidence.....what I have seen with my own 2 eyes is more than enough for me to KNOW they are real.edit on 17-8-2011 by dplum517 because: typo
Why would you think that "chemtrails" are an exception to this rule?
Originally posted by Afterthought
If our government was smart, they'd figure out a way to make chemtrails as invisible as radioactive isotopes are.
In the end, that's all you have. Anecdotal evidence. There's tons of anecdotal evidence about fairies and leprechauns, but they aren't any more real than chemtrails. By your logic, everything that has ever had anecdotal evidence is real!
In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: "information that is not based on facts or careful study"[4][verification needed] "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"[5] "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[6] "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[7] "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically" Anecdotal evidence can have varying degrees of formality. For instance, in medicine, published anecdotal evidence is called a case report, which is a more formalized type of evidence subjected to peer review.[8] Although such evidence is not seen as conclusive, it is sometimes regarded as an invitation to more rigorous scientific study of the phenomenon in question.[9] For instance, one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."[10] Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[11] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.
Originally posted by adeclerk
Originally posted by Frater210
Would you humour me and tell me please if you can cite one thing from the last 3 months that has contributed in any way to supporting the theory that these 'Chemtrails' are poisonous and intended to kill us?
How about something from the last 15 years that shows "chemtrails" are anything but ordinary contrails? That sure would be refreshing.
Originally posted by dplum517
Saying that a certain Patent is not in use but exists is NOT debunking anything. Period.
It's global and finally there are entire countries coming out against it.
Originally posted by dplum517
Did you get that?? Can you comprehend that?
"study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports of side effects were later sustained as "clearly correct."
I would say me and the "believers" are on to something..... your logic, not mine, is what's failing you.edit on 17-8-2011 by dplum517 because: added
Anecdotal evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, can be used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalising from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". While the evidence is true, it does not warrant the conclusion made from it.
The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is.
Originally posted by Frater210
Yes, it is global, Do you know what else is global?
You need to start your own thread where you can air your very legitimate concerns and stay on topic in this one.