Established Member
Oh! Now I have coffee all over my keyboard!Originally Posted by NEOWatcher
BTW: Several pages back, I believe a claim was made that chemtrails could be identified because of a criss-cross pattern. As far as I know, planes that actually do spray chemicals (i.e. crop dusters and firefighters) don't use a criss-cross pattern.
Last edited by Extravoice; 2010-Apr-16 at 02:33 PM. Reason: spelling error
Administrator
If you are done, that's fine, then you have no further obligations to this thread.
However, you need then to be really done on this topic. If you post any further in either this thread or another, advocating "Chemtrails" as a real conspiracy, you will be held to the full obligations of this forum to support that with evidence and to answer questions.
Member
Well, conspiracy theorists try to convince others in unproven things, I do not. I just form an opinion based on something I have read, or personal experience, and I do not fall under the conspiracy theorist stereotype since I'm open to other explanations, and I can change my opinions depending on how convincing other explanations are. And I think most of you provided such information here, though not heavy enough to radically change what I think about it.
Ok, maybe I have exaggerated a little bit. Evidence? My grandfather isn't alive now to say what he knew.
Read interesting stuff.
Whatever. I used the arguments other people have made concerning that pattern, I haven't seen such thing personally.Oh! Now I have coffee all over my keyboard!
BTW: Several pages back, I believe a claim was made that chemtrails could be identified because of a criss-cross pattern. As far as I know, planes that actually do spray chemicals (i.e. crop dusters and firefighters) don't use a criss-cross pattern.
Alright, if I can't talk on the possibility that this might be true, then I'm not going to talk about chemtrails at all.
Though thanks for your patience. People like me can be a pan in the butt sometimes.
EDIT:
He was a pilot. I don't think that would qualify him as an eyewitness. He would be a lot more credible then conspiracy theorists
Senior Member
Even if he were, that would be eyewitness evidence, which is notorious for it's unreliability.
Established Member
NeptuneRise,
I still have some questions in post #684 that I'm curious about.
Administrator
And I'm going to say NeptuneRise should not answer them. We can't have it both ways, or it will be a way around our rules. NeptuneRise has said he is done with this discussion, then he is done.
Sorry Bobbar, they will just have to remain unanswered.
Moderator
No Contrails in Norway, Sweden, denmark, Holland, Germany, Belgium and Northern France today.
It's spreading I tell you!
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
Order of Kilopi
I gave you people who have researched that matter, like you asked.
No, you volunteered in your very first post on the subject that "credible people" with appropriate qualifications and knowledge endorsed the chemtrail beliefs that you hold. Naturally we asked to see those endorsements so that we could evaluate their merits. You seemed reluctant to specify them, as if we should simply take your word for it that proper scientific inquiry had been conducted. You seemed upset that you had been "ordered" to describe the evidence that you yourself had volunteered.
If that's not good enough for you, I dunno what will be...
But you don't seem to be very aware of how good your evidence is. You seem to want its quality to be judged solely by its existence, not its merits. Just because you present something you call evidence doesn't mean people are obliged to treat it as lackadaisically as you appear to have done.
...so you can do whatever you want with the information you were given.
What we did with the information is to conduct an exercise designed to test its reliability. That's what one properly does with evidence offered in support of findings. Your evidence was found sorely wanting, and specific reasons were given for the deficiency. You can either address those deficiencies or withdraw the evidence. You can't rationally keep pretending it's something it clearly isn't.
You said your grandfather was an informed eyewitness to the "reality" of chemtrails. In fact his evidence is only hearsay, and you hedge it by claiming he was lied to.
You said credible scientific and technical people endorsed this belief. Upon examination, we find that the "experts" are not qualified at all and are not recognized in the sciences they discuss in their articles. We find further that their claims are patently unscientific, having leapt to ludicrous conclusions and having reasoned their empiricism most circularly.
You said you had a personal experience with a "chemtrail," but your account does not stand up to scrutiny, especially in the area of causation.
...if this didn't gave you something to check upon and research...
We did check up on it. You just don't like the outcome.
You seem to think we object to or reject the "chemtrail" theory because we don't know what the claims are. In fact we do, and we're not going to be convinced by having the same faulty evidence presented to us again and again.
...I made my turn, its your turn to check the studies.
And if you consult this thread and the many like it, you'll discover that's been done. Research into contrails and other affirmative alternatives to "chemtrails" has been done for decades.
But an affirmative rebuttal is not necessary. If someone argues that the trails we see in the sky are harmful chemicals intentionally or secretly being inflicted upon the world's population, then he bears the burden to prove it. That ability to bear it remains unaffected by someone else's ability to bear some other burden. Strictly speaking, the question "If they're not chemicals then what are they?" does not require an answer in order to determine whether or not they are chemicals. The question shifts the burden of proof.
That's exactly what I WASN'T trying to do. I'm saying this post after freaking post!
But also in post after post you continue to mention and advocate evidence. When you say you're not trying to prove anything, but then you continue to offer evidence in favor of your belief, then what is the reader to do?
I want to be left alone on this matter! I'm done!
Then the proper thing to do is to admit, contrary to your first post, that "chemtrails" remain a conspiracy theory and that you cannot establish them as fact. Thereafter stop posting.
Established Member
I think we should qualify that. It remains a theory in the common sense of an idea that has not been proven.
As opposed to a scientific theory which can be falsified, but has not been, and which provides the best explanation for observations given current knowledge.
Edit: actually I misread that and didn't see you describe it as a conspiracy theory ....... so my comment is probably redundant!
Established Member
Awww shucks.
Administrator
It gets even sadder....
After a discussion among a couple of moderators, we've decided to close this thread. I think we've gotten our money's worth in five years. But it is getting a little long and more than a little unmanagable.
We ask that future Chemtrail believers individually start their own threads, where they can cleanly state their own beliefs and the reasons and evidence for such beliefs. Of course, people on both sides of the debate may reference posts in this thread.
If someone has compelling reasons to reverse this closing, please Report the Post (black triangle, lower left corner) and explain those reasons.
Posting Permissions
