• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chemtrails

Most of the CT's I know buy into all of them Pearl Habour, JFK, Apollo, 9/11, Chemtrails, Roswell and UFOs=ETVs....

I'd say 80 to 90 percent of the troothers I've run into also believed in at least one other conspiracy theory, either the Illuminati, or the Apollo Moon Landing hoax, something.

Somewhere around half of them subscribe to ALL conspiracy theories. Like Alex Jones, the SECOND they hear a new conspiracy, they immediately adopt it as being true, no questions asked.
 
Do you believe in ANY? Or do we know, through the teevee, paper, and history books, the whole truth about everything?

Is there a name for this fallacy? "If we don't know everything, then anything is possible"

Or, the reverse: "Since you don't believe in [insert pet CT], you must believe everything is true".

Obviously, conspiracies have happened, are happening, will happen. However, each conspiracy theory must be suppoerted independently, with its own arguments.

Hans
 
Is there a name for this fallacy? "If we don't know everything, then anything is possible"

Or, the reverse: "Since you don't believe in [insert pet CT], you must believe everything is true".

Hans

Hmmm.... Looks a bit like a pre-fallacy manoeuvre - setting up the right woo-ish environment, like raking the soil before planting your seeds of gibberish.
 
Do you believe in ANY? Or do we know, through the teevee, paper, and history books, the whole truth about everything?
Of course not. The bulk of what you "know" is acquired through experience. This is why magic tricks usually work on people. You don't expect a rabbit to emerge from an empty hat or a woman to be healthy after you see her sawn in half on stage.

In a similar fashion, chemtrail believers expect contrails to vanish within minutes. When they persist they look for reasons they aren't disappearing. Most of us, when we are looking for reasons things are happening, approach the problems critically. We accept the explanation that the hat wasn't empty and that the woman wasn't really sawn in half even though our senses and experience "lied" to us when we viewed the magic trick.

Chemtrail believers ruthlessly subordinate "book learning" to their own senses. Lots of the chemtrail sites I've seen confuse the weather conditions on the ground (it was too humid, too dry, too windy, not windy enough, too cold, too warm, etc.) with those thousands of metres aloft. They are successfully tricked into thinking their senses are accurate in distinguishing between genuine vapour trails and nefarious 'chemtrails'.

Moreover, chemtrail believers approach the issue of persistent vapour trails in the same manner they approach 9/11. The 'guvmint' is inherently evil and possesses untold wealth and power. "They" dance naked in front of statues of Moloch. "They" forced us to use debit cards and paper money instead of gold. So, obviously if "they" wanted to, "they" would pack jets with barrels of barium and aluminum to spray all over the good folks of Portland.

While you're trashing history books along with 'teevee' and the papers, could you point out one history book that you know is filled with lies? I would gladly debate you on any history book you care to name.
 
Sigh. I was hoping for a real chemie to appear. They are such easy prey. I'd go to their own sites, but they ban me on sight.

Hans
 
Do you believe in ANY? Or do we know, through the teevee, paper, and history books, the whole truth about everything?

In Conspiracies, or Conspiracy Theories? I believe that there are conspiracies, that there have been conspiracies in the past and will be in the future. Most of them are over silly power plays and come quickly to the light because people can't keep their mouths shut (Watergate, The Lewinskey Affair, and Enron are all examples.)

I also believe that what most of the CT crowd take as a conspiracy is nothing more than rampant after the fact butt covering by incompetents who want to keep their jobs and so will lie through their teeth, attempting to pass the buck to someone else so as to conceal their part in the systems failure that occurred.

Do I believe in sooper sekret Gubermints run by the Illuminate and a cabal of alien masters who pull off perfectly planned black ops to control the minds of the sheeple about the world, all done with vastly superior technology and followed up by terrorising any expert that might step out of line, except those that do? No. Why not, because there just is no evidence.

Do I believe the CT espoused by people like Jack White, Bart Sibrel, Steven Jones, Dylan Avery and Michael Moore? No, because they have no evidence and wouldn't know what evidence was if they fell over it. They flat out lie, they manipulate the facts more than the best Japanese Origamist, and when all else fails they just make stuff up. They have no education in science and even their common sense arguments generally fall flat as a deflated balloon when a small amount of light is brought to bear. They obfuscate, squirm and tap-dance their way about questions when faced with the facts and never ever answer a straight question, rather going off on rants about perceived holes in the "Official Story" rather then dealing with the canyons in their own.

If, and only if, the CT's (in ANY CT) come up with a consistent and logic storyline that can be examined and tested in the same way as the "Official Story" is, and that story not only passes those tests, but afterwards it is shown that it is MORE LIKELY than the Official Claims, then and only then am I willing to think that it might be credible.

While all that a CT contains is a bunch of uneducated nonsense, mangled facts, half-truths, outright lies, unqualified finger pointing, unsupported pseudo-scientific claims, absurd photo analysis, and political rants, then no, I won't accept it.
 
Last edited:
Stop. Tell us your theory.

This drives me nuts, the way certain woos feel the need to dance around and soften up their theories just because they're around skeptics. It just makes conversation frustrating.

Who was that other guy who came in and swore he wasn't a 9/11 troother, then said, "All I'm saying is the buildings had some 'assistance' coming down!"

Come on. Just be honest. Stop dancing.

What I'm saying is, research it!

What frustrates me is when skeptics ask questions like "what are CTers on when they claim..." and there is plenty out there to read/watch, that would explain the CT.

I'm not referring to you, DW, but some just ridiculke and "debunk" every CT they hear about, without ever even finding out what the CT actually is.

(I don't do Chemtrails, so no need to slam me on this one).
 
What I'm saying is, research it!

Research what? Do we run out and research it every time somebody gets a new daft idea? Why should we research that? I'ts their idea, let them research it.

What frustrates me is when skeptics ask questions like "what are CTers on when they claim..." and there is plenty out there to read/watch, that would explain the CT.

What frustrates me is that people feel it is my job to explain simple things to them, like in chemtrails, the physics in how clouds form and what comes out of aircraft engines. And when I do it, they just dismiss it because it does not fit their silly ideas.

I'm not referring to you, DW, but some just ridiculke and "debunk" every CT they hear about, without ever even finding out what the CT actually is.

Well, yes, I suppose we all do that sometimes. It sorta comes with the territory. When you have been through dozens of insane theories, you do tend to say -There's another one-. However, you can't say CTs are not generally taken seriously here; there may be people dismissing them right out, but there are just as many who go to great lengths analyzing them, explaining, asking for evidence, etc, etc.


(I don't do Chemtrails, so no need to slam me on this one).
Fine, fine, but this thread happens to be about chemtrails, so if you don't mind, we'll talk about them if we like.

So, which CTs do you 'do'?

Hans
 
What frustrates me is when skeptics ask questions like "what are CTers on when they claim..."

That generally what I ask after researching the CT.
 
While you're trashing history books along with 'teevee' and the papers, could you point out one history book that you know is filled with lies? I would gladly debate you on any history book you care to name.

Well, considering "history" is subjective, it could be argued that every single history book is incorrect, on some level.
 
In Conspiracies, or Conspiracy Theories? I believe that there are conspiracies, that there have been conspiracies in the past and will be in the future. Most of them are over silly power plays and come quickly to the light because people can't keep their mouths shut (Watergate, The Lewinskey Affair, and Enron are all examples.)

Ah, so you think we know the whole truth behind Watergate, Lewinsky, and Enron. It's nice for you that you have that safety net, only believing in the ones that HAVE been talked about, and "have come quickly to the light."
 
Research what? Do we run out and research it every time somebody gets a new daft idea? Why should we research that? I'ts their idea, let them research it.


Hans

I was replying to the question posted. If the poster wants to know about Chemtrails, he should stop JAQing and research it. That's what I'm always told here.

But then, I guess the real question that was asked was "what are CTers on..." So the poster could research that too, if they have the time. I offered "mushrooms" as one answer.
 
Incorrectness does not necessarily translate into lies...

Remember the Poppy Bush bios that had him arriving in Texas for the first time in his red Studebaker? (In some accounts, it was brand new, in others it was old and run-down).

Whoever first published that published a lie. (I believe it was his campaign publicist). Then every "historian" after that used that piece of campaign literature as a source, so it was repeated many times.

The winners right history. The assassins. And the people in power.
 
Remember the Poppy Bush bios that had him arriving in Texas for the first time in his red Studebaker? (In some accounts, it was brand new, in others it was old and run-down).

Whoever first published that published a lie. (I believe it was his campaign publicist). Then every "historian" after that used that piece of campaign literature as a source, so it was repeated many times.

The winners right history. The assassins. And the people in power.
Odd that you would choose something so insignificant, but... whatever... Which version was a lie and what's your source for that information?
 
Remember the Poppy Bush bios that had him arriving in Texas for the first time in his red Studebaker? (In some accounts, it was brand new, in others it was old and run-down).

Whoever first published that published a lie. (I believe it was his campaign publicist). Then every "historian" after that used that piece of campaign literature as a source, so it was repeated many times.

The winners right history. The assassins. And the people in power.

What's the lie? It was blue, not red? It was a Ford, not a Studebaker? It wasn't a car at all, but a Conestoga wagon? And as Cl1mh4224rd says, what the h*ll does it matter?

And you "write" history, not "right" it. Unless you mean it was fallen over aslant and you propped it up straight.
 
Odd that you would find it odd. It's an example.
Not so odd, of course, that you completely failed to answer my question. Pretty typical, really. Make a claim, get asked to clarify, focus on something else.

Most people, when making an example, explain how their example is relevant.

But I like Elizabeth's question better: What's the lie?
 

Back
Top Bottom