[Ed] Chemtrails (again)

[Calcas]

After watching lyte continue to attempt to support his ridiculous "no plane crashed at the Pentagon" argument, it reminded me of this.

He is also an adamant believer in "chemtrails" and all of the evil things that they imply. Mind you, according to him, these are not only being used against us in the US, but they are part of a larger worldwide conspiracy to poison the population or take over their minds.

His myspace with his relevant ramblings on chemtrails is here.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=1486476&blogID=26669912

My question is this.

Doesn't a persons completely irrational beliefs in one subject automatically make everything else they say suspect?

How can you take someone seriously (even if they appear to be serious) on one topic if they also try to convince you of the existence of the tooth fairy?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Not to worry. Chem trails have no effect on conspiracy theorists. They have some kind of immune gene. It allows them to warn the rest of us who are under mind control.

 

[Reality Believer]

Not to worry. Chem trails have no effect on conspiracy theorists. They have some kind of immune gene. It allows them to warn the rest of us who are under mind control.

Actually I think the opposite is true. Chemical spraying is supposed to be a kind of "selective weed killer" for stupidity. If you believe in chemtrails, please inhale deeply, it will all be over soon.

The only problem, it doesn't seem to be working very well. (Note to self - ask Dow Chemical to bump the formula).

 

[Miss Anthrope]

We have a poster here who's wife is working on a cure for cancer, but she apparently is starting to believe the moon landing hoax theory and other woo, like "auras". Certainly, I would find her credible within the subjects of her scientific expertise (as long as it's verifiable), but I would expect the usual evidence for the non-scientific claims.

My father believes in all manner of woo (not a "truther", though), but he spent his life as a concrete testing engineer. When it comes to how bridges and freeways take their load, I'll consider him a credible source. But when he tells me about the latest Coast to Coast show and how credible he finds it, I'll seek to debunk it immediately, as swallowing such nonsense without evidence is part of his nature.

Lots of otherwise smart folks believe in woo, CT's and the like. I can't even count how many people I know are still using toilet paper they bought in 1999 to stock up for y2K. To me I take each person in their context. As long as my Christian doctor is using is using their medical degree and not their bible, I'll let them treat me.

Rather than dismiss someone because of a certain belief, I think it's wise to address each argument individually. Perhaps all the pet theories are nonsense, but I believe it's only fair to take it on a case by case basis. I mean, you'll form your bias based on how much woo you see, and that's simply human nature. I have my own opinion about the things Lyte claims. But if he came out saying he supported gay marriage, and he made a coherent argument from reason, I certainly wouldn't judge that opinion "wrong" based on his beliefs in other things.

 

[steve s]

Not to worry. Chem trails have no effect on conspiracy theorists. They have some kind of immune gene. It allows them to warn the rest of us who are under mind control.

Just another example of how the troofers contradict themselves. On the one hand they want us to believe that 80% of the public agree with them about 9-11 being an inside job. On the other hand the gubmint is gassing all of us into being mindless, obedient sheeple.

Steve S.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think that the chemtrails and MIHOP came from the same sources, for the most part. The militia whackjobs and white nationalists would like people to believe in both and to believe that all government is evil and that only by throwing in with the whackos can we save ourselves.

A person's beliefs can, however, shed some light on how their minds operate. Steve Jones, for instance, is a devout Mormon. Nothing wrong with that, as far as the intellectual integrity of his work on particle physics and whatever. But then we get around to his thermite theory. To me it looks like sloppy science, because he gets so exercised about the presence of stuff that is supposed to be there, including barium. There is supposed to be aluminum, sulphur and barium at the site of a building of that sort that was destroyed by fire. He didn't look far enough.

Other evidence of Jones' looking for what he wants and then jumping to a conclusion are to be found in his paper (no longer available on the BYU web site) claiming that the Mayan god Itzamna was Jesus, based largely on his "stigmata" and his death and re-birth. Jones is so convinced that he has found an affirmation of his faith that he fails to take into account the fact that Itzamna has stigmata only on the palms of his hands, and that thev historical Jesus would have had wounds in his wrists. Jones stops listening after the first words his Muse speaks. Sloppy scientist! Bad scientist!

 

[TjW]

Just another example of how the troofers contradict themselves. On the one hand they want us to believe that 80% of the public agree with them about 9-11 being an inside job. On the other hand the gubmint is gassing all of us into being mindless, obedient sheeple.

Steve S.

Well, there you go then. If 80% of people who are being chemically treated to disagree with twoofers, agree anyway, it must be really good and obvious evidence.

 

[uk_dave]

Just another example of how the troofers contradict themselves. On the one hand they want us to believe that 80% of the public agree with them about 9-11 being an inside job.

Of course the other glaring contradiction is that if 80% of the public already agree that 911 was an inside job, there's no need for all these bloody amateur documentaries trying desperately to prove it.