matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Yea, I knew you didn't want to go there. Nice deflection.
chem trails
- Thread starter sifreak21
- Start date
Wrong again.
You really aren't very good at this at all are you?
There's nowhere to go, so your accusation is specious.
Yes...I am 100% sure that some secret cabal is not spraying harmful chemicals on the general public all over the world. Why? you may ask....there is no reason for it. Making people sick only reduces productivity, and profit...what purpose would they have for spraying us with chemicals? And if there was a reason to poison us...there are alot easier and way more effective ways of doing it than spraying chemicals at 30,000 ft. A simple air sample using a weather balloon would reveal the conspiracy.
They could put it in your beer.
As an aside did you know there's female hormones in lager?
A recent scientific test proved this.
They gave a test group of 100 men lager to drink, and after 25 pints each not one of them could talk sense or drive properly.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
That is a subjective opinion, with no supporting evidence. Besides, I never said anything about harmful chemicals, and I agree that food is a much better medium for sickening and dumbing down the population. But what about chemtrails for global dimming/cooling? There's actually a very technical report I recently read(most of it I didn't understand) from the Lawrence Liverpool National Lab which specifically proposed such an idea some years back in order to compensate for global warming due to CO2.
But isn't it true that you would automatically discard, marginalize, or otherwise rationalize any information which contradicts your fundamental beliefs? Mainly, isn't it true that you would demonize/criticize any independent scientist who presents such contradictory evidence from his own weather balloon- such as you all tend to do so well here in sciforums? In much the same way that you automatically discard the experiences and testimonies of countless people who have first-hand knowledge of chemtral activity?
No.
That's where you fail, you see. Science relies upon verification and corroboration, so the term "independent scientist" sort of doesn't fit.
And here YOU are pre-supposing that these people with "first-hand knowledge" are neither lying, nor mistaken, nor have an agenda.
How do YOU know these people are reliable? That their "experiences" and "testimonies" are worth anything?
Oh wait!
But isn't it true that you would automatically accept, promote, and otherwise rationalize any information which confirms your fundamental beliefs? Mainly, isn't it true that you would believe/ laud any independent scientist who presents such confirmatory evidence from his own weather balloon- such as you tend to do so well here in sciforums? In much the same way that you automatically accept the "experiences" and "testimonies" of countless people who supposedly have first-hand knowledge of so-called chemtrail activity (and other woo-woo nonsense)?
Pot! Kettle's here to talk to you...
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
Well who would bother to confirm evidence which is already assumed to be from a quack? No really, think about it...who would bother? Another labeled quack, or a well-respected shill I mean scientist? Probably the quack.
Wrong. I take all testimony with a grain of salt. I neither assume it is right or wrong. The key being that I don't disregard information, only consider it along with all of it's baggage. You on the other hand only consider information with doesn't contradict your belief system, and only information from official figureheads.
No. I have doubts about it all. I am in no way sure about anything- the curse of a true conspiracy theorist. Unlike you, I am only proposing possibilities, not absolutes.
How about sending the samples to several independent analysis labs?
Don't forget you also lie about having evidence.
And you assume that I disregard "evidence", and you also assume that what is presented to you by - friends? scientists? internet cranks? actually is evidence.
Oh yeah, and you also make invalid assumptions about me. Based on... What, exactly? I'm intrigued.
It appears that you condemn me simply because I don't agree with your woo woo theories, that I have ready answers (which you assume are knee-jerk no-thought pro-establishment-for-the-sake-of-it responses [as opposed to having been through this any many other issues] MANY times in the past).
Way to be open minded. I salute you.
Proposing possibilities (and lies) based on what, exactly? The "experiences" and "testimony" of... who? People you know personally? Or internet cranks that you take at, more or less, face value?
Last edited:
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
I'll try to find this paper from the Lawrence Liverpool National Lab(which you all predictably forgot to ask me about), even though you probably already know about it and have since rationalized the heck out of it(cognitive dissonance). I think it's a very interesting read and it's from a mainstream source which I know you'll love.
Again, it's not proof or evidence. But then again, what really is.
Again, it's not proof or evidence. But then again, what really is.
There was no need to ask about it.
You said it was a proposal. Means nothing in the present context.
What you need is evidence that someone went ahead with the proposal.
So we're back to this. As opposed to your earlier comment about the massive availability of "evidence".
Last edited:
You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I cited harmful chemicals, because that is what most chemtrailers believe. As for chemtrails being for global dimming and cooling, there's no need to keep it secret...so what's the conspiracy?
You sure as hell make alot of assumptions about me. How do you know what I would accept or disregard? This is a science forum. Science requires evidence.
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
I suspect much more than just global warming. For many more reasons which I won't get into, I believe that the world will be going through catastrophic changes within the next couple years, and I believe this has been known in secret for a long time. I am in no way prepared to defend this position though so don't even bother attacking it. I know it sounds woo-woo. It's just an idea I have based on a lot of circumstantial evidence. But anyhow, I think global warming is just a symptom of this bigger change and I think that TPTB might be trying to control the damage for as long as possible, to keep people unaware of the bigger picture.
But that's just one possibility for why the government would want to keep it secret.
Here's a link to the Lawrence Liverpool National Lab paper which I referred to earlier:
http://www.rense.com/general18/scatteringEdTellerwithnotes.pdf
And here's a more evidence-oriented link:
http://www.carnicom.com/spectra1.htm
matthew809
Registered Senior Member
In the end it's not about the apparent validity of evidence, it's about who you trust. While I don't trust this guy off-hand, I also do not dismiss him right off- that would be stupid. But at what point do you decide to stop blowing off any uncomfortable information, and start to consider some of it? Do you plan on looking into this matter further? Are you curious? Or is your mind already made up on the matter?
And you trust this guy because...?
Oh you don't trust him. Yet you gave that site as a source.
So, back to the point: who is that you DO trust that's given you this information? And why do think it's not about the validity of the information?
I mean, so far, you've given a link and then claimed that it doesn't matter whether the information is valid or not (which is, in itself a very strange comment to make) and then also stated you don't particularly trust the guy who wrote it. But you'll read him him without "dismissing him" (I also note that whereas you "dismiss" evidence/ sources I, according to you, "blow them off". Another devious tactic).
I'd also note that while you persist in claiming that I dismiss, sorry, blow off, what I consider the cranks you do exactly the same with (ooh! they're obviously in on it!) government/ big business sources/ explanations.
Pot/ kettle again?
And again you resort to dishonest tactics.
The way you've worded your questions assumes automatically that if I don't do further "investigation" my mind is made up.
How about this?: in order for me conduct further investigation I first require evidence that there's actually something worth my time.
It's a pointless and futile exercise "investigating" every little theory that's propounded on the 'net.
What I have seen so far (and, from your posts I've already seen more sites and claims than you have) doesn't give me any reason to think there's anything to investigate. Crackpot claims by unqualified (or just plain ignorant) "observers" who appear to have jumped to conclusions before gathering what evidence they could and then sticking with their pre-decided conclusion.
Take a good look at the sites that promote this "theory" - they also happen to be the sites that support HAARP is a weapon, Tom Bearden builds free energy devices, the Russians blew up the shuttle (and cause earthquakes in the States) etc etc. Oh yeah, and the secret world government had this planned for the last 300 years.
Hush! I knew that, I was looking for Matthew's "reasoning" on why this guy's word is any good.
Last edited: