A challenge to you to discuss this openly

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
At least they answer my questions!

Let me give it a try, its not all your questions, but most relevant I think...


Do you have to be a chemmie or a debunker?
No

What hope is there for those of us who retain an open mind, due to conflicting information?
Which conflicting information? I think there is always hope...

Shouldn't we be working together to establish truth?
Depending on what you call the truth; yes of course, however it sometimes even seems hard to agree on what is 'truth'

Had anyone highlighted that before the MOD disclosed it, would they also have been 'debunked' by this forum?
Probably not, unless there was a lot of bunk in their story.

Will I be dismissed?
I think that is for Mick to answer, but I don't think so ;)


But I have to ask, did you consent to being sparayed with Anthrax?
No antrhax was sprayed, see also the answer from Dadid Fraser ( https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-challenge-to-you-to-discuss-this-openly.2328/#post-64753 )

Anthrax and zinc cadmium sulphide for example? Can you tell me who thought these to be harmless?
Its in the article you linked yourself:
And I don't think they thought anthrax was harmless, were do you get that idea from?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Cloudspotter, have you bothered to read the article? Sorry, don't want to add another question for you not to answer. I will not be posting again unless my questions are answered
I think that most all of us have read that article. I read it closely in 2002 over a decade ago when it came out. In summary to answer your question, the article says that the tests were to determine dispersion of chem/bio agents and were not designed to affect people, they used simulants which were thought to be safe. The same thing was done here in the US because there was a threat of attacks by the communist powers. If they had wanted to kill their own people they certainly could have done so far more efficiently.

The bacillus used to simulate anthrax, Bacillus globigii is also known as Bacillus subtilus and is found in soil, is common in the digestive tract and is considered a health food in Japan called natto.
Although this species is commonly found in soil, more evidence suggests that B. subtilis is a normal gut commensal in humans. A 2009 study compared the density of spores found in soil (~106 spores per gram) to that found in human feces (~104 spores per gram). The number of spores found in the human gut is too high to be attributed solely to consumption through food contamination. Soil simply serves as a reservoir, suggesting that B. subtilis inhabits the gut and should be considered as a normal gut commensal.[5]

Now, Thruthnow, your questions have all been answered, I hope. If not, get more specific or move on to sublimation by stating your take on that subject. I'd suggest you also study deposition and accretion as well as supersaturation over ice and ice Supersaturated regions (ISSR's) to gain a fuller understanding of the relevant terms for the subject of contrail persistence. You might even answer many of your own questions. You will get no answers of any sort about those things at chemtrail advocating websites, but the information is out there elsewhere.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
And I don't think they thought anthrax was harmless, were do you get that idea from?
They tested anthrax on an uninhabited island offshore Scotland. Here in the US, we had more room, and actually detonated more atomic bombs on ourselves than we ever did on our enemies. Those were also tests, not something designed to cull our population. They felt the risk of attack was so strong they had to be sure what it would take to defend against and use such weapons. Hopefully you are young enough to not have to remember what it was like to do atomic bomb drills in school as a child. I remember.
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
They tested anthrax on an uninhabited island offshore Scotland
Yes, my answer was more directed at the statement from Truthnow in which he/she says they believed anthrax was harmless. I don't think anybody ever said a thing like that. (Why would they otherwise test it on an uninhabited island.)

I think I'm young enough, but also I don't think we had the same kind of drills here in the Netherlands.
 

Truthnow

New Member
Thanks for all your help guys. A chemmie or a debunker? Just labels you have chosen to reinforce preconceived ideas about yourselves. As you say, decide for yourselves just what debunking and chemtrails actually are first. Doesn't help me seeking the truth behind all your words and preconceived positions. Perhaps you sort your labels out. No offence. I am still neither a believer nor disbeliever. Just seeking truth. I'll seek elsewhere. Sorry to waste your time.
 

captfitch

Senior Member.
Thanks for all your help guys. A chemmie or a debunker? Just labels you have chosen to reinforce preconceived ideas about yourselves. As you say, decide for yourselves just what debunking and chemtrails actually are first. Doesn't help me seeking the truth behind all your words and preconceived positions. Perhaps you sort your labels out. No offence. I am still neither a believer nor disbeliever. Just seeking truth. I'll seek elsewhere. Sorry to waste your time.

I think you didn't find the "truth" you were looking for. This place is the easiest place to find explanations for what can be seen in the sky. There are other places to find good info but I can't understand some of it.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Chemmie and debunker are not "labels you have chosen to reinforce preconceived ideas about yourselves" - they are labels that describe behavior and beliefs.

A lot of people on various forums claims to be "just looking for the truth" - and yet somehow they don't manage to understand the science behind contrails when it is explained, and the disinfo that is required to support the chemtrail myth.

Such behavior defies the self proclamation "I'm just here to find the truth"

There's plenty of information on here about why chemtrails are a myth - if you choose to not believe it then you have no right to claim some moral high ground of being "just after the truth" - because you are clearly incapable of
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
I find this vid regarding openmindedness rather relevant when people claim to be truth seekers yet regularly dismiss verifiable science and embrace belief driven ideas
 

MikeC

Closed Account
This might be appropriate too??

Science_vs_faith.png
 

Attachments

  • xkcd285.png
    xkcd285.png
    38.4 KB · Views: 226

JRBids

Senior Member.
Please forgive me, I came here with an open mind, but some of you guys scare me with you blind acceptance that it must be safe if our governments doing it to us.

I wish I had your optimism and trust...


Someone asks "are you working on this now"
Answer "I can't comment on ongoing research."

What part of that is hard to understand?
 

Miss VocalCord

Senior Member.
As you say, decide for yourselves just what debunking and chemtrails actually are first.
Debunking is relatively easy to describe; removing the bunk from something. You started this topic with a video named :
"Chemtrail Debunk Challenge"

So now it is your turn to decide what 'chemtrail' and 'debunk' means, take a shot.


I thought it would be a wonderful opportunity for two people to discuss this openly.
What do you want to discuss? Starting a topic with a movie talking about sublimation and then switching to testing done by the MoD doesn't make any sense to me.
What is the relation between sublimation and the MoD tests, could you please explain?

I've tried to answer your questions, but then the only thing you do is run away, that doesn't seem like a good start for an open discussion...
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
For those of us genuinely puzzled, give us the benefit of the doubt. What is it the precise topic you would like to have discussed/debunked?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Thanks for all your help guys. A chemmie or a debunker? Just labels you have chosen to reinforce preconceived ideas about yourselves. As you say, decide for yourselves just what debunking and chemtrails actually are first. Doesn't help me seeking the truth behind all your words and preconceived positions. Perhaps you sort your labels out. No offence. I am still neither a believer nor disbeliever. Just seeking truth. I'll seek elsewhere. Sorry to waste your time.

Seems you've spent your few posts here trying to shove "us" into your own preconceived bin.

What happened to "open discussion"?

In "open discussion" you are bound to get answers that you do not find satisfactory. If you just take your ball and go home when the answers are not to your liking instead of furthering discussion of the topic then it seems that "open discussion" wasn't really on the agenda.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Thanks for all your help guys. A chemmie or a debunker? Just labels you have chosen to reinforce preconceived ideas about yourselves. As you say, decide for yourselves just what debunking and chemtrails actually are first. Doesn't help me seeking the truth behind all your words and preconceived positions. Perhaps you sort your labels out. No offence. I am still neither a believer nor disbeliever. Just seeking truth. I'll seek elsewhere. Sorry to waste your time.

A debunker is a person who seeks to find and remove bunk from claims of fact. There was never any confusion about that except in the minds of people who resent debunking being done and claim debunkers are really lying government agents.

Define "chemtrails"? It should be incumbent on those claiming that something(chemtrails) exists to define what that something is, don't you think?
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I am still neither a believer nor disbeliever. Just seeking truth.
Just in case you look back in again, remember I suggested: "A starting point for you, Truthnow, if you really believe your handle, would be to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor, and to ask us questions."

That wasn't difficult. If you were searching for truth, then an encyclopedia, where things are defined, surely would have been the place to begin. But you never came back on that.

Why?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I understand that too Hama Neggs.

But my experience is that few believers ever spend time defining what they believe. They simply want it to be true to satisfy prior government phobia, without needing to go into detail.
You ask them for a definition and most of them will fail to provide one that is coherent, essentially debunking themselves by exposing their conviction as nothing but blind faith.

But of course there are always those that wander into fantasy land, but I think both you and I know that you can't argue with people on that level. There is no point.
But I also know there are believers that actually can produce more realistic narratives, claims that can be addressed if needed.

What you say there is true. The problem is with your suggestion of: " My point is just that if open discussion is the purpose everyone needs to know the definition." MY point is that "open discussion" is NOT the purpose of the chemtrail believers. They might THINK and SAY they want that, but they don't seem to understand what it would mean. Your suggestion is valid, but can't possibly be implemented.

On a slight tangent, I will note that the believers tend to adopt language like "open discussion" because it seems like good debate technique. They have also started using expressions like: "moving the goalposts" and "cherry-picking data". They toss them out, but don't apply them correctly and don't seem to really even know what they mean. It's just something to say in an argument so that you can SOUND like you know what you are doing/talking about.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
I guess you're right Hama Neggs.

Didn't mean to beat you into submission on the subject.

"But I also know there are believers that actually can produce more realistic narratives, claims that can be addressed if needed."

Those more "realistic" narratives used to exist... sort-of. As soon as those more concrete claims got made and debunked, rather than seeing the false basis upon which the entire story was based, they(as an amorphous group) simply reduced the clarity with which they express their claims. Now, instead of "chemtrails began in the mid-1990s, they either won't be pinned down to a beginning or claim that any trail going clear back to WW2 is a "chemtrail" too. There is no agreement on when chemtrails began, but they won't address or acknowledge the contradiction between each other on that.

It's the same with: "They are just military planes spraying". When somebody makes that claim now and you point out that other chemmies say that commercial planes are "spraying", they just don't respond. You never "win" an argument with chemmies- they rarely admit to having been shown wrong on any aspect of their story. They just stop responding. I assume they just keep saying the same thing again, somewhere else.

It's obvious that a certain mentality of people is attracted to CTs. They are almost universally immune to anything which disproves what they desperately want to believe.
 

Sausalito

Active Member
It's obvious that a certain mentality of people is attracted to CTs. They are almost universally immune to anything which disproves what they desperately want to believe.
Largely true, it seems, but leave the door open for the salvageable minds. A newer buddy of mine is taken in by all sorts of bologna - new age bologna, Alex Jones-y bologna, pseudoscience pastrami, you get it. But we get along swimmingly - he's a very genuine sort, exceptionally rare in his honesty and guilelessness. But boy is he gullible. He asks my opinion on science (GMOs, etc.) and (pretty damn far out) conspiracy theories, knowing full well that I'm a strict adherent of the scientific method and scoff at anything metaphysical. He's just naive, not a foaming-at-the-mouth crackpot. I think it's very telling that he values my take on things, even though I suggest non-paranormal explanations for his experiences with "ghosts", e.g. If I can convince him not to run off to the hills with his children to avoid FEMA camps, then huzzah. Of course, it's hard to have this sort of influence with strangers on the 'net. Maybe we could organize some sort of exchange program, like "Adopt-A-Truther"
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Largely true, it seems, but leave the door open for the salvageable minds. A newer buddy of mine is taken in by all sorts of bologna - new age bologna, Alex Jones-y bologna, pseudoscience pastrami, you get it. But we get along swimmingly - he's a very genuine sort, exceptionally rare in his honesty and guilelessness. But boy is he gullible. He asks my opinion on science (GMOs, etc.) and (pretty damn far out) conspiracy theories, knowing full well that I'm a strict adherent of the scientific method and scoff at anything metaphysical. He's just naive, not a foaming-at-the-mouth crackpot. I think it's very telling that he values my take on things, even though I suggest non-paranormal explanations for his experiences with "ghosts", e.g. If I can convince him not to run off to the hills with his children to avoid FEMA camps, then huzzah. Of course, it's hard to have this sort of influence with strangers on the 'net. Maybe we could organize some sort of exchange program, like "Adopt-A-Truther"

I am in a strange position re: paranormal stuff. I have had certain personal experiences which I can explain in no other way than to accept that some things are not explainable within the hard reality I seem to inhabit most of the time. On the other hand, when people make claims in certain areas and CLAIM TO HAVE PHYSICAL PROOF to support them, I say: "Bring it on". That alleged proof invariably is full of bunk. I don't care what people claim to believe. It's just when they claim to be able to PROVE it is true IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, that I object. Maybe I just said the same thing twice?

I can "believe" some things without claiming to be able to prove they are universally true. I don't see any problem or contradiction there. I have beliefs and I have provable facts. I try not to confuse the two or inflict my beliefs on others as being what should/must be true for them.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I was alive from 1960 and live on the South Dorset coastline!

In the interest of establishing why you believe what may or not be being sprayed in the sky is an issue, I don't suppose you've been to any meetings in village halls about this kind of thing around Dorset lately?
 

Related Articles

Top