deirdre
Senior Member.
that sounds like youre saying the theory may be sound.You can explain from the outset that debunking this one fact will not debunk the entire theory
that sounds like youre saying the theory may be sound.You can explain from the outset that debunking this one fact will not debunk the entire theory
I would venture a guess here, but I doubt he's had any luck in positive results. That's not a knock on Ham, it's just easy to see that in the way he confronts bunk. Obviously, if he had satisfactory results he wouldn't be so negative about being able to help people by using debunking@Hama Neggs, what approach has produced the best results for you?
@Hama Neggs, what approach has produced the best results for you?
That's kinda my point! It tends to seem that way.that sounds like youre saying the theory may be sound.
I think that one claim is quickly becoming the central, driving force in the chemtrail movement.
The facts and evidence should speak for themself. Stating its a lie or non truth or false isn't necessary.Ohh... ALWAYS include evidence to support it! I didn't mean to just SAY they are liars. AND I would usually use a less inflamatory term, like: "falsehood".
This is indeed sad, if true. I cannot state, more emphatically, how WRONG such a claim is....
....the "claim" that modern high-bypass turbofan engines don't make contrails.
I mean....man, just MY experience alone refutes this assertion, a hundred-fold!!
I am usually pretty polite, but don't often see overt results at all. It's for the onlookers, mostly, that you never hear from.
I don't know some of this evidence can get pretty technical.The facts and evidence should speak for themself. Stating its a lie or non truth or false isn't necessary.
PS: Wigington has even stated that someone from Rolls-Royce jet engines has confirmed the claim to be true!
You're right D, but the facts and evidence should be enough, and the point it isn't enough is why we're all having this discussion.I don't know some of this evidence can get pretty technical.
I don't know some of this evidence can get pretty technical.
There has to be a way to dumb it down for those types of people, myself included at times, and unfortunately this is where the philosphy of teaching comes into play. And not everyone knows how to practice that when describing technical stuff..THIS is very, very true....and leads up to how conspiracy theories ('CTs') can arise.
This is anecdotal (sorry) but just the other night a neighbor was in the pool/hot tub of my Condo, and the conversation of orbits (i.e., artificial satellites, the planets, our Solar System, etc) came up. It was amazing (to me) the lapse of understanding that (again, to me as a science "nerd") can understand quite easily.
THAT (describing orbit mechanics) was ALSO very technical, and difficult to convey without some other "tools" at my disposal, such as drawing a diagram, etc. ALL based on verbal communication, not usually the most efficient way to convey complex ideas. Still, I tried my best.....
Dane Wigington?
OK......(long pause)....well, then Mr. Wigington must now provide some evidence to support such an assertion.
(EDIT for a "P.S.": Recently on YouTube someone cited Mr. Wigington....hoo, boy! I did my best to disabuse that YT member of the veracity of Dane Wigington. Not sure if it's possible to get through to a "true believer", sometimes....).
THIS is very, very true....and leads up to how conspiracy theories ('CTs') can arise.
This is anecdotal (sorry) but just the other night a neighbor was in the pool/hot tub of my Condo, and the conversation of orbits (i.e., artificial satellites, the planets, our Solar System, etc) came up. It was amazing (to me) the lapse of understanding that (again, to me as a science "nerd") can understand quite easily.
THAT (describing orbit mechanics) was ALSO very technical, and difficult to convey without some other "tools" at my disposal, such as drawing a diagram, etc. ALL based on verbal communication, not usually the most efficient way to convey complex ideas. Still, I tried my best.....
Think of it as multiple layers of debunking - not only do they hold several false beliefs about contrails etc, but they also hold false beliefs about you. And it's this second set of beliefs that is preventing you from getting anywhere with the first.I know. That's just another example of their broad world view being faulty. They think all opposing views are from the "official story".
...but if they think you are just disdainfully calling them an irrational idiot...
Think of it as multiple layers of debunking - not only do they hold several false beliefs about contrails etc, but they also hold false beliefs about you. And it's this second set of beliefs that is preventing you from getting anywhere with the first.
So you can keep hammering away at them, but if they think you are just disdainfully calling them an irrational idiot, then you will not get very far. So you have to "debunk" that perception.
So that should be where the conversation ends. Agree to disagree so to speak. There doesn't need to be a "winner" in a tit for tat conversation. One should see the writing on the wall and walk away, which I see many do that on here. And try to approach it differently later on. And its important the "unknown" audience doesn't see it that way as well. For them, and myself it does a disservice when conversations spiral out of control. To the point where the facts and evidence are ignored, and they will go search out another similar thread or topic.Understood. However, in some instances it seems that no matter what factual evidence is presented, it just doesn't get "accepted" by the individual.
Of course there is always the fact that an "unknown" audience is looking in ("lurking", as it were) so there's that ....
I just feel like we are putting out perimeter brush fires when there are a few people like Dane and Russ, who are in the center, continually pouring gallons of kerosene on the fire.
There has to be a way to dumb it down for those types of people, myself included at times...
Jason, PLEASE do not sell yourself "short". You are very intelligent.
Honestly, I think we all stand to learn something new each day. This site offers that to the public. Technical know how isn't my forte, so I was just being honest. Honesty is also vital to this topic, more specifically the honesty that deals with what our intentions are and what led us here...Jason, PLEASE do not sell yourself "short". You are very intelligent.
Exactlyit's about effective communication
But I thought climate change and sea warming was already leading to acidification, so why would geoengineering designed to reverse that lead to acidification?If someone is concerned that geoengineering will lead to continued ocean acidification, then that is a valid concern.
You keep telling people how intelligent they are, but the fact remains that many people are unfamiliar with various topics, and so explanations DO need to be "dumbed down". It's not about people being dumb, it's about effective communication. Another type of common ground - you need to build from shared understanding, so you need to know the level of understanding the other person has.
still in all, ive seen some of your old old posts and your communication skills evolution. you are absolutely doing great now. messing with a good thing is just messing with a good thing.You keep telling people how intelligent they are, but the fact remains that many people are unfamiliar with various topics, and so explanations DO need to be "dumbed down". It's not about people being dumb, it's about effective communication. Another type of common ground - you need to build from shared understanding, so you need to know the level of understanding the other person has.
I can't punish the troops, I can't cut off their heads. I can't even order them to do things.
All I can do is communicate better.
But I don't think going around telling people Dane is a liar is going to help at all. Quite the opposite. I also think it's largely inaccurate to say he's a liar about everything.
Dane's claims have been called out many times in individual posts here. He ignores Metabunk, and portrays it as a disinfo site. Haranguing him any more than is currently done is just going to make people take pity on him.
There's enough debunking of him out there for a reasonable person to get the picture.
But I don't think going around telling people Dane is a liar is going to help at all. Quite the opposite. I also think it's largely inaccurate to say he's a liar about everything.
Dane's claims have been called out many times in individual posts here. He ignores Metabunk, and portrays it as a disinfo site. Haranguing him any more than is currently done is just going to make people take pity on him.
There's enough debunking of him out there for a reasonable person to get the picture.
still in all, ive seen some of your old old posts and your communication skills evolution. you are absolutely doing great now. messing with a good thing is just messing with a good thing.
*Now if its a passionate subject all the guys like to jump on and get involved with, maybe you can private message each other more and say "hey, back off a few minutes, let me talk to him first. because sometimes there are too many of you throwing out different stuff and the main focus points, not so much get ignore, but the 'ct' is distracted by new 'attacks'.
I rot at these conspiracy terms, but its like a gish-gallop (?) of debunks ; )
But I thought climate change and sea warming was already leading to acidification, so why would geoengineering designed to reverse that lead to acidification?
Just some clarification would be nice. Are Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner knowingly and intentionally lying, or do they actually believe in what they are saying. Because there's a big difference between the two even though the message is false.The thing they have to be told, at some point, is that the center of the chemtrail movement is being driven by congenital liars like Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner.
Just some clarification would be nice. Are Dane Wigington and Russ Tanner knowingly and intentionally lying, or do they actually believe in what they are saying. Because there's a big difference between the two even though the message is false.
Has Dane conducted his own test to corroborate his "beliefs" by any chance?I'm most familiar with Dane. I think he generally believes what he says, but he's excessively resistant to being corrected. So even when it has been explained why he is wrong, he keeps promoting the same thing. I think he thinks the explanation is a lie - like if it is shown that aluminum levels in water are perfectly safe, he will either suggest the test was rigged, or that the EPA has changed the "safe" levels. But I don't think this is a deliberate falsehood on his part.
Tanner has much more unusual beliefs, and I don't know what he really thinks.
So even when it has been explained why he is wrong, he keeps promoting the same thing. I think he thinks the explanation is a lie -
quick off topic: so with this Turbo whatever engines... so, they don't produce contrails. BUT some produce chemtrails that dissipate quick and some produce chemtrails that persist. is the thinking because they are different chems?Right, but he doesn't even attempt to explain his thinking on that, right? He just ignores the correction.
quick off topic: so with this Turbo whatever engines... so, they don't produce contrails.