INDENIABLE PROOF chemtrails is real

[Unregistered]

I have a many indeniable proofs that chemtrails is real. 1. Meanwhile, a contrail remains a contrail whiles a chemtrail remains a chemtrail. 2. Wake up! 3. Sheeple. 4. U R an SHIL. 5. CHEMTRAIL! 6. CHEMTRAIL! 7. Ad homimim. 8. ORBS!!! 9. Chemtrail persists, while contrail evaporates INSTANTLY ALWAYS. 10. ORBS!!! 11. SKY is not always blue! 12. It is 11:50!!!!! 13. I had a runny nose for 2 days! 14. Explains spray nossle with big fan on front under wings????! 15. I'm right!!

aND Finallies, the mostest bestest prooFs impssoibles to bunkde EVAR!!!!!!

16. I SEE with my OBJECTIVE psychoanylizing eyeballs.

Pleasse, I KNOWS how Arioplayns works!!!!!! JUSTS like a bullet, once it leeves the rinway it goes until it STOPS. IT DONT NEED ENYGINES TO WORK!!! They are SPRAY NOSSILS!!!!!!!!

Sources: EYEs + Dedicative logik = TROOTH!!!!!!

YOU noe I right!

 

[Unregistered]

Peeple hoo is LOGIKAL like me!!! We nead to join owr forces! Togethar, we kan workr to stop IGnorants and disinformal agints like “sceantists” “encycelopseopedias” “DICTIONARIES” “Eskimos” and the WORST EVAR!!!…… ASTRONOTS!!!!!~!

 

[Mick West]

Amusing satire. But I don't think that mockery is the way to go here.

Firstly people might take you seriously, and waste time explaining things to you (although hopefully not with the above)

Secondly, the believers (and even the suspicious) are quite sensitive about their feelings, and mockery tends to put up a wall, hindering communication.

So please stop, thanks.

 

[Unregistered]

Sigh, I know your right. I just spent a frustrating hour reading people's "evidence" to support this ridiculous notion. (To call it a theory is an insult to the scientific method.) Humor is an excellent outlet.....

 

[Mick West]

Thanks for being reasonable. I can certainly understand the frustration. Unfortunately I'm sure that some of the believers feel the same way when they are trying to wake up the sheeple.

You've got to realize that the conspiracy mindset is never going to go away (at least not in our liefetimes). The best we can do is try to stop it from spreading.

Science is a candle in the dark, but not for everyone.

 

[Unregistered]

Point taken. Although I fully understand naive realism, conformation bias, assimilation bias, Peabody plots, radical perspective taking..... it doesn't help one bit when the "other" is unaware of such fallacious natural tendencies. BTW, I have read some of your stuff....good work and respect.

 

[Mick West]

It's difficult coming from an environment where those around you all have a reasonably good grasp of science and reason, and then attempting to converse with those who don't. You tend to assume at first that people will think like your friends and colleagues.

The conspiracy mindset is a little alien, and actually quite varied. It's an interesting topic in itself.

 

[Unregistered]

Word. I'm majoring in psychology so I tend to also find the conspiracy mindset interesting as well. This is my personal theory.....

"Maintaining order."

Everyone has some construct of how they perceive the world to work. To some, it is based on morality. Logic to others. Some even hold a more anarchical view. Another major quality is the "belief update" factor. In other words, how objectively will one interpret new evidence towards or against their belief (similar to conformation bias)? Some are more rigid in defending their model of the world than others.

Certain world models and levels of biased or irrational belief updating make some individuals more susceptible to conspiracy theories than others. Not only this, but conspiracies can be comforting by allowing one to maintain a certain perspective despite contrary events.

One type of model can be described as "things happen for a reason, and every action is the result of an equal and opposite reaction." For example, this may be the logical thought process behind the JFK assassination conspiracy: "JFK was great. How can someone so random and insignificant as Oswald destroy something so great? If this is true, then anything great can be destroyed suddenly and without reason." Resolution: "Oswald was only part of a massive power that carefully planned JFK's death." Result: Evidence towards world model, "JFK was destroyed by an equally powerful, yet evil force." Comfort in world view restoration.

After this has been determined, further evidence is perused selectively to further reinforce the world model. This can be done almost religiously as it serves an emotional reinforcement.

Another type of model is the "world is out to get me." IMHO, this is the mind's way of coping with low self-esteem or self-worth. For example, "I am not happy with my life." Solution: "If everyone will die soon, it doesn't matter how I feel about my life." Reinforcement: 2012 Armageddon, chemtrails, NWO...... Now there is also an emotional importance to maintaining the belief in these conspiracies. The relief is no different from an any other. People will peruse and rationalize it irrationally.

I'd love to hear what do you think?

Anyways, I gotta run to the airport. I will register later. Name is David btw.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for chemtrails.....got a window seat!

 

[Mick West]

I think both models are found in many conspiracy theorists. There's a degree of simply wanting control and/or understanding of the world. Science is all about uncertainty, but people prefer certainty. Not knowing why stratospheric aerosols seem to have increased is less satisfying that believing it to be part of huge conspiracy.

A lot of it is based on the simple observation that people in power actually DO lie and conspire. Once people see this, it can be a slippery slope to the state of mind where EVERYTHING is a conspiracy.

 

[GregMc]

"Another type of model is the "world is out to get me." IMHO, this is the mind's way of coping with low self-esteem or self-worth. For example, "I am not happy with my life." Solution: "If everyone will die soon, it doesn't matter how I feel about my life."

Interesting points.
I'm not sure the idea that the idea that everyone will die soon is the appeal of the perverse mental comfort of believing "everyone is out to get me"

Robert Ardrey wrote a book on human evolution called "African genesis" a few decades ago and he proposed an idea he called the "fallacy of central position", where humans as babies perhaps subconsciously assume that the world exists solely to service their needs. They are the centre of the universe. They are the reason for the universe to exist. The sensation is persistent and prevalent in the selfishness and self consciousness of teenagers. Some probably never get past it. When you walk into a room in a party, everyone is surely looking at YOU, noticing YOU. When you go out everyone will notice what YOU are wearing, what YOU are doing. It takes a lot of hard knocks to realise it isn't true. That to most of the world you are a nobody, but how can that be true because YOU are YOU! It must be for a reason? For some folks they never realise their feeling of central position isn't true, they really are just an accident of birth and everyone has the same feeling. AHA they think, sure everyone should have that feeling but I'm the only one I can be sure that is true for because I am ME! I must be me for an important reason! It's Doctor Seuss logic.

Yet the feeling that you are central, other wise why else would you be YOU, emerges in the idea that at least your tribe must be the most important, or your country, or the earth at least must be central in the universe, or at least humans must be unique and divine and superior to everything else etc etc. Otherwise existence seems meaningless....
So this feeling of self importance, you must be you for a reason is very difficult to shake, and so a person with low social standing or cognitive abilities and self esteem tries to rationalise why they are not an achiever.
If they are subconsciously still clinging to the belief or feeling that they have central position of importance in the world, then the only possible conclusion is that someone is conspiring to hold them back, keep them down. A boogeyman is out to get them because they are so important and must be held back at all cost.

The conspiracy theory of chemtrails and NWO elites etc plays into these subconscious feelings that someone else must be to blame for their low social standing or achievements. They are the most important person in the world. You are the all important YOU so some vast conspiracy must be holding you back and must be the reason you are not king of the universe. It's someone ELSE'S fault. "THEM"
The conspiring evil "THEM" are the all purpose scapegoat.
Didn't do well at school? Must have been their chemtrails and fluoride dumbing you down.
Can't get a decent job? Blame their chemtrails , Blame the NWO

It means self reflection can be avoided and blame for any short coming attributed to outside powerful forces.
And it works like spakfiller putty for the brain. Don't understand saturation vapor pressure and the gas laws? Fill that gap with chemtrail putty.
Don't understand flight paths and wind drift causing grids? Fill that gap with chemtrail putty.

 

[Mick West]

Related: "Ideas of Reference"

Ideas of reference and delusions of reference involve people having a belief or perception that irrelevant, unrelated or innocuous phenomena in the world refer to them directly or have special personal significance: 'the notion that everything one perceives in the world relates to one's own destiny'.​

It's hard to go there when discussing things with the believers though. Especially when the word "delusion" is there. They get quite outraged, as they generally consider themselves to be well above average in observation, intuition, and reasoning, so obviously it's impossible (and highly insulting) that there might be anything like delusion involved in their beliefs.

Of course we all delude ourselves every day, in numerous ways.

 

[GregMc]

Great link thanks Mick!
As an aside, I loved the literary excerpt: "The Naval Intelligence hero of Treason's Harbour reflects ruefully that 'after a while an intelligence-agent tended to see spies everywhere, rather as certain lunatics saw references to themselves in every newspaper'"

We had a flatmate a decade ago who was a fun young police cadet and we watched her change as she ended up in the force. She would come home after a long day and ask how we got on that day aswell . We'd tell an anecdote and then she'd suspiciously say crazy things like "and what was your reason for visiting the hardware for such a long time between the hours of 1pm and 2pm" etc and then she'd slap herself and say "WTF am I doing! Sorry!"

 

[George B]

Word. I'm majoring in psychology so I tend to also find the conspiracy mindset interesting as well. This is my personal theory.....

"Maintaining order."

Everyone has some construct of how they perceive the world to work. To some, it is based on morality. Logic to others. Some even hold a more anarchical view. Another major quality is the "belief update" factor. In other words, how objectively will one interpret new evidence towards or against their belief (similar to conformation bias)? Some are more rigid in defending their model of the world than others.

Certain world models and levels of biased or irrational belief updating make some individuals more susceptible to conspiracy theories than others. Not only this, but conspiracies can be comforting by allowing one to maintain a certain perspective despite contrary events.

One type of model can be described as "things happen for a reason, and every action is the result of an equal and opposite reaction." For example, this may be the logical thought process behind the JFK assassination conspiracy: "JFK was great. How can someone so random and insignificant as Oswald destroy something so great? If this is true, then anything great can be destroyed suddenly and without reason." Resolution: "Oswald was only part of a massive power that carefully planned JFK's death." Result: Evidence towards world model, "JFK was destroyed by an equally powerful, yet evil force." Comfort in world view restoration.

After this has been determined, further evidence is perused selectively to further reinforce the world model. This can be done almost religiously as it serves an emotional reinforcement.

Another type of model is the "world is out to get me." IMHO, this is the mind's way of coping with low self-esteem or self-worth. For example, "I am not happy with my life." Solution: "If everyone will die soon, it doesn't matter how I feel about my life." Reinforcement: 2012 Armageddon, chemtrails, NWO...... Now there is also an emotional importance to maintaining the belief in these conspiracies. The relief is no different from an any other. People will peruse and rationalize it irrationally.

I'd love to hear what do you think?

Anyways, I gotta run to the airport. I will register later. Name is David btw.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for chemtrails.....got a window seat!

Funny you should choose to talk about JFK conspiracy. . .

"The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and the shooting of Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. However, the committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did not include the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. It also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule out individual members of any of those groups acting together.". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I see so many CT's whose reaction to dissonance is to dive deeper into the pit, to spiral down quite easily by reinforcing one belief by adopting another.
Examples:
Global warming is a crisis, therefore chemtrails might be a solution 'someone' is taking.
Elites wish to reduce population, therefore chemtrails are how they might be doing it.
Someone wants to control the weather, therefore chemtrails as part of weather might be how they are controlling it.

 

[George B]

The Limitations of Science and Its Method

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

CONCLUSION

The English word “science” derives from the Latin scientia, which means “knowledge.” Scientists are supposed to be on a lifelong search for knowledge and truth, regardless of where that search eventually leads. Science is based on an observation of the facts, and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. To suggest that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism, and that empirical observation is the “court of ultimate appeal,” is to err. Such an attitude ignores other numerous, significant avenues of human endeavor, as well as additional means of coming to knowledge and truth. It also misuses and abuses the scientific method which, as great as it is, never was intended to be a panacea.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=315

 

[Mick West]

Well Bert is a creationist. Of course he's going to downplay science.

Philosophy is great too. But if it does not do anything, it's not particularly relevant. If it does do something, then you can usually observe it. If you can't observe it (or its indirect effects), then how do you know it's doing anything?

Science is not a panacea, but it's pretty good at figuring out how things appear to be working, and then making use of that information to make things and fix things.

Intuition, on the other hand, does not have a particularly good track record.

 

[Danny55]

"Intuition, on the other hand, does not have a particularly good track record."

Beg to differ Mick, in 100% of cases, Detective Columbo found the perpetrator(s) using his intuition.

 

[Pete Tar]

...Such an attitude ignores other numerous, significant avenues of human endeavor, as well as additional means of coming to knowledge and truth....

and what exactly are those, and is their propensity for error or bias known?

science at least acknowledges such possible distortions within itself.

(and it could be said that philosophy makes the study of these errors a big part of its investigation... well, certain types of philosophy.
most modern philosophy makes liberal use of scientific investigations into mind and perception of self and world.)

 

[George B]

and what exactly are those, and is their propensity for error or bias known?

science at least acknowledges such possible distortions within itself.

(and it could be said that philosophy makes the study of these errors a big part of its investigation... well, certain types of philosophy.
most modern philosophy makes liberal use of scientific investigations into mind and perception of self and world.)

Science can only go so far. . . .it cannot determine a course of action when there is no measurable data available or the data is inadequate or deliberately withheld. . . These are common problems mankind face everyday. . . how do I decide without adequate information? How do I weigh the limited facts I have in a court of law. . . Guilty or innocent . . .?

How to make decisions when science has been compromised itself with fraud and criminal activity . . . Or manipulated
for sake of greed and the bottom-line profit. . . And how do you know for sure . . .? When your BS meter goes off is that deductive logic arrived through some hidden scientific process or is it irrational belief based on intuition. . . .?

 

[Billzilla]

Science can only go so far. . . .it cannot determine a course of action when there is no measurable data available or the data is inadequate or deliberately withheld. . . These are common problems mankind face everyday. . . how do I decide without adequate information? How do I weigh the limited facts I have in a court of law. . . Guilty or innocent . . .?

That's not the fault of science, but rather the opposite - Forcing a result based on incomplete/flawed data, which is not part of the scientific method.
It's just people being people.

 

[George B]

That's not the fault of science, but rather the opposite - Forcing a result based on incomplete/flawed data, which is not part of the scientific method.
It's just people being people.

Well, I am just being a person. . . With incomplete data or possibly even tainted data . . . I am making a decision to believe ( based on my life experience, word view and personality) that an Intentional Aerosol Injection Program exists. . . .you on the other hand are accepting the existing prevailing consensus that a programs doesn't exist. . . .we both have our reasons. . . Only time well tell. . . Even in the face of criticism and the evidence that has been presented by the many members on this Forum I feel my evidence is valid and has not been invalidated and is relevant to a rational decision to maintain my position. . .

 

[Mick West]

George, would you be prepared to bet, say $100, that the program would be revealed in the next ten year?

Just how strongly do you hold this belief? Based on you beliefs, then what would you consider to be a safe testable bet that you could collect on in a given time period?

 

[George B]

George, would you be prepared to bet, say $100, that the program would be revealed in the next ten year?

Just how strongly do you hold this belief? Based on you beliefs, then what would you consider to be a safe testable bet that you could collect on in a given time period?

Hmmmmm. . . . That is a hard one. . . .Why? . . . When things got outed in the Congress in 1994 about the full extent of non consensual human experimentation it was the Democrats who were trying to gain the moral high ground over the bad Republicans or vice versa . . . I don't know when that might happen again . . .

Also, the things one party yells about in a campaign somehow disappear when they gain power and get the full briefing from the lettered agencies. . . Funny how that works. . . .


So my answer is . . . it is just as likely to never be released to the public as it is to have it announced or leaked, etc. . . I don't know how to place a bet on that. . . .

 

[Mick West]

Is there any aspect of your theory that you would place money on that you think would be in any way testable in the next 10 years?

 

[George B]

That's not the fault of science, but rather the opposite - Forcing a result based on incomplete/flawed data, which is not part of the scientific method.
It's just people being people.

That is just it . . .we are people and we have to operate in a flawed world. . . No one is given a perfect set of scientifically validated and researched data except in rare situations to make perfect decisions . . . Yet we must make decisions to function and do them with enough accuracy, frequency and speed to not kill ourselves or others. . . How do we accomplish this feat. . . .experience, conditioning, repeating actions that bring success, being punishment averse, education, belief, intuition, hunches, common sense, morals, ethics, pre-cognition, sixth sense, a bad taste in the mouth, relying on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence. . . .and so forth

 

[George B]

Is there any aspect of your theory that you would place money on that you think would be in any way testable in the next 10 years?

Testable . . .that would clearly reveal itself above and separable from the background noise. . . .NO!

If Global Warming is still being touted as "the crisis of the day" through the next ten years and is still a consensus priority within the scientific and corporate community . . . .

I could see a 50/50 chance of the following happening. . . .

1) It will be announced that persistent contrails in the stratosphere are, in fact, a good thing and by-the-way we knew that all along, but just didn't do a good job of telling the public . . .
2) We have been engaging is a multitude of experimental programs since the late 1990s in an attempt to mitigate Global Warming. . . . these experiments have utilized a variety of approaches. . . One long term experiment used the benign injection of aerosols into the upper atmosphere . . .

 

[Mick West]

I could see a 50/50 chance of the following happening. . . .

1) It will be announced that persistent contrails in the stratosphere are, in fact, a good thing and by-the-way we knew that all along, but just didn't do a good job of telling the public . . .
2) We have been engaging is a multitude of experimental programs since the late 1990s in an attempt to mitigate Global Warming. . . . these experiments have utilized a variety of approaches. . . One long term experiment used the benign injection of aerosols into the upper atmosphere . . .

So would you be willing to bet $100 at 3:1 then? Seems like a good bet based on your 50/50 belief. I'll put up the matching $300.

 

[George B]

So would you be willing to bet $100 at 3:1 then? Seems like a good bet based on your 50/50 belief. I'll put up the matching $300.

Hmmmm. . . Let's see, that would place the bet's award date 4 March 2022 . . . I don't know if I will be alive on that date much less still posting on your Forum . . . . and the inflation rate would probably make the bet worth about $30.00 . . . LoL . . .

 

[Billzilla]

you on the other hand are accepting the existing prevailing consensus that a programs doesn't exist.

No I'm not basing my decision on any consensus, I'm basing it on the complete and utter lack of any shred of evidence.

 

[Mick West]

Hmmmm. . . Let's see, that would place the bet's award date 4 March 2022 . . . I don't know if I will be alive on that date much less still posting on your Forum . . . . and the inflation rate would probably make the bet worth about $30.00 . . . LoL . . .

So would you take it?

I'm trying to get a grasp as to how your beliefs relate to you real world. Are you doing anything about it? Trying to stop it?

Is your belief not strong enough that you can wager money on any prediction based on your belief?

 

[George B]

So would you take it?

I'm trying to get a grasp as to how your beliefs relate to you real world. Are you doing anything about it? Trying to stop it?

Is your belief not strong enough that you can wager money on any prediction based on your belief?

If I believe the actions are primarily to mitigate global warming or somehow developing countermeasures for weather modification, protecting against EMP or other threats . . .I have little motivation except to try to explain to people those possibilities . . . This is my belief for governmental involvement. . . .however, I do think other rogue elements within the extra governmental forces could possibly be experimenting with other goals . . . an example would be selectively reducing the fertility rates or possibly reducing life span. . . .

 

[George B]

No I'm not basing my decision on any consensus, I'm basing it on the complete and utter lack of any shred of evidence.

Simply stated we do not agree on what is evidence and what isn't . . . and without an unbiased third party to adjudicate, whom we both trust, we may never resolve our difference of opinion . . .

 

[GregMc]

"and without an unbiased third party to adjudicate, whom we both trust, we may never resolve our difference of opinion"

Perhaps a psychiatrist would make a very effective third party to adjudicate.
You could tell them all about your calling to proselytise the idea of chemtrails based on your feelings and hunches something can't be right and feeling that dark forces are possibly out to get everyone, "selectively reducing the fertility rates or possibly reducing life span"

We could help by demonstrating to that third party that there is no sound logic nor credible physical evidence to support belief in chemtrails.
We could present verifiable facts and rational logic and documentation and you could present your intuitions and feelings of suspicion and paranoia.
That way the qualified psychiatrist could calmly listen to the two approaches and adjudicate.

 

[Billzilla]

Simply stated we do not agree on what is evidence and what isn't . . . and without an unbiased third party to
adjudicate, whom we both trust, we may never resolve our difference of opinion . . .

As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
There is precisely zero physical evidence of any odd chemicals being pumped into the atmosphere, zero odd chemicals falling from the atmosphere onto the ground, absolutely no airliners equipped with any devices to spray chemicals into the air in-flight, and nobody that has ever been involved in such an activity.
So, based on the facts, my opinion is that chemtrails is just woo-woo nonsense.

 

[Unregistered]

Jay Reynolds,
believers say that because how are they supposed to know. Nobody tells us what there laying in the skies So people have to make their own ASSUMPTIONS and their own THEORIES about what it COULD be. Ok.
I believe what I see.
And anyways everything You say is some bullshit anyway because various governments have already admitted to chemtrails and such for "Geo engineering"

 

[Pete Tar]

Simply stated we do not agree on what is evidence and what isn't . . . and without an unbiased third party to adjudicate, whom we both trust, we may never resolve our difference of opinion . . .

but there is a centuries old consensus on this (what qualifies as evidence for a theory), and you keep refusing to acknowledge the validity and usefulness of those well-established consensus rules, that used correctly lead to saying true things about reality.
yes, those rules are an invented edifice, but one as based on fundamentals as a compass or a set square or a ruler or an abacus or a barometer is.
it's a fascinating subject to learn, try the introductory videos to critical thinking on this forum. then you can know where people are coming from and why you cannot seem to take a single step forward in this matter.
and it's not enough to use some of the rules some of the time and not others, selectively. it's not always possible to be aware of when one is doing this.
that is what other people are for.

 

[MikeC]

I have no doubt what constitutes evidence - and it is a very broad definition - anything at all.

where I probably differ from George is in what I consider USEFUL evidence.

As an example, someone coming on here and saying "chemtrails exist" is evidence that chemtrails exist - but I don't find it useful as evidence that chemtrails exist. When someone tells me that something exists I expect to see some objective evidence that supports the assertion - the sort of evidence that I could possibly gather myself in the right circumstances. Who is "someone"? What is the supporting data for his statement?

In fact I give such an unsupported statement so little weight as to make it useless.

If someone says "chemtrails exist because contrails disperse within (some time frame)" then I evaluate that against known facts - and there is a wealth of verifiable data that says that such a statement is false - contrails can last for hours. So it gets discarded too - but before I do so I have at least evaluated it against known factual information.

ditto with "elevated levels of aluminium" and the like - I evaluate them against known standard - like EPA limits - and I evaluate the process - and invariably I have found that limits have not been reached - often because the limit is for one thing (usually water) but the test was done on something else (usually dirt, soil, sludge)

The most useful evidence is verifiable - in theory anyone could do the same work and get the same results. Scientific papers that have been peer reviewed and their results replicated are the strongest evidence. Other papers that have been peer reviewed but perhaps not replicated yet, but which explain what happened, provide mechanisms for how it happened that are within the current knowledge base, etc., are pretty good too - but not quite so much.

The next most useful evidence is testimony (or papers, blogs, writings, etc) from people who say that something has happened, or exists, etc., and who have a known connection to the subject matter (qualifications, work there, etc) and are likely to know what they are talking about, even if the information is not directly verifiable. Papers not yet peer-reviewed by published by people with a history in the field and who provide sound reasoning would be the best evidence at this level - blogs by "experts" less so - depending on the level of expertise and the quality of the info offered, etc.

"contrail science", for example, is a blog with a great deal of information on it - but it is not peer reviewed (obviously). However the information on it is supported by a great deal of information from sources that have clearly done a great deal of work in the area, or by a significant amount of analysis (eg the "missile off california" case) and reasoning, so I find it generally useful evidence.

And so on down the chain.

 

[George B]

but there is a centuries old consensus on this (what qualifies as evidence for a theory), and you keep refusing to acknowledge the validity and usefulness of those well-established consensus rules, that used correctly lead to saying true things about reality.
yes, those rules are an invented edifice, but one as based on fundamentals as a compass or a set square or a ruler or an abacus or a barometer is.

it's a fascinating subject to learn, try the introductory videos to critical thinking on this forum. then you can know where people are coming from and why you cannot seem to take a single step forward in this matter.
and it's not enough to use some of the rules some of the time and not others, selectively. it's not always possible to be aware of when one is doing this.
that is what other people are for.

I really don't care what your axioms and videos have to say I lived a relatively long life and have seen every method conceived by man fail because of error, deceit, greed, falsification, and by intention. . . .what people don't seem to recognize is the think tanks which I believe developed the programs and are the oversight of the operations have thought of everything and have computer simulated them over and over. . . .they don't make mistakes. . . You see what they want you to see. . . Evidence is only indirect and it is all we will ever have. . . Unless they want us to know more. . .

 

[Leifer]

I really don't care what your axioms and videos have to say I lived a relatively long life and have seen every method conceived by man fail because of error, deceit, greed, falsification, and by intention

Have you seen any effort by man succeed ?
...like the ability to fly for example ?
The ability to fly has had far many more successes than failures, in that flying is now a standard practice.
...that is, the failures at the attempt to fly, have been greatly outnumbered by the actual flights.


.

I . . .what people don't seem to recognize is the think tanks which I believe developed the programs and are the oversight of the operations have thought of everything and have computer simulated them over and over. . . .they don't make mistakes. . .

We rely on computer simulations, but the real world often takes human turns based on human emotions, wills, and chance (chaos). Computers can try to predict these turns, but can never guarantee them.
Example...sports predictions...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1088213/index.htm

(aka, "statistical modeling")

 

[George B]

Have you seen any effort by man succeed ?
...like the ability to fly for example ?
The ability to fly has had far many more successes than failures, in that flying is now a standard practice.
...that is, the failures at the attempt to fly, have been greatly outnumbered by the actual flights.

We rely on computer simulations, but the real world often takes human turns based on human emotions, wills, and chance (chaos). Computers can try to predict these turns, but can never guarantee them.
Example...sports predictions...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1088213/index.htm


(aka, "statistical modeling")

Yes, computer simulations are not perfect . . . I agree . . . But they tend to make the decision makers more bold, it reenforces their belief they are using the correct strategy. . . .it also makes the details of their actions more meticulously planned. . . Helping to make any covert activity better in its secrecy. . . .how do I keep things undercover. . . Here are the 1,000 factors to consider. . . . What if an aircraft is seen with a persistent contrail. . . .we create a confusing environment where finding our aircraft in the midst of hundreds of other real contrails is mind boggling. . . .