fbpx

Chemtrail conspiracies

This topic contains 25 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  ActionEmotion 6 years, 3 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #173545

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Haven’t heard much about this. One of my FB friends has been posting about this. For those that haven’t heard about this the chemtrails are the white lines you see in the sky left by jets. They are usually called contrails. Conspiracy theorists are saying the chemtrails are actually from the government using jets to release chemicals in the sky to control the weather. They also say that the chemicals are making people sick and that’s why there are more people with neurological disorders.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/what-are-chemtrails1.htm

  • #253769

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    There are many variations on the chemtrail conspiracy ranging from global warming radicals trying to cause AGW in order to push socialist agendas to mind control techniques. There are some real tin foil hat versions out there.

    Chemtrail = chemical contrail = chemical condensation trail

    A port-portmanteau…
    or a portmanteau-manteau…
    or just linguistically neat.

    Anyone who calls a contrail a chemtrail has probably bought into one of the conspiracies.

  • #253762

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    I agree and I think the recent news with the NSA has only given more reason for people to be suspicious of the government. For now I’m just watching what my FB friend posts before I call him a nut job.

  • #253787

    ActionEmotion
    Member
    • Topics - 130
    • Replies - 1,822
    • Total Posts - 1,952

    You can thank Art Bell for this one. I loved Art Bell because he could discuss the most ridiculous ideas with callers and guests without ever lending credibility to their ideas and engage them to the depths of lunacy. Chem Trails is a great example of emotional reaction to ignorance without an iota of common sense having been applied to it.

  • #253763

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Unfortunately it’s hard to prove the theories wrong because we have to take the word of scientists and the government. It’s not something regular citizens can do.

  • #253788

    ActionEmotion
    Member
    • Topics - 130
    • Replies - 1,822
    • Total Posts - 1,952

    Logic can lead us to truth.

    Would chem trails exist in a world where the families of those ordering the procedure live?
    How could this remain a secret when there have been more than 20 years of this conspiracy and claims of thousands of flights?
    Wouldn’t at least one crew dispensing the “chemicals” have spoken up by now?

    It’s just not logical.

  • #253785

    ErinO
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 795
    • Total Posts - 804

    If logic was governing us, there would be no religion. We are not a logical species.

  • #253781

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    Erin – That is a pretty close-minded approach. We know so very little about the world around us, and there are still so many mysteries about life and our universe. To rule out the existence of unseen actors, when we can’t even determine the nature of our own existence, is not very logical. We are only now beginning to crack some of the basic codes of physics through our work with the LHC (and others). If you are so sure of what they will find, you might want to tell them to save their money…

  • #253770

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @EGL Admin 80943 wrote:

    Unfortunately it’s hard to prove the theories wrong because we have to take the word of scientists and the government. It’s not something regular citizens can do.

    You really DON’T have to take our word for it. The stuff we know is open sourced. Look for yourself. People think it is hard and it is a little, but it is no where NEAR as hard as coming up with this knowledge the first time around. Learning about what someone else thinks they know is a whole lot easier.

    Having said that, some theories are intentionally constructed to avoid all possibilities of disproof. Those notions are in the realm of metaphysics. There are many other ideas that simply aren’t vulnerable to disproof but not because they are intended to be. We need to distinguish the two realms of metaphysics because one implies an agenda for the advocate while the other leaves it ambiguous.

    Under all science theories there is a foundation in metaphysics. We build a scaffold that reaches above into a realm that CAN be disproven and call it science.

  • #253771

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @tomwaltman 80952 wrote:

    Erin – That is a pretty close-minded approach.

    Not really. I get that it sounds like that, but it isn’t as bad as it sounds to someone of faith.

    A person who stuck well to logic would be able to admit the limits of metaphysics and thus of the untestable status of faith systems. Being inherently untestable wouldn’t necessarily kill faith, but it WOULD put it in proper perspective as just a competitor approach. Faith as a process produces many different conceptual explanations for the currently unexplainable, but a logical mind sees them as ideas that can… and should… be displaced wherever possible.

    Metaphyics has a serious role to play in life. Much of what we need in terms of explanations can never be disproven in the mathematical (logical) or in the statistical (scientific) sense. We argue about the usefulness and consistency of the explanations instead. Occasionally we trip across explanations that can be replaced with concepts outside metaphysics, but the replacement process is much like it would be between two untestable ideas.

    I think Erin is probably correct. If we were more logical, our religions (faith systems) would probably die off. I suspect they would get replaced with other metaphysical structures, though.

  • #253772

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @Action>Emotion 80941 wrote:

    Chem Trails is a great example of emotional reaction to ignorance without an iota of common sense having been applied to it.

    I agree completely. I think the particular emotion involved is ‘fear of the unknown.’ It is one of the most powerful ones we feel.

  • #253764

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    We do have to take others word for it because we can’t physically collect and test the evidence.

  • #253782

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    @adiffer 80959 wrote:

    I think Erin is probably correct. If we were more logical, our religions (faith systems) would probably die off. I suspect they would get replaced with other metaphysical structures, though.

    I would agree if humans developed in a vacuum. However, we haven’t, and like every other sentient being, we have a developmental arc that is not yet out of it’s infancy, as far as we know. Just because we don’t know how to test for what you might consider “supernatural,” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t or can’t exist. Considering all faith as “blind,” shows your blind faith in what we are capable of understanding. Logic? Give it 10-20 or 50 years. What we know about who we are and or place in the universe changes daily.

  • #253773

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @EGL Admin 80964 wrote:

    We do have to take others word for it because we can’t physically collect and test the evidence.

    Why not? Scientists are supposed to repeat each other’s experiments to verify procedures. The more the merrier.

  • #253774

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @tomwaltman 80965 wrote:

    I would agree if humans developed in a vacuum. However, we haven’t, and like every other sentient being, we have a developmental arc that is not yet out of it’s infancy, as far as we know. Just because we don’t know how to test for what you might consider “supernatural,” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t or can’t exist. Considering all faith as “blind,” shows your blind faith in what we are capable of understanding. Logic? Give it 10-20 or 50 years. What we know about who we are and or place in the universe changes daily.

    I’d argue we are wobbling around like the kid wearing a thick diaper who decides they have had enough of crawling and want to walk like the grown-ups. 8)

    I think we suffer from a defintion conflict, though. If something can be tested, it isn’t supernatural. I draw a fine line between verification testing and falsification testing and support only the later when distinguishing science from metaphysics. I tend to agree with Popper when it comes to the demarcation issue.

    Not all faith is blind. Much of it isn’t. My strongest objections are to the blind variety, but that isn’t really relevant.

    I look forward to the next 50 years with the confidence that comes from knowing I’m partially ignorant and self-delusional… just like everyone else. I’m part of a civilization that has found a way to turn our weaknesses into strengths through conflict and criticism. It should be fun. 8)

  • #253765

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @adiffer 80967 wrote:

    Why not? Scientists are supposed to repeat each other’s experiments to verify procedures. The more the merrier.

    Well, 99.999% of us don’t have the capabilities to run these tests or verify anything.

  • #253783

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    I agree the next 50 years will be fun. I don’t mind that my concrete understanding of physics has been turned on its head over the past 25 years. The last 5 years have given me a new respect for how we can explore our universe. I am pretty excited to see what we can do with our understanding of deminsional space. I want to figure out the whole space-time continuum thing, and I think we are close to finding where to start. Ya never know what we will find in the rolled up carpet.

  • #253775

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    @EGL Admin 80975 wrote:

    Well, 99.999% of us don’t have the capabilities to run these tests or verify anything.

    So? You live in a world with an internet. You can self-empower.

    I’m not trying to pick on you over this. I’m pointing out that you are making a choice to trust those who make the other choice. We all do this for most aspects of our lives when we specialize, but that doesn’t mean we can’t change our minds on a whim.

  • #253776

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1594

    I love the tid-bit at the front of the interview. I lost track of how many things get done because no one told the person doing it that it can’t be done.

    This work on quantum mechanics is just the tip of the iceberg. People are finally beginning to address the ‘observer collapsing the wave function’ nonsense we’ve taught students for decades. That work has led us into a very strange Wonderland.

  • #253766

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @adiffer 81003 wrote:

    So? You live in a world with an internet. You can self-empower.

    I’m not trying to pick on you over this. I’m pointing out that you are making a choice to trust those who make the other choice. We all do this for most aspects of our lives when we specialize, but that doesn’t mean we can’t change our minds on a whim.

    So I can use the Internet and in doing so I can find people who think it’s true and those who think it’s nuts. Since I can’t personally test it and wouldn’t know how to anyway, I have rely to on others.

  • #253777

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    You are looking in the wrong place if you are looking for opinions on whether something is true or nutty. The idea is to form your own opinion which you already know how to do, right?

    You CAN personally test these things IF you learn how and care enough to try. Who cares if others think something is nutty. Figure it out for yourself by teaching yourself or getting others to help show you… as long as they don’t shape your opinion on the thing you want to test.

    Quit looking at what others think a thing is or isn’t if you want to figure it out for yourself. They might be worth looking at if you are trying to learn what concerns them, but shape your own opinion.

    Consider the chemtrail nonsense. How would you measure the chemical composition of a contrail? One way to start is to look up what people think is in them and then follow that to HOW they think they know it and then follow that to what equipment is involved and then onward to what it would take to get that equipment yourself. It’s hard work and takes awhile, but it is NOT out of your reach.

  • #253767

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @adiffer 81018 wrote:

    You are looking in the wrong place if you are looking for opinions on whether something is true or nutty. The idea is to form your own opinion which you already know how to do, right?

    You CAN personally test these things IF you learn how and care enough to try. Who cares if others think something is nutty. Figure it out for yourself by teaching yourself or getting others to help show you… as long as they don’t shape your opinion on the thing you want to test.

    Quit looking at what others think a thing is or isn’t if you want to figure it out for yourself. They might be worth looking at if you are trying to learn what concerns them, but shape your own opinion.

    Consider the chemtrail nonsense. How would you measure the chemical composition of a contrail? One way to start is to look up what people think is in them and then follow that to HOW they think they know it and then follow that to what equipment is involved and then onward to what it would take to get that equipment yourself. It’s hard work and takes awhile, but it is NOT out of your reach.

    I’ll get right on that one!

  • #253778

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Heh. I’m not trying to push you into this. I just find it a tad annoying when people argue that this stuff is out of their reach when the reality is they choose not to reach for it. That choice is quite acceptable since we all choose a narrow set of things to do from what we might do, but the rest of it is dishonest in the worst way because it is a lie told to yourself.

  • #253780

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Heh. EGL has grown up enough now to be worthy of comment/post spam.

    Congrats!

  • #253768

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Yeah, we have had a lot of people try to sign up that we end up not allowing. Vietnam is very interested in our site for some reason. Probably get 5-6 from there a day. I should just approve them and then block them from posting and then we could have 19,000 members too. :stir:

  • #253779

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    They have to grow their economy fast before the Chinese gobble them up. 8)

    I try not to post in response to spam. You won’t see me do it again.

  • #253784

    politicopedro
    Member
    • Topics - 247
    • Replies - 4,154
    • Total Posts - 4,401

    @erino 80946 wrote:

    If logic was governing us, there would be no religion. We are not a logical species.

    Is your next post going to be that you never post negatives about religion? You message is clear: you don’t like faith and consider your self smarter than those who who do.

    Live long & prosper.

  • #253786

    ErinO
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 795
    • Total Posts - 804

    @tomwaltman 80952 wrote:

    Erin – That is a pretty close-minded approach. [/quote]

    How so? Religion is based on FAITH not LOGIC. There are billions of people with religious beliefs that are based solely upon FAITH. My point was simply that not everything can be explained through LOGIC. I don’t see how that makes me close-minded. Do tell.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.