03 Jul 17
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm not sure the U.S. has such a special position when it comes to belief in conspiracy theories. Such belief is rather comparable to religious belief, which is highly prevalent all around the globe (although a bit less so in wealthy regions).
If I want to discuss the phenomenon why some people of today, and especially in USA, has such a strong inclination to believe in various conspiracies, like chemtrails presented in this thread, and the psychology that lies behind - is this forum a place for this kind of discussion?
03 Jul 17
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhere I come from, one rarely find anyone that believes the earth is flat, some (mostly young) that disbelieve the moon landing. Chemtrails, I've never heard anyone with that beliefs.
I'm not sure the U.S. has such a special position when it comes to belief in conspiracy theories. Such belief is rather comparable to religious belief, which is highly prevalent all around the globe (although a bit less so in wealthy regions).
All of these ideas comes from the other side of the Atlantic. So I genuinely believe that there are many conspiration factories over there.
Many new spiritual ideas come also from US. Maybe americans need something to believe in. If not this so perhaps that?
03 Jul 17
Originally posted by FabianFnasBoth of the topics you named cannot logically be considered "conspiracy theories," as they both can be subject to scrutiny and examination.
Where I come from, one rarely find anyone that believes the earth is flat, some (mostly young) that disbelieve the moon landing. Chemtrails, I've never heard anyone with that beliefs.
All of these ideas comes from the other side of the Atlantic. So I genuinely believe that there are many conspiration factories over there.
Many new spiritual ideas come also from US. Maybe americans need something to believe in. If not this so perhaps that?
Because some people do not want them to be any closer scrutinized or examined, those who see the official story as rotten are shut down with the term "conspiracy theory."
The solution is ridiculously simple: thoroughly examine the topic.
All theories dissipate in the light.
03 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat one call a conspiration, others will call truth.
Both of the topics you named cannot logically be considered "conspiracy theories," as they both can be subject to scrutiny and examination.
Because some people do not want them to be any closer scrutinized or examined, those who see the official story as rotten are shut down with the term "conspiracy theory."
The solution is ridiculously simple: thoroughly examine the topic.
All theories dissipate in the light.
Some believe in this, others in that. None like to be called tinfoil hats.
03 Jul 17
Originally posted by FabianFnasPerhaps.
What one call a conspiration, others will call truth.
Some believe in this, others in that. None like to be called tinfoil hats.
But when one group of people base their knowledge on the information relayed by an authority, "facts" which directly contrast and contradict with known realities, can it be considered simply a matter of faith preference which separate them from others?
Don't all people deserve to hear the truth and make their own determinations likewise?
The group which asks or challenges the official story want one thing at the base, above all others: an open examination of the facts.
No truthful man is ever afraid of the facts, neither does he recoil at the light.
03 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou didn't really just use Wikipedia to "debunk" what has been knowingly going on for decades, did you?
You have no interest in discussing geoengineering, and when I looked up 'chemtrails', Wikipedia says its a conspiracy theory.
So, what about the science of either do you wish to discuss?
If you wish to discuss the evidence for people doing geoengineering, or spreading chemical agents, that is NOT science. Take it somewhere else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory
How could you possibly expect that to hold up to what has been acknowledged?
Please: limit your input to verifiable and reliable sources.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI guess you think "science" means "conspiracy theories". It is you, not us scientists, that needs to study the definition. Why don't you look it up and try and see where "conspiracy theories" enters into the definition; then come back to us.
Perhaps a brush up on the definition of "science" is in order.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. All I did was to point out that what you want to discuss is whether or not 'chem trails' are real. That is not really the domain of science, but instead the domain of conspiracy theorists.
You didn't really just use Wikipedia to "debunk" what has been knowingly going on for decades, did you?
How could you possibly expect that to hold up to what has been acknowledged?
Acknowledged by whom? A scientist? If not, then what does it have to do with science?
Please: limit your input to verifiable and reliable sources.
Says the guy who posted a YouTube video and nothing else.
What exactly is it that you hope to discuss in this thread that is scientific in nature?
04 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlways right, even when you're dead wrong.
No. All I did was to point out that what you want to discuss is whether or not 'chem trails' are real. That is not really the domain of science, but instead the domain of conspiracy theorists.
[b]How could you possibly expect that to hold up to what has been acknowledged?
Acknowledged by whom? A scientist? If not, then what does it have to do with ...[text shortened]... lse.
What exactly is it that you hope to discuss in this thread that is scientific in nature?[/b]
Hell of a gig you have there.
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu
04 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyI think science is about finding answers to questions, is about questioning those answers in the eternal search for truth.
I guess you think "science" means "conspiracy theories". It is you, not us scientists, that needs to study the definition. Why don't you look it up and try and see where "conspiracy theories" enters into the definition; then come back to us.
If any "us scientists" is unwilling to commit to that standard, they cannot be rightly considered a scientist.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHe has ALREADY made a fool of himself, AND he won't answer the question. That is his MO.
Are you going to answer the question, or just continue making a fool of yourself?
The dude who made the video, I don't even know what he is implying. The first part starts off like Freaks idea of the manchester bomb, 'what proof was there this happened' then morphs into contrails.
So it appears Freak, who is known to be among other things, denier of satellites: "GPS is run from ground stations, since there is no such thing as satellites''.
So now it's ok for freak to be a hypocrite and use satellite imagery to make somebody else's case for him, another one of his MO's.
So now Freak has to accept satellites exist and images of the whole of Antarctica exist and his favorite conspiracy theory now falls flat on its ugly face.
Or he can go back to denying satellites exist and call off the whole contrail conspiracy.
What is the dude in the video saying anyway? Why did he even start the Sandy Hook thing in the first place? I don't get it.