Nothing to see here folks, just a bit of de-population...mosey on now.

[Floyd1982]

Why have you not refuted the articles he has brought to the table? Do you fear they are true and it would hurt your argument or are you not as open-minded as you want others to be?

You are settling on a conclusion and then molding your argumet to follow the path to said conclusion. That isn't how science works, it isn't based on a gut feeling and then anectdotal evidence. It all starts with an educated guess (hypothesis) and is about creating a way to test said hypothesis, reviewing current literature (no just anectdotes from any and everybody), testing data, reviewing the data, and testing it again. Once all of the facts are in then a conclusion can be made. If someting contradicts your hypothesis, the science and observable facts win everytime, you can't have a gut feeling and ignore the literature.

Being open-minded does not mean having to accept every accusation or conspiracy theory as fact or even plausible, it means that you wait until enough evidence comes in to make an informed decision but still allowing yourself to change your mind if new evidence comes to light.

[Floyd1982]

You can't start at # 8 and then work your way back, that isn't how it works and could be the source of this unwillingness to concede.

[xxxVALETUDOxxx]

Why have you not refuted the articles he has brought to the table? Do you fear they are true and it would hurt your argument or are you not as open-minded as you want others to be?

You are settling on a conclusion and then molding your argumet to follow the path to said conclusion. That isn't how science works, it isn't based on a gut feeling and then anectdotal evidence. It all starts with an educated guess (hypothesis) and is about creating a way to test said hypothesis, reviewing current literature (no just anectdotes from any and everybody), testing data, reviewing the data, and testing it again. Once all of the facts are in then a conclusion can be made. If someting contradicts your hypothesis, the science and observable facts win everytime, you can't have a gut feeling and ignore the literature.

Being open-minded does not mean having to accept every accusation or conspiracy theory as fact or even plausible, it means that you wait until enough evidence comes in to make an informed decision but still allowing yourself to change your mind if new evidence comes to light.

Who am I to refute such studies? I have no degree in anything related to science. I've yet to ignore anything, I've read bits and pieces when time allows, but to be straight out, I believe MIH, I don't think he is pulling these things out of his ass.

I understand the science method...however in this case I think something fishy is going on. I think for some of you that have had such training and education in science and other related fields, that you guys are just as trained as say, the way a guy like Conk sticks to his religion (not that there is anything wrong with that, I'm not here to judge), you guys stick to what you have been taught. Same as when I say I don't care for the military, we get GI Joe coming to the rescue and huffing and puffing.

I see what you are saying about me having a closed mind, but that's not the case. If we were to have these convos in person and not in type...I think my side would make more sense to most. But a writer I am not.

I've stated that I'm still not sold on that there is chems being sprayed on us. I would certainly hope there isn't. But I see that there is something going on so my open minded comes more from me willing to accept that the possibility is there. What MIH is trying to do is just straight out say that there is no possible way that is happening. THAT is closed minded in my opinion.

I'll stick to my guns and I hope to not make it personal, because I'm not taking it that way nor am I trying to go there.

[Floyd1982]

I can honestly say without malice that you are wrong in regard to MIH behaving how he has been taught, kind of. MIH has been taught to think for himself, study the evidence, and draw his own conclusions. He isn't taking everything that scientists say as gospel, he is taught to question, Conk is taught to blindly follow, that is being intellectually dishonest.

When evidence is more compelling on one side of an argument, that is the path MIH would take. I know I am speaking for MIH but the same could be said for anybody with any intellectual integrity. You have admitted that you aren't sold but you think something is fishy, that's cool but when you claim it with such conviction, it makes you sound like a conspiracy loon. I'm not saying you can't have a gut feeling, there are plenty of things that are hard for me to swallow, even when my rational side knows it to be true...

[math is hard]

I've stated that I'm still not sold on that there is chems being sprayed on us. I would certainly hope there isn't. But I see that there is something going on so my open minded comes more from me willing to accept that the possibility is there. What MIH is trying to do is just straight out say that there is no possible way that is happening. THAT is closed minded in my opinion.

The fact that you think that I'm denying the very possibility of chemtrails tells me you haven't really been reading what I've been saying. Maybe I went about it the wrong way, but I think I've been very clear in what I believe on the topic: it's not impossible, but there is currently no evidence to support your hypothesis that monsanto is spraying aluminium from jet craft.

Furthermore, you seem to have completely ignored me every single time I've pointed out that anybody with access to a spectroscope could determine from the ground whether or not there's aluminium in a contrail. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that point tells me you're not really interested in discussing evidence, so I give up. I'm not going to post any more on this topic. If you ask me again, I'll just refer you to the links I have already posted in this thread.

[math is hard]

Also: Floyd, thanks for your posts. I'm glad that I'm not speaking gibberish here.

[markshark4]

but there is currently no evidence to support your hypothesis that monsanto is spraying aluminium from jet craft.

I just briefly skimmed this thread but did he actually say Monsanto owns the planes?

And are spraying aluminum?

That can't be the only theory.

A classified government operation or military planes would make more sense, and who knows what they are spraying, or why, it wouldn't even have to be sinister, necessarily, it could have something to do with the atmosphere, global warming etc.

The point is they can do whatever they want without the general public knowing about it, until decades later when the official government documents are finally declassified, through the FOIA Act, with 90% of the documents blacked out.

If they are spraying something into the atmosphere surely you don't think they would just come out and tell the general public do you?

yeah yeah I know I know, just because the government has an incredibly shady track record doesn't automatically make it true, obviously, but I wouldn't put anything past them either. And if you expect them to be upcoming and forthright with information, think again, just look at The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, it happend in 1964, the NSA didn't come clean about it and declassify the official documents until 40 years later.