I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[George B]

"are thought possible" is true. So you can't use that.

You need a statement that, if true, would actually mean something. Of course some people think some things are possible.

How about . . .

"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes,and these substances because they are in addition to normal emissions form long white visible trails that last for extended periods of time even when normal contrails would not persist . . . ."

 

[George B]

Hey George, your friends on GLP are accusing me of "stalking" because I supposedly followed you here. What do you think...is that a fair and accurate description of what happened?

Who in the world said that . . . on what thread . . . and how would they know?

 

[George B]

So how about:

Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a daily basis over large areas of the United States​

How about . . .

"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States and possibly other parts of the world"

 

[George B]

Sorry, I must run . . . I will be back later . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Who in the world said that . . . on what thread . . . and how would they know?

The thread:
Chemtrailing South Florida.

Who? Several cowards.

It doesn't matter...to be honest. We know the truth. I'm just asking...is it an accurate description of what happened...yes or no. I don't want to waste any more space in this thread. I just want to copy/paste your answer to that thread.

 

[Noble1965]

How about . . .

"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States and possibly other parts of the world"

I'll go with that...although, claims of "chemtrails" are coming from all over the world. I say remove the word "possibly".

 

[Mick West]

How about . . .

"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States and possibly other parts of the world"

No, no "possibly". You are not debating if something is "possible", as everything is possible to some degree, so saying something is possible is almost always a true statement. You need to debate a clear statement. So either include the rest of the world, or leave it out. I would suggest leaving it out, for clarity. If you can establish that it's happening over the US, then that's all you need.

To clarify even more, we should probably eliminate things that are sprayed in very small quantities from small test aircraft, or a single obscure test plane.

"Someone is deliberately spraying tons of unknown substances (other than normal emissions) from multiple jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis, over large areas of the United States"

 

[Noble1965]

No, no "possibly". You are not debating if something is "possible", as everything is possible to some degree, so saying something is possible is almost always a true statement. You need to debate a clear statement. So either include the rest of the world, or leave it out. I would suggest leaving it out, for clarity. If you can establish that it's happening over the US, then that's all you need.

To clarify even more, we should probably eliminate things that are sprayed in very small quantities from small test aircraft, or a single obscure test plane.

"Someone is deliberately spraying tons of unknown substances (other than normal emissions) from multiple jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis, over large areas of the United States"

Don't we know what the "substance" is? I thought George had mentioned that it is, in fact, sulfur...and that he showed a link that said that the levels were higher than what the scientists thought the known sources could have produced.

Don't we need to know what the substance IS for proper debate? An unknown substance could be something that can't be detected....could be fairy dust! Or is that the point of this debate...that nothing is being detected...by anyone...so it must be something new.

There are so many facets to this argument...sheesh!

 

[Mick West]

If george thinks it's sulfur, then he could include it in the statement. But I don't think it's entirely necessary.

 

[George B]

I will agree with this. . . .

"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States."

 

[Mick West]

I will agree with this. . . .

"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States."

Do you think the above statement is true?

 

[Noble1965]

If george thinks it's sulfur, then he could include it in the statement. But I don't think it's entirely necessary.

Ok, please forgive my ignorance. I'm just trying to understand this better...We don't need to have any idea what the substance is, or what it's being used for? Will that be discussed in the debate? If so, why use the opening statement to suggest that the substance is unknown?

I'm missing something here.

Sorry...

Edit:
I guess it does make sense to start the debate from a neutral position.

My bad..

 

[Mick West]

We also suggest the "someone" is unknown.

One can demonstrate evidence that something is being sprayed without knowing what that substance is.

Of course, the more specific the better, but if there are limits to what is thought to be known, then they can be explicitly stated.

Consider also the criteria for the debate. What actually if the question? That the statement is true, or that there is solid and convincing evidence that it is true, or that there is some circumstantial evidence that it is true?

We are not done with the statement yet. What exactly is it that George is trying to get people to agree to?

 

[George B]

Do you think the above statement is true?

Yes . . . I can debate this position with honesty. . .


"Someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States."

 

[Mick West]

So what were you thinking for the debate format? Something like:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread630308/pg1

?

 

[George B]

We also suggest the "someone" is unknown.

One can demonstrate evidence that something is being sprayed without knowing what that substance is.

Of course, the more specific the better, but if there are limits to what is thought to be known, then they can be explicitly stated.





Consider also the criteria for the debate. What actually if the question? That the statement is true, or that there is solid and convincing evidence that it is true, or that there is some circumstantial evidence that it is true?

We are not done with the statement yet. What exactly is it that George is trying to get people to agree to?

Let me make you a proposition . . .
1) You Find three people . . . they must not have an opinion regarding Chemtrails . . .
2) Allow me to debate on a new Thread . . . you may have as many people debating on your side as you wish . . . you instruct the three people you chose to not look at any other Thread except the one the debate will be conducted on until the debate is over . . .
3) I will not use any VIDEO produced by a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I will not use quotes or link to any Chemtrail Advocate site . . .
4) The one except is I will need to use quotes regarding Whistleblowers . . .
5) You may use any evidence you choose . . .
6) At the end of the debate the three people will vote on the presentation . . . Do Chemtrails exist? Yes, No, Don't Know
7) If you accept we will work out the minor details
8) I did this on GLP but we never really had judges . . . so the outcome was unspecified . . .

 

[Mick West]

The #6 question should be "do you agree with the statement that someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States." (and not "do chemtrails exist?").

When does the debate end? Look at the ATS rules, a clear format and ending is specified.

Post a link to your GLP debate.

 

[George B]

So what were you thinking for the debate format? Something like:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread630308/pg1

?

On quick review. . . IMO these rules are way too complicated and too restrictive. . . I would suggest something easier to follow and accomplish. . . .I think a system which would be more free flowing is more appropriate. . .

Something like the following . . .
1) The definition of CHEMTRAILs is presented. . .
2) The few rules will be sited and how the final determination will be made
3) I will give a beginning statement. . .
4) You and/or all countering my position may respond. . . with your opening statement
5) I present a piece of evidence, exhibit, etc. With any initial comments
6) You respond with your rebuttal to the evidence
7) You may present new evidence if you wish . . . If you do not, I will submit a rebuttal and then a new piece of evidence and so forth
8) Then after a time limit of some pre arranged period, summation and ending statement is made by each side and one rebuttal for each side. . .
9) The vote will be taken and announced. . . .the end

 

[George B]

The #6 question should be "do you agree with the statement that someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States." (and not "do chemtrails exist?").

When does the debate end? Look at the ATS rules, a clear format and ending is specified.


Post a link to your GLP debate.

The #6 question should be "do you agree with the statement that someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States." (and not "do chemtrails exist?"). . . .I agree with this. . . .

 

[Mick West]

So when you say "1) The definition of CHEMTRAILs is presented. . . ", you mean the debate statement is presented?

 

[George B]

The #6 question should be "do you agree with the statement that someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States." (and not "do chemtrails exist?").

When does the debate end? Look at the ATS rules, a clear format and ending is specified.




Post a link to your GLP debate.

"When does the debate end? Look at the ATS rules, a clear format and ending is specified. "

I am not sure which of the rules you are liking. . . .I would say the debates ends when the timeline is over . . . unless both parties agree to an extension request from either side. . . .

 

[George B]

So when you say "1) The definition of CHEMTRAILs is presented. . . ", you mean the debate statement is presented?

I mean. . . .The #6 question should be "do you agree with the statement that someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States." (and not "do chemtrails exist?"). . . .I agree with this. . . .

 

[Mick West]

"When does the debate end? Look at the ATS rules, a clear format and ending is specified. "

I am not sure which of the rules you are liking. . . .I would say the debates ends when the timeline is over . . . unless both parties agree to an extension request from either side. . . .

I like the ATS rules because it forces a balanced amount of debate, and it forces the participants to directly address points raised by the other side (the socratic questions).

It does not seem complicated. If anything the lack of ambiguity removes any confusion. It's a set of rules that has been arrived at from years of holding such debates, so it clearly works well.

 

[George B]

The #6 question should be "do you agree with the statement that someone is deliberately spraying substances (other than normal emissions) from jet aircraft, at altitudes above 30,000 feet, and below 100,000 feet, for secret purposes, on a regular basis over large areas of the United States." (and not "do chemtrails exist?").

When does the debate end? Look at the ATS rules, a clear format and ending is specified.

Post a link to your GLP debate.

While I think this gives you an advantage . . . I understand your request. . . . because I also have access to all the threads on your forum. . . . I agree.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1127897/pg1

 

[George B]

I like the ATS rules because it forces a balanced amount of debate, and it forces the participants to directly address points raised by the other side (the socratic questions).

It does not seem complicated. If anything the lack of ambiguity removes any confusion. It's a set of rules that has been arrived at from years of holding such debates, so it clearly works well.

Let me review it further and think about them. . . .however, I don't like restricting evidence form either side in any way by method of presentation or number . . .

 

[Mick West]

The restrictions are equal on both sides. But mostly it's to make the debate readable.

 

[George B]

The thread:
Chemtrailing South Florida.

Who? Several cowards.

It doesn't matter...to be honest. We know the truth. I'm just asking...is it an accurate description of what happened...yes or no. I don't want to waste any more space in this thread. I just want to copy/paste your answer to that thread.

Hmmmmm. . . .seems the posting individual thinks so. . . See below. . . . Stalking? . . . No. . . .being passionate about what you are doing to an extreme. . . .YES!!!!!!

"So Noble, you're not a shill ... but someone who is 'passionate about aviation' (I think those were your words).

I have been visiting meta bunk dot org to catch up on what the 'other side' has to say and I noticed you are a member over there. Noble65 is your handle.

George B has a great thread over there about chemtrails and I noticed you were posting on his thread.

So then I click on your Noble65 handle and find you joined that site on Feb 18.

George B. joined on Feb. 13. Seems to me like you are stalking George B - following him from forum to forum.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX DELETED

I immediately noticed how pleasant and courteous you are to people on the other forum.....almost like a different person.

You have no interest or passion about aviation. Your whole gig is about debunking chemtrails.

 

[George B]

The restrictions are equal on both sides. But mostly it's to make the debate readable.

Please look at my debate on GLP. . . Do you not find it readable?

 

[Mick West]

No, I don't. I see a vast amount of information, much of it being used in a way that seems to me to be deliberately misleading, or at the very least irrelevant.

One cannot expect the reader to wade though several hundred points, and research each one. I mean, you put things in there like "Crazy Lady Astronaut with diapers", as evidence.

If you can't clearly state your case in 10,000 characters, and defend it against three rounds of socratic questioning, then sum it up, then you really don't have a plausible case.

 

[Mick West]

Maybe we can prune things down a bit. Refine the argument. The debate statement would naturally exclude chaff, cloud seeding, and contrails from low and high-bypass jet engines. So can we agree that those subjects can't be mentioned as examples that support the debate statement?

 

[Noble1965]

Hmmmmm. . . .seems the posting individual thinks so. . . See below. . . . Stalking? . . . No. . . .being passionate about what you are doing to an extreme. . . .YES!!!!!!

"So Noble, you're not a shill ... but someone who is 'passionate about aviation' (I think those were your words).

I have been visiting meta bunk dot org to catch up on what the 'other side' has to say and I noticed you are a member over there. Noble65 is your handle.

George B has a great thread over there about chemtrails and I noticed you were posting on his thread.

So then I click on your Noble65 handle and find you joined that site on Feb 18.

George B. joined on Feb. 13. Seems to me like you are stalking George B - following him from forum to forum.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX DELETED

I immediately noticed how pleasant and courteous you are to people on the other forum.....almost like a different person.

You have no interest or passion about aviation. Your whole gig is about debunking chemtrails.

I just asked for a yes/no...sheesh..
And you're damn right I'm passionate about the truth...where so many are stomping the guts out of it based on conjecture, assumption and plain old ignorance..I will point it out.

 

[George B]

No, I don't. I see a vast amount of information, much of it being used in a way that seems to me to be deliberately misleading, or at the very least irrelevant.

One cannot expect the reader to wade though several hundred points, and research each one. I mean, you put things in there like "Crazy Lady Astronaut with diapers", as evidence.



If you can't clearly state your case in 10,000 characters, and defend it against three rounds of socratic questioning, then sum it up, then you really don't have a plausible case.

I can agree with some restrictions but I believe the ones on ATS are too draconian. . . .

 

[George B]

Maybe we can prune things down a bit. Refine the argument. The debate statement would naturally exclude chaff, cloud seeding, and contrails from low and high-bypass jet engines. So can we agree that those subjects can't be mentioned as examples that support the debate statement?

In can understand your desire for brevity . . . I think chaff and other aerial release of substances are clear examples analogous to CHEMTRAILs and their discussion is totally appropriate in that fashion. . . It is understood that they may not fit the debate statement specifically and you can definitely point that out in rebuttal. . . .I will promise to limit extraneous information as much is reasonable but will not agree to limit any evidence except quotes from Chemtrail sites and videos . . .with the exception of whistleblowers. . . .

 

[George B]

I need to rest a bit. . . .I will return later. . . .

 

[Noble1965]

in can understand your desire for brevity . . . i think chaff and other aerial release of substances are clear examples analogous to chemtrails and their discussion is totally appropriate in that fashion. . . It is understood that they may not fit the debate statement specifically and you can definitely point that out in rebuttal. . . .i will promise to limit extraneous information as much is reasonable but will not agree to limit any evidence except quotes from chemtrail sites and videos . . .with the exception of whistleblowers. . . .

what?!?!?

 

[George B]

I just asked for a yes/no...sheesh..
And you're damn right I'm passionate about the truth...where so many are stomping the guts out of it based on conjecture, assumption and plain old ignorance..I will point it out.

Be careful what you ask. . . The response can always surprise you. . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Be careful what you ask. . . The response can always surprise you. . . .

So, even though I asked for a specific kind of answer...you couldn't comply..

I WAS careful...

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist bringing something from there, to post here, to show how popular you are on GLP....

 

[George B]

So, even though I asked for a specific kind of answer...you couldn't comply..

I WAS careful...

I knew you wouldn't be able to resist bringing something from there, to post here, to show how popular you are on GLP....

Hmmmmm . . . Wrong motive . . . I wanted to show that the person doing the analysis of your behavior had some evidence to point to. . . Though I agree his conclusion may have been a bit over the top. . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Hmmmmm . . . Wrong motive . . . I wanted to show that the person doing the analysis of your behavior had some evidence to point to. . . Though I agree his conclusion may have been a bit over the top. . . .

Yeah, it was obvious you had SOME motive....

 

[Spongebob]

Where are you going to find 3 people who would even consider that plane trails are really part of some secret spraying program?

In my experience when you mention the chemtrail conspiracy to everyday folk they laugh first then instantly dismiss it for the silly notion that it obviously is.

The only people who would entertain the idea to begin with would be existing conspiracy theorists. As we know - a conspiracy theory just needs another conspiracy theorist to say its true and they are happy with that. It`s very scientific you see...