Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
What to do with CT Science Forum

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > CT Science

What to do with CT Science Forum?
86 it, and just have one CT forum
17%
 17%  [ 3 ]
Clean it out of non CT research threads
82%
 82%  [ 14 ]
Total Votes : 17

Author Thread
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
What to do with CT Science Forum PostTue Jul 20, 2004 8:55 pm  Reply with quote  

We originally created the CT Science forum as a home strictly for research related to Chemtrails (and also contrails). Our previous moderator 3T3L1 was the original watchdog to make sure this stayed the case, but since her departure things have gotten a bit unorganized, straying from the original purpose.

So here's the question. Do we can this forum and roll all the contents into the main Chemtrail forum, or do we get strict and only allow a very select few research-related posts that are truely applicable to this forum remain.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
JerseyBluEyz





Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Posts: 1257
Location: Northeast
PostWed Jul 21, 2004 2:00 am  Reply with quote  

Thermit: Unless you decide to open up the Chemtrails section to everyone, there should definitely be a place for someone to post regarding chemtrails, weather modification, or geoengineering. My opinion only!
 View user's profile Send private message
BigJoe





Joined: 07 Dec 2002
Posts: 1602
Location: A Remote/Well Fortified Complex
PostWed Jul 21, 2004 10:05 am  Reply with quote  

My feeling is, is that if we do decide to keep it, it should be open to CT activists only. Debunkers have successfully derailed a number of these threads in the past.
 View user's profile Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostWed Jul 21, 2004 2:40 pm  Reply with quote  

Unless you decide to open up the Chemtrails section to everyone...

Good point, see this related poll...

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=72752
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Wolf_Larson





Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 442
Location: The Sea
PostThu Jul 22, 2004 12:22 am  Reply with quote  

You should also consider moving some of the threads that are curently in the main chemtrails forum here. for instance some of Julian's posts truly belong in this forum.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
billder





Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Posts: 319
Location: pasco county fl
distinctions necessary PostThu Jul 22, 2004 3:49 pm  Reply with quote  

I personally am very unclear about what goes where, but have not been able to spend much time at site except here and there over the last couple years...i posted in ct science when i could not post in CT, and posted something yesterday in CT, that maybe should have gone in ct science...

the actual sightings and recordings of chemtrails go in the CT section? And the related science aspects of chemtrailing like DEW and EM and Laser, Terhahertz applications, Scalar science, Magnifying Transmitters, tesla, stubblefield, eastlund etal, particulates, deagglomerators, patents of such and what have you go in ct science?

?

I, again personally, think CT science is as large a subject, if not larger than, actual sightings and recordings of sightings...except that the ct science is definitely finite, whereas the chemtrailing appears to be endless...

Smile

Hope this helps.....b
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostThu Jul 22, 2004 4:15 pm  Reply with quote  

And the related science aspects of chemtrailing like DEW and EM and Laser, Terhahertz applications, Scalar science, Magnifying Transmitters, tesla, stubblefield, eastlund etal, particulates, deagglomerators, patents of such and what have you go in ct science?

That isn't exactly what I had in mind, however the point is well taken that the requirements for topics in this forum havn't been well defined.

It appears that the concensus is to keep the forum, but keep it small and neat. I may simply make it so that no one can post new topics in this forum, and posts that I feel are eligible will be moved here manually in order to highlight them.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Deborah





Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast
Question PostSat Jul 24, 2004 1:12 am  Reply with quote  

Is climate change coverage still welcome in the Science section?
 View user's profile Send private message
Fenris





Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 7
Location: DK
PostSat Jul 24, 2004 5:38 pm  Reply with quote  

One thing that is needed for a science discussion is openmindedness. This means that you need to allow for all opinions, including those of skeptics. So, I recommend in the future not to ban skeptics.

Fenris
 View user's profile Send private message
Swamp Gas





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostSat Jul 24, 2004 6:59 pm  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
One thing that is needed for a science discussion is openmindedness. This means that you need to allow for all opinions, including those of skeptics. So, I recommend in the future not to ban skeptics.

Fenris



Would this include skepticism of skeptics? In my years at this forum, I have seen most "skeptics" as simply debunkers, who perhaps are in the same class as the anti-suffrage organizers of the early 1900's, anti-black voters, the anti-gay organizing now, or the Anti-Global Warming theory, coming from Oil Company supporters.

There was "skepticism" of Theremin's techonogy, which now is manifest as motion detectors. Jules Vernes and HG Wells were laughed at for Submarines and Spacecraft going to other planets.

I think we are beyond the point of explaining to people whether there is excessive aerosol spraying now. It's like explaining to people that Bush is a liar.

So my take on this: Consolidate all chemtrail subject matter into one section...call it "Aerosol Operations" or "Geo-Engineering"...under it would come.....CT Observations, CT science, CT politics, and all other forms of weather and geophysical manipulation, and let people who are skeptical on whether chemtrails exist, go to a forum where people can still call us "chemmies" or worse. IMO, the only skepticism on CT's should be on their purpose, and keep debunkers out. It is an absolute waste of time explaining the blatantly obvious to people. If newcomers want to find out, they can either reseach on their own, or simply ask a question.The "Science and Technology" section would be all S & T not related directly to Geo-Engineering.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Thermit





Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3137
Location: Texas
PostSun Jul 25, 2004 1:54 am  Reply with quote  

I'm still not sure how we should style this. After reading the original forum rules...

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5937

I was thinking that it would only cover research related to CTs or contrails, that had been done by the poster of a new topic, or an article detailing or highlighting another's similar research.

Although we could possibly create a few threads for the main CT theories, where all articles that were somehow supportive or indicative of a particular theory could be posted.

This should prevent forum sprawl, so that the most important stuff, true research, can be easily found, yet important or interesting research articles related to a CT threory can also be documented in a central place.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Deborah





Joined: 30 Jul 2000
Posts: 731
Location: East Coast
. PostSun Jul 25, 2004 3:40 am  Reply with quote  

Should climate change updates be moved out of the Science section then - maybe to Ecology? It doesn't matter to me - but I think this needs to be resolved. Thanks!
 View user's profile Send private message
Fenris





Joined: 24 Jul 2004
Posts: 7
Location: DK
PostMon Jul 26, 2004 8:08 am  Reply with quote  

quote:
Originally posted by Swamp Gas
quote:
Originally posted by Fenris
One thing that is needed for a science discussion is openmindedness. This means that you need to allow for all opinions, including those of skeptics. So, I recommend in the future not to ban skeptics.

Fenris



Would this include skepticism of skeptics? In my years at this forum, I have seen most "skeptics" as simply debunkers, who perhaps are in the same class as the anti-suffrage organizers of the early 1900's, anti-black voters, the anti-gay organizing now, or the Anti-Global Warming theory, coming from Oil Company supporters.

There was "skepticism" of Theremin's techonogy, which now is manifest as motion detectors. Jules Vernes and HG Wells were laughed at for Submarines and Spacecraft going to other planets.

I think we are beyond the point of explaining to people whether there is excessive aerosol spraying now. It's like explaining to people that Bush is a liar.

*snip*
I'm not shure what a "debunker" is. To debunk something is to provide evidence against it, that would be what a skeptic does, but why the term "debunker"? However, if you want to exclude any discussion about whether the spraying exists at all, you can do that, but then the term "science" is inappropriate.

Fenris
 View user's profile Send private message
Jeanie





Joined: 18 Nov 2001
Posts: 1323
Location: North East U.S.A.
PostMon Jul 26, 2004 3:26 pm  Reply with quote  

Fenris; Websters Dictionary says of debunk, "to expose the sham or falseness of " If anyone doubts the governments are all in KA-HOOTS in global aresol spraying of the atmosphere let him look up on a regular basis, travel around from state to state or country to country and just SEE for themselves if all these trails being laid are natural "contrails". If one has any measure of intelligence, one would have to say this massacre of the skies and long term effects of these trails is by no means natural and normal...

Let he who is just waking up, go to a search engine and research areosol spraying or chemtrails as well as watching the sky.

Let he who spreads disinformation about chemtrails just shut up!!! Idea
 View user's profile Send private message
Swamp Gas





Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4255
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands
PostMon Jul 26, 2004 4:16 pm  Reply with quote  


quote:
I'm not shure what a "debunker" is. To debunk something is to provide evidence against it, that would be what a skeptic does, but why the term "debunker"? However, if you want to exclude any discussion about whether the spraying exists at all, you can do that, but then the term "science" is inappropriate.



And you of course would have the last say on whether the science is pure or tainted by political, financial, or religious reasons?

A debunker is a foul-mouthed skeptic....Plain and simple, with extreme prejudice to find a certain answer. You see debunkers on these threads have threatened our lives and jobs, and would turn us in to the FBI or Homeland Secutity if they could.

We do not have the time to argue on whether the technology exists to Geo-Engineer, either through aerosol spraying or cloud seeding. It does exist. The government's TAP program is one of many such practices and projects. Do your own research like many of us did BEFORE we came to CTC.

Now, if one wants to discuss the reasons behind such operations, then we have fodder for discussion. Otherwise, go to Maverick's and have fun.
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  
Goto page
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT.
The time now is Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:25 am


  Display posts from previous:      




© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum, All Your Base