You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: There Is No Such Thing As Chemtrails
I dont have enough information to decide myself, thats why I rely on investigative journalists and scientists. And their consensus is mostly in line with goverments claims.
I would advise anyone not to belive or not believe, rather to look what indipendend investigators say.
If you want to argue with you beliefs, we can talk about the giant spaghetti monster - our true lord and savior.
You still have to believe what investigative journalists say.
No I dont. Just like with bitcoin miners, the consensus is the truth. Unless the consensus changes, the truth remains.
You are mistaking trust with belief.
I don't see how trust and belief does not go hand in hand.
Blockchain consensus is based on indisputable math, which is hard logic. Human events on the other hand are subject to irrationality and emotions with consensus being just one source of evidence also highly vulnerable to fallibility. Slavery was once considered ok by consensus doesn't mean that its true.
Scientific logic is based on false, unless proven otherwise.
Ok, lets say I believe in scientific consensus.
Isnt that, generally speaking, much better than believing in minoritys opinion?
Their main claim "Jets fluel...." is pure bullshit on par with "Climate change is a myth."
"Slavery was once considered ok" - are you sure it was the scientific consensus or just general population?
Do you accept the mainsteam narrative might be true?
Yeah, but I doubt it. I have no reason to believe a narrative backed by the State who has a record of hiding and manipulating facts.
na a. I didnt ask if you believe or not, I know that. I asked if you accept the possibility the mainstream is right.
Sure, anything is possible.
Ok, I must accept the possibility it was a conspiracy.
None of us has enough information to be sure, so we should wrap it and say whoever did it, was a sick motherfucker.
.... and all governments should stop existing :D
Scientific "consensus" is not always better than the minority position. Consider geocentric vs heliocentric universe theories. What you believe to be "the truth" is then only dependent on the majority, which is then dependent on the time you started considering the debate.
Consensus does not always equal truth, sometimes the majority is wrong but the truth does not change. So I just think your wording is wrong. You could say "the consensus is what I trust; unless the consesus changes, my outlook remains the same." But the truth doesn't change with however many people agree on it or not...
I stopped reading after first sentance, because it shows you did read what I wrote.
How do two planes take down 3 steel framed skyscrapers?
How does a man on dialysis living in a cave half the world away, using windows 98 and dial up get NORAD to stand down?
Why was there molten metal in the pile for a couple months afterward?
How can a plane crash and leave no bodies or debris?
If it was 19 Saudi's, why attack Afghanistan and Iraq?
How does a paper passport survive when the plane, people, concrete and steel cannot?
Cell phone don't work at altitude today, http://wqad.com/2014/04/15/how-and-when-cell-phones-work-on-an-airplane/ how did they work at altitude 16 years ago?
This is a really interesting interview that addresses multiple angles of the narrative. Has some good pictures to support his explanations as well.