Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations

[Jay Reynolds]

Hey, I've got a question for you, lee.

Monsanto's "World Commissar of Agriculture lee h. oswald Frustrating Roundup Ready Soybeans" patent runs out in 2014.

Why do you think Monsanto isn't worried about that situation?

 

[lee h oswald]

Hey, I've got a question for you, lee.

Monsanto's "World Commissar of Agriculture lee h. oswald Frustrating Roundup Ready Soybeans" patent runs out in 2014.

Why do you think Monsanto isn't worried about that situation?

Huh?

 

[lee h oswald]

I've already listed some crops which will grow at the middle of that range.
If you want to dispute me, bring it on, debate the matter.
"One should grow..."
Who made YOU Commisar of Agriculture to tell anyone what they can grow, where they can grow it, or how they can grow it?

It has become quite clearthat you are a control freak who wants to boss the world around, lee.

You are frustrated because the farmers of the world are making their own decisions based on their own self-interests, and you don't like it one bit. Who are YOU to tell any farmer anything at all? You never planted a seed in your life, you never had to depend on your own abilities to grow anything to fed yourself or others, most likely everything you've ever eaten came from Tesco. You have no plans to farm, and never will. It just galls your ass to find that you can't control what farmers grow. And guess what, the world;s farmers don't give a rats ass what you think. Bet that galls you even more!

You really are quite emotional. I never presumed to tell anyone what to grow, merely posited the idea it might be sensible to grow crops in the appropriate places for those crops. It's quite simple. You are clearly more interested in personal gain and what's best for you financially.

It's quite incredible how spectacularly wrong you are in such assessments as these: You never planted a seed in your life, you never had to depend on your own abilities to grow anything to fed yourself or others


it's similar to quite a few of your previous assertions about me: wrong.

How's the poetry coming along?

 

[lee h oswald]

The problem of aluminum toxicity already existed.

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21454/

It's a little confusing when you've shifted from: adding more aluminium isn't going to change anything, to the above link for an argument based on its toxicity. Or maybe you're getting confused.

You used such arguments as anything is toxic in sufficient quantity, even pasta, which is true ofcourse, because it's a truism. That argument tries to give the impression that aluminium's alright, soda cans are made from it, it must be ok - all that jazz. Now you're telling us all how toxic it is - but only when it suits your argument? Something not quite right here.

 

[lee h oswald]

There's no need to trust Monsanto, and they are actually not leading the world in GMO seeds anyway, they have less than 50% of the market here in the US. If you want to fight GMO's you had better learn to speak Hindi, lee.
When farmers try seeds, and they have value, they will be sold for what they are worth, if not, the seeds will not be saleable. It's that simple, and the same for any company that sells products. And the farmers will never take lee into account when making their seed choices, despite his lust to be the
Great and All Powerful World Commissar of Agriculture!

The 'free' market, eh? There are reasons why certain things don't grow in certain places: because they are not tolerant to those conditions. You appear to promote a move towards monoculture based on inadequately based research and the profit motive; corporate interests, nothing at all to do with free anything really.

And that's right, No, the farmers will never take me into account when making their seed choices, why on earth would they? The good news is that they won't take you into account either.

 

[Mick West]

It's a little confusing when you've shifted from: adding more aluminium isn't going to change anything, to the above link for an argument based on its toxicity. Or maybe you're getting confused.

You used such arguments as anything is toxic in sufficient quantity, even pasta, which is true ofcourse, because it's a truism. That argument tries to give the impression that aluminium's alright, soda cans are made from it, it must be ok - all that jazz. Now you're telling us all how toxic it is - but only when it suits your argument? Something not quite right here.

I think you are missing the fact that it's not the amount of aluminum in the soil that makes it toxic.

It's the acidity.

So adding more aluminum does not change anything, you'd have to add more acid.

See that article I linked, and that you queried:

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21454/

Aluminum is common in soils--it's a major component of clay--but only in acidic soils does the metal form an ion that can dissolve into liquids and that's toxic to plants. Acidic soils make up as much as half the world's croplands, however, and aluminum toxicity is the main factor holding back crop growth in nearly 20 percent of the world's arable soils, including large areas of the United States east of the Mississippi River and northwestern Europe.

 

[lee h oswald]

I think you are missing the fact that it's not the amount of aluminum in the soil that makes it toxic.

It's the acidity.

So adding more aluminum does not change anything, you'd have to add more acid.

See that article I linked, and that you queried:

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21454/

Nope. I'm not missing that fact at all. The point is this: You used such arguments as anything is toxic in sufficient quantity, even pasta, which is true ofcourse, because it's a truism. That argument tries to give the impression that aluminium's alright, soda cans are made from it, it must be ok - all that jazz. Now you're telling us all how toxic it is - but only when it suits your argument?

You seem to be missing that point.

Aluminium is toxic to plants, animals and bacteria, isn't it? Didn't we establish that?

 

[Ross Marsden]

lee, do you know the difference between elemental Al and the Al+++ cation?

 

[Pogopoint99]

Lee, do you believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory?

 

[Jay Reynolds]

lee,
If aluminum is so toxic to plants, how do you explain why people have success planting in cast aluminum urns and right up to aluminum landscape edging?

 

[Mick West]

lee, do you know the difference between elemental Al and the Al+++ cation?

And also relevant, lee, do you know the difference between Aluminum and Aluminum Oxide?

 

[tryblinking]

So I'm no chemist and a little mixed up here: acidity and aluminium are bad, but together are worst? Or does one cause the other? (I promise I'm trying not to be dense)

 

[Mick West]

We are talking about the toxicity of aluminum to crops.

Aluminum is naturally occurring in soil in huge amounts. Averaging 8% of the soil. However it's in the form of inert compounds of aluminum, such as aluminum oxide. Basically harmless rock.

Metallic aluminum is also essentially harmless, as it immediately oxidizes in contact with oxygen or water, so it really can't get into the biosphere except as these compounds. Any metallic aluminum is sort of trapped inside a skin of aluminum oxide.

But if the soil is acid, then this dissolves the aluminum compounds, allowing Aluminum ions (Al3+) into the soil, which is what causes the toxicity.

So, adding more aluminum oxide will not really change that at all, since Aluminum is so ubiquitous. It's the acidity that is the problem.

 

[Mick West]

There's frequent confusion here, as soil tests that test for aluminum are frequently testing for "available aluminum" Al3+, which is measured in ppm (and is usually less than 1ppm), rather than aluminum itself "total aluminum", which is measured in %, hundreds of thousands times higher. See here for an explanation of this, and the acid vs. aluminum confusion:

http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/support/library/ff/Soil_Aluminum_and_test_interpretation.htm

Very little Al+++​ in the soil solution is required to cause damage to most plants. Few, if any plants grown for commercial purposes in this country will tolerate more than 1.0 ppm of soluble Al+++​, and most will have some problems at levels greater than 0.5 ppm.

The soil pH is probably the single most important management factor controlling the amount of Al+++​ in the soil solution. Soluble Al is present in the soil when the pH begins to drop below pH 6.0. However, it is inconsequential in the vast majority of soils until the pH drops below pH 5.5. Even then, it is rarely a problem until the soil pH drops below pH 5.0. However, the amount of soluble Al increases dramatically in nearly all soils as the soil pH drops below pH 5.0. In these extremely acid soils, only those species adapted to acid soils (such as blueberries, cranberries, and acid-loving ornamentals) or the few crop species bred to tolerate high soil Al levels can be expected to do well.

 

[Mick West]

I've banned lee h oswald. After suffering a lot of his posts, I've come to the conclusion that he's basically trolling. He seems to view this as an adversarial rather than constructive discussion, and hence is resorting to semantic debate tactics rather than discussing the central issue (indeed, he consistently ignores any debate of the central issue - evidence of spraying).

This is not an issue I take lightly, but lee is perfectly free to express his opinion in thousands of other outlets that would give him vastly more exposure. I'm not denying him a voice, I'm inviting him to take it elsewhere.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

He was using a dishonest form of the Socratic Method, asking questions but sidestepping those asked of him when he saw he was about to contradict himself.
I found it challenging but frustrating. He won't get far until he decides to stick to a more honest approach.

 

[lee h oswald]

I've banned lee h oswald. After suffering a lot of his posts, I've come to the conclusion that he's basically trolling. He seems to view this as an adversarial rather than constructive discussion, and hence is resorting to semantic debate tactics rather than discussing the central issue (indeed, he consistently ignores any debate of the central issue - evidence of spraying).

This is not an issue I take lightly, but lee is perfectly free to express his opinion in thousands of other outlets that would give him vastly more exposure. I'm not denying him a voice, I'm inviting him to take it elsewhere.

I trust you will allow me to respond one final time, having excluded me for a week or so and censored my latest post again. I'd think a little less badly of you than I do right now.

One needs to treat all evidence as evidence, not just what you feel like. Constructive? How is it possible to have a constructive discussion when you openly refuse to take all aspects into account? The 'central issue' in this thread is this:
[h=1]Debunked: Belfort Group "Case Orange" conclusions & recommendations[/h]That's what I'm talking about, items related to this which were introduced by other contributors.

The other thread I contributed to (among others) was entitled, 9/11 An inside job? I have stated clearly on both issues that I do not know what happened/is happening. I merely put forward some evidence, taking into account all aspects of such a discussion - and that includes 'political' - while you openly refuse to refer to anything but science, but claim a complete grasp of the reality. For me, that calls your judgment to question. You will not ask: who funds this science? You say, 'I don't want to talk about that'; I say, 'motive?' Even Plonker of The Yard might see that.
The sophistry to mitigate the extreme action of banning someone who actually debates, rather than sits about backslapping, because it's not a debate you want - it's affirmation; to go with your belief.

You say this: I'm not denying him a voice, I'm inviting him to take it elsewhere.




I think you need to look at this again. You are doing everything within your power to gag someone reasonable. That is shocking to me. I don't recall you inviting me anywhere; but you are censoring someone without good reason. Let's see if you could believe in free speech, post this.

 

[Mick West]

lee, you spent many pages basically pushing the "no-plane" theory, and ignoring all the evidence, refusing to discuss the actual science of kinetic energy, and then as a last resort casting dispersions on some scientists.

The problem here is that your theory is ludicrous. Even most "truthers" accept that a plane hit the building, and the initial visible results are consistent with that. It's just basic physics, and yet you refuse to listen to ANYTHING that contradicts your position (and simultaneously claim not to have a position).

It's just a big waste of time and space that's all. You are not interested in the truth, just in constructing a framework in which your idea of the truth can thrive.

I invite you to leave. Or start talking about kinetic energy.

 

[Pogopoint99]

I believe Lee argued for the sake of arguing. God forbid, he clearly state a position and try to defend it with facts. Over 350 posts and what can we conclude about him? Lee believes his skies get "obliterated" with aircraft emissions and he's suspicious of UK weather reporters. I also noticed that often the subject of Lee's arguments arched back to Lee himself. He would prefer to argue whether or not he ever explicitly stated that chemtrails are real rather than debate whether or not chemtrails are real.

When asked to back his claims with facts, we got vagaries and speculation. After all, One can't get debunked if one doesn't answer questions. Have a look at this dangling thread awaiting some facts from Lee (Post #153) How long has that question been ignored? two months? Lee didn't have facts. Therefore, lee had a hard time making a point. If he couldn't make a point, then his presence here was/is... pointless.



P.S. Lee, do you believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory? The joke being, I would get the same response from you whether or not you're banned.

 

[Mick West]

Lee was unbanned by accident. But I'll leave it alone for now.

 

[lee h oswald]

lee, you spent many pages basically pushing the "no-plane" theory, and ignoring all the evidence, refusing to discuss the actual science of kinetic energy, and then as a last resort casting dispersions on some scientists.

The problem here is that your theory is ludicrous. Even most "truthers" accept that a plane hit the building, and the initial visible results are consistent with that. It's just basic physics, and yet you refuse to listen to ANYTHING that contradicts your position (and simultaneously claim not to have a position).

It's just a big waste of time and space that's all. You are not interested in the truth, just in constructing a framework in which your idea of the truth can thrive.

I invite you to leave. Or start talking about kinetic energy.

You appear to have lost the plot, and with it the argument. I politely decline your invitation to leave unless I talk about kinetic energy. I have made all the points I wanted to make about kinetic energy in the relevant thread entitled 9/11 An Inside Job?, and besides, I really can't see what relevance that would have to this thread about The Belfort Group's Case Orange report. Also, I thought discussion involved people discussing their own views, not being told what to discuss by someone else under threat of expulsion.

To roundly refute your comment above, lee, you spent many pages basically pushing the "no-plane" theory, and ignoring all the evidence, refusing to discuss the actual science of kinetic energy, and then as a last resort casting dispersions on some scientists.

Is that right? I think you will find that this is what is known, scientifically, as a lie. Here is a quote from the thread 9/11: An Inside Job?

Originally Posted by Mick


If not, is there a web page that states something close to whet you actually believe happened?



Reply by lee h oswald: We're back to that 'belief' thing again. I'm telling you what I think about what we do know about what appeared to happen - the bits that aren't overly contentious; eg. that three very large buildings collapsed; two were hit by commercial airliners; the official explanation is a document for reference, as are the 'physical' photographic and eyewitness testimonial based references. I am not as sure as you appear to be about the reality of what happened. The answer to 'what do you believe happened?' for me, is: I don't know. You certainly appear to have a strong alignment with official and mainstream sources I don't share. Maybe the matter is as much personal political and psychological as it is scientific...what do you reckon? END QUOTE//

Now it is clear for anyone to see what I really did say. Page 3, post no. 82 to be precise. If anyone can find, in the entire thread of 14 pages, a contradiction of this position, please indicate where.

And again, Mick says: It's just a big waste of time and space that's all. You are not interested in the truth, just in constructing a framework in which your idea of the truth can thrive.

Now you really are projecting. You're the one who has constructed a framework for your own version of the truth - here it is, and I'm just a visitor. If it's such a waste of time then don't waste your time, it's quite simple. As far as I'm aware, there is no law compelling you to argue, always have the last word etc etc.

And, as a final indication of a lost plot: ...casting dispersions on some scientists. Tempting though it may be in some cases, it is neither within my desire nor power to disperse any other physical being, scientist or not.

 

[lee h oswald]

I believe Lee argued for the sake of arguing. God forbid, he clearly state a position and try to defend it with facts. Over 350 posts and what can we conclude about him? Lee believes his skies get "obliterated" with aircraft emissions and he's suspicious of UK weather reporters. I also noticed that often the subject of Lee's arguments arched back to Lee himself. He would prefer to argue whether or not he ever explicitly stated that chemtrails are real rather than debate whether or not chemtrails are real.

When asked to back his claims with facts, we got vagaries and speculation. After all, One can't get debunked if one doesn't answer questions. Have a look at this dangling thread awaiting some facts from Lee (Post #153) How long has that question been ignored? two months? Lee didn't have facts. Therefore, lee had a hard time making a point. If he couldn't make a point, then his presence here was/is... pointless.



P.S. Lee, do you believe the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory? The joke being, I would get the same response from you whether or not you're banned.

Believe what you like - it appears to be the MO here. In the light of my previous, your comment hardly feels worth a refutation, but I'm in the mood. I think any unblinkered person coming across this with an open mind would find many facts in my contributions. That you can reduce all this to: Lee believes his skies get "obliterated" with aircraft emissions...actually, they do, regularly. Come to London and look up. It's called 'observation' and it's available to everyone; like I've said before, it's the most basic ground of empiricism - isn't that the system you claim to stand for? You appear to suggest this is a lie or a mistake; and on what would you base this assertion? Oh yes, your 'belief'.

And again: I also noticed that often the subject of Lee's arguments arched back to Lee himself. Hmm, and why do you think that might be? Just have a look at what your illustrious leader posted above - a blatant piece of disinformation? When someone is constantly misrepresented, what should they do? Just agree with it? Debunk that.

It's interesting that you all jump on the same 'vague' bandwagon - at least you agree on something, I suppose. Actually, having reviewed a large part of my contributions to these pages, 'vague' isn't a word I'd use to describe them, but you must believe that repetition makes something true. I'm afraid it's not a scientific approach.

And this gem: Lee didn't have facts. Therefore, lee had a hard time making a point.

Really? And what kind of person would spend time 'debunking' something that other people might believe in? Where do you draw the line? Fairies? Loch Ness monster? I've said it before - and that's a fact - why spend time trying to falsify something you already believe to be false? For the good of humanity? Pull the other one, it's got bells.

 

[lee h oswald]

He was using a dishonest form of the Socratic Method, asking questions but sidestepping those asked of him when he saw he was about to contradict himself.
I found it challenging but frustrating. He won't get far until he decides to stick to a more honest approach.

And this from the man who said: You can't have what we have. We outnumber you...


and such scientific delights as:You have no plans to farm, and never will. It just galls your ass to find that you can't control what farmers grow. And guess what, the world;s farmers don't give a rats ass what you think. Bet that galls you even more!

I could go on for quite a while with you and your irrelevant emotional assertions, it's almost entertaining.

 

[Pogopoint99]

It's called 'observation' and it's available to everyone; like I've said before, it's the most basic ground of empiricism...

You observe a plane leaving a contrail.
You then observe your sky getting overcast.
You then sorta vaguely insinuate that the implication could kinda maybe suggest that the former caused the latter... maybe... don't know... just saying.

You fail.

I think any unblinkered person coming across this with an open mind would find many facts in my contributions.

"Many facts" in your contributions? Name some.

And again: I also noticed that often the subject of Lee's arguments arched back to Lee himself. Hmm, and why do you think that might be?

You're an egocentric narcissist?

It's interesting that you all jump on the same 'vague' bandwagon - at least you agree on something, I suppose. Actually, BLA... BLA... BLA...

Oh my!... yes quite... fascinating... you don't say!?... very interesting...

So anyway, do you think the OTW: 2025 report supports the chemtrail theory?

 

[tryblinking]

Yes Lee, please simply state your position. This semantic to and fro about what was said, and what you would like to infer about the respective posters is just treading water.
To advertise a desire to discuss openly towards a truth supported by fact, just requires a statement of your position. If you can't provide even that as a starting point, then you reveal your true desire to simply subvert the discussion, to stir up an argument centred on you, the very definition of Trolling.

 

[lee h oswald]

How tedious. This one shows exactly how vague I am.

Originally Posted by Jay Reynolds

Vague again as usual, lee. Please quote where the words emerging, upgrading, and injecting are used




Ok.

1. Page vi) Executive Summary
In 2025, US aerospace forces can "own the weather" by capitalizing on emerging technologies and
focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications


2. Page 13 Concept of Operations
The essential ingredient of the weather-modification system is the set of intervention techniques used to
modify the weather. The number of specific intervention methodologies is limited only by the imagination,
but with few exceptions they involve infusing either energy or chemicals into the meteorological process

Oh dear, I said injecting instead of infusing - that probably makes all the difference, eh?

3. Field experiments with lasers have demonstrated the capability.... Generating 1 watt/cm2, which is approximately the US
large power density exposure limit, the system raised visibility to one quarter of a mile in 20 seconds.
Laser systems described in the Space Operations portion of this AF 2025 study could certainly provide this
capability as one of their many possible uses.
With regard to seeding techniques, improvements (upgrades?) in the materials and delivery methods are not only
plausible but likely. Smart materials based on nanotechnology are currently being developed (1996) with gigaops computer capability at their core. They could adjust their size to optimal dimensions for a given fog seeding
situation and even make adjustments throughout the process. They might also enhance their dispersal
qualities by adjusting their buoyancy, by communicating with each other, and by steering themselves within
the fog. They will be able to provide immediate and continuous effectiveness feedback by integrating with a
larger sensor network and can also change their temperature and polarity to improve their seeding effects.15
As mentioned above, UAVs could be used to deliver and distribute these smart materials.

Sounds like upgrading to me. I lost count of the number of times they use the word 'development'. Doesn't that mean about the same as 'upgrade'?

And here's one just for fun -

"The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;"2 in 2025 we can "Own the Weather."
Notes

2 General Gordon R. Sullivan, "Moving into the 21st Century: America's Army and Modernization,"
Military Review (July 1993) quoted in Mary Ann Seagraves and Richard Szymber, "Weather a Force
Multiplier," Military Review, November/December 1995, 75.

Vague, eh?


And then...It's not against the rules to look back over what people have written to find some facts. If you try, you will find; here's an example for you - and all these from one single post - let's count the facts together, shall we? And if there's any you'd like to challenge, let's hear it.

Originally Posted by Jay Reynolds

Vague again as usual, lee. Please quote where the words emerging, upgrading, and injecting are used, and considering the context, explain why the statement disturbs you so much. Regarding spending money on the document, the research paper was produced by students and faculty at the Air University for the benefit of my country(not necessarily yours). I am very happy that so long as these 'Watchmen on the Wall' are employed by me already, their expertise can be put to use to maintain my country's position as the foremost defenders of freedom in the entire world.

If you don't like it, tough shit.
Both my grandfather and father bailed your country out when it was almost on its knees.
Twice, already.
You ungrateful ass.

A least the the writers of this document had the guts to show their names, a level of honesty and responsibiity which you have yet to attain.

If anyone wants to read more of what lee didn't tell you, and probably doesn't wish you to know, this link is a good place to start.
http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/index.htm





REPLY: I urge all to read the document.

At last - your true colours are coming through: ...the Air University for the benefit of my country(not necessarily yours). I am very happy that so long as these 'Watchmen on the Wall' are employed by me already, their expertise can be put to use to maintain my country's position as the foremost defenders of freedom in the entire world.

Great stuff: Defenders of freedom?! LOL. Really. I must have missed that meeting. The US has been responsible for the overthrowing of over 50 governments since 1945 1. Thirty of those were democratically elected governments 2. Whose 'freedom' are we talking about? Yours? Have a read of The Patriot Act - a brilliant piece of egalitarian legislation.
You borrow money from China to fund your military 3 while the working class got thrown overboard forty years ago. You can't afford it any more 4. You're doing it all on the credit card! 5 The Chinese gold card. You've shown yourself and where you're coming from. No surprise, but thanks for clarifying. Even this...

If you don't like it, tough shit.
Both my grandfather and father bailed your country out when it was almost on its knees.
Twice, already.
You ungrateful ass.

Pardon? War is a racket; get used to it. Freedom? Tell it to 900,000 dead Iraqi civilians 6(since 2003). Fact. 4.5million since 1990. 7 Fact. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos? 3 million estimated 8. Panama? Chile? Honduras? Guatamala? East Timor? Nicaragua? Death squad El Salvador? School of the Americas (look it up people)? Training college for US sponsored terrorism let's bundle those all into just one fact, eh 9. What was that about freedom again? Maybe it means something different where I come from.

Here's another fact about your military: link to video of US troops in Iraq firing live rounds and throwing stun grenades at their prisoners: 10

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174186.html ...they don't show this on Fox or CNN or anywhere in our media for some reason 11....want some more? There's some really graphic stuff if you need it.

Run up the flag Reynolds.

But which one?


US Navy building Coronado, California. 12

I make that a conservative twelve. That's 12 facts, one post.

 

[lee h oswald]

Yes Lee, please simply state your position. This semantic to and fro about what was said, and what you would like to infer about the respective posters is just treading water.
To advertise a desire to discuss openly towards a truth supported by fact, just requires a statement of your position. If you can't provide even that as a starting point, then you reveal your true desire to simply subvert the discussion, to stir up an argument centred on you, the very definition of Trolling.

I've said it before: I state my position in all I write; my position is as clear as my writing. If correcting incorrect statements attributed to me is 'semantics', I suggest you get the dictionary out. There's a good example just above; it goes something like this: lee, you spent many pages basically pushing the "no-plane" theory.

Why don't you correct this blatant nonsense? Debunk it, it would be very easy. Why don't you explain how this is not the way to make an argument? ie. by lying about what your contributors have said. Examples of this 'tactic' are many - I could go on.

You're right about one thing (only one), and it's this: you reveal your true desire to simply subvert the discussion and why do you think someone might want to 'subvert' your 'discussion'? To bring it into the light and show it for what it really is? Unable, unwilling and obstinate to the nth degree over allowing important elements into this 'discussion'. Unless all aspects are discussed, it's not really a full debate, it's a carve up.

 

[lee h oswald]

You observe a plane leaving a contrail.
You then observe your sky getting overcast.
You then sorta vaguely insinuate that the implication could kinda maybe suggest that the former caused the latter... maybe... don't know... just saying.

You fail.



"Many facts" in your contributions? Name some.

No. On countless occasions I have observed lots of aircraft leaving long and persistent trails, then I watch the trails spread out. After a while, quite often, the whole sky is covered with these man-made clouds, made by the passing aircraft emissions. It is clearly attributable to the aircraft leaving the observed trails. There is no 'vague insinuation' - How categorical do you need it? What are you saying - you haven't seen this? Try looking up now and again.


"Many facts" in your contributions? Name some.

I refer you to the above post #226

 

[Pogopoint99]

No. On countless occasions I have observed lots of aircraft leaving long and persistent trails, then I watch the trails spread out.

Oh, I see, you're talking about persistent spreading contrails. Yes, it's a well documented scientific fact that air traffic can create persistent spreading contrails. These are high cirrus clouds that can create a haze. These clouds don't make rain and their effects on surface temperature is inconclusive. (yes, I know about the 9/11 diurnal temp study)

So what's your point?

 

[Spongebob]

I am in the UK. I also occasionally see contrails persist and spread.

I am still yet to witness a "chemtrail".

Why is that?

 

[Pogopoint99]

How tedious. This one shows exactly how vague I am.

I make that a conservative twelve. That's 12 facts, one post.

Let's assume those are all factually correct. In that case, you've posted a collection of facts. Well done Lee.

What are you trying to say? What is the purpose of posting these facts? What is your point, Lee?

 

[lee h oswald]

I am in the UK. I also occasionally see contrails persist and spread.

I am still yet to witness a "chemtrail".

Why is that?

Now this is interesting.

Using the most basic deduction, I can say with some certainty that you can identify a 'chemtrail'. Please explain how you do that. How is that?

 

[lee h oswald]

Let's assume those are all factually correct. In that case, you've posted a collection of facts. Well done Lee.

What are you trying to say? What is the purpose of posting these facts? What is your point, Lee?

Well, if you recall, you asked for some facts to be pointed out, so I pointed.

For some reason I got the vague impression you might be insinuating there were no facts in my contributions - is that right?

 

[lee h oswald]

"Many facts" in your contributions? Name some.

Remember?

 

[Spongebob]

Now this is interesting.

Using the most basic deduction, I can say with some certainty that you can identify a 'chemtrail'. Please explain how you do that. How is that?

You can identify a "chemtrail" ?
Do I understand you correctly?

You are able to distinguish between a persistent spreading contrail and another type of trail which looks and behaves in exactly the same way as a persistent spreading contrail?

Have you invented hover-boots and you have some samples to share, or did the orbs tell you? How did you make the distinction?

 

[lee h oswald]

You can identify a "chemtrail" ?
Do I understand you correctly?

You are able to distinguish between a persistent spreading contrail and another type of trail which looks and behaves in exactly the same way as a persistent spreading contrail?

Have you invented hover-boots and you have some samples to share, or did the orbs tell you? How did you make the distinction?

Apparently you don't understand. You said: I am still yet to witness a "chemtrail".

From this statement we can deduce that you know exactly what a 'chemtrail' is, even though you've never seen one. I'm asking how you do that?

 

[Spongebob]

Apparently you don't understand. You said: I am still yet to witness a "chemtrail".

From this statement we can deduce that you know exactly what a 'chemtrail' is, even though you've never seen one. I'm asking how you do that?

It`s easy.

I have no reason to assume that the trails I witness in the UK are anything other than commercial airliner contrails.

Why would anyone assume anything else?

What would that assumption (that contrails were not contrails) be based upon?

Therefore... You/'we' can 'deduce' that I (think) I know exactly what a contrail is, and have no reason to invent any other type of trail or name for it...

What about you?

 

[Pogopoint99]

For some reason I got the vague impression you might be insinuating there were no facts in my contributions - is that right?

No... I asked you to point out the facts you were referring to.

Now that I know what facts you are talking about, I'm left trying to figure out the argument to which they are being applied. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have an argument. If your premise is that planes make contrails, the US government meddles in other peoples affairs for their own self interests and that their navy designed a building in the form of a swastika, then yes, these things are all true.

So what?

What are you trying to illustrate with these facts?

What point are you trying to make with these facts?

To what ends are you presenting these facts?

What are you trying to demonstrate with these facts?

I can't ask any clearer... what is your point, Lee?

 

[lee h oswald]

It`s easy.

I have no reason to assume that the trails I witness in the UK are anything other than commercial airliner contrails.

Why would anyone assume anything else?

What would that assumption (that contrails were not contrails) be based upon?

Therefore... You/'we' can 'deduce' that I (think) I know exactly what a contrail is, and have no reason to invent any other type of trail or name for it...

What about you?

Perhaps you might read up (this thread?) and look up a little more and then you'll be able to tell us how to tell a 'chemtrail' - your word, including 'quotes'. One doesn't need to assume anything. Are you now saying you're using a nomenclature for a phenomenon which doesn't exist?

 

[Spongebob]

Perhaps you might read up (this thread?) and look up a little more and then you'll be able to tell us how to tell a 'chemtrail' - your word, including 'quotes'. One doesn't need to assume anything. Are you now saying you're using a nomenclature for a phenomenon which doesn't exist?

You are correct when you state that the internet hoax of "chemtrails" (quotes) does not actually exist.

At least - no supporting evidence exists.

(Doug McClure died in 1995)