How could you prove Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program exists

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Let's take a ride . . .

[video=youtube_share;XaI0n521C7E]http://youtu.be/XaI0n521C7E[/video]
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, a little message for you and anyone else who thinks they are just engaging in simple discussions.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/689-Pain-and-Suffering-Brought-on-by-the-Chemtrails-Hoax

Ask yourself if your conscience is completely clear on this, and act accordingly to do the right thing.

I have never suggested Morgellions or whatever they call it is related to geoengineering . . . you are suggesting someone debating the possible cause of violence is promoting mass shootings . . . I don't think so . . whether it is a real medical condition or psychosomatic the sufferers are confused and frightened . . . medicine does not manage these types of conditions well . . . it is very problematic . . . I don't even go to chemtrail sites unless it is to verify something a debunker has referred me there about . . . I don't watch their videos either unless asked to for the same reasons above . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
You are part of it, George.....You advocate for chemtrails...... Don't try and deny it you know you help that cause...... It is a hoax and you know it....Get out of it........It is bad for people and is causing suffering, anger and threats........You are a part of that herd....... You are all enabling others in painful delusions........They are hurting themselves and you are part of it........I know your conscience isn't clear..........Otherwise you would have said so.......Everyone can see you advocate the chemtrails hoax for a hundred pages and over months......You are a part of it......Stop helping others promote this hoax.......
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You are part of it, George.....You advocate for chemtrails...... Don't try and deny it you know you help that cause...... It is a hoax and you know it....Get out of it........It is bad for people and is causing suffering, anger and threats........You are a part of that herd....... You are all enabling others in painful delusions........They are hurting themselves and you are part of it........I know your conscience isn't clear..........Otherwise you would have said so.......Everyone can see you advocate the chemtrails hoax for a hundred pages and over months......You are a part of it......Stop helping others promote this hoax.......

You are wrong . . . My conscience is quite clear . . . I have advocated for a sensible approach to the whole issue . . . and the difference is some chemtrails advocates have actually listened to reason as opposed to being dismissed and angered by the antics of Noble and the like . . .

I have been called a Shill and Government Agent by the fanatics as well . . . it comes with the territory when one is discussing the subject . . . you either discuss things logically or you go hysterical and say all kinds of nasty things . . . like you just did . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
George, as a chemtrails advocate.............. you promote the hoax......by that you support the hoaxers....... the Michael J. Murphy's...the Al Dicicco's...the insinuations of coverup...........deliberate destruction of satellites...... the most outrageous James Bond conspiracy theories........if you cared about this woman you would not.......yet you advocate for it.....you are culpable.......you can't advocate for a hoax and claim to not be a part of it......
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
George, as a chemtrails advocate.............. you promote the hoax......by that you support the hoaxers....... the Michael J. Murphy's...the Al Dicicco's...the insinuations of coverup...........deliberate destruction of satellites...... the most outrageous James Bond conspiracy theories........if you cared about this woman you would not.......yet you advocate for it.....you are culpable.......you can't advocate for a hoax and claim to not be a part of it......
And if you pay taxes you are culpable for the deaths of innocent people, I mean collateral damage, in Afganastan, etc . . .please, I don't buy your protest and crocodile tears . . . the woman in the video either has some strange dermatological condition or a psychosomatic condition which was not properly diagnosed or treated by the medical experts . . . without resolution or explanation for her suffering she latched on to chemtrails . . . it could have been just as likely radiation from Japan she chose to be her cause or pollution of almost any source . . . I do not agree with the video but I am not responsible for it either just because I think a covert geoengineering program is possible and I say so . . .
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
GeorgeB said:
I am not responsible for it either just because I think a covert geoengineering program is possible and I say so . . .

Sorry to keep reminding you, George........ You are a "chemtrails advocate"......You advocate for a hoax..... You support the hoax......This woman and many many more suffer under a delusion, yes........it could have been something else...... yet You help perpetuate this delusion.....you enable these people in their delusion......nobody forces you to continue......you know this woman is hurting yet you refuse to help her.......you continue to advocate for this hoax despite no evidence.... it is a choice you have made to work with the hoax promoters to bring about fear, anger, and suffering.....you should consider helping this woman..... help to end this hoax......don't try endlessly to keep it alive......do the right thing......I will keep reminding you of your culpability....
forever........
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I somewhat agree with George. The people with Morgellons are suffering because they think they have Morgellons. The chemtrails theory did not create the situation, and nor did it really make it worse. If it were not for chemtrails they would blame it on something else, like EMR, fluoride, or mercury fillings.

George might share some culpability for the people who are scared every time they see a plane, but I don't think his particular convoluted variant of the theory has many takers. Certainly very few actual converts.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Sorry to keep reminding you, George........ You are a "chemtrails advocate"......You advocate for a hoax..... You support the hoax......This woman and many many more suffer under a delusion, yes........it could have been something else...... yet You help perpetuate this delusion.....you enable these people in their delusion......nobody forces you to continue......you know this woman is hurting yet you refuse to help her.......you continue to advocate for this hoax despite no evidence.... it is a choice you have made to work with the hoax promoters to bring about fear, anger, and suffering.....you should consider helping this woman..... help to end this hoax......don't try endlessly to keep it alive......do the right thing......I will keep reminding you of your culpability....
forever........
Go right ahead . . . knock yourself out . . . you unscrupulous tax payer!!!!
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Its not worth my time. You won't understand and you'll just google some ridiculous nonsense to weasel your way out of it anyway. Just keep pretending you understand the subject.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Sorry to keep reminding you, George........ You are a "chemtrails advocate"......You advocate for a hoax..... You support the hoax......This woman and many many more suffer under a delusion, yes........it could have been something else...... yet You help perpetuate this delusion.....you enable these people in their delusion......nobody forces you to continue......you know this woman is hurting yet you refuse to help her.......you continue to advocate for this hoax despite no evidence.... it is a choice you have made to work with the hoax promoters to bring about fear, anger, and suffering.....you should consider helping this woman..... help to end this hoax......don't try endlessly to keep it alive......do the right thing......I will keep reminding you of your culpability....
forever........

Brilliant stuff! Almost as good as your poetry!
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
even if it meant an unstoppable chain reaction that could have destroyed the entire world . . .

That's not the first time you've said something like that.

Not unlike the detonation of the first hydrogen bombs . . . the fear was an unending chain reaction . . . funny thing they did it anyway . . . Guess what . . . Edward Teller was part of the decision . . . same people who are IMO . . . possibly In charge of the geoengineering decision !!!!

Your premise that scientists would recklessly endanger the whole planet with geoengineering programs because they disregarded similar world ending scenarios during the H-Bomb tests, falls short of the mark.

In 1942 the decision was made to research a fission bomb. However, Edward Teller continued attempts to gain support for creating a much more powerful thermonuclear bomb (fusion bomb). It was during those early years, when fusion was not well understood, before even the first controlled fission reaction, that Teller first speculated about how a fission bomb might ignite the atmosphere with a self-sustaining fusion reaction of Nitrogen nuclei. (Teller developed a track record for overstating the likelihood of fusion reactions. Bethe, a key figure in the bomb's development, recounted how the H-Bomb could have been produced much sooner were it not for Teller miscalculating the likelihood of thermonuclear reactions.)

Anyway back to 1942. Upon hearing the prospect of an uncontrolled atmospheric reaction, Oppenheimer set Hans Bethe to look into the matter. Bethe, using early IBM digital computers to achieve his results, calculated that a fission reaction could not induce a thermonuclear reaction in the open atmosphere. Research resumed and the first A-Bomb was constructed.

During the Trinity test, Enrico Fermi recalled Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. In an attempt to relieve some tension, he started taking bets on whether the test would destroy the world, or merely glass the State of New Mexico.

Development of a fusion bomb began after the war. Soon the notion of igniting the atmosphere surfaced once again. Only this time it was speculated that a thermonuclear reaction could trigger the fusion of Nitrogen nuclei in the atmosphere. In 1946, Teller's own calculations showed that the bomb was not large enough to trigger a cascade, and even if it were, other physical phenomenon would disperse the energy required to sustain the reaction. He concluded the prospect was so improbable that it was considered impossible. Oppenheimer agreed.


LA-602a.jpg

This meme that mad scientists will risk the destruction of the world for the sake of their precious experiments persists to this day. A Scientific American article caused a big flap when it speculated the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider might produce a doomsday scenario. This was seen yet again with The Large Hadron Collider.

Scientists were not careless when they evaluated the possibility of global destruction during the first nuclear bomb tests nor are they careless when evaluating geoengineering experiments today. Some are advocating for more research in the subject so that if, at some time in the future, should it be the only card left to play, we could engage in a responsible geoengineering program that would have the highest probability of success with the least damage.

As a side note:

"There was a fear that the detonation of that first bomb would also initiate the destruction of the world. This fear was based on the exceedingly small but finite probability that the explosion of this bomb would initiate an unstoppable chain reaction in the most common element in the world: hydrogen. Their fears were perhaps not totally unfounded, as a rumor persists that the energy liberated by that bomb exceeded the very best theoretical calculations by as much as twenty percent, begging the question 'where did it come from?'

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/AtomicAndHydrogenBombs.cfm
Content from External Source
The author you quoted made some fundamental errors. First of all, The most common element in the world is iron. Next, Teller considered the possibility of a self sustaining reaction of Nitrogen, not Hydrogen. Scientists knew that even a 20% increase in yield could not ignite the atmosphere. Finally, the author tries to support his premise with a rumour!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's not the first time you've said something like this.



Your premise that scientists would recklessly endanger the whole planet with geoengineering programs because they disregarded similar world ending scenarios during the H-Bomb tests, falls short of the mark.

In 1942 the decision was made to research a fission bomb. However, Edward Teller continued attempts to gain support for creating a much more powerful thermonuclear bomb (fusion bomb). It was during those early years, when fusion was not well understood, before even the first controlled fission reaction, that Teller first speculated about how a fission bomb might ignite the atmosphere with a self-sustaining fusion reaction of Nitrogen nuclei. (Teller developed a track record for overstating the likelihood of fusion reactions. Bethe, a key figure in the bomb's development, recounted how the H-Bomb could have been produced much sooner were it not for Teller miscalculating the likelihood of thermonuclear reactions.)

Anyway back to 1942. Upon hearing the prospect of an uncontrolled atmospheric reaction, Oppenheimer set Hans Bethe to look into the matter. Bethe, using early IBM digital computers to achieve his results, calculated that a fission reaction could not induce a thermonuclear reaction in the open atmosphere. Research resumed and the first A-Bomb was constructed.

During the Trinity test, Enrico Fermi recalled Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. In an attempt to relieve some tension, he started taking bets on whether the test would destroy the world, or merely glass the State of New Mexico.

Development of a fusion bomb began after the war. Soon the notion of igniting the atmosphere surfaced once again. Only this time it was speculated that a thermonuclear reaction could trigger the fusion of Nitrogen nuclei in the atmosphere. In 1946, Teller's own Calculations showed that the bomb was not large enough trigger a cascade, and even if it were, other physical phenomenon would disperse the energy required to sustain the reaction. He concluded the prospect was so improbable that it was considered impossible. Oppenheimer agreed.


LA-602a.jpg

This meme that mad scientists will risk the destruction the world for the sake of their precious experiments persists to this day. A Scientific American article caused a big flap when it speculated the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider might produce a doomsday scenario. This was seen yet again with The Large Hadron Collider.

Scientists were not careless when they evaluated the possibility of global destruction during the first nuclear bomb tests nor are they careless when evaluating geoengineering experiments today. Some are advocating for more research in the subject so that if, at some time in the future, should it be the only card left to play, we could engage in a responsible geoengineering program that would have the highest probability of success with the least damage.

As a side note:

"There was a fear that the detonation of that first bomb would also initiate the destruction of the world. This fear was based on the exceedingly small but finite probability that the explosion of this bomb would initiate an unstoppable chain reaction in the most common element in the world: hydrogen. Their fears were perhaps not totally unfounded, as a rumor persists that the energy liberated by that bomb exceeded the very best theoretical calculations by as much as twenty percent, begging the question 'where did it come from?'

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/AtomicAndHydrogenBombs.cfm
Content from External Source
The author you quoted made some fundamental errors. First of all, The most common element in the world is iron. Next, Teller considered the possibility Jof self sustaining reaction of Nitrogen, not Hydrogen. Scientists knew that even a 20% increase in yield could not ignite the atmosphere. Finally, the author tries to support his premise with a rumour!
Good response, good research . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's not the first time you've said something like this.



Your premise that scientists would recklessly endanger the whole planet with geoengineering programs because they disregarded similar world ending scenarios during the H-Bomb tests, falls short of the mark.

In 1942 the decision was made to research a fission bomb. However, Edward Teller continued attempts to gain support for creating a much more powerful thermonuclear bomb (fusion bomb). It was during those early years, when fusion was not well understood, before even the first controlled fission reaction, that Teller first speculated about how a fission bomb might ignite the atmosphere with a self-sustaining fusion reaction of Nitrogen nuclei. (Teller developed a track record for overstating the likelihood of fusion reactions. Bethe, a key figure in the bomb's development, recounted how the H-Bomb could have been produced much sooner were it not for Teller miscalculating the likelihood of thermonuclear reactions.)

Anyway back to 1942. Upon hearing the prospect of an uncontrolled atmospheric reaction, Oppenheimer set Hans Bethe to look into the matter. Bethe, using early IBM digital computers to achieve his results, calculated that a fission reaction could not induce a thermonuclear reaction in the open atmosphere. Research resumed and the first A-Bomb was constructed.

During the Trinity test, Enrico Fermi recalled Teller's idea of igniting the atmosphere. In an attempt to relieve some tension, he started taking bets on whether the test would destroy the world, or merely glass the State of New Mexico.

Development of a fusion bomb began after the war. Soon the notion of igniting the atmosphere surfaced once again. Only this time it was speculated that a thermonuclear reaction could trigger the fusion of Nitrogen nuclei in the atmosphere. In 1946, Teller's own Calculations showed that the bomb was not large enough trigger a cascade, and even if it were, other physical phenomenon would disperse the energy required to sustain the reaction. He concluded the prospect was so improbable that it was considered impossible. Oppenheimer agreed.


LA-602a.jpg

This meme that mad scientists will risk the destruction the world for the sake of their precious experiments persists to this day. A Scientific American article caused a big flap when it speculated the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider might produce a doomsday scenario. This was seen yet again with The Large Hadron Collider.

Scientists were not careless when they evaluated the possibility of global destruction during the first nuclear bomb tests nor are they careless when evaluating geoengineering experiments today. Some are advocating for more research in the subject so that if, at some time in the future, should it be the only card left to play, we could engage in a responsible geoengineering program that would have the highest probability of success with the least damage.

As a side note:

"There was a fear that the detonation of that first bomb would also initiate the destruction of the world. This fear was based on the exceedingly small but finite probability that the explosion of this bomb would initiate an unstoppable chain reaction in the most common element in the world: hydrogen. Their fears were perhaps not totally unfounded, as a rumor persists that the energy liberated by that bomb exceeded the very best theoretical calculations by as much as twenty percent, begging the question 'where did it come from?'

http://www.scienceiq.com/Facts/AtomicAndHydrogenBombs.cfm
Content from External Source
The author you quoted made some fundamental errors. First of all, The most common element in the world is iron. Next, Teller considered the possibility of self sustaining reaction of Nitrogen, not Hydrogen. Scientists knew that even a 20% increase in yield could not ignite the atmosphere. Finally, the author tries to support his premise with a rumour!
1) You found convincing evidence Teller weighed the risks and found it acceptable . . . considered the benefits and went forward with the detonations . . .
2) Could be he also considered the risks of Ozone depletion, acid rain, change in rain patterns and decided the benefits of slowing global warming outweighed the potential detriments and the risks of geoengineering was acceptable . . .

"Injecting sunlight-scattering particles into the stratosphere appears to be a promising approach. Why not do that?" Edward Teller.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6791
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I think that George is actually only interested in being a foil for endless debate. Chemtrails may have been a belief of his at one time that he has had trouble with, and has seen the writing on the wall which shattered his belief, and he is having great difficulty dealing with it. As a result, he is engaging in this sort of troll activity where he engages in pseudo-debate trying to find reasons to stick with what he used to believe. The result here and at GLP and who knows where else is threads of 5-40 pages of endless unproductive debate. Its pretty clear that he is not a man of action, except when it comes to these threads, to the contrary, his MO is whipping a dead horse forever .

George, you need to realize that you can't continue this forever. It gets old, boring, and isn't productive for anyone, not even for yourself. Most of us are tired of you, can't you tell?

You need to choose a course of action, real action, not endless debate. There isn't a future in what you are doing.

As for the question you pose at the beginning of this thread, the chemmies, and I consider you still one of them, need to move forward from debate and get to work. It would help if you could actively show you are interested in getting the bunk out of what is being claimed at present, which is what this forum is about. Until I see you personally working to bring to them this message, I don't consider you more than just a troll.

Can you show any evidence of a practical solution to this?

If not, why not?
If not, what the hell are you doing here and elsewhere working 30 page threads of BS?
Why do you never participate in any of the other threads on metabunk except your own?
Are you just an attention whore whose sole purpose is to keep your personal thread at the top of the board?
If so, you are a sad sick MF.

A year and 1/2 ago, I wrote this:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions

It outlines what I thought could be a first step towards bringing some sanity to this hoax, and yes, by watching it from it's inception, I know that is exactly what it is, a hoax from the very beginning and up to the present.

Yes, insitu testing showing something unusual and actual photos of apparatus would come closest to proof.

But before insitu testing could be practical, you'd have to have some means of selecting a flight. No sense wasting flight time chasing planes leaving ordinary persistent contrails, burning up your budget before you find something other than an ordinary commercial flight leaving water vapor.

No sense at all. Baby steps, George, no connect the-dots rambles for 30 pages, rather action leading to solutions.

Stop whipping the dead horses of speculation, get on a REAL horse and RIDE!

So, unless and until you show some action towards organizing or convincing the believers like yourself to begin a positive plan of action leading to a solution, there is no reason for further discussion. If you won't, you show yourself to be a perverse attention-seeking whore of no use to either side.

Prove me wrong, I really mean it.

He really means it! Absolutely brilliant! Really. I haven't laughed so much for ages!

Stop whipping the dead horses of speculation, get on a REAL horse and RIDE!
What can I say?

Are you just an attention whore whose sole purpose is to keep your personal thread at the top of the board?
If so, you are a sad sick MF.

Is that you being polite? er....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
While we're getting away with ad hominems...People like you, Jay 'my country - the foremost defender of freedom in the entire world' Reynolds, love to bully people who can't really formulate an argument, people who might not have the tools to express exactly what they want to say - you pick on them, you bear down on them and suck up the feeling of being superior - you're a bully. Same goes for pretty much the rest of you 'regulars'...
When you come up against someone intellectually and communicatively superior, you turn into a rather desperate sounding preacher.
You're a walking talking paradox Reynolds - you love yer tomatoes and yer organic farm - great, that's all good - and you know yer stuff (I'm semi-pro myself and can see that) - that's all good too....but then you go and grow gmo corn on yer 'organic' farm....and then you defend Monsanto (a company with an appalling record on human and environmental considerations) as if life depended...and then you spray glyphosate on said 'organic' farm and defend that too - paradox? The word doesn't do justice. But you're still a bully.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
While we're getting away with ad hominems...People like you, Jay 'my country - the foremost defender of freedom in the entire world' Reynolds, love to bully people who can't really formulate an argument, people who might not have the tools to express exactly what they want to say - you pick on them, you bear down on them and suck up the feeling of being superior - you're a bully. Same goes for pretty much the rest of you 'regulars'...
When you come up against someone intellectually and communicatively superior, you turn into a rather desperate sounding preacher.
You're a walking talking paradox Reynolds - you love yer tomatoes and yer organic farm - great, that's all good - and you know yer stuff (I'm semi-pro myself and can see that) - that's all good too....but then you go and grow gmo corn on yer 'organic' farm....and then you defend Monsanto (a company with an appalling record on human and environmental considerations) as if life depended...and then you spray glyphosate on said 'organic' farm and defend that too - paradox? The word doesn't do justice. But you're still a bully.

So are you.

Get off your high horse.

The fact remains, those who believe in chemtrails are unable to provide any compelling evidence to support the claim.

Just as you can't prove that Monsanto deserves the criticisms you provide. I'd be willing to bet that you are just confused about what they do...and jump to conclusions based on that ignorance. Just as the chemtrail advocates do.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
...you show yourself to be a perverse attention-seeking whore of no use to either side.


Is there no end to the poetry? I missed this peach....

I reckon I could give some attention to a perverse whore, but only if she needed it; try everything once except incest and morris dancing....

I thnk the politeness 'policy' lies in tatters, 'Peace in our time', said Nev.....er....
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
While we're getting away with ad hominems...People like you, Jay 'my country - the foremost defender of freedom in the entire world' Reynolds, love to bully people who can't really formulate an argument, people who might not have the tools to express exactly what they want to say - you pick on them, you bear down on them and suck up the feeling of being superior - you're a bully. Same goes for pretty much the rest of you 'regulars'...
When you come up against someone intellectually and communicatively superior, you turn into a rather desperate sounding preacher.
You're a walking talking paradox Reynolds - you love yer tomatoes and yer organic farm - great, that's all good - and you know yer stuff (I'm semi-pro myself and can see that) - that's all good too....but then you go and grow gmo corn on yer 'organic' farm....and then you defend Monsanto (a company with an appalling record on human and environmental considerations) as if life depended...and then you spray glyphosate on said 'organic' farm and defend that too - paradox? The word doesn't do justice. But you're still a bully.
Lee . . . I really think Jay and some others here hate diversity of thought . . . we represent something they can't understand nor can they control or intimidate . . . if we don't submit . . . they know not what to do but attack . . .
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
...People like you...love to bully people who can't really formulate an argument, people who might not have the tools to express exactly what they want to say - you pick on them, you bear down on them and suck up the feeling of being superior - you're a bully.

Oh...the irony...
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Lee . . . I really think Jay and some others here hate diversity of thought . . . we represent something they can't understand nor can they control or intimidate . . . if we don't submit . . . they know not what to do but attack . . .

Diversity of thought?!

No, that's a wonderful thing. It's statements of fact based on nothing more than paranoid speculation and ignorance that annoys some of us.

If you think that pointing out such ignorance and conclusion jumping makes us the bad guys...so be it!

You only think you are being "attacked" when in reality, you are being told the truth about yourselves.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Lee . . . I really think Jay and some others here hate diversity of thought . . . we represent something they can't understand nor can they control or intimidate . . . if we don't submit . . . they know not what to do but attack . . .

Diversity of thought! How dare you think such a thing? Personally, I don't sense any imminent transformation into Lockstep Uber Mind-Think, not today anyway...so brace yourself for more inflexibility, even less imagination (if you can imagine that), more heckling and catcalls, less consideration....more of the same! lol!
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Lee . . . I really think Jay and some others here hate diversity of thought . . . we represent something they can't understand nor can they control or intimidate . . . if we don't submit . . . they know not what to do but attack . . .

I agree that what Jay said was not very polite, but let's face it, you receive a lot better reception here than a debunker does on any chemtrails forum.

In my experience with chemtrails believers over the last year or so, I've found two main patterns: those who insist that there is evidence, but refuse to discuss it, and those who admit that there is no evidence, but think that evidence is not really important - that subjective evidences such as their own "intuition" and a general distrust of the government are sufficient to support their belief, which is neither supported nor falsifiable.

I think that either pattern displays the intellectual paucity of the chemtrails idea, so I don't mind at all if you continue.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Diversity of thought?!

No, that's a wonderful thing. It's statements of fact based on nothing more than paranoid speculation and ignorance that annoys some of us.

If you think that pointing out such ignorance and conclusion jumping makes us the bad guys...so be it!

You only think you are being "attacked" when in reality, you are being told the truth about yourselves.
Now I am beginning to understand the rules here . . . speculation regarding unpopular concepts using commonly discussed scientific concepts such as geoengineering . . . not allowed . . . seems you would welcome an opportunity to debunk such . . . isn't that what MetaBunk is all about??
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Diversity of thought! How dare you think such a thing? Personally, I don't sense any imminent transformation into Lockstep Uber Mind-Think, not today anyway...so brace yourself for more inflexibility, even less imagination (if you can imagine that), more heckling and catcalls, less consideration....more of the same! lol!

Interesting, considering how the chemtrail advocates seem to want those of us who disagree to fall in "lock step" with them! This is a site that exists to point out the facts as they are understood by the majority, and the the trail advocates come here and make statements of fact based on nothing more than speculation and ignorance. Who is trying to bully whom around here?!

George just makes the same statements over and over...in slightly different ways, yet adds ZERO evidence to support his claims. He seems insistent that he's correct, yet provides nothing to support this assertion.

Seems to me that he's the one trying to influence others with his unique beliefs..and gets annoyed when it's pointed out that he seems to be ignorant about so much. Who's fault is that?!
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I agree that what Jay said was not very polite, but let's face it, you receive a lot better reception here than a debunker does on any chemtrails forum.

In my experience with chemtrails believers over the last year or so, I've found two main patterns: those who insist that there is evidence, but refuse to discuss it, and those who admit that there is no evidence, but think that evidence is not really important - that subjective evidences such as their own "intuition" and a general distrust of the government are sufficient to support their belief, which is neither supported nor falsifiable.

I think that either pattern displays the intellectual paucity of the chemtrails idea, so I don't mind at all if you continue.
I think I have introduced a few new concepts to ponder . . . I have taken the most popular geoengineering strategy discussed over the last two decades by the leading theorists in geoengineering and created as practical and plausible a scenario as I could for you to practice your debunking . . . you should be thanking me not attacking me!!!!!!!
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So are you.

Get off your high horse.

The fact remains, those who believe in chemtrails are unable to provide any compelling evidence to support the claim.

Just as you can't prove that Monsanto deserves the criticisms you provide. I'd be willing to bet that you are just confused about what they do...and jump to conclusions based on that ignorance. Just as the chemtrail advocates do.

I haven't got a horse. What is it with horses?!

I can't prove that Monsanto deserves criticism? Are you deaf, dumb and blind? - and I do not mean that to be offensive to anyone who might be. Or do you work for them? Monsanto made Agent Orange - not altogether a good thing - would you agree? let's be clear on that, well? After making it and selling it to be sprayed over se asia they then denied that the active ingredient of dioxin was carcinogenic. They denied it for long enough that many Vietnam vets affected died before they could receive benefits, never mind compensation, never mind that the effects are still active today in that part of the world and have been on many thousands of people - it's birth defects galore if you're in the right spot.
That's just one example of how they've operated. For a full-on view, watch a film (available online) called The World According to Monsanto - this film clearly shows many cases of internal dissent being silenced by withdrawal of funding and discrediting of individuals; it clearly shows the revolving door between Monsanto and senior positons in the regulatory bodies of the US Dept of Agriculture, the FDA, EPA etc. It clearly shows how, both historically and presently, Monsanto are infiltrating govt agencies and pushing through 'non-regulation' (no rigorous testing of products etc.) for the sole purpose of greater profit for them and fuck the consequences. Personally, I think that's wrong. You?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I agree that what Jay said was not very polite, but let's face it, you receive a lot better reception here than a debunker does on any chemtrails forum.

In my experience with chemtrails believers over the last year or so, I've found two main patterns: those who insist that there is evidence, but refuse to discuss it, and those who admit that there is no evidence, but think that evidence is not really important - that subjective evidences such as their own "intuition" and a general distrust of the government are sufficient to support their belief, which is neither supported nor falsifiable.

I think that either pattern displays the intellectual paucity of the chemtrails idea, so I don't mind at all if you continue.
1) Since others treated debunkers inappropriately it is OK to treat me without your officially stated courtesy . . .
2) As far as my continuing . . . If participants here do not engage in an exchange of ideas with me I will eventually leave . . . if you want me to leave . . . ignore me !!!!!!
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
I haven't got a horse. What is it with horses?!

I can't prove that Monsanto deserves criticism? Are you deaf, dumb and blind? - and I do not mean that to be offensive to anyone who might be. Or do you work for them? Monsanto made Agent Orange - not altogether a good thing - would you agree? let's be clear on that, well? After making it and selling it to be sprayed over se asia they then denied that the active ingredient of dioxin was carcinogenic. They denied it for long enough that many Vietnam vets affected died before they could receive benefits, never mind compensation, never mind that the effects are still active today in that part of the world and have been on many thousands of people - it's birth defects galore if you're in the right spot.
That's just one example of how they've operated. For a full-on view, watch a film (available online) called The World According to Monsanto - this film clearly shows many cases of internal dissent being silenced by withdrawal of funding and discrediting of individuals; it clearly shows the revolving door between Monsanto and senior positons in the regulatory bodies of the US Dept of Agriculture, the FDA, EPA etc. It clearly shows how, both historically and presently, Monsanto are infiltrating govt agencies and pushing through 'non-regulation' (no rigorous testing of products etc.) for the sole purpose of greater profit for them and fuck the consequences. Personally, I think that's wrong. You?
You may not have a horse, but I'm sure you have an intimate knowledge of a jackass...

So, creating a defoliant which ended up being more dangerous than they thought makes them monsters?! Are you suggesting that it was intentional?! Just because you believe everything you see in a propaganda film doesn't mean it's true. Lots of companies make carcinogens which the government, and the public, overuse...and misuse.

Ogent orange was just one chemical compound from a list of thousands which took time to fully understand how dangerous it was.

Give me a break. Monsanto developed the chemicals...the (over) use of it was not their problem.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
1) Since others treated debunkers inappropriately it is OK to treat me without your officially stated courtesy . . .
2) As far as my continuing . . . If participants here do not engage in an exchange of ideas with me I will eventually leave . . . if you want me to leave . . . ignore me !!!!!!

What makes you think anyone wants you to leave?

Personally, I'm just pointing out that you make silly assumptions and jump to conclusions.

I'd actually prefer it if you'd stay! You add a tremendous amount to the discussions.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Unregistered, if you want to continue posting, then you might want to register. Then your posts will show up immediately, instead of waiting until I happen to check.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Now I am beginning to understand the rules here . . . speculation regarding unpopular concepts using commonly discussed scientific concepts such as geoengineering . . . not allowed . . . seems you would welcome an opportunity to debunk such . . . isn't that what MetaBunk is all about??

It is certainly not what I consider the case.

speculation is fine - as long as it is clearly speculation nd doesn't become used as evidence of fact. And when speculation runs into real world considerations it shuold be the speculation that needs to be changed to fit the real world not the reverse. although inventing moer speculation is also fine it also neds to be clearly identified for what it is.

Thus it is possible for me to enjoy science fiction, for example, which is celarly speculation and makes no attempt to be presented as fact, while also being dismissive of speculation that is not clearly identifed as such, and which is used in an attempt to jsutify the existence of somethign in the absence of actual evidence.

Here is how I think speculation SHOULD work in any attmpt to identify or uncover a conspiracy:

1/ figure out what it WOULD take to do something taking into account the real world
2/ then go and see if any of that can actually be found
3/ if it cannot be found, conclude that the specualtion was unfounded
4/ if it can be found extent the investigation into looking at factual information
 
Top