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

[George B]

For the lulz.

Not everyone, of course. Some people just do it to promote their story, believing that it's essentially true, even if not factual. Some people may do it because that's how they make their living.

There are many possible reasons.

What would prevent the aerosol injection operations security unit from initiating misinformation, disinformation, misdirection to discredit and immunize the operation from the people calling attention to their operations. . . Spies, counter-spies, and so forth

 

[George B]

Another potential reason - skeptics sometimes perform hoaxes that they later reveal, as a way of attempting to persuade people that they should not be so gullible.

Unfortunately it does not work, as you get a big "blowback" effect. Witness the the TankerEnemy "KC-10" video. Posted as a hoax (and quite obvious to a native
english speaker familiar with contrail formation), but still being posted several times a day on Facebook as someone new discovers this "proof".

Here's the original spoof:


​

Or take the "chemtrail forecast" site.

http://www.chemtrailforecast.com/main.html

That's a combination of reasons. Kevin Martin, who runs the site, wants attention and site traffic. He also wants to expose chemtrails as a hoax, and claims he'll let
them know in a year or two. He's also a bit neuroatypical. He probably also get the lulz from some of what he does. But basically this is a hoax, but one that is contributing massive blowback, even making it into the Case Orange document.

I never put any credibility in visual sightings period . . . or on YouTube or other videos. . . Especially this particular one. . . Two guys playing games. . . .I had already had email discussion with Martin and concluded the same thing. . . .however, he did not divulge to me what he did for you. . . .he was obviously using sounding data and an Appleman derivative. . .

 

[George B]

This is excellent info I ever knew about, it sheds a whole new light on what chemmies could do if they wanted to.

George, this is probably the best thing you never thought of.
Firepilot, many thanks for this info.

I am not saying the activity of monitoring and collecting data is not useful and may eventually lead to evidence and /or a revelation not known now. . . However, My belief is the persons who designed, implemented and manage these operations are way too good at keeping what they are doing Covert. . . They have had decades of these types of operations to perfect their methods of secrecy and they don't make
mistakes . . . I think evidence has to be inferred from other, indirect sources. . .

 

[Mick West]

What would prevent the aerosol injection operations security unit from initiating misinformation, disinformation, misdirection to discredit and immunize the operation from the people calling attention to their operations. . . Spies, counter-spies, and so forth

Do you think that's happening?

Do you think this site and contrailscience.com are part of that?

What about GLP and and ATS? Plenty of people there who say the same thing as I do.

Really now, why would anyone go to so much trouble? For what? What's the end game? It makes no sense.

 

[Noble1965]

However, My belief is the persons who designed, implemented and manage these operations are way too good at keeping what they are doing Covert. . . They have had decades of these types of operations to perfect their methods of secrecy and they don't make
mistakes . . .

Yeah, same with those who are covering up the robot cat program....

We almost knew nothing about it!!!

Thanks for being the whistleblower...Mitch.


You are to the robotic cat operation what Will Thomas is to chemtrails.

Just as I had seen persistent contrails in the sky for decades...it took the insight of an investigative journalist to show me what they really are...I have seen cats for a long time...and now I know what they are really up to!

 

[George B]

Do you think that's happening?

Do you think this site and contrailscience.com are part of that?

What about GLP and and ATS? Plenty of people there who say the same thing as I do.

Really now, why would anyone go to so much trouble? For what? What's the end game? It makes no sense.

"Do you think this site and contrailscience.com are part of that?" . . . No not intentionally. . . .

Why? . . . Maybe for the same reason I do what I am doing. . . .they believe they are correct and are doing their best to communicate their position. . . Possibly this conspiracy might be just a piece of a larger and more important whole ...

 

[Noble1965]

"Do you think this site and contrailscience.com are part of that?" . . . No not intentionally. . . .

Why? . . . Maybe for the same reason I do what I am doing. . . .they believe they are correct and are doing their best to communicate their position. . . Possibly this conspiracy might be just a piece of a larger and more important whole ...

Or, "chemtrails" could be a fantasy created from the imaginations of those who like to present such things as truth...despite a complete lack of evidence.

So far, 99% of the "evidence" I have seen for "chemtrails" has been nothing more than ignorance about contrails. YOU are the 1% which is different...and what you do, it seems to me, is use "intuition" to "know" there is an aerosol injection program taking place...without ANY evidence other than your interpretation, (or misinterpretation as some of this thread suggests) of documents and policies.

I'm sorry, but I can't come to any other conclusion than that "chemtrails" are nothing more than urban legend created through the mass ignorance of many people who pretend they understand the science enough to reject it....but who also continually prove that they don't understand the science enough to reject it in the first place!.

 

[George B]

"There has long been suspicion of a government cover-upof information about the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22,1963. There are also many conspiracy theories regarding the assassinationthat arose soon after his death and continue to be promoted today. Most putforth a criminal conspiracy involving parties as varied as the CIA, the KGB,the American Mafia, the Israeli government, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover,sitting Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Cuban president Fidel Castro,anti-Castro Cuban exile groups, the Federal Reserve, or some combination ofthose entities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theories


Some things do change but no one notices . . . .go figure. . .


"United States House of Representatives SelectCommittee on Assassinations (HSCA): The HSCA was established in 1976 toinvestigate the John F. Kennedy assassination and the Martin Luther King, Jr.assassination. The Committee investigated until 1978, and in1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy waswith no doubt assassinated by a conspiracy involving theCIA. To this day, manyconspiracy deniers are unaware that the Congressional investigation into JFK's assassinationconcluded beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was a conspiracy. What made them come to this conclusion? Aside from reading the report, many witnesses(some of whom were CIA agents and station chiefs in Dallas that morning) werekilled the night before testifying. Forexample, George de Mohrenschildt was a petroleum geologist who befriended LeeHarvey Oswald during the months preceding the assassination of U.S. PresidentJohn F. Kennedy. He also worked for theCIA. He also blew his brains out thenight before he was to testify to the committee. The committee also uncovered, among manythings, that Oswald left the marines where he learned how to speak fluentRussian (at the height of the cold war). He was given money by the State Department to travel to Russia where hestopped off in Japan at a top secret US Military facility. The Warren Commission even mentioned thispart. What most people do not know isthat he probably was working in the Cold War infiltrating the Russians aseither a "dangle," "double agent," or "defector" of some kind. What is interesting is that upon his returnhe got more money from the State Department to buy a house and work with an exFBI Chief and CIA officials in training anti-Castro Cubans for aninvasion. In Louisiana, where he wasworking, the CIA was involved in Operation Mongoose, Where Oswald worked underCIA Agent David Ferrie, who killed himself before testifying in a trial on theAssassination as well. OperationMongoose worked closely with Southern Mafia figures largely because the casinosin Cuba, which were shut down after Fidel obtained control over the country,were epicenters for control on the island. The CIA even hired the mafia to assassinate Fidel on many occasions, 3attempts which failed are common knowledge. What is funny is that figures who worked very close with Oswald eitherended up dead (over 100 of them connected to the assassination died within afew years of unusual circumstances) or they ended up in other conspiracies.
For instance, E Howard Hunt (CIA Agent) confessed to beinginvolved in the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy on his deathbed. E Howard Hunt was one of the WatergateBurglars. Barry Seal, who worked withOswald and Ferrie ended up being one of the largest cocaine smugglers in theUnited States during Iran Contra, as a key player for the agency and informantfor the DEA. There is so much more toget into, but there just isn't enough time. Oswald's tax returns are still classified top secret to this day. Why? Perhaps he was still getting $$ from the United States, which places himon the payroll. That money trail leadsto figures, many of whom were murdered, that would have blown the story wideopen. For 14 years, most didn't knowthis. The HSCA investigaitons bycongress went against the findings of the Warren Commission and both reportsare from the same source, Congressional Committees. Which is true? Why do we only teach one to our children inschool?December 30, 1978 Report on HSCA Findings:"
http://blog.cytalk.com/2010/01/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/

 

[George B]

The UnitedStates House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F.Kennedy and MartinLuther King, Jr. and the shooting of Governor George Wallace. The Committee investigated until1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F.Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.However, the committee noted that it believed that the conspiracy did notinclude the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba.It also stated it did not believe the conspiracy was organized by any organized crime group, nor any anti-Castro group, but that it could not rule outindividual members of any of those groups acting together.
The House SelectCommittee on Assassinations suffered from being conducted mostly in secret, andthen issuing a public report with much of its evidence sealed for 50 yearsunder Congressional rules.[1]​ In 1992, Congress passed legislationto collect and open up all the evidence relating to Kennedy's death, andcreated the AssassinationRecords Review Board to further that goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

 

[Noble1965]

So, because some conspiracy theories have a hint/seed of truth to them...that means that there is sufficient evidence to support the claims of an aerosol injection program? I have NEVER doubted that Oswald had help. I've just stuck to my guns about the fact that he was the lone GUNMAN. But it doesn't prove you are correct about your assumptions in relation to "chemtrails".

I guess I could use the same logic as reasonable evidence that there actually IS a monster in my 6 year old daughters closet...

My daughter says it's in there...I have heard about such things many times before. I saw a movie about monsters collecting children's screams to power their world. Monsters in the closet are subjects of many movies and stories.

The way I look at it...Monsters in children's closets has MORE evidence to support it than an intentional "aerosol injection program".

 

[George B]

Or, "chemtrails" could be a fantasy created from the imaginations of those who like to present such things as truth...despite a complete lack of evidence.

So far, 99% of the "evidence" I have seen for "chemtrails" has been nothing more than ignorance about contrails. YOU are the 1% which is different...and what you do, it seems to me, is use "intuition" to "know" there is an aerosol injection program taking place...without ANY evidence other than your interpretation, (or misinterpretation as some of this thread suggests) of documents and policies.

I'm sorry, but I can't come to any other conclusion than that "chemtrails" are nothing more than urban legend created through the mass ignorance of many people who pretend they understand the science enough to reject it....but who also continually prove that they don't understand the science enough to reject it in the first place!.

Please refer me to the science which says I must reject the Chemtrail conspiracy . . . Other than the issue of visibility. . . .which is I admit not understood by many Advocates . . .

 

[George B]

So, because some conspiracy theories have a hint/seed of truth to them...that means that there is sufficient evidence to support the claims of an aerosol injection program? I have NEVER doubted that Oswald had help. I've just stuck to my guns about the fact that he was the lone GUNMAN. But it doesn't prove you are correct about your assumptions in relation to "chemtrails".


I guess I could use the same logic as reasonable evidence that there actually IS a monster in my 6 year old daughters closet...

My daughter says it's in there...I have heard about such things many times before.

I saw a movie about monsters collecting children's screams to power their world. Monsters in the closet are subjects of many movies and stories.

The way I look at it...Monsters in children's closets has MORE evidence to support it than an intentional "aerosol injection program".

She might be right . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Please refer me to the science which says I must reject the Chemtrail conspiracy . . . Other than the issue of visibility. . . .which is I admit not understood by many Advocates . . .

I wasn't referring to YOU with that statement (I was referring to the OTHER 99%) ...but, now that you mention it. A total lack of any evidence that anything in our atmosphere, that isn't accounted for with natural or man made sources, has EVER been found....should be a start. Of course, you probably believe that the reason we don't hear about any such thing is because it's being hidden from us...by "them"...

Again, where does such a line of thinking end?! One can just assume anything they can imagine is true...and is just being covered up by the powers that be...sorry, THAT is paranoia...and I won't ever be able to live my life thinking in such a way.

I'm sorry..there are too many people who spend their lives testing the atmosphere for such things...for exactly this reason...and no one has found anything.

 

[Noble1965]

She might be right . . .

The answer I'd expect from you...

 

[George B]

I find the following fascinating!!! . . . I think it is possibly illustrative of the differences between an empirical approach to life and one that is based more on intuition and feeing . . . note in these (non Scientific) polls the almost identical percentage of skeptics in one poll and voters who do not believe chemtrails exist in another . . . I realize these are not the same people voting yet the response distribution is amazing similar . . .

POLL: Are you a Conspiracy nut Poll? .. Choose one response. . .
2. I believe a tleast (12) are real. . . Enthusiast 28.5% (71)
1. I believe at least (6)are real or less . . . Skeptic 23.3% (58)
3. I believe at least (18) are real. . . GLP Mainstream 22.1% (55)
6. I believe in all 30 and more. . . Tin Foil Hat Award 15.3% (38)
4. I believe at least (24) are real. . . Next GLP MOD 8.0% (20)
5. I believe at least (30) are real. . . Consider Meds 2.8% (7)
Blank (ViewResults) (38)
Non-Blank Votes: 249

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...-greatest-conspiracy-theories-in-history.html

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and theyare all over the sky . . .36.2% (802)
No, I do not . . . 23.7%(525)
Yes, the TPTBis trying to crowd control, and other agendas . . . 17.3% (384)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. . . . 10.5% (233)
Yes, but mostare persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines . . . 6.4% (141)
Yes, but theyare rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. . . . 5.8% (129)
Blank (ViewResults) . . . (398)
Non-Blank Votes: 2214

 

[Noble1965]

So, a similar percentage of people are skeptics, on a conspiracy site, as the percentage of people who are.....skeptics?

Yes, fascinating...

 

[George B]

And I bet you are skeptic . . . in more than Chemtrails . . .

 

[PCWilliams]

. . . I think it is possibly illustrative of the differences between an empirical approach to life and one that is based more on intuition and feeing (sic) . . .

I think it's called reality -vs- fantasy.

Am i the only one sensing George's tank is running on empty? Or we've reached the joke point?

 

[Noble1965]

And I bet you don't require evidence...to believe anything...

As long as you accept it as possible...it's truth.

What is the opposite of skeptic? That's you.

That doesn't make either one of us any more "right" about "chemtrails"..

Still waiting for evidence...got any?

 

[George B]

In fact, in another (non-scientific) Poll I did . . . chemtrail debunkers and/or skeptics IMO were even rather illogical and emotional themselves . . . .

[TABLE="class: poll"]
[TR]
[TD="class: poll_title, colspan: 2"]POLL: I'm a Chemtrail Debunker/Detractor . . . I would agree CHEMTRAILs exist if[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]1) CHEMTRAILs exist if . . .no way, never possible[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

40.6% (91)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]7) More than one of the above. . . .[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

25.0% (56)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]5) CHEMTRAILs exist if. . . . Several Aircrews admitted under Oath[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

10.3% (23)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]4) CHEMTRAILs exist if . . . In situ testing by MIT confirmed it[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

9.8% (22)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]8) None of these answers . . . I will Post my answer below[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

9.4% (21)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]6) CHEMTRAILs exist if. . . . Raytheon Corp. Published Prospectus including profits from Chemtrail OPS[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

2.2% (5)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]2) CHEMTRAILs exist if . . The President said they existed[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

1.3% (3)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 340, align: center"]3) CHEMTRAILs exist if . . Fox, CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC say they exist[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"]

1.3% (3)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 200, align: center"]Blank (View Results)[/TD]
[TD="width: 320, align: center"](103)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]
Non-Blank Votes: 224[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[George B]

I think it's called reality -vs- fantasy.

Am i the only one sensing George's tank is running on empty? Or we've reached the joke point?

So your definition of fantasy . . . is if I cannot convince you that something exists I am dreaming and you are awake . . . trust me . . . it is no joke to me . . .

 

[PCWilliams]

I just took a non-scientific poll of myself. Here are the results:

After 16 pages and no empirical evidence to support his assertions, is George punking us?

Yes: 100%
No: 0%

 

[George B]

And I bet you don't require evidence...to believe anything...

As long as you accept it as possible...it's truth.

What is the opposite of skeptic? That's you.

That doesn't make either one of us any more "right" about "chemtrails"..

Still waiting for evidence...got any?

We think differently, we process information differently . . . I have faith in things not seen . . . more than likely I would guess you don't . . . if you cannot see, touch, feel, measure, count each and every time it is not real . . .

 

[Noble1965]

"non scientific"

"IMO"

Poll on a conspiracy site...

How can you come to ANY conclusion?

 

[Noble1965]

I just took a non-scientific poll of myself. Here are the results:

After 16 pages and no empirical evidence to support his assertions, is George punking us?

Yes: 100%
No: 0%

I disagree. I think he actually accepts this as fact...ONLY because he "believes" it. No evidence required...because people have done bad things in the past...and because people have conspired in the past.

 

[George B]

I just took a non-scientific poll of myself. Here are the results:

After 16 pages and no empirical evidence to support his assertions, is George punking us?

Yes: 100%
No: 0%

Sorry you think so . . . I didn't know the word you used . . . had to look it up . . . not really a nice connotation to it . . . if that is what you think I am doing you are way off . . . I am not trashing or disrespecting your position . . . as a matter fact I respect honest and intense opposition . . . it is an ingredient to the best debates . . . if you think we have reached the end of the debate that is a different issue . . . you tell me . . .

 

[PCWilliams]

So your definition of fantasy . . . is if I cannot convince you that something exists I am dreaming and you are awake . . . trust me . . . it is no joke to me . . .

Fantasy is when one says "I believe without proof."

A joke is 16 pages of dialogue and no proof to support your beliefs.

 

[Noble1965]

We think differently, we process information differently . . . I have faith in things not seen . . . more than likely I would guess you don't . . . if you cannot see, touch, feel, measure, count each and every time it is not real . . .

That's not a bad guess....Yes, I do require evidence to support MY beliefs. You don't...fine...I'm not judging...just pointing out that you are being unreasonable for thinking that those of us without YOUR world view (you know what I'm talking about...) are not as intelligent as you for not jumping to the same conclusions.


As it's been said many times...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case...I see NONE! NADA! ZIP! ZILCH!

 

[George B]

Fantasy is when one says "I believe without proof."

A joke is 16 pages of dialogue and no proof to support your beliefs.

Many of you seem to believe in Robotic Cats . . . I see no difference in my belief . . . except maybe more people believe in Chemtrails than Robotic cats . . . and there are more whistleblowers, more Congressional Testimony, more potential motives, more potential applications, more history of similar activities, pre-existing research and scientific symposium, treaties, and so forth . . . those pieces of information you cat lovers ignore . . . well I don't . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Many of you seem to believe in Robotic Cats . . . .

*sigh*

 

[PCWilliams]

Sorry you think so . . . I didn't know the word you used . . . had to look it up . . . not really a nice connotation to it . . . if that is what you think I am doing you are way off . . . I am not trashing or disrespecting your position . . . as a matter fact I respect honest and intense opposition . . . it is an ingredient to the best debates . . . if you think we have reached the end of the debate that is a different issue . . . you tell me . . .

Call it what you will, if you respected this debate you would bring forth a little more than 16 pages of baseless "feelings", "intuition" and "non-scientific" polls.

If you respected honest debate we wouldn't be 16 pages into this discussion, back at square one, discussing your feelings.

 

[George B]

That's not a bad guess....Yes, I do require evidence to support MY beliefs. You don't...fine...I'm not judging...just pointing out that you are being unreasonable for thinking that those of us without YOUR world view (you know what I'm talking about...) are not as intelligent as you for not jumping to the same conclusions.


As it's been said many times...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case...I see NONE! NADA! ZIP! ZILCH!

I hope I have never implied or said that people who don't come to the conclusions I do are not intelligent . . . I am saying we think differently. . . this world needs both sides of the continuum . . . I am just trying to explain how two people can look at the same set of information and come up with diabolically different conclusions . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Many of you seem to believe in Robotic Cats . . . I see no difference in my belief . . . except maybe more people believe in Chemtrails than Robotic cats . . . and there are more whistleblowers, more Congressional Testimony, more potential motives, more potential applications, more history of similar activities, pre-existing research and scientific symposium, treaties, and so forth . . . those pieces of information you cat lovers ignore . . . well I don't . . .

No, you just manipulate them in your mind to fit your beliefs...which you had obviously accepted as fact BEFORE you started "researching" this subject.

You have accepted ONLY the things that support your conclusion.

Not very scientific.

One usually starts with a hypothesis...and then actually researches the subject with SPECIFICALLY relevant information...not what "they" have done in the past...or "similar activities"...or misunderstandings about treaties and research papers.

Oh well. I'm glad you were able to manipulate the truth to fit your fantasy.

 

[Noble1965]

I hope I have never implied or said that people who don't come to the conclusions I do are not intelligent . . . I am saying we think differently. . . this world needs both sides of the continuum . . . I am just trying to explain how two people can look at the same set of information and come up with diabolically different conclusions . . .

Well, someone has to be wrong here...and you have obviously suggested, many times, that since we don't manipulate the research the way YOU do...we are "wrong" about "chemtrails".

Personally, I think you are so desperate to be "right" that you grasp at any straw...and mold it to fit your belief...just to save face with the "chemtrail advocate" community.

Anyone can use your same exact techniques to "prove" anything imaginable.

I'll admit. You are REALLY good at manipulation and assumption.

The best I have ever encountered, in fact.

 

[George B]

Call it what you will, if you respected this debate you would bring forth a little more than 16 pages of baseless "feelings", "intuition" and "non-scientific" polls.

If you respected honest debate we wouldn't be 16 pages into this discussion, back at square one, discussing your feelings.

Do you agree people think differently . . . ? Do you agree that some people place different weight to different evidence and information . . .? What you call no evidence I honestly call evidence . . . maybe because of my experience and career in the Government and Military and maybe because I use intuition or beliefs and see similarities and analogies you don't . . . I am just trying to communicate that to people on this Forum . . . if we are beating a dead horse . . . say so . . .

 

[George B]

Well, someone has to be wrong here...and you have obviously suggested, many times, that since we don't manipulate the research the way YOU do...we are "wrong" about "chemtrails".

Personally, I think you are so desperate to be "right" that you grasp at any straw...and mold it to fit your belief...just to save face with the "chemtrail advocate" community.

Anyone can use your same exact techniques to "prove" anything imaginable.

I'll admit. You are REALLY good at manipulation and assumption.

The best I have ever encountered, in fact.

"Well, someone has to be wrong here" . . . not necessarily . . . you can be absolutely correct about every bit of scientific theory that has been presented here . . . and I can be correct that there is some type of intentional aerosol injection program ongoing . . you cannot disprove it empirically nor can I prove it empirically . . . at this time in history . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Do you agree people think differently . . . ? Do you agree that some people place different weight to different evidence and information . . .? What you call no evidence I honestly call evidence . . . maybe because of my experience and career in the Government and Military and maybe because I use intuition or beliefs and see similarities and analogies you don't . . . I am just trying to communicate that to people on this Forum . . . if we are beating a dead horse . . . say so . . .

Yeah George, people do think differently, at all levels...and what do we do when someone "thinks" that something that doesn't exist...exists? We question them! And as we question them, we can often see a pattern in their thought processes.

And sometimes it's so easy to see this pattern that only a limited number of conclusions can be made.

Sometimes it's obvious that people are suffering form some form of delusion.

To me, it's obvious in this case.

The "evidence" you present is no such thing...it's just what YOU "use" to justify your beliefs...and it isn't working all that well. Sorry.

The "evidence" you offer can be used to to manipulate ANYTHING into a believable hoax/urban legend.

 

[PCWilliams]

Do you agree people think differently . . . ? Do you agree that some people place different weight to different evidence and information . . .? What you call no evidence I honestly call evidence . . . maybe because of my experience and career in the Government and Military and maybe because I use intuition or beliefs and see similarities and analogies you don't . . . I am just trying to communicate that to people on this Forum . . . if we are beating a dead horse . . . say so . . .

I spent 26.5 years in military/government service with an extremely high security clearance. Your "career" is not a tiebreaker.

Until you put forth empirical evidence to support your instincts and feelings, your responses are nothing more than cut-n-paste comic relief for the people on the forums where you usually hang out.

 

[Noble1965]

"Well, someone has to be wrong here" . . . not necessarily . . . you can be absolutely correct about every bit of scientific theory that has been presented here . . . and I can be correct that there is some type of intentional aerosol injection program ongoing . . you cannot disprove it empirically nor can I prove it empirically . . . at this time in history . . .

Again, my position is that what has been presented AS evidence of a "aerosol spray program" isn't evidence of any such thing. It's being accepted as such because it's been manipulated to fit the hoax.

You seem to suggest that those of us who don't accept what you do AS evidence just aren't as enlightened as you are yet...and are somehow unable to connect the dots.

Where as, and I can only speak for myself, I think you are delusional (it's not an insult if I actually believe the word fits the behavior I see) for not being able to see that you are manipulating "evidence" to fit your beliefs.

I see no evidence that there is anything unaccounted for in the atmosphere. When I do... I will be on your side.

 

[Spongebob]

I think it's called reality -vs- fantasy.

Am i the only one sensing George's tank is running on empty? Or we've reached the joke point?

Yes PC - A couple of pages back...




I would like to thank Noble1965 for his fantastic work throughout this thread. He has made this an enjoyable read...