reply to post by stars15k
No, aluminum spray is not called chaff. Chaff are small particles dropped, not sprayed that reflect radar to mask other targets. It's been
used since radar was first used for planes.
You took the one part of my post that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (re. military chaff) and made that your serious point. If you'd followed the next
article ("Shhh, What if it was reported that they are spraying aluminum"?), then you would see the serious side of the concerns.
So far as this little collection of quotes you made, you are sounding about as much a slanderer as Weedwhacker was becoming earlier in this thread,
which incidently, is the primary reason I posted
anything at all here.
Unlike "chemtrail" sites, which conduct their own tests, make their own assumptions, and have bad science behind them, real science requires
thinking and knowledge.
Therefore, any person posting on a site that claims "chemtrails" is under your immediate disqualification category. This is the same
You are so far out in the fringe, claiming so much crap from such nonsensical sources I thought originally that you were joking. You really
believe all that stuff? Why? Did you sleep through all 19 years of school?
All topics under media suppression by the PTB are "on the fringe" or in the realms of conspiracy, to my understanding. Should I be ashamed to
discuss them, or am I nutter for ever considering it? Neither. As for believing or not, I brought up information to discuss the distaff of your
revered "truths" - which are entirely cherry-picked points regarding contrails (which I never denied exist - they exist in abundance), and which
fail to look at the whole scope of the agendas in place.
As to the other parts of your "claims", you are so far off the facts that are provable and have been studied for decades, by real scientists,
in experiments that are published and critiqued by other real scientists it's actually amusing.
Another useless comment. Observation is the truest science, and hate to break it to you, but university is only a means to an end so far as science is
concerned. To you and your methodology of argument I present the following.
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at
all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any
who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please
understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to
testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely
invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the
testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if
they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and
their part in the matter will merely be supportive.
I, too, am also called a disinfo agent, here and in other sites.
It's worth studying disinformation. It sure beats getting caught up in a purposefully designed deflection for the reason of avoiding personal
frustration, And it might help counter the severing of links which are being attempted in other readers minds.
of my own information is off, that's fine - I'm just as happy as you are to weed out the bad and retain the good. I agree, there's a
lot of hasty conclusions floating around out there. Unlike yourselves, I don't throw the baby our with the bathwater. Unless you don't care about
the reality of the situation, maybe you should start listening to a few of those people on those chemtrail sites, and on this board who, like myself,
don't appreciate being lied to, seeing everything we put forth subjected to rude and crude disinfo treatment, and seeing the information put out by
glazed over. By your same broad strokes, you discredit a lot of worth. That, in turn, only lowers your
So far as your claims of disinformation go, I'd like to see how you can pass off everything Alex Jones or that found on Rense as nonsense. That makes
as little sense as calling you a disinfo agent for working on a forestry project years ago and collecting a government paycheque. If I choose to pick
articles from those sources, it's because of the articles worth, regardless of the source.
I consider this post filler, and a dealing with your objectionable and laughable approaches to the matter, clearly designed not so much to answer me,
but to discredit sources, and the person who brings them up. Classic disinfo work on this board has been a mainstay of you contrailers, along with a
collective of you starring each other up to some favourable standing! It's a joke.