It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EXCLUSIVE "What in The World Are They Spraying" Chemist talks to ATS about Geoengineering.

page: 19
53
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by backinblack
 


For starters, I personally am an ex-airline ramp supervisor.
Oztheweatherman has made no secret about the fact that he is a professional meteorologist.
Weedwhacker has been very open about being a professional airline pilot (for the same airline I worked for as a matter of fact).

…and that is just three off the top of my head. There are other airline personnel, meteorology professionals, pilots, and aeronautical engineers on ATS who have all told you guys the same exact thing over and over… There is NO SUCH THING AS CHEMTRAILS…It’s a HOAX… PERIOD…

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


I am still making up my mind on this. Anyone familiar with chaff?

Here's a video that explains and shows a piece. It says that sometimes they are made from fiberglass coated with aluminum. I am assuming not all sizes/makeups are public due to national security purposes. I have also posted a link to the Wiki on it. Does anyone have any thoughts ...could there possibly be other metals/fibers/chemicals included for better shielding of the sky? Is it possible that these stay in the air or dissolve into the soil over time?
Why must they test these techniques on US soil? Could these trails be nano-sized versions of chaff? (Please don't laugh at the nanotechnology idea, they already use nanosilver in products like MICROBAN. Nanotech isn't new.)




"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)"

I see chaff was discussed before (I hate when threads are this long, it makes it impossible)...but my questions still seem valid.

Also, aluminum is in food and beauty products. Deoderant has a high level of aluminum, baking powder, antacids, vaccines, foil (used to cook will displace in food), food coloring, firming agents (in pickled foods), emulsifying agents (processed cheeses), etc etc. I could go on and on.

We are taking aluminum, seperating it, allowing the toxic runoffs to go into our water and soil, AND THEN INGESTING IT VOLUNTARILY...

High levels? I am not surprised.


The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires that spills or accidental releases
of 5,000 pounds or more of aluminum sulfate be reported. Special regulations are set
for aluminum phosphide because it is a pesticide.



What is aluminum?

Aluminum occurs naturally and makes up about 8% of the surface of the earth. It is
always found combined with other elements such as oxygen, silicon, and fluorine.
Aluminum metal is silver-white and flexible. It is often used in cooking utensils,
containers, appliances, and building materials. It is also used in paints and fireworks; to
produce glass, rubber, and ceramics; and in consumer products such as antacids,
astringents, buffered aspirin, food additives, and antiperspirants.

How might I be exposed to aluminum?

Eating small amounts of aluminum in food.
Breathing higher levels of aluminum dust in workplace air.
Drinking water with high levels of aluminum near waste sites, manufacturing plants, or
areas naturally high in aluminum.
Eating substances containing high levels of aluminum (such as antacids) especially
when eating or drinking citrus products at the same time.

edit on 9-3-2011 by donatellanator because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by pianopraze
 


WHAT?!?!? My gawd. man!!! You keep harping on about information deconstructing....and this entire response to me was an EXACT EXAMPLE of the very "tactics" you are accusing others of, and decrying!! I just hold my forehead in amazement....but, the most amazing of all? Is this incredible "summation" at the very end! It is borderline fringe off-the-wall....and I am shocked that anyone with an ounce of reason and logic would spurt such hyperbole:


These eugenic globalists ...... They want us dead.


I mean, come on!! You should step back a bit, and take a fuller inventory of yourself....this is just the first step on the path to losing touch with reality, big time. Already the case with quite a few "chemmies".....


I shortened your post per the T&C and addressed each and EVERY bit of your post. I did not cherry pick and did my level best to address everything you were saying.

Your reaction shows me you are not interested in a conversation. You are imitating phage. I'm sorry I will not respond to such antics.

You are unaware of the eugenics and globalist agenda to depopulate the planet and move what is left into massive cities (agenda 21).

This is slightly off topic to this thread but I will provide a few brief quotes and show how it links into geoengineering. This is from our science csar tsar John Holdren . He wants to kill or sterilize the entire planet:

In 1969, writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[9] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many"[10]. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,900,000[11]. In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience[12], which discussed the possible role of a "planetary regime" in enforcing population control. Also discussed was the possibility of adding a sterilant to drinking water; "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.".


John Holdren is the person overseeing geoengineering.

John Holdren has called for geo-engineering in an effort to 'save the planet' from anthropological man-made climate change[1]. He has a history of working together with Paul Ehrlich on several books and essays, and has similar views on subjects such as population control, the environment and energy policies.

source

I cold provide hundreds of globalists quotes on how they want to kill them off, but I will just present one for brevity... and he is in control of much of the media:

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

They've even written it in stone:

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 [500 million] in perpetual balance with nature.

source



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 

The quote is out of context. Let's see what comes after the "..." in that quote from the book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment



and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...

"Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children."

Later, the authors conclude, "Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Erlich et al, mention involuntary fertility control. They do not advocate it.
www.politifact.com...
edit on 3/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


I agree, the elite are all for eugenics...
Many have come out openly such as Prince Philip...
But it's everywhere you look..
Odd diseases suddenly appearing..AIDS alone has killed 40 million..
Family Planning is just another name...
Wars and famine are allowed to continue unabated..

It's just so obvious they have NO interest in preserving the current population..



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Chaff can disrupt electrical power and directly affect electrical
equipment. San Diego Gas and Electric Company and Navy officials
have identified two instances in which chaff caused power outages in
1985. In the first case, chaff accidently blown over San Diego,
California, during a Navy exercise 75 to 200 miles from the coast
affected power to 65,000 customers and disrupted air traffic control.
The Navy reimbursed the power company between $50,000 and $60,000 for
damage. The second incident occurred 5 days later, again in San
Diego, when a Navy jet inadvertently showered power lines with chaff
on takeoff, causing interruptions in power service.


---------


The Navy is developing a new type of chaff that will break up more
quickly in the environment. It says the new chaff is needed to
alleviate public concerns about the health and environmental effects
of chaff, particularly the perceived threat that chaff can be
inhaled. However, DOD has not demonstrated how it will address these
public concerns. The new chaff is also more expensive.
Some Navy program officials told us there is no operational or
environmental requirement to develop a new type of chaff and that the
Navy believes the chaff currently in use is not harmful to the
environment or a threat to health or public safety. However, they
acknowledged that fiberglass chaff persists in the environment
and
that some members of the public perceive chaff as environmentally
harmful or undesirable. They are taking action to develop a new
degradable chaff, saying they thus hope to head off any possible
restrictions on chaff use that may result in reductions in military
training.
DOD officials stressed its obligation to protect the
environment and DOD's sensitivity to concerns expressed by some
members of the public. It noted that the effort includes the
development of environmentally degradable parts to replace plastic
pieces presently used in systems that dispense chaff.
Unlike fiberglass chaff, the new chaff's base material and its
aluminum coating can take a few weeks to a few months to break up,
depending on conditions.
Development of the new chaff began in
September 1993, and total development costs are estimated at about
$3.6 million. Navy officials anticipate the new chaff will be
available beginning in fiscal year 2001 and expect to buy only
degradable chaff in the future. They plan to buy about 474,000
bundles a year through fiscal year 2003. A Navy program official
estimated that a bundle of the new chaff will cost about 40 percent
more than it does currently.


HMMM....

www.globalsecurity.org...
edit on 9-3-2011 by donatellanator because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Whatever floats your boat phage, he co-wrote it with Ehrlich who said:

After his famous book The Population Bomb was published in 1968, he has fallen somewhat in credibility for the world kept on turning and mankind is apparently still around, despite of the doom predicted. In 1969 Ehrlich predicted that ““smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles” and “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people”.


“…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

Acceptable??? Desired??? These guys are bat-poop crazy.

Would you like to hear the Price of England?

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95


I could go on and on, but this is off topic. The point is Holdren believes in eugenics along with all his globalist buddies (Rockerfellers are one of the biggest finacial supporters of eugenics and guess who founded the CFR and Trilateral Commision?). Holdren is over the science and is a geoengineering supporter also. These two happily might overlap per the scientists at the begin of the video in the OP who say there might be some serious effects to aluminum spraying.

And if the aluminum spraying affects the soil too much... Monsanto is already developing the corn that will survive... GMO soy sterilizes lab rats in three generations.... my my just what Holdren wanted in the quote above. A way to sterilize without any obvious side effects. Now we come bak full circle to BTS thread where this all started on that GMO corn. Nice and tidy.

Feel free to eat all the GMO you want buddy
I'll stick to organics and see if I can keep them from spraying aluminum and other nasty stuff on us, if they haven't started already.
edit on 9-3-2011 by pianopraze because: fixed second quote... forgot to put "ex" around it



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kroms33
 

I have supplied my research. It was that which I asked Dr. Thyme to comment on.

In your opinion, do the soils tests shown in the movie demonstrate unusually high levels of aluminum? If so could you comment on this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Phage asks a very pertinent question and i have not addressed it. If he does the research and finds what somewhat else has written in support of his arguments, then he is doing science properly and we have no problem at all. I have not been responding because i broke my computer - see www.howdt.blogspot.com for details.

As to the question of aluminum levels in the soil vs. in the snow - there is plenty of aluminum all over the place, but i cannot realistically explain the levels in the snow. I could see dust contributing somewhat, but 1000x over the EPA water standard. I don't think so. As a chemist, I do not trust the EPA one bit. But smokestacks in China and volcanic ash cannot explain the quantities in the water sample.

Aluminum in the form of alumina is inert - it does not react chemically. The EPA uses that fact to justify allowing it in all sorts of consumer goods, like make-up and antiperspirant. I do not use any products with aluminum or alumina as the base. Once you get the alumina into you through your skin, you have to rely on your body to physically remove it to get it out. There is no chemical or bio-chemical mechanism to do this.

If you start with anything other than alumina, then the body will gradually convert the material to alumina or strip off the oxygen to make the Al +3 cation. Neither of these is good either, the former leading to arteriosclerosis, the latter to prion diseases. This was explained in an earlier post - but we are now on page 19 - quite the thread.

As far as conspiracies and chemtrails - give me a better working hypothesis than geo-engineering. I will gladly admit to human stupidity and inertness - but to deny that there are trails in the sky that comes from the planes is just silly. So why the disinformation campaign on the part of the people who know what is going on? Can we have some transparency? Science has enough problems in and of itself these days - how do we know what truth is when the fundamental assumptions are never questioned and verified.

Come visit ATS radio this saturday at 10 pm Eastern and 7 pm pacific to carry on the conversation.

One last thing - in the post phage referred to for my comment: "Aluminum is not considered toxic by the EPA so they have no enforceable standards for maximum allowable levels in drinking water. They do have Secondary levels though. These levels do not represent health concerns but possible “cosmetic” or “aesthetic” effects. Those levels are set at from 0.05 to 0.20 mg/L, so if you drank the melted snow sample it might have tasted funny. California sets the Maximum Contaminant Level for aluminum in drinking water at 1.0 mg/L. California says you could use snow melt from Mt. Shasta as your water supply (as far as the aluminum level is concerned)."

I specifically disagree with the EPA on both Aluminum and on Flouride. Both of these materials are toxic byproducts of the aluminum industry, which paid great political attention to making certain that their waste products were not declared poisons. Flouride leads to osteoporosis and many other horrors which can take a whole other thread to go through. As a chemist, i consider these even worse than (gasp) mercury, which is super-toxic in the +1 form and benign as a +2 ion: yet throws the feds into conniptions whenever it is mentioned.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by lemmehowdt
 

Welcome back Doctor.
In my experience sometimes a good whack on the side of the machine can work wonders.


Two points about the snow samples (though I haven't seen a test with aluminum levels 1000x over any standard).
1) Why would the snow exhibit extremely high levels if the soil doesn't?

2) Since only a couple of substances were tested for let's try a hypothetical approach with the snow sample results that have been made available online (368 μg/L). If that sample also been tested for, say, silicon, and if that silicon level had been 3.68 mg/L, might your hypothesis on the origin of the contamination be different? What if other elements were tested for and the relative concentrations were found to be similar to crustal concentrations? Wouldn't it indicate that it was simply a matter of dirty snow?

Is it really reasonable, based on the lack of testing for elements which could help determine the origin of the contamination, to rule out dust and dirt contamination? Is that really a scientific approach? It seems to me that there is not enough data in the snow and water testing to be useful for any sort of analysis about the origin of the contamination.

To address these points, I would suggest two avenues of further testing which you may want to pursue.
1) Testing the soil under the snow for excessive levels of metals on the theory that the sprayed material somehow only affects snow covered areas.
2) A broader spectrum test on snow and water samples from the area so that comparisons to soil samples could be made. This could help rule out contamination from regional sources.

By the way. Were you aware of another set of testing of water samples from the area which was done in response to the initial tests? These tests were done more than a year before the release of the movie.
www.mtshastanews.com...



No one denies that planes produce trails in the sky. That would indeed be silly.

But it is silly to proclaim that because the trails sometimes persist and spread it is evidence that geoengineering is occurring. The trails have exhibited that same behavior ever since the first aircraft flew high enough to produce them.

I agree that any pollutants are a bad thing. In some areas certain pollutants are a problem. In other areas others are. But to expend energy arm waving about things being "sprayed" from airplanes is a waste of time without some real evidence that it is occurring.


edit on 3/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


A very reasonable post..
Yes, a lack of control tests and past results does hamper the findings IMO..
We are not even sure of the exact testing methods which also doesn't help..



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


First off, let me say that your current post to the doctor was in good taste and initiates progress. Thank you.

The below needs to be addressed:


My credentials are irrelevant. What matters is the evidence brought forth. If you have issue with that, please discuss it. If you wish to discuss me further, I'm finished.

The doctor supplied his credentials to ATS staff, not the users. I don't think I ever stated that you needed to put your personal information on this web site, nor would I want your information.


15). Posting: You will not Post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate. You will not solicit personal information from any member. You will not use information gathered from this website to harass, abuse or harm other people. www.abovetopsecret.com...


I have never solicited you for your personal information. You have been on ATS for a while, you know how the game works - you don't give your information to members, but to the staff... what would allude you to think otherwise?



But it is silly to proclaim that because the trails sometimes persist and spread it is evidence that geoengineering is occurring. The trails have exhibited that same behavior ever since the first aircraft flew high enough to produce them.


I make no accusations pro or con about chemtrails, but what I do know is that jet fuel does in some sense cause "geoengineering" (perhaps unknowingly?) just like carbon emissions do from cars... maybe even more so:


www.suntimes.com...
The trails — formed when moisture condenses around aircraft engine exhaust — create cirrus clouds that block solar energy from above and trap heat below. They may be contributing to warming of the Earth’s surface temperature, NASA studies show.


While there is a complete difference in the appearance of contrails and chemtrails - there needs to be some data that explains either why a contrail takes the form and shape of a "chemtrail" or what the chemical make up of a contrail vs. chemtrail are. Since "chemtrails" last a lot longer then contrails do - wouldn't that in essence push trapping heat from solar energy to produce a greater affect on Earth's surface temperatures?
Let's just supposed chemtrails are just contrails - but last longer, a lot longer. I live near a major airport and see both contrails and ..... well, mega-contrails (chemtrails). Regular contrails just fade away, while the larger ones will stay in the atmosphere for hours. Sure, it could mean a lot of things - but my point is these 'trails' are still affecting our atmosphere and temperature.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kroms33
 

My demeanor toward the Doctor has not changed. I don't require your approval of my "progress".

I make no claims about my credentials so there is nothing to verify.

www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...
wakenet.eu...
ozone-uv.defra.gov.uk...
www.atmos.washington.edu...
www.pa.op.dlr.de...
www.icao.int...
omega.mmu.ac.uk...
ec.europa.eu...

And dozens if not hundreds more.

Yes. The effects of contrails on climate are of concern. If people can get over the hang up on "chemtrails" they can learn something about the real issues.


edit on 3/10/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

I'll see your links and raise you!



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Phage
 

I'll see your links and raise you!


There's plenty of links from both sides..
Hard to stop the arrogant posts though...



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Originally posted by Phage

 



My demeanor toward the Doctor has not changed. I don't require your approval of my "progress".


There you go... with your sarcasm and egotistical convictions. Extend a hand to Phage - and get it slapped.


I make no claims about my credentials so there is nothing to verify.


But yet, time and time again - the people of ATS see the 'expert' Phage jump from thread to thread pointing out people's inconsistencies but yet lacks any credentials to determine or undermine the content he so eloquently focuses on. All Phage states is opinion, but yet when the tables are turned - everyone must be a rocket scientist or some form of verifiable scholar. You call way to many kettles black Mr. Pot - and inconsistently at that.



Yes. The effects of contrails on climate are of concern. If people can get over the hang up on "chemtrails" they can learn something about the real issues.


Logically, we can call contrails chemtrails: engines emit carbon dioxide, smoke, and small amounts of unburnt hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide and small amounts of 'other things.'
While the above does not subscribe to the general conspiracy theory of "chemtrails," which in essence talks about geoengineering - it does subscribe to a conspiracy to speed up global warming either directly or indirectly.
All of the web sites you stated are scientifically accurate correct?
These sites proclaim that there are negative effects on the temperature and climate correct?

The only difference I see is using the terminology of "bio-chemical" soups vs "chemical" soups.

Different terminology and thinking, same outcome.

edit on 3/10/2011 by kroms33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Looks like someone put a joker in your hand....

Chemtrails in Disney movie CARS

How can an animated movie have chemtrails in it?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Looks like someone put a joker in your hand....

Chemtrails in Disney movie CARS

How can an animated movie have chemtrails in it?




Gee Chad, that's a real sick joke from Walt Disney..
Isn't he a Mason ??



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The additional material serves to prove that they are looking for an effective means of applying such controls, but that the technical challenges are the major prohibitive factor at the time of writing.

Your BS shines through Phage, and anyone with half a noodle can see you're trying to steer people away from the truth of what was written.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


And the sad thing is, most of us were aware that the controls were suspect around page one of this thread.

Nineteen pages later and all that's happened is a load of bitching, twisting and distortion, ad homs and misdirection - and not much progress..

Glad that the doctor is still with us - if it were me, I might have been tempted to hop into my Tardis and zoom off to my lab - back in Reno, 1948 or thereabouts - avoiding all the flaming and malevolence of the conspiracy minefield...


edit on 10-3-2011 by FlyInTheOintment because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by lemmehowdt
 



As far as conspiracies and chemtrails - give me a better working hypothesis than geo-engineering. I will gladly admit to human stupidity and inertness - but to deny that there are trails in the sky that comes from the planes is just silly. So why the disinformation campaign on the part of the people who know what is going on? Can we have some transparency? Science has enough problems in and of itself these days - how do we know what truth is when the fundamental assumptions are never questioned and verified.



I have a little more faith in the scientific community after reading this, thanks Doc!
x 1000

I also enjoyed reading your comments on the EPA's bullspit stance on aluminium; I also noted these inconsistencies of their aproach (and the political connivances of the alum industry) in my first post on this thread; you can review it HERE if you wish...

Once again, I appreciate that you've stuck around, that you can see through the disinfo, and that you're a man of rational enquiry based on the scientific process - though crucially, you also understand that such enquiry must be carried out in the light of a real understanding of the world we live in...

Shady back-room shenanigans are a factor that negatively affects almost all scientific enquiry these days

Having said that, it's readily apparent from spending a few days on ATS that some of the shadiness I refer to isn't too hidden after all - example: Monsanto-Bayer... Interestingly, those guys recently produced a GM seed range that's resistant to alum and barium...?!?!?!?


Science is under siege, and disinfo is the way they roll...


Despite Phage's protestations that enquiries regarding chemtrails are a waste of time, I'll still be arm-waving for some time to come, and my placard reads: "Bring science back into the pure state of research and sharing of information that it should exemplify. Cease disinfo and corporate pimping of scientists!"


FlyInTheOintment (In a parallel universe I'm president of the World, so you can trust me...)



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Chadwickus never misses a chance to try and take a jab at me.

Typical professional debunker tactic of ridicule, derision and making light of something that's just not funny.




top topics



 
53
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join