“Why in the World are They Spraying?” Full Length Documentary HD

Yeah, it's going to get harder and harder for you shills to do your jobs...lol

Enjoy!

Gokill

reply to post by GoKill

Liars! Liars! They're all liars! Those people don't know what they're talikng about. They don't have the credentials. They're trying to sell you something. There now there's no need for the debunkers to chime in. You know who you are!

So. No evidence of spraying so Murphy has now gone on to talk about why they would be spraying if they were. I wonder why he didn't get involved in the lawsuit to help stop the spraying. More money in movies I guess.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Phage
So. No evidence of spraying so Murphy has now gone on to talk about why they would be spraying if they were. I wonder why he didn't get involved in the lawsuit to help stop the spraying. More money in movies I guess.
www.youtube.com...

Nothing new, refer to weather nonsense, I mean research thread for my take on that audio.

As far as money I guess you missed the whole part about it being uploaded to yt (free) and the freaking lines running across the bottom of the flick suggesting you give it away for free...

weak......

Breaker 1, 9, we're gonna need backup... shill down! shill down!

reply to post by GoKill

So, why didn't he participate in the lawsuit?
cbclive.eventbrite.com...
www.coalitionagainstgeoengineering.org...
www.realityzone.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GoKill

 

So, why didn't he participate in the lawsuit?
cbclive.eventbrite.com...
www.coalitionagainstgeoengineering.org...
www.realityzone.com...

edit on 8/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

translation:

"Objection!"

"Not Admissible, Overuled"

Admissible - Pertinent and proper to be considered in reaching a decision. Refers to the evidence considered in determining the issues to be decided in any judicial proceeding.

www.courts.state.va.us...

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

"Not Admissible, Overuled"

And why would that be in admissable?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


without going into possible reasons such as out of the country, no standing, etc.

i will merely point you to the aforementioned
definition of the term which your reading comprehension has failed to note

NEXT!

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

i will merely point you to the aforementioned

My reading comprehension is fine,but the question still hasn't been answered, and that is why would this be inadmissable?

Why not answer the question or are you not able to do so?

I wonder why he didn't spend the money that these cost on getting actual samples of "actual chemtrails" that would actually prove his case??

But since "What ITWATS" (Mk 1) was a fraud, I'm not expecting much moer of this one once some actual analysis of its content is done - if he is true to form it will be innuendo, supposition, assertion and outright falsehoods.

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

i will merely point you to the aforementioned

My reading comprehension is fine,but the question still hasn't been answered, and that is why would this be inadmissable?

Why not answer the question or are you not able to do so?

Admissible - Pertinent and proper to be considered in reaching a decision. Refers to the evidence considered in determining the issues to be decided in any judicial proceeding.

no your reading comprehension requires work

i see you're copy-paste skills challenged to boot

but i'm sure the op appreciates your bumping this thread

reply to post by GoKill

As far as money I guess you missed the whole part about it being uploaded to yt (free) and the freaking lines running across the bottom of the flick suggesting you give it away for free...

Could you please show exactly where it says that in this video?

So looking into this video I found something interesting or should I say someone interesting...



Yes that is Rosalind Peterson, and guess what she is talking about now?

Aluminum resistant crops because of the so called spraying, yet I found this about growing aluminum resistant crops..

Much of the world's cropland contains aluminum that stunts crops. But a new study has found a way to make plants grow tall in spite of the metal's toxic effects. The discovery, by plant biologists at the University of California, Riverside, suggests that genetic engineering could boost yields from fields that today are not ideal for growing crops.

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

www.technologyreview.com...

That is why they are trying for aluminum resistant crops, and not from something being sprayed in the air..

I guess since she can't keep up the chemtrail hoax anymore she decided to go with geoengineering and aluminum resistant crops..

Click here for more information.

reply to post by GoKill

Soil samples

Which show nothing unusual

Patents

So what? Here's a patent. www.google.com...

Geo engineers on camera Discussing it.

Well, scientists discussing it. Where is the part where they are doing anything but discussing?

Military Docs (The word Chemtrail actually came from the Air Force)

Are you talking about that freshman Air Force Academy chemistry handbook? Interesting since it dates from before "chemtrails" were supposed to have started.

Historic Record (Vietnam etc.)

Yes, jets produced contrails in the 1960's but I suppose you are talking about agent orange. Nothing to do with "chemtrails" but people like to bring it up. What next? Crop dusting?

Even Playboy Bill Clinton said we would own the weather by 2025

He did? When? Where?

I went to the premier in Los Angeles yesterday, and spoke with several of the people involved in the film. They all seemed like very nice people, but not very willing to discuss the flaws in the film, particularly the problems with chemical tests of air and water.

The problem with the film is that it's OBVIOUS that controlling the weather is a desirable thing, and something that would be very valuable to whoever could do it. But that's not actually evidence that someone actually IS doing it.

Likewise, stress resistent crops are an obvious goal, and an obvious money-maker for Monsanto, regardless of where the stress comes from.

While the film told a nice story, it was really much lighter on supposed evidence than the first film.

reply to post by GoKill


Shouldn't this be bigger news on ATS???

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

i will merely point you to the aforementioned

My reading comprehension is fine,but the question still hasn't been answered, and that is why would this be inadmissable?

Why not answer the question or are you not able to do so?

Admissible - Pertinent and proper to be considered in reaching a decision. Refers to the evidence considered in determining the issues to be decided in any judicial proceeding.

no your reading comprehension requires work

i see you're copy-paste skills challenged to boot

but i'm sure the op appreciates your bumping this thread

edit on 19-8-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment

He must have hit a nerve to have you squirming and avoiding this much. Makes you look really foolish.

Tell me this is natural again...

Also the previous video documentary
What in the World are They Spraying Thread