Why chemtrails cannot be discussed without turmoil.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


First off, either prove to me that I am a paid shill, or be man enough not to bring up obvious "wuss" tactics when discussing this topic. Just because I don't believe exactly what you believe, doesn't make me a paid disinformation agent. It makes me just another poster on ATS.

second, what is being done is trying (to no avail) to explain that the pictures of lines in the sky are not automatically chemtrails because you saw the with your own eyes. They very well may be, but as of this moment in time, they look just like contrails, they act just like contrails, and until you or someone else can prove otherwise, they must be contrails. That's it.

Is geo-engineering happening right now? I don't know. And so far, all the evidence leads to no, it's a proposed idea. Unless you have evidence that proves otherwise?

reply to post by network dude


True, but you do realize that Cancer was almost nonexistent 150 years ago and now 1 in 3 will have some type of cancer sometime in their life.

Living to the age of 78 hooked up to machines, on dialysis, on 17 different types of pills a day that turn one into a depressed manic is no way to live.

I'd rather live a happy, healthy life free of chemicals until the age of 64 than live to 78+ in misery. Quality of life, not the length that matters.

reply to post by brandiwine14


as would I, but facts are exactly that and when presented in a discussion as such, cannot be disputed.
If opinion could win this discussion over facts, the chemtrail side would win hands down. Their belief is much like a religion. A faith that is unshakable.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by Hopechest

 

You watch too much tv it appears..

Needing to establish a motive that fits your mind is the first mistake when trying to solve a problem.

If you or me, being conspiracy theorists, cannot think of a logical reason why someone would do something out of the ordinary, then it probably isn't happening.

Now I can see why a 9/11 would happen or a JFK assassination but I for the life of me cannot think what anyone has to gain by poisoning their people.

Really???? American native indians? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Etc.

wake up and smell the aluminum....GEEZ

Perhaps if you could tie those into a coherent argument we could debate that. I have no idea what listing off people or groups is supposed to imply.

I can't smell the aluminum if there isn't any in front of me.

Debate?, what the hell good is a debate going to do other than boost your ego if you can make some point in your favor..what i know is fact, that no matter how much evidence that is brought to the table, it will be irrelevant
because the debunk crowd don't want to believe unless the government says to believe

I'll discuss things, but i'm not getting into pointless debates to concede anything, its not about who wins or loses. I have my suspicions and theories, but i also have my witnesses and personal health issues associated with this and other subject matters

Originally posted by brandiwine14
reply to post by network dude

 

True, but you do realize that Cancer was almost nonexistent 150 years ago and now 1 in 3 will have some type of cancer sometime in their life.

I'd like to see your sources to back that statement up?

As far as I know cancer has been around a very long time.

Dinosaur Cancer

More cancer today because 1: more people 2: crappy diet 3: pollution etc

It is impossible to estimate the cancer rate of 'the good ole days'. It would be safe to assume there were less cases but by how much we just don't know.

Also, obviously medical science has advanced, meaning the diagnosis of cancers and other diseases is relatively modern, whereas 150 years ago somebody "caught a wasting sickness" dropped dead and nobody knew any better.

And.....life expectancy is longer these days, meaning you have a longer time to develop cancer, years ago the chances of dying from cancer were lower than, say, being trampled by a horse, or just plain starving to death.

For both groups, the authors wrote, malignant tumors “were not significantly fewer than expected” when compared with early-20th-century England. They concluded that “the current rise in tumor frequencies in present populations is much more related to the higher life expectancy than primary environmental or genetic factors.”

Source

reply to post by nomnom


Well that's the most coherent argumente I've ever seen for the possibility of Chemtrails.

I'd dispute that species claim with this however.

Species extinction rate overreported

Still a great argument however.

reply to post by Hopechest


Thanks. That article says it may be over reported by about 160%. Let's say it's 200% for simplicity sake.

The current rate of species extinction is 1,000-10,000 times the background rate. So if that figure is halved, it's still 500-5,000x.

Originally posted by nomnom
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Thanks. That article says it may be over reported by about 160%. Let's say it's 200% for simplicity sake.

The current rate of species extinction is 1,000-10,000 times the background rate. So if that figure is halved, it's still 500-5,000x.

edit on 1-3-2013 by nomnom because: (no reason given)

Yea but I have no idea what the normal rate is so I can't argue any further than that. I'll have to trust that you know more about it than me.

I still like your arguement though and will research it some more and see if its something I can use in a future debate.

reply to post by SPECULUM


Here is the answer to all your questions. I am willing to bet you, nor any other believer will actually attempt to get the answers you claim to want as over the years it seems you don't want "answers" you want "validation". I would love to be proven wrong and be forced to apologize to the entire community.

Should you or someone decide to get a legitimate account to raise funds, please contact me for my contribution.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Sure, with pleasure


www.healthyeatingadvisor.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

1.bp.blogspot.com...

www.sixwise.com...

These food additives didn't exist 150 years ago. This is why cancer is more prevalent now this is what the government allows into our foods. Don't you get it, it's about making money while making us weak.

As far as chemtrails go I believe that they have happened and are happening more often than our government wants to admit. How often do they spray for mosquitos? do they care if it harms your children? hell no.

And yes cancer was around but it was very few and far between. Studies have been done why not look for yourself next time.

Or you can just keep on drinking that kool-aid.

reply to post by brandiwine14


Where in my post did I say that food additives didn't cause cancer oh enlightened one?

Did you take the time to read through the links I posted?

reply to post by seabhac-rua


You didn't say anything about food additives but you did ask me for some proof that there is more cancer now than there was then and the proof is in those food addivitves and chemicals that have been causing cancer for the last few decades.

And like I said you could always take a look for yourself. Cancer has been known about since at least the egyptian days but it was never forced on it's citizens like it is now.

I apologize for this going off topic

reply to post by brandiwine14

It's because people dont want to believe that their government would intentionally poison them.

And how are these governments not poisoning themselves?

reply to post by brandiwine14


Cancer rates have risen globally. You can't account for this from the food additives alone. One could make a case for industry pollutants on the whole contaminating the environment, but still I think this is only a chunk of the problem.

Please start a thread all about cancer if you like.
this thread is "Why chemtrails cannot be discussed without turmoil"

thanks very much

reply to post by brandiwine14


I don't believe it's being forced on people.

It's about lifestyle choice, and longevity.

Does big pharma like it when you get cancer, sure, that's capitalism

Are 'they' spraying chemtrails? I've yet to see what I would consider solid evidence.

Originally posted by network dude
Please start a thread all about cancer if you like.
this thread is "Why chemtrails cannot be discussed without turmoil"

thanks very much

My bad.

One of the reasons for the increase in cancer cases is that we're all living a lot longer and not dying of anything else. 72 is the new 30. The more we irradicate one cause of death, the more another one will become more prevalent. Eventually, we'll die of a bizarre reaction to pomegranates because every other cause of death has been cured/prevented

reply to post by seabhac-rua


no worries, just trying to keep it from flailing off into the abyss.

reply to post by brandiwine14

True, but you do realize that Cancer was almost nonexistent 150 years ago and now 1 in 3 will have some type of cancer sometime in their life.

No. What is realized is the fact cancer was around, but not as easily identified as such.

I'd rather live a happy, healthy life free of chemicals until the age of 64 than live to 78+ in misery. Quality of life, not the length that matters.

If your goal is to live a life free of chemicals, then you would, by default, cease to live. Chemicals are a fact of life and living. Furthermore, the argumentation you have used draws no correlation/link to contrails/chemtrails.