Geo-Engineering researcher vs. Chemtrail believers

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by smurfy
Then why does Keith talk about administering aluminium particles in the stratosphere by the use of aircraft? or are you going to say Keith has not mentioned that? That's all that matters here now, so has he said that or not?
Yes or No....I'll answer for him and you the answer is a resounding Yes.


Yes he talks about it - he proposed doing it, and yes it would be business for him.

That's still not the same as doing it, and if he did do it would it look like contrails???

Lots of people are talking about the possibility of solar radiation management by "spraying stuff" into the atmosphere at various heights - sulphur or aluminium in the stratosphere, salt water droplets at a lower level are quite well known proposals.

the fact that people are thinking up ideas does not justify making up stories saying they are actually doing it!

What story is that? who is making it up?




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

What story is that? who is making it up?


All the people who see "discussion of SRM" and equate that to "it's happening right now!!!!!!!!"

Those people.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy

He is a plausible crook, you have been misled, and you mislead. You have already stated that aircraft would not be used, and he in fact proposes aircraft. See the HARDtalk interview, it speaks volumes


Where have I stated planes would not be used?
The planes today would not be used, because they don't fly in the stratosphere. There are few planes today that do. Also the planes today would not be equipped to do anything like what he is talking about.
There are many other plan to geo-engineering, and planes are one of them...but just one.

But you consider research as an admission of doing anything so I don't trust your comprehension about anything anyway.

Please explain how I mislead. I presented facts and quotes about the video posted. If you think it is misleading because I understand research is thinking not doing, the only person misleading are the people who claim and think otherwise.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by stars15k

Originally posted by smurfy

He is a plausible crook, you have been misled, and you mislead. You have already stated that aircraft would not be used, and he in fact proposes aircraft. See the HARDtalk interview, it speaks volumes


Where have I stated planes would not be used?
The planes today would not be used, because they don't fly in the stratosphere. There are few planes today that do. Also the planes today would not be equipped to do anything like what he is talking about.
There are many other plan to geo-engineering, and planes are one of them...but just one.

But you consider research as an admission of doing anything so I don't trust your comprehension about anything anyway.

Please explain how I mislead. I presented facts and quotes about the video posted. If you think it is misleading because I understand research is thinking not doing, the only person misleading are the people who claim and think otherwise.


So you did not have your ear glued to the HARDtalk interview then, where Keith says putting "aerosols in the stratosphere", where he says "you could use aircraft" and "The doing is easy" never mind the more shocking aspects of that interview.
This what you have said,

"and the real geo-engineering experts say there is no geo-engineering being done, especially not using planes, then no matter how much people continue to believe otherwise, it still makes "chemtrails" poo."

That's in total contrast to what Keith is saying, so he must not be a real geo-engineer then? you can't have it both ways.
BTW, aircraft do fly in the stratosphere, much more comfy and economical up there. So do private jets, only often much higher!



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


I must be missing something. Did he say they ARE doing it now, or they are TALKING about doing it now?

There is a MASSIVE difference between the two. And one that the hardcore believers seem to glance right over in favor of fantasy vs. reality.

I thought you were quicker than this.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


You are just another believer lacking in comprehension of the use and work of research. He is a researcher, he has ideas, he thinks it might work....but he is talking about what might be done, not what is being done today.

And you must not have seen the OP video. He clearly tells the believers that SRM is not being done, would not leave visible plumes, and would be in the stratosphere, not the location of the trails they are whining about and seeing today.

Which I already told you. That you continue to believe that research means action and that what you call a "chemtrail" today is actual SRM shows you are believing, not thinking. He clearly denies all of that in the OP video and nothing in the video you posted negates anything.

Big stumbling block. Just another reason the "chemtrail" believers keep changing the story. Face it, no two believers seem to believe the same thing. Except that "research" is an admission of action.



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 





Keith says putting "aerosols in the stratosphere", where he says "you could use aircraft" and "The doing is easy"


Now I see where he said they could be used yet that does mean right now they aren't being used, so how is that hard to understand.

Then we have this from star which states...



"and the real geo-engineering experts say there is no geo-engineering being done, especially not using planes, then no matter how much people continue to believe otherwise, it still makes "chemtrails" poo."


and you say this...



That's in total contrast to what Keith is saying, so he must not be a real geo-engineer then? you can't have it both ways.


They could be used doesn't mean they are being used, so where's the contrast?



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





LoL the irony of a "geoengineer" claiming he doesn't know what "chemtrails" are in a video where he debunks them.


No what's really ironic is the fact that not one of the so called chemtrail experts can tell you what they are or what they are supposedly being sprayed for.


How ironic it is that people are debunking things and then saying they don't even know what they just debunked . . . . ( what the f . . .)

The act of debunking would require knowledge of what people think something is and what is actually happening and presenting the results of a scientific study.

Any researcher that says I don't know what I am debunking but I have debunked it is a dumbass.

Defend that all you want.


I find it hilarious that you all rush to defend such idiocy.

EDIT
As for the "personal attack", you have been a member here for three years and start a thread were you are calling a large portion of the members here uneducated idiots (whether true or not). This places increased pressure on you and your intellect.

The fact that after three years you can't figure out how to embed a video speaks strongly of your intelligence when you complain about no one going out and doing their own research when you can't be bothered to learn to copy and paste.

Just sayin'.
edit on 22-5-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





As for the "personal attack", you have been a member here for three years and start a thread were you are calling a large portion of the members here uneducated idiots (whether true or not). This places increased pressure on you and your intellect.


Well then show me this thread you talk about.....



The fact that after three years you can't figure out how to embed a video speaks strongly of your intelligence when you complain about no one going out and doing their own research when you can't be bothered to learn to copy and paste.


Again show me this video you say I can't embed and you get one of these....



My friend your invited to look at anything I research, hell I'll post you a link, so trust me I have done my research unlike some...



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   


Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

No what's really ironic is the fact that not one of the so called chemtrail experts can tell you what they are or what they are supposedly being sprayed for.



How ironic it is that people are debunking things and then saying they don't even know what they just debunked . . . . ( what the f . . .)


That wasn't what was said.

What was said was that the believers can actually say what they are or what they are for - they certainly offer speculation.....but no knowledge.


The act of debunking would require knowledge of what people think something is and what is actually happening and presenting the results of a scientific study.


No.

Debunking just means removing bunk.

When someone speculates that "there is something in the fuel" it can be debunked by pointing to the specifications for the fuel and the lack of any actual evidence to support the speculation.

When someone says they contain aluminium or barium or strontium or whatever that can be debunked by pointing out the total lack of any testing showing that to be the case.

When somone tests sludge from the bottom of a pond and says "see it is proof that htey are spraying us with this stuff from aircraft" it can be debunked by noting that the elements are common insoil, and there is no actual connection shown between the elements and any aircraft trails.

Debunking does not require "scientific study" - although all the actual scientific study of contrails and atmospherics also debunks the chemtrail myth.

And of course the addage applies - "that which is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - ie the level of evidence required to debunk something need be no more than the level offered to suggest that it exists.

In the case of chemtrails even cursory looking at a cloudy sky is enough to debunk the myth - clouds spread and last for hours.

There you go - you are now a little less ignorant than you were


edit on 22-5-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
What do you make of these links?truththeory.com... and-chemtrails-connection/globalresearch.ca...



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by omega man
What do you make of these links?truththeory.com... and-chemtrails-connection/globalresearch.ca...


From the "truth theory" link:


The known uses of HAARP are: weather modification, power beaming, earth tomography (mapping of our planet’s interior), Star Wars-type defense capabilities, enhanced communications, communication disruptions and mind control.


The only "known use" of HAARP for weather modification, mind control, tomography and "starwars defence capabilities" are those invented by conspiracy theorists.

That should tell you what to make of it and similar fantasies.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by omega man
 


The first link is an article based on speculation and conjecture. It is presumed that HAARP is capable of doing it all...yet does not explore the actual working capacity as it exists. It also assumes that "chemtrails" are a reality; there is no credible evidence that anything remotely like a "chemtrail" as claimed today exists. If you don't agree, please provide real evidence to the contrary. I'm sure I've debunked whatever you provide before and will gladly do so again.
In total, the usual incorrect, speculative, presumptive and useless crap provided ad nauseum by every "chemtrail" and similar website on the internet.

The second link is basing more speculation and conjecture on HAARP based on a freely distributed research paper written by students at a military academy. This paper is not policy, not produced by the military, not a plan, not anything more than what it was written for...class work. This is proven by the disclaimer which conspiracy-blinded people seem to always over look:

2025 is a study designed to comply with a directive from the chief of staff of the Air Force to examine the concepts, capabilities, and technologies the United States will require to remain the dominant air and space force in the future. Presented on 17 June 1996, this report was produced in the Department of Defense school environment of academic freedom and in the interest of advancing concepts related to national defense. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or the United States government.
This report contains fictional representations of future situations/scenarios. Any similarities to real people or events, other than those specifically cited, are unintentional and are for purposes of illustration only.
This publication has been reviewed by security and policy review authorities, is unclassified, and is cleared for public release.

Wow! "...fictional representations..." It's not real, and it says so. Don't present it as anything else without proof.

And it says this...without even a hint of proof or citation:

The Pentagon document constitutes a convenient cover-up. Not a word is mentioned about its main weather warfare program: The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy.


You don't see this as a biased piece of "journalism"? No agenda here, huh? Perhaps you should watch the freaking OP (+1 post by a kind soul to fix it) video, where it is explained what HAARP is actually capable of doing. Hey, real science from a real scientist is pretty darn informative, and the rules of physics don't change. That is in the video, too.
Try to point out what is wrong about what is stated in the video with proof of your assertions. Something besides links to websites that tell you what to think through conjecture, speculation, supposition, and a wildly paranoid imagination.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


OP couldn't figure out how to embed . . . .

Or did you miss that part when you read it the first time?



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

You are completely missing the point as you are far too absorbed in proving anyone and everything debunking "chemtrails."

Calling me ignorant for point out a guy being a douchebag is the height of blind obedience to a cause.

FYI you are outlining what people think is being sprayed, there is none of that occurring in what I commented on.


Learn to read, or read more slowly so you comprehend what you are replying to.


This guy did not do any tests . . . so your entire example is . . . . bunk!

FYI Debunking does indeed require science otherwise no one would give a F what this guy thinks. Your whole post reeks of self righteousness.

Enjoy!
edit on 23-5-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





Learn to read, or read more slowly so you comprehend what you are replying to.


Tell you what instead of commenting on how people reply back, try showing us some of the scientific evidence that proves chemtrails exist.

You see for this conspiracy to actually be real you need scientific evidence which has yet to be produced, can you do that or are you going to complain about the OP some more.

BTW the OP is a she....


Learn to read as she addressed the fact she didn't get it to embed, as that does happen from time to time. When your here long enough you will understand that.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





Learn to read, or read more slowly so you comprehend what you are replying to.


Tell you what instead of commenting on how people reply back, try showing us some of the scientific evidence that proves chemtrails exist.

You see for this conspiracy to actually be real you need scientific evidence which has yet to be produced, can you do that or are you going to complain about the OP some more.

BTW the OP is a she....


Learn to read as she addressed the fact she didn't get it to embed, as that does happen from time to time. When your here long enough you will understand that.


I never said I thought it was real.

You are making yourself look extremely foolish now. I commented saying the guy in the video comes across as a D-bag and you all jump on me calling me ignorant, stupid, and other names.

Like I said earlier you should probably read more slowly or reread my post before replying as you are just making things up now.

My response was a 'shame shame' on the OP for calling others idiots and lazy for not researching things when they can't even figure out how to embed a video (after three years as a member) and were too lazy to look up how.

That is all I said and the three of you came at me like fat girls at a buffet.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





My response was a 'shame shame' on the OP for calling others idiots and lazy for not researching things when they can't even figure out how to embed a video (after three years as a member) and were too lazy to look up how.


Well then next time reply to the right person.

It works better that way....



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





You are making yourself look extremely foolish now.


Are you sure your in a position to tell someone they look foolish?

And what is it that is making me look foolish?



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Learn to read, or read more slowly so you comprehend what you are replying to.



This guy did not do any tests . . . so your entire example is . . . . bunk!

FYI Debunking does indeed require science otherwise no one would give a F what this guy thinks. Your whole post reeks of self righteousness.


lol - oh the irony - what scientific tests was it you did to debunk his lack of tests??


you are right of course - but you are right because you have done exactly what I said debunking is - removing bunk - with or without science.

Whether people choose to believe the debunking is another issue.

There is a wealth of science debunking chemtrails - but chemmies prefer to believe their made up stories - clearly that choice has nothing to do with whether one "side" has science and the other does not.
edit on 23-5-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join