Chemtrails here refers to weather modification. It’s kind of hard sometimes because that word has become a catch-all blanket term for a bunch of things. I think the general consensus isn’t that they are spraying ‘poison’ on the public so much as they are doing weather mod. above the public without any regard for their safety. I would think it’s likely they’re doing both things, given the tract record of the US government, but so far they have only come out and said they are chemtrailing for weather modification publicly.
for the record, the general consensus is that chemtrails are only believed in by nutters.
I agree with that, actually.
That doesn’t change the fact that it’s openly admitted. All that means is that the government is laughing at you.
double post
What I see is that first an array of irrational dismissals get flopped out to ‘alternative’ ideas like chemtrails and weather weapons.
Skeptics just keep coming, without acknowledging that they are their peers have been shown to have been irrational in the way they dismissed an idea.
This does not matter to them, because they know they are on the right team.
So they just keep hollaring at the theorist to prove his or her theory, without ever wondering whether it matters that they and the mass of the population consistantly dismisses things for the wrong reasons and that this mass pattern might explain some of the reason evidence is not so easy to produce.
A skeptic really interested in getting what they call evidence could contact one of the various scientists who have been producing evidence of a couple of decades that there are chemtrails etc. Ask those scientists why they drew the conclusions they did and what it is like to have something utterly and completely obvious not only denied, but to have been mocked for noticing it.
Or you can keep on aiming all your wrath and demands for evidence only for anything that upsets your hot dog stand.
Yeah, Gobbo comes in here making wild claims and I’m gonna go talk to scientists for him. Fuck that, you guys can bring something to the table.
I hope you’re being sarcastic. What’s so outlandish about asking someone to substantiate extraordinary claims? A conspiracy theorist really interested in exposing a conspiracy might do his homework and provide some useful information, rather than hollow assertions. If he knows so much, why is it any trouble to tell others where he got his information?
I did substantiate my claims. I gave you a bunch of evidence.
The only thing I didn’t deliver was some government official publicly stating ‘Hey, we’re going to consciously be malicious’ - which is a bizarre piece of evidence to expect.
You just refuse to accept the truth. lol.
Also, technology invented over 60 years ago it not ‘outlandish.’
It’s like saying flying planes are ‘outlandish’
Some of you guys need to get your act together and think about this properly. The technology was invented over half a fucking century ago.
By that fact alone I could stand here and say weather modification is being used. If it was invented that long ago and the public is still in the dark then it’s more plausible that they are using it against the public than any other alternative:
They simply don’t use it/stopped using it
They are using it in a beneficial way
I mean there are only 3 options that I can see, so you guys pick one and explain your logic. I’ve more than backed up my stance.
I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying anything about whether or not you’ve presented evidence …after some prodding. I’m just asking what is wrong with expecting some evidence to support extraordinary claims. You can answer that too, I’m sure, since the aversion seems to be primarily yours.
I think we know of methods to modify weather though I highly doubt any have been “perfected”. The claim that all weather is created is pretty outlandish.
Isn’t it obvious that I don’t think this is extraordinary? Like I just said, this was invented a long, long time ago. I’m just trying to be logical about this. Why would I possibly view it as outlandish if it’s basically ancient news?
Listen, man, no offense, but terms like ‘outlandish’ and stuff like that usually just means you have a small imagination. I hardly ever conceive of things in that way. That the earth might actually be flat is outlandish. Celebrities that might be aliens is outlandish. Weather control is just some accepted historical event.
Are you reading what I write or just skimming the first few words before firing off a response?
I said the claim that all weather is created is outlandish.
Also, I like how you say thinking of things as outlandish is small minded just before giving me a list of things you find outlandish. Smoooth.
Edit: Oh yeah, Cloudbusters are outlandish too.
Did I say all weather is created? So why are you talking about that.
I’ve flown in a motherfucking plane. No one has seen an engineered hurricane because they don’t exist.
Are you going to make an argument or anything? Or are you just going to keep repeating that?
I’ve provided a bunch of evidence. You guys refuse to accept it, but I’ve provided a bunch, and I’m basically waiting for one of you to do some research into this.
You have just sat there doing nothing, requesting an inordinate amount of ‘more’ evidence, and really you haven’t even made an argument. You’ve just made it clear you don’t believe what I’m saying is right. You’re going to have to more than that. You have to -say- something. Well, you don’t have to, but I’m going to sit here assuming you’re fat until you do.
I poked a hole in your argument, which is an argument.
No. You have said nothing. So go ahead and say something.
That is, if you have any original thoughts.