Meh. It’s easy to stand there and demand more and more evidence without any sort of counterbalance. That is the sign of an amateur skeptic. I’m not sure what else you want. I gave you the historical precedence, the treaty, and the fact that on any given day you can look up and see the government spraying chemtrails, and also a government official saying, 'Yes, we use chemtrails now."
So basically in the past and present I proved chemtrails occur with both empirical and written evidence.
You two have stood there and said ‘More evidence’ without at all trying to refute that anything I’m saying as inaccurate or otherwise not to believed. The only thing that we don’t have here is a goverrnment official going beyond what has already been said to say, “'This is a public statement where I say unequivocally on record that we are intentioanlly harming the public.” - and waiting for evidence of that nature is one of the signs that you’re completely off track. This is an important question: are you seriously expecting that kind of evidence, or are you not thinking this through properly? I hope to fuck that it’s not the former.
If you cannot make the leap from pretty much as much evidence as you could possibly get form the government, to what is the logical outcome (for it to be used for control rather than benefit), especially with a government and world citizen corporate populace that is overridingly eugenicist in their public philosophies, then there isn’t much more that I can say. I obviously do not have some secret tape where Holder is saying publically something that no government official would ever say.
I came to this conclusion having studied history extensively. There is no reason that stands up to any sort of logical, common sense, or historical scrutiny where, given the type of power weather modification would give, the US government would use it in a manner that benefits the public. That belief is completely childish and indicative of someone trying to hold onto the psychological stability of not having to view your own government with the suspicion it, by every fucking category you could think of, deserves.
So if you think I haven’t done enough in this thread, fine. I’m done.
You haven’t given any evidence that suggests that it’s even remotely possible to cause a hurricane with “chemtrails”. Honestly, this isn’t any different than anything else you’ve ever done on this board. It’s always the same. You assert a thing and then never once answer a question that starts with “How”. It’s because you don’t know “how”, because you’re stupid. Because “how” questions require you to actually know something about processes involved in the shit you make up. There are no “how” answers, Gobbo, because it’s all bullshit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
