All personal web pages from conspiracy nitwits. FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!
It's a good thing you do have the net - people like you can gang up with each other, and believe whatever you want.
Chemtrails, Seeing is believing.
by pedal power 482 Replies latest social current
-
-
bohm
pp:
Hi I am just up running late for work, I have not had time to look at the thread from yesterday, but it looks like things got messy ?
if you dont recall you told us we were full of crap yesterday: "because you both talk shit, nomadsoul, and bohm, your full of crap." and then you pretty much ragequitted this thread.
The reason why I was so adamant in my O P was, 1, I knew it was more than likely that we would get into a debate of Contrails/Chemtrails, rightly or wrongly I assumued, anyone intrested in this debate, would be able to understand the difference between the two.
Heres the thing: you have not in any way demonstrated you are able to tell the differences between the two. Yes you have a degree in engineering (which relate to atmospheric science how?), yes you can see contrails on the sky, but from your description they behave every way as clouds normally do in terms of dissapation, etc. so why not just make the obvious inference: they are clouds?
For all your huffing and puffing about honest debate, you have made absolutely zero progress in terms of answering that question aside stating your position (along with some arrogance, attempts to undermine credibility of other posters, a ragequit and generally poor debating attitude).
Secondly I had just witnessed Chemtrails sprayed over the City I live in,
no for crying out loud, you have witnesses something which look and behave like clouds and you have CONCLUDED it must be chemtrails.
I also mentioned, that I Know the two flight paths used, depending on the prevaling wind,Niether of these were being used,Hopefully I was able to demonstrate, my knowledge of the skys around here,We have a single runway airport, the flight paths are very predictable, the aircraft doing the spraying were on flight paths I have rarely seen if ever.
stating that you have demonstrated knowledge of flightpaths and actually doing so are two different things. Secondly you even undermine your own argument by your last sentence, and it seem pretty darn obvious that you have no real knowledge of the flightpaths of planes in your area nor have made the least attempt to get the information.
And lastly when you have watched something happening, with YOUR OWN EYES, its kind of difficult, not to be certain, and again rightly or wrongly, I know what I have seen.
you have seen something which behave and look exactly like clouds. Why do you draw the conclusion it must be 'chemtrails'?
Be honest, If You have seen something hundreds of times, and ,somone says you have not, who do you believe? You believe the evidence of your own eyes.
use the scientific method, and if thats to hard, use f#cking google.
I had hoped for a genuine debate, Maybe that was niave ? Will catch up later !
that you keep saying the same thing again and again and avoid questions is not a debate.
-
ProdigalSon
I'll ask one more time- show me proof that chemicals are being pumped into the atmosphere. If you link to a blog, I will fly to your home town, find you, and slap you. :D You say it's factual, now show me.
I showed you five pages ago that the UK Government has admitted to the spraying and experimenting with poison on humans. That's proof. If you don't consider that proof, then you're the nitwit. Obviously, it's affected your brain. They love nitwits like you, it keeps them in power. Some of us are trying to do something about it. You can thank us later.
-
bohm
Pson:
Open your eyes.... I'm done here
Open your eyes to the fact that when a british MP says something which support your beliefs, context be damned, you parade it around as clear evidence. But when any other government official says something which does not support you belief, no matter how clearly, you discard it as coverup. Thats interlectual dishonesty.
Open your eyes to the fact your evidence and arguments are so vague they can be used to support the idea clouds are alien motherships.
Open your eyes to the fact you rely entirely on quotations and youtube/blog linkspam which is heavily biased and not subject to scientific rigor.
Open your eyes to the fact that per the above, you very very rarely formulate your own argument, and seem entirely unable to address specific points of inquery in your own words, but must rely on said linkspamming which is rarely relevant.
Updated: oh dear, you are back allready... who would have thought.
-
ProdigalSon
Oh geeez.... more murmurings from the peanut gallery....
bohm you just keep proving my point with every post....
-
bohm
pson: oh quit whining.
-
pedal power
Bohm, You could not take part in any discussion here, because you had not entered in to one,from the outset you were being juvinile, an irritating pain in the ass, with your silly cartoons, spaceships !!!! If you call your communications debate,you would be better joning a Sci Fi forum, and although I dont want to inflame this thread anymore, Telling you and nomad, you were talking shit, YOU got off lightly, If I had told you both what I really thought of your comments, I would have been removed from this forum.
Also your attempt at charecter assasination, is petty and a pretty dumb thing to do,Do you think that by denigrating me, you somehow elevate yourself ???
I cant understand why people like you and nomadclown post on threads like this when all you want to do is pollute any debate,that others may want ?
Its so frustrating, having to untangle, the pettiness, bitching and abuse, If you want to see how a debate can be progressed, have a look at Sizemiks posts, IMO you could learn a lot from the way he conducts himself in debate, infact im wasting time and energy here when I would rather be answering his points, goodbye Bohm, lets all work on the friutage of the spirit
-
bohm
PP: Riiiight. You call names and say other are full of shit while simultaneously complaining about the tone of debate. While this is going on you say you want a debate, but you refuse to answer any questions because, well, we are apparently full of shit and do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Then there is a bit of whining about how people are abusive to you and do not take the subject seriously.
Why did you ask about my education, grade average, anme of university and year of graduation if all you wanted to use that information to was to say i was full of shit and didnt take you serious? i do wonder...
for the record, i cant really recall ANY of your posts on this thread where you have actually answered an objection directed to your beliefs aside complaining and restating your beliefs.
-
pedal power
F--k it, does anyone know this guy ? if so could you PM him to move on, or else I are going to be moving round and round in ever decreasing circles, until I disapear up my own arsehole.
-
Mad Sweeney
Pedal Power, stop with the ad hominem (I don't care who started it - you're the one with the initial claims and so the burden of proof is on you) and answer the questions you've been asked. Otherwise you are coming across as avoiding the issue.
Here are the issues and challenges again, so you don't have to back up to previous pages. Address them or concede the argument:
What altitude were the aircraft at? (best guess)
Could you identify the aircraft type?
Did the same aircraft make more than one pass?
Was the pattern of emission defined (start, continuous, finish).
Over what period of time does it occur.?
What time of the day or night does it happen?
Do the passes form a pattern of coverage or are they random?
What are the wind conditions when it occurs?
Have you checked NOTAMS for the period(s) in question?
Heres the thing: you have not in any way demonstrated you are able to tell the differences between the two. Yes you have a degree in engineering (which relate to atmospheric science how?), yes you can see contrails on the sky, but from your description they behave every way as clouds normally do in terms of dissapation, etc. so why not just make the obvious inference: they are clouds?
stating that you have demonstrated knowledge of flightpaths and actually doing so are two different things. Secondly you even undermine your own argument by your last sentence, and it seem pretty darn obvious that you have no real knowledge of the flightpaths of planes in your area nor have made the least attempt to get the information. you have seen something which behave and look exactly like clouds. Why do you draw the conclusion it must be 'chemtrails'?