No chemtrails neccessary.

Oct 2014
32,779
5,969
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#71
Oh Jesus. Either you are so dense or just a troll. I'm asking you a question not making assertions, so again you're full of shit. Your sources did not make the connection to chemtrails as you described them earlier, so, in case I missed where they did, can you c & p the appropriate section?

Do I need crayons for this to sink in?

Seriously, with you, It's like trying to debate a watermelon and I've only encountered one other individual on the internet so mired in a such lack of intelligence, but at least he isn't as dishonest as you.
Yup... Not one source addressed. Just naked assertions. Keep trying.
 
Dec 2014
13,899
11,525
NWOHQ
#72
Yup... Not one source addressed. Just naked assertions. Keep trying.

Yup, you failed to address the question regarding the source material and you are masking your failure with lies, as usual. Keep braying, as I find you're evasions quite entertaining.
 
Oct 2014
32,779
5,969
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#73
Yup, you failed to address the question regarding the source material and you are masking your failure with lies, as usual. Keep braying, as I find you're evasions quite entertaining.
Quit projecting.

You said does not exist, that is very unequivocal of a statement.

I showed you:
- funding levels
- scientific principles
- intentions from different projects
And more...

For something that "does not exist".

You've got ALOT of backtracking to do first.

Concede you were wrong, it will be less embarrassing in the long run.
 
Dec 2018
3,471
1,928
the Heart of America
#74
No, I have conditions that I prefer to have met before sourcing... NOT because I "can't" but because far too many people have proven FAR TOO CONSISTENTLY that they do not read sources.

So, just to show that you are just saying stuff because, apparently, people call bullshit without even TRYING a google search.

Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment - IOPscience - Doesn't exist but costs 2+ billion per year.

expert reaction to study of stratospheric aerosol injection | Science Media Centre - more discussion of costs

We Could Spray Cheap Chemicals in the Air to Slow Climate Change. Should We? - Solar dimming connected

NASA Proposes Spraying Stratospheric Aerosols Into Earth’s Atmosphere

US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study

Controversial spraying method aims to curb global warming

Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program

Harvard scientists are gearing up for some of the first outdoor geoengineering experiments

Anti-global warming atmospheric spraying programme ‘possible’ say engineers

And that is sticking mainly to university and MSM sources... Whoops.
All very interesting, but it's a very, very long reach to go from "chemtrails" to spreading aluminum in the atmosphere for an experiment. BTW, I thought the anti-global warming types say man-made changes to the atmosphere is impossible.
 
Likes: Idiocracat
Dec 2014
13,899
11,525
NWOHQ
#75
No, it is true. You are deliberately avoiding the question with vapid noise.

You said does not exist, that is very unequivocal of a statement.

I'm asking a question about the connection be

I showed you:
- funding levels
- scientific principles
- intentions from different projects
And more...

For something that "does not exist".

You've got ALOT of backtracking to do first.
Your logic and comprehension is appalling. Now read this very slowly:

I said chemtrails as detailed in the OP and your subsequent post are not proven by the sources you supplied. Have you got that much? Now, if I missed it (this is the important bit) can you direct me to the source that makes the connection from these programmes to the chemtrails as described? I went through them and I failed to find where this (possibly assumed) connection was confirmed and I'm asking you to show me. Do you get that much?

Do I have to go through it yet again?

I'll elaborate in case it didn't sink in. Note your post earlier that discerned chemtrails from contrails. Ok? Now pause and think about that and get it right in your head. Any problems here thus far?

Now, where in those sources is the existence of chemtrails as described by you confirmed? What and where is the connection? I couldn't find a connection, and it is incredibly poor logic to assume that chemtrails are caused by these programmes. Are you with me still? That is a poorly sourced argument. The existence of atmospheric experiments (if indeed if they have ever been implemented) does not confirm the employment of chemtrails in a nefarious manner (see the OP and the commonly known claims of the chemtrail sect) and as described by you in your earlier post. It is highly illogical to assume it does.

Now, can you provide the quote from the sources that confirms this link?

I hope that was prosaic enough for your level of understanding.

Concede you were wrong, it will be less embarrassing in the long run.
Concede you don't have a clue what is under discussion and it will be less embarrassing for you in the long run, although it is clear that has never been a concern of yours or you would have learned it after all these years.
 
Last edited:

StanStill

Former Staff
Dec 2013
13,072
14,716
Work
#76
Prove it, you have to counter EACH of those sources factually, with alternative and more credible sources than the scientific papers that you skipped.
Um...no. You clearly either don’t understand, or more likely, didn’t bother to read the VERY FIRST post in your google search list of links. You are misrepresenting its contents, which is quite obvious to anyone who reads page 1 of it. When you make the case that something is happening and are trying to convince others, it is on you to prove it, not me.

I’m sure it was just a fluke that you didn’t read or perhaps just misunderstood that first paper. It happens. So can you direct me to the one that does prove something by pointing out the relevant passages? You have to forgive me for not believing any of the others are legitimate now either...but you are welcome to prove me wrong.
 
Likes: Blues63
Oct 2014
32,779
5,969
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#77
All very interesting, but it's a very, very long reach to go from "chemtrails" to spreading aluminum in the atmosphere for an experiment. BTW, I thought the anti-global warming types say man-made changes to the atmosphere is impossible.
Well, AGW is based in flat earth physics, but unrelated.

And the "long reach" is based on misinformation to prevent people from asking more pertinent questions.
The activity is taking place as demonstrated across the sources and papers linked.
 
Oct 2014
32,779
5,969
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#78
No, it is true. You are deliberately avoiding the question with vapid noise.



Your logic and comprehension is appalling. Now read this very slowly:

I said chemtrails as detailed in the OP and your subsequent post are not proven by the sources you supplied. Have you got that much? Now, if I missed it (this is the important bit) can you direct me to the source that makes the connection from these programmes to the chemtrails as described? I went through them and I failed to find where this (possibly assumed) connection was confirmed and I'm asking you to show me. Do you get that much?

Do I have to go through it yet again?

I'll elaborate in case it didn't sink in. Note your post earlier that discerned chemtrails from contrails. Ok? Now pause and think about that and get it right in your head. Any problems here thus far?

Now, where in those sources is the existence of chemtrails as described by you confirmed? What and where is the connection? I couldn't find a connection, and it is incredibly poor logic to assume that chemtrails are caused by these programmes. Are you with me still? That is a poorly sourced argument. The existence of atmospheric experiments (if indeed if they have ever been implemented) does not confirm the employment of chemtrails in a nefarious manner (see the OP and the commonly known claims of the chemtrail sect) and as described by you in your earlier post. It is highly illogical to assume it does.

Now, can you provide the quote from the sources that confirms this link?

I hope that was prosaic enough for your level of understanding.



Concede you don't have a clue what is under discussion and it will be less embarrassing for you in the long run, although it is clear that has never been a concern of yours or you would have learned it after all these years.
Blather blather blather...

You said "does not exist". I made my case, you have not countered, except through obfuscation and semantics.

The funny part is, I haven't even started digging through what was classified, I've only opened into what is publicly acknowledged.
 
Oct 2014
32,779
5,969
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#79
Um...no. You clearly either don’t understand, or more likely, didn’t bother to read the VERY FIRST post in your google search list of links. You are misrepresenting its contents, which is quite obvious to anyone who reads page 1 of it. When you make the case that something is happening and are trying to convince others, it is on you to prove it, not me.

I’m sure it was just a fluke that you didn’t read or perhaps just misunderstood that first paper. It happens. So can you direct me to the one that does prove something by pointing out the relevant passages? You have to forgive me for not believing any of the others are legitimate now either...but you are welcome to prove me wrong.

You hear that...

"Did not read" followed immediately with "here's what you got wrong with the contents" (the contents that was admitted as unread.

THIS IS WHAT COUNTS AS LOGIC AROUND HERE.

"I did not read your source, but you are wrong because I said so."
 
Dec 2014
13,899
11,525
NWOHQ
#80
Blather blather blather...
Try reading.

You said "does not exist". I made my case, you have not countered, except through obfuscation and semantics.
Lies. You have not made a connection yet and you are obviously floundering while masking your failure with blatant trolling.

The funny part is, I haven't even started digging through what was classified, I've only opened into what is publicly acknowledged.
Yet you still cannot prove a connection.

I will use this post as 'Exhibit A' against your lies on the E. Warren thread. LOLOL This is fun!
 

Similar Discussions