It's what I call ChemFluff... Made from dispersed chemical aerosols. Silicon fibers that are incandescent and magneto-dynamic. Brace yourself... My sources are VERY high up. Some are scientists and military folk who can no longer keep silent.
I am told there is a terrible deception being perpetrated. I must protect my sources. If you really want to know what is happening...
@nobody . . a chemical trail is an aerosol / spray based trail applied atmospherically by aircraft fitted with either pressurized fluidic nozzles or other ambient pressure applicators and can be used for a variety of things including pesticide (a chemical) application like we've all seen with crop dusters or more recently used in cloud seeding with silver iodide for the purpose of altering precipitation or as some call "weather modification". H/\/\RP is another story.
@supobrecito yes, that's right. Ben Stein is a complete moron. Absolutely and whole heartedly. That quack wouldn't last two seconds in a debate with any decent scientist.
@a1mint Good boy . . so we agree that pesticides exist. Are you familiar with "crop dusting?" ie low flying planes over fields of corn, wheat and such?
@supobrecito What of it? You're comparing normal observed documented described widely common things with bizarre unsubstantiated conspiracies based on pure beliefs. You're not making any sense !
watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU 1.How reliable is the source of the claim? 2.Does the source make similar claims? 3.Have the claims been verified by somebody else? 4.Does this fit with the way the world works? 5.Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? 6.Where does the preponderance of evidence point? 7.Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? 8.Is the claimant providing positive evidence? 9.Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory? 10.Are personal beliefs driving the claim
@a1mint Bro, other people here at least three I've had dialogue with are all in agreement that you have no business making any claim to anything whatsoever, you don't respect science, you wouldn't know a technical piece if it bit you in the ass and you've already said that witness testimonies can't be trusted. I'd hate to see that logic fly in any court of law since cases are built on eye witness testimonies. You claim Shermer is authentic but C|A Field Op's aren't . . uhh, yeah
@supobrecito The judgement of who is uneducated and stupid, silly, paranoid, delusional, and all the rest of it, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not worried for one split second.
@supobrecito I could not help but notice how you have not been offering a single shred of credible evidence on how any of your conspiracies hold any water at all.
@a1mint Please answer this question . . "Do you consider yourself a rational scientist?" if you are interested in a logical train of thought then you will engage me, otherwise your non compliance will be assumed an admission of error.
@supobrecito I scrutinizing other people's claims, and condemn them if they are not backed by evidence. The only ones in non-compliance, are the ones making unsubstantiated claims
@a1mint cause you know you've given yourself all the rope you need to hang yourself with, you can't answer those questions because you're guilty of being a complete fraud
watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU 1.How reliable is the source of the claim? 2.Does the source make similar claims? 3.Have the claims been verified by somebody else? 4.Does this fit with the way the world works? 5.Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? 6.Where does the preponderance of evidence point? 7.Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? 8.Is the claimant providing positive evidence? 9.Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory? 10.Are personal beliefs driving the claim
@a1mint 1. Ben Stein? "Reliable" The guy has a F'n law degree. 2. He's asking simple questions, unbiased looking for rationale. He's making 0 claims. Obviously the balance of questions is inapplicable in light of answers 1 and 2. I will say this on 10. it's plain for all to see you are driven by personal beliefs.
@supobrecito Ben Stein I'm also familiar with. The guy is a completely delusional idiot. He does not respond to any questioning, and he dismisses based on out-of-context sound bites. None of his reasoning is scientifically sound at all. That guy wouldn't last two seconds in any debate with a proper scientist
Ben Stein is *NOT* a particularly intelligent person, despite his slurry seemingly confident stance about him. Naturally, impressionable morons such as yourself at easily swayed by his crap.
@supobrecito Actually, is *YOU* that is evading questions using nothing but straw man arguments. I've asked for evidence of chemtrails and you're only referring to people making claims. That's not how science works. Where is the actual evidence? Well? Cat got your tongue?
@a1mint Great clip a1mintard but does nothing to support a word you say in fact, your boy Dawkins who sponsored the footage can be seen in this clip here wearing the balance of that dozen eggs you wore on your face trying to prove . . hmm, let me think . . NOTHING? watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
@incaseofx LOL!!!!! Didn't you recognize that silly pumpkin headed freak? It was the mintard. He ran out of finger paints and decided to make a whale suit out of his kiddie pool and dance around to 80's music. I must admit it's the first meaningful thing he's done since embarrassing himself here. Glad you guys enjoyed it. Cheers!
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
@a1mint No it was a "logical" question and Dawkins looked like a fool trying to answer it. What the F' do you mean "IF" life was created on earth? what the hell are you saying? And now you're saying you side with your hero Dawkins that "Aliens Exist"? But you don't believe in chemtrails? Dude, you sound like a confused moron.
@supobrecito As explained in one of the messages above, yes, Ben Stein asks silly question and he's a complete moron. Only morons can't see through his pathetic drivel.
@supobrecito No, Dawkins did not say that aliens exist. I'm sure he thinks that beings on other planets in the universe do exist, as most rational scientists do as well. But there is no mention of aliens actually visiting other planets. The question was posed that IF life on earth was started by someone, what would it be. It is a silly question. You are reacting to the answer of that silly question to make a point, that complete falls flat on its face, straw man boy !
@a1mint You call it a silly question because Dawkins looked silly answering it. There are no silly questions only silly answers. That saying has been common vernacular since your were eating Gerber.
@supobrecito Dawkins was put on the spot with a silly quest that could only be answered with a silly answer. "what *if* life on earth was created by someone, a designer, what would it be..." that was the question.
Since a "god" answer does not make sense, the only answer left would be that life would be planted. Not that it necessarily did, but the question was "what *if* life on earth was created by someone?.
You're not looking very good in this debate by the way.
@a1mint your hero Dawkins looked like a deer caught in the headlights because that's what he was, just like you. Using the same deflection tactics your other hero Sherbert or Sorbet or whatever the f' his name is frowns upon. You should pay better attention to your own content
@a1mint Dawkins clones himself . . Shermer is the byproduct of that union. Very scientific . . watch him make an ass hat for everyone to see watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
@a1mint and Jordan from the side . . 3 POINT SWISH!!! Shermer wears egg on his silly face debating his viewpoints . . . watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=vWvhP_ii2MM
@a1mint Dude, already seen the straw man video. Again, it does nothing to support your argument which I'm not sure I even recall at this point because we're all having too much fun watching you make yourself look uneducated
@supobrecito The straw man fallacy is exactly your problem. You don't engage in discussions at all here. When a point is raised, you try to dismiss in ways that are exactly as outlined in that video. Making distracting straw man arguments is very much at the core of your tactics, as it is by other paranoid delusional idiots that can not make any valid arguments.
@incaseofx HAARP is real, but it does not do anything serious other than making careful measurements. Have you even tried to look up what it exactly does, or do you take for granted some sort of conspiracy how it is doing bad things.
I think it's already been established that you're completely delusional.
@a1mint the only thing that's been established by you mintard is um . . . hmm, wait . . oh here it is, yes . . "absolutely nothing" ya ostrich headed fruitloop
@a1mint How many times can I say this? You've contradicted your own language like a dozen times, you make no sense. How do you expect to have an intelligent discussion this way? It's like you don't even read your own posts. Let's start with something simple . . do you believe in pesticides?
@supobrecito Other than that complete delusional paranoid nutball fruitcake barfing unsubstantiated absurd nonsense, do you have any credible information that backs up any of these claims?
Something other than plain claims. All these claims. Claiming this claiming that. Where's the science in any of this? Proof! Evidence! And not some other nut holding up a jar with sand in water, because that's just another claim.
@a1mint Also, that "nut ball fruitcake" as you so astutely described him was a reputable figure within the C|/\. But that means nothing to you because it conflicts with your smear campaign.
@supobrecito Many people are naturally susceptible to superstitions and hallucinations. Religion, astrology, chemtrails, magnet motors, hho, 911 truthers, etc etc. It's all based on beliefs and those beliefs override anything logical and rational.
Some of those delusional people work in places like CIA. Unless detailed evidence is provided, claims aren't substantiated.
And that's the problem with your theories, they don't include any evidence whatsoever. A person making a claim is not evidence.
@incaseofx Where's the proof? There isn't anything scientific about any of the claims that any of the delusional paranoid whackos have been making. None of them would recognize science from a hole in the ground.
@a1mint Just for kicks now (and you don't have to be a dick about it) but let's just suppose for a moment that YOU were to set out to "dispell" the notion of contaminants being sprayed from aerosol nozzles on aircraft . . how would you do that knowing that real contrails comprised of water vapor and or jet fuel exhaust dissipate within a relatively short period of time compared to the cumulative cloud clover that we all see develop after hours of aerial activity?
@supobrecito It's perfectly normal for contrails to last very long. It all depends on weather, altitude, dew point, temperature (at altitude), etc.
It's all perfectly well documented.
But instead of looking for normal rational scientific explanation, you'd rather assume conspiracies, don't you? Rational explanations are your enemy, why is that?
@a1mint look, I get it, I have an an engineering degree . . PV=NRT . . I took thermo, chem, all that which is why it's such a short trip on the logic bus. It's no longer a "conspiracy" . . what the hell does that even mean anyway? It's a term that people use to discredit something EVEN if it's legit. There's a mountain of footage, planes following planes for the purpose of filming. There's more than enough money, technology and motivation to spray metals into the air and control weather
@a1mint I read your article dude, it says H/\/\RP is open to the public during summer, rest of the year for "conducting experiments" w/ HF and ELF waves for "communications purposes only" but then admits the ELF application has "uselessly slow data rates" and the HF application can create "weak artificial aurora observed only by sensitive cameras". It's basically an expensive hobby? uh, yeah. This "technical doc" has NO teeth, ref's, footnotes, no validity. Weak smear, nothing more son
@supobrecito The problem is that it won't matter what information you're presented with. You're going to believe what you want to believe. It's the same thing with people like you every time. You defend you conspiracy to death, and you will not ever admit to anything, acknowledge anything, nothing but excuses. The evidence you come up with isn't evidence at all. Nothing but claims and other delusional people. You obviously can't recognize science from a hole in the wall.
@a1mint Man you're like a religious fascist with your smear tactics and non-technical 'baloney". I have an engineering degree and know how to construct a logical train of thought. If you presented me information one way or another I'm not "delusional" as you you seem to be.I gave you credit for your reference to Shermer's piece but again pointed out that you don't even follow his rules of debunking. I don't need to be right, I'd just like to know truth from error. Stop insulting me.
@incaseofx Can you believe how confused this guy is? He regurgitates the same non sense over and over, doesn't realize the contradictory nature of his approach, blah blah straw blah man blah blah . . LMFAO
@supobrecito Yea, this guy knows whats up on the real side, he's just some ball-sack trying to get extra attention by being a dingleberry ... this isn't the first time I've seen this douche flapping his cunt lips.
@a1mint Science clearly is something you don't understand so of course you would call me insane. Your "technical article" was not "technical" at all. It stated what H/\/\RP was being used for but then went on to say that it was essentially useless for what it was claimed to be used for. WTF?! How does that make any sense? You made yourself look like a pimple faced high school dropout with your contributions."Want fries with that?"
@a1mint Dude, NEXT? This video does nothing for your position. You present what your own hero Shermer calls "Negative Evidence Against". You use all the tactics he frowns upon when constructing an argument. You're making yourself look really really dumb. I have a video for you amigo watch?v=22YWYAtcyEA Enjoy fool!
@incaseofx Of course you don't need proof or evidence. Everything you think you know about it is based on beliefs, assumptions, paranoia, and delusions.
@a1mint Guys . . "The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling" -Thomas Sowell (I'm giving this to you as an early Christmas gift. I'm sure you'll use it wisely?)
@a1mint seriously.... Does research NOT include testing? Who said its a conspiracy? Jesse ventura? WWF? LOL.... In that case, there's another conspiracy... its CALLED "NASA"...
Jesus... Its like saying since you don't understand what a doctor does, its a conspiracy, and uploading a video of a tonsil removal as proof... WHO CARES? Some people believe beaming energy up into the ionosphere is wrong... others don't... me? I just don't give a shit...
@incaseofx People that want to sell stories that contradict rational thinking, and without evidence, will use every tactic in the book. Lying, distorting, bringing in other claims, making out-of-context comparisons, accusations, ridiculous claims, distorting reality, discarding anything that contradicts your doctrines, straw man arguments, and all the rest of it.
You're a hopeless lost case. Glad I'm not suffering from delusions like you do.
@a1mint and the award for "Weakest Rebuttal" goes to? . . . What's your deal dude? You're not smart enough to get paid to heckle people so what's up? Does little Atilla need a hug?
sure thing a1, you've got a really solid argument and how could anyone try to contend with your wisdom? Gosh, ya know you're right about everything. I've never encountered anyone like you. Thanks for educating myself and the rest of the "conspiracy" theorists. Take care now -Supobrecito
@supobrecito The usual thing I say when someone that's losing an argument, that tries to make claims about someone else's position and intelligence, in an effort to make it appear that you are on the winning side, is that we'll leave the judging to others. I'm not worried for a split second.
The only logical rational conclusion anyone can draw here, is that you and your friends here are paranoid and delusional.
@a1mint It's called maintaining dignity and trying to restore some level of civility. There's no winning or losing, only truth and non truth. You presented nothing and you claim I've presented nothing so do yourself and everyone else a favor and silence your foul mouth. As you can see, you're in a minority here. Whether there are or are not aerosols being sprayed over our heads by aircraft is a subject which is moving away from fiction and into mainstream media. Stay behind the curve if you want
@supobrecito None of the people making claims about conspiracies have presented anything but unsubstantiated claims, assumptions, paranoia, and all the rest of it.
The onus is on the ones making the claims, to prove it. Not on others to disprove it.
A bit more HAARP direct proof for the lazy ass who doesn't feel like checking it by himself. This is a webstire, i let it to you to look up in the official places as you seem feel devotion for them :)
@Aphorism89 ps. that link was messed up by youtube. The dot thing I can figure out. Youtube changed the i in Australia to a two character sequence. Copy-paste it into the browser's address field, and try to delete that i. It'll take two backspace presses.
- refusing to acknowledge I contest, this statement isn't even complete
- pretend things are backwards -- what kind of statement is that?! That's like grade school vernacular
- I'm right because you're not disproving it? Dude, if I tell you the sky is pink and fail to provide supporting evidence to your argument that it's blue does not mean that you are "right" or rather "correct" by default..
These clouds may or may not be normal, I never said they weren't
@supobrecito A straw man argument is where you pretend my point is different from what I have stated, and something you *think* is easy to defeat. It is a typical common tactic by delusional paranoid con artists such as yourself.
The only one not acknowledging a goddamn thing is you, you backwards creep!
It is *YOU* that needs to prove your claims. *I* am not the one making wild outrageous claims.
There are soooooo many factual and verifiable accounts of weather modification it's inconceivable that anyone could possibly try to argue contrary. If a "conspiracy" exists then it's nothing more than an attempt to "stem the tide" of an already awakened population. Gosh, China used for the 2008 Olympics and made no attempts at concealing it. Man will invariably control every aspect of creation if it's within grasp simply because "he can" technologyreviewdotcom/Infotech/20463/ Idiots can shut it
@supobrecito Link does not work. I replaced dot with . but still get a 404.
I know there are ways to influence weather, but that's only relatively local, and it's only done in despair for things like the Beijing Olympics, and to combat drought on Chinese farms.
Normal western societies don't do this. Unless you provide credible evidence that this is done on a regular basis.
Provide some evidence here please - so far there's absolutely nothing !
@a1mint OK I'll humor you if you'd like to be "civil" and non derogatory . . You tell me . . "what do you believe the issue here is? What are you actually debating?
@supobrecito That the clouds presented are a normal natural explainable documented phenomena and not the result of some sort of conspiracy and having nothing to do with HAARP or chemtrails.
@a1mint read my last reply to you. I never said these were abnormal cloud patterns. I do contest your style of conjecture. You try to present yourself as a learned and scholarly individual but you're not fooling anyone. Your style is sophmoric at best and the only one who's impressed by it is yourself, I certainly am not.
@supobrecito that link you provided did not work (technologyreview...). Youtube mocks with words where it thinks looks like a link. I copy-pasted it to a terminal and saw that the h of tech was replaced with a two-character sequence that appears normal in the browser, but won't work. Copy-paste it into your address bar, and place the cursor on the h. It takes two backspace hits to erase the character.
@a1mint Yes, i have given you things you can look up in the internet, you are just too lazy and closed to your ideas, and now seriously, stop writting me back, go and watch your tv, new might have started don't miss them!
@Aphorism89 You're again pretending that things are the other way around. Every link I have been provided was unrelated or unscientific. It is you that are too lazy to look for normal rational explanations of phenomena.
The only thing you've been going on is that it is possible and that in some cases there are efforts to influence local weather. It has nothing to do with strange clouds, "HAARP", geo-engineering, chemtrails, or any conspiracies.
@supobrecito Again, the link you provided is just a local means of intentionally creating rain. That that does constitute "geo-engineering". There are no chemtrails. HAARP does nothing for weather. There is no conspiracy.
If you think otherwise, then back it up with evidence, not a link to a silly local thing that's not a conspiracy at all !
@supobrecito Look up "Guidelines for cloud seeding to augment precipitation" by American Society of Civil Engineers . . to say that cloud seeding for the purposes of "weather (I won't use the term modification because you might get your panties in a twist) engineering" is a fallacy is wholly incorrect and false. They're using silver iodide to (can't say manipulate here) influence the size of the water droplets in the clouds.
@supobrecito He won't even consider what you say. Weather engineering is as real as turltes, but i start to think he's just frustrated. However i'm out of this video for ever, i got enough and i was stupid enough by trying to show that guy how things are, he just refuses to even check it out :P good luck!
@Aphorism89 It's the other way around, you distortionist con artist lying sack of shit !
It's possible to make it rain in a local area, but that does not mean that "geo-engineering" is a wide spread common occurrence. If you have evidence that claims otherwise, let's see it. And fuck off with the "I already provided you with evidence". You you haven't !
@supobrecito Just because it is possible to make it rain does not mean that "geo-engineering" is a normal daily occurrence.
If you have evidence that this is a normal common wide spread occurrence, then provide evidence. And fuck off with the "I already provided you evidence". No you haven't !
@supobrecito We leave the judging to others. I'm not worried for a split second, because I'm not the one using deceptions, distortions, and lies. You on the other hand, are.
@a1mint Dude, don't you see that i gave up with you? you jsut ignore everything i told you to check by teliing me that i didn't tel lyou anything. Is not liek you can delete it, everyone can read and check it. However, i was educated telling you to go away, but you keep the brain-dead reply to me. Seriously, Bye bye (hopefully you understand it this way) And again, go read some book,s it's good ;)
@Aphorism89 It's the other way around, you lying sack of shit!
You're simply refuse to respond to any rationality. You're making wild idiotic claims and you're not backing that with any actual credible evidence. Just claim after claim and nothing but.
@a1mint tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/climate-engineering/ oh and just because you like egg on your face (among other things) so much . . here's one for your perusal fuckface . . weathermodificationdotcom . . . Hey everyone . . a1mint says there's no such thing as weather engineering . . LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Sign up here for the next semester . . also . . everyone that thinks a1mint is a complete cowfucker please post accordingly. LMFAOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@supobrecito Just because some people have contemplated ways of influencing climate, does not mean that this is happening all around us all the time.
The likelihood of similar morons like yourself getting attracted to this video is high, so the reaction of people here isn't exactly a good gauge on how "others" perceive either you or me.
I know that in a rational science minded setting, you wouldn't last 2 seconds.
@a1mint I watched your Strawman videos and again, just like you did with the Shermer video, you argue off point. You're not even playing by the same rules you're accusing others of breaking. Unreal man. For you to say something like "chemtrails do not exist" is what Shermer calls "negative proof against". Until you provide what Shermer calls "positive proof against" you only make yourself look like a dumbass. You've been given the information you need to make "rational" decisions. Good luck man
@supobrecito Another typical tactic is to pretend a position is backwards. The straw man tactic is about you pretending I'm making a point that you then can easily ridicule. The not playing by the rules thing in the Baloney Detection Kit video applies to you, because you're not sticking to the issues raised.
As for proof, it's YOU that fails to present any positive evidence. The onus is on YOU to prove it, not on me to disproof it. I'm not the one making insane claims, but you are !
These types of patterns can be the effect of geomagnetic stresses caused by solar radiation, like when we see auroral lights in the northern skies. There are geomag field lines that can produce linear formations like this due to ionization effects in the clouds and atmosphere. However, some speculate that H/\/\RP effects are intensified during these earth stress events. I've simply been asking about the nature of the "trails" produced by airplanes w/ respect to the climate engineering program
@a1mint No Sh!t ya fruity bird . . I NEVER SAID the clouds in this video were the product of anything. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A "CONSPIRACY" . . Cloud formations, big F'ing deal, I studied meteorology for a short time. If you read my earlier post today I illustrated how geo-magnetics can contribute to linear cloud formations, no shit . . the problem I have with YOU is that you seem to claim to be the final authority on EVERY SINGLE ATOMIC PARTICLE EMITTED from all the air traffic EVER. WTF?
@supobrecito Yes you *DID* suggest a conspiracy, you LYING SACK OF SHIT ! "...RP effects are intensified during these earth stress events". "(quote)trails(quote)...climate engineering ".
And then, you're using the usual tactic of the day: sense of entitlement, and straw man arguments.
The paranoia and delusions are dripping off left and right around here.
@theextremechaser Agreed, but the argument that seems to have ensued is the validity of "chemtrails" vs "contrails. We've all observed contrails for most of our lives, short tails comprised of water vapor or exhaust but the visibly elongated lines that span for many, many miles that do not seem to dissipate and have random intermittent starting and ending points pose a different set of questions. We know that climate engineering is well underway but are these trails used for this purpose?
@supobrecito Contrails are no different now than from the day they started. Weather conditions, altitude, saturation, all contribute to how well they dissolve. It's perfectly well documented how they can last long.
I find it amazing how some people *think* that just because they sometimes last long, that instead of looking for a rational answer, that they instead assume it's a conspiracy, and then reject all information that says otherwise.
This has been flagged as spam show
It's what I call ChemFluff... Made from dispersed chemical aerosols. Silicon fibers that are incandescent and magneto-dynamic. Brace yourself... My sources are VERY high up. Some are scientists and military folk who can no longer keep silent.
I am told there is a terrible deception being perpetrated. I must protect my sources. If you really want to know what is happening...
Message me or...
*Go to my YouTube channel - Read my "FEED" --> *COMMENTS* (All 3 pages)
revmichellehopkins 5 days ago
it is quite similar to this... watch?v=b48Ei0DgQXM
akusukamakanfree 1 week ago
Wow. Never seen anything before. Awsum
faraz312 1 month ago
@nobody . . a chemical trail is an aerosol / spray based trail applied atmospherically by aircraft fitted with either pressurized fluidic nozzles or other ambient pressure applicators and can be used for a variety of things including pesticide (a chemical) application like we've all seen with crop dusters or more recently used in cloud seeding with silver iodide for the purpose of altering precipitation or as some call "weather modification". H/\/\RP is another story.
supobrecito 2 months ago
actually you're right, I am delusional for thinking I could somehow have a rational line of dialogue with you. Take care now.
supobrecito 2 months ago
yeah, Ben Stein is in an idiot? You sound really dumb
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito yes, that's right. Ben Stein is a complete moron. Absolutely and whole heartedly. That quack wouldn't last two seconds in a debate with any decent scientist.
His slurry voice isn't helping either.
a1mint 2 months ago
blah straw blah blah man . . wouldn't know science from the pimple on his forehead. Chemtrails = real, Weather Modification = real, a1mint = ostrich
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Since no one has ever proven chemtrails to exist, it remains a paranoid delusional conspiracy.
Weather modification has been done locally on a small scale for local immediate needs (eg. making it not rain during the olympics).
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Good boy . . so we agree that pesticides exist. Are you familiar with "crop dusting?" ie low flying planes over fields of corn, wheat and such?
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito What of it? You're comparing normal observed documented described widely common things with bizarre unsubstantiated conspiracies based on pure beliefs. You're not making any sense !
a1mint 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint . . we should call you ommlette . . I smell bacon now too
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito paranoid and delusional is what you are, evidently.
a1mint 2 months ago
The straw man argument is commonly practiced by people that have no argument to make:
watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Bro, other people here at least three I've had dialogue with are all in agreement that you have no business making any claim to anything whatsoever, you don't respect science, you wouldn't know a technical piece if it bit you in the ass and you've already said that witness testimonies can't be trusted. I'd hate to see that logic fly in any court of law since cases are built on eye witness testimonies. You claim Shermer is authentic but C|A Field Op's aren't . . uhh, yeah
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito I respect science. You do not. I'm asking for evidence, you provide none.
There isn't a shred of rationality about anything you're saying. You're insane, paranoid, and delusional!
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint you're a confused uneducated buffoon that refuses to come proper. No one here takes your side because you have NOOOOOOOOOTHING!!!!!
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito The judgement of who is uneducated and stupid, silly, paranoid, delusional, and all the rest of it, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not worried for one split second.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Dude, you need to step up your game. People are watching.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito I could not help but notice how you have not been offering a single shred of credible evidence on how any of your conspiracies hold any water at all.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint pot calling the kettle black. A "baloney detection kit video" does nothing to help you.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Sure it does. It raises 10 questions that you can not answer and completely exposes the crap you stand for.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Please answer this question . . "Do you consider yourself a rational scientist?" if you are interested in a logical train of thought then you will engage me, otherwise your non compliance will be assumed an admission of error.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito I scrutinizing other people's claims, and condemn them if they are not backed by evidence. The only ones in non-compliance, are the ones making unsubstantiated claims
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint cause you know you've given yourself all the rope you need to hang yourself with, you can't answer those questions because you're guilty of being a complete fraud
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito The only ones that are frauds are the ones feeding conspiracies to the gullible ignorant paranoid delusional.
a1mint 2 months ago
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint 1. Ben Stein? "Reliable" The guy has a F'n law degree. 2. He's asking simple questions, unbiased looking for rationale. He's making 0 claims. Obviously the balance of questions is inapplicable in light of answers 1 and 2. I will say this on 10. it's plain for all to see you are driven by personal beliefs.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Ben Stein I'm also familiar with. The guy is a completely delusional idiot. He does not respond to any questioning, and he dismisses based on out-of-context sound bites. None of his reasoning is scientifically sound at all. That guy wouldn't last two seconds in any debate with a proper scientist
Ben Stein is *NOT* a particularly intelligent person, despite his slurry seemingly confident stance about him. Naturally, impressionable morons such as yourself at easily swayed by his crap.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint more evasiveness from from the mintard . . "doesn't answer the questions
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Actually, is *YOU* that is evading questions using nothing but straw man arguments. I've asked for evidence of chemtrails and you're only referring to people making claims. That's not how science works. Where is the actual evidence? Well? Cat got your tongue?
a1mint 2 months ago
watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Great clip a1mintard but does nothing to support a word you say in fact, your boy Dawkins who sponsored the footage can be seen in this clip here wearing the balance of that dozen eggs you wore on your face trying to prove . . hmm, let me think . . NOTHING? watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
supobrecito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint oh wait, in case you missed it, here it is again watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
supobrecito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Hey gang, Minty Fresh just uploaded a clip of his most recent "Scientific Research" . . have a look watch?v=yZKb_-MwM0w
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito OMG LOL WTH WAS THAT(watch?v=yZKb_-MwM0w)
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx LOL!!!!! Didn't you recognize that silly pumpkin headed freak? It was the mintard. He ran out of finger paints and decided to make a whale suit out of his kiddie pool and dance around to 80's music. I must admit it's the first meaningful thing he's done since embarrassing himself here. Glad you guys enjoyed it. Cheers!
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito lol
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
a1mint 2 months ago
Comment removed
incaseofx 2 months ago
Comment removed
supobrecito 2 months ago
HAARPtards
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Clown
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Quack
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Come here you little peon... i'm not done with you yet....
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Dawkins takes goo to the face here . . watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
a1mint 2 months ago 3
@a1mint No it was a "logical" question and Dawkins looked like a fool trying to answer it. What the F' do you mean "IF" life was created on earth? what the hell are you saying? And now you're saying you side with your hero Dawkins that "Aliens Exist"? But you don't believe in chemtrails? Dude, you sound like a confused moron.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito The interviewer asked silly questions. I'm very familiar with Dawkins work and the quacks that he gets exposed to.
Taking things out of context and lying about things will only show what a pathetic desperate conniving little liar you truly are.
a1mint 2 months ago 3
@a1mint Really? Ben Stein asked silly question? Uhh, OK
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito As explained in one of the messages above, yes, Ben Stein asks silly question and he's a complete moron. Only morons can't see through his pathetic drivel.
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito No, Dawkins did not say that aliens exist. I'm sure he thinks that beings on other planets in the universe do exist, as most rational scientists do as well. But there is no mention of aliens actually visiting other planets. The question was posed that IF life on earth was started by someone, what would it be. It is a silly question. You are reacting to the answer of that silly question to make a point, that complete falls flat on its face, straw man boy !
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint You call it a silly question because Dawkins looked silly answering it. There are no silly questions only silly answers. That saying has been common vernacular since your were eating Gerber.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Dawkins was put on the spot with a silly quest that could only be answered with a silly answer. "what *if* life on earth was created by someone, a designer, what would it be..." that was the question.
Since a "god" answer does not make sense, the only answer left would be that life would be planted. Not that it necessarily did, but the question was "what *if* life on earth was created by someone?.
You're not looking very good in this debate by the way.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint your hero Dawkins looked like a deer caught in the headlights because that's what he was, just like you. Using the same deflection tactics your other hero Sherbert or Sorbet or whatever the f' his name is frowns upon. You should pay better attention to your own content
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito utterly false. Dawkins was never the one at a loss of words. He was asked stupid silly unintelligent questions.
You're an utter in your face lying fraud !
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint bury yourself ya silly ostrich headed freak
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Dawkins clones himself . . Shermer is the byproduct of that union. Very scientific . . watch him make an ass hat for everyone to see watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8
supobrecito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supobrecito Taken completely out of context. I'm actually quite familiar with that video. Richard never admitted to intelligent design at all! He was asked that *IF* life on earth was created then how would that have happened. His answer was that *IF* life was created it would have to be done by aliens. It was a silly question, and easily taken out of context by lying conniving distorting little CREEPS like yourself !
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito Straw man argument. Cherry picking out-of-context clips does NOT make for a winning argument.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint and Jordan from the side . . 3 POINT SWISH!!! Shermer wears egg on his silly face debating his viewpoints . . . watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=vWvhP_ii2MM
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Dude, already seen the straw man video. Again, it does nothing to support your argument which I'm not sure I even recall at this point because we're all having too much fun watching you make yourself look uneducated
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito The straw man fallacy is exactly your problem. You don't engage in discussions at all here. When a point is raised, you try to dismiss in ways that are exactly as outlined in that video. Making distracting straw man arguments is very much at the core of your tactics, as it is by other paranoid delusional idiots that can not make any valid arguments.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint wow... 10 comments in a row.... ROFL.....
I like this vid, haarp is real, and you have too much free time...
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx HAARP is real, but it does not do anything serious other than making careful measurements. Have you even tried to look up what it exactly does, or do you take for granted some sort of conspiracy how it is doing bad things.
I think it's already been established that you're completely delusional.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint the only thing that's been established by you mintard is um . . . hmm, wait . . oh here it is, yes . . "absolutely nothing" ya ostrich headed fruitloop
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Another straw man argument, completely bypassing and avoiding the points made.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint How many times can I say this? You've contradicted your own language like a dozen times, you make no sense. How do you expect to have an intelligent discussion this way? It's like you don't even read your own posts. Let's start with something simple . . do you believe in pesticides?
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito The only ones not making any sense here are people that claim that "HAARP" causes weather patterns and earthquakes.
Pesticides. Chemicals used to kill bugs. What of it?
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito Straw man argument.
a1mint 2 months ago
That's a mackerel sky. Look it up; it's the result of moisture and instability in the atmosphere.
DisturbedFrankeh 2 months ago
Comment removed
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Link doesn't work.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint try this one instead . . Former C|A Chief watch?v=Mna6ta4EYkc
supobrecito 2 months ago
@a1mint Here's another mainstream media piece, I think Jonathan Frakes is narrating watch?v=xo-T_KvLNdQ&feature=related
supobrecito 2 months ago
Comment removed
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito A bunch of unscientific unsubstantiated distorted paranoid delusional claims. Nothing more, nothing less.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint A local news report on chemical trails watch?v=UiJ_R8JVpi4
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Other than that complete delusional paranoid nutball fruitcake barfing unsubstantiated absurd nonsense, do you have any credible information that backs up any of these claims?
Something other than plain claims. All these claims. Claiming this claiming that. Where's the science in any of this? Proof! Evidence! And not some other nut holding up a jar with sand in water, because that's just another claim.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Also, that "nut ball fruitcake" as you so astutely described him was a reputable figure within the C|/\. But that means nothing to you because it conflicts with your smear campaign.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Many people are naturally susceptible to superstitions and hallucinations. Religion, astrology, chemtrails, magnet motors, hho, 911 truthers, etc etc. It's all based on beliefs and those beliefs override anything logical and rational.
Some of those delusional people work in places like CIA. Unless detailed evidence is provided, claims aren't substantiated.
And that's the problem with your theories, they don't include any evidence whatsoever. A person making a claim is not evidence.
a1mint 2 months ago
what is that at 1:29 ?
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx
It's two seagulls flying together, looked weird played fast
PureCX 2 months ago
@PureCX well no doubt our government is up to something... something big... wouldn't be surprised if they had something to do with it
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx Where's the proof? There isn't anything scientific about any of the claims that any of the delusional paranoid whackos have been making. None of them would recognize science from a hole in the ground.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Just for kicks now (and you don't have to be a dick about it) but let's just suppose for a moment that YOU were to set out to "dispell" the notion of contaminants being sprayed from aerosol nozzles on aircraft . . how would you do that knowing that real contrails comprised of water vapor and or jet fuel exhaust dissipate within a relatively short period of time compared to the cumulative cloud clover that we all see develop after hours of aerial activity?
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito It's perfectly normal for contrails to last very long. It all depends on weather, altitude, dew point, temperature (at altitude), etc.
It's all perfectly well documented.
But instead of looking for normal rational scientific explanation, you'd rather assume conspiracies, don't you? Rational explanations are your enemy, why is that?
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint look, I get it, I have an an engineering degree . . PV=NRT . . I took thermo, chem, all that which is why it's such a short trip on the logic bus. It's no longer a "conspiracy" . . what the hell does that even mean anyway? It's a term that people use to discredit something EVEN if it's legit. There's a mountain of footage, planes following planes for the purpose of filming. There's more than enough money, technology and motivation to spray metals into the air and control weather
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito Evidence please !
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint watch?v=xo-T_KvLNdQ&feature=related
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito That's not evidence. That's not how evidence works. Claims is not evidence. You need to learn how science works.
And just because the voice is Riker from STNG doesn't give it any credibility either.
Power smower. Lots of Watts. So what? When you spread that out you get nothing left.
The video is nothing but unsubstantiated preposterous claims, an unscientific experiment, and a mix of video clips, animations, and suggestions.
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito I doubt if you're interesting to read a description that does not agree with your doctrine, but perhaps other that read this might:
tribes(dot)tribe(dot)net(slash)infobunker(slash)thread(slash)0df76ee0-21ae-4f6a-8f8e-0e8a022e6c3a
Replace (dot) with .
Replace (slash) with /
Normal rational sensible talk. Not wacky fear mongering conspiracies and wild unsubstantiated claims.
a1mint 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
supobrecito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@a1mint I read your article dude, it says H/\/\RP is open to the public during summer, rest of the year for "conducting experiments" w/ HF and ELF waves for "communications purposes only" but then admits the ELF application has "uselessly slow data rates" and the HF application can create "weak artificial aurora observed only by sensitive cameras". It's basically an expensive hobby? uh, yeah. This "technical doc" has NO teeth, ref's, footnotes, no validity. Weak smear, nothing more son
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito The problem is that it won't matter what information you're presented with. You're going to believe what you want to believe. It's the same thing with people like you every time. You defend you conspiracy to death, and you will not ever admit to anything, acknowledge anything, nothing but excuses. The evidence you come up with isn't evidence at all. Nothing but claims and other delusional people. You obviously can't recognize science from a hole in the wall.
I'm glad I'm sane.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Man you're like a religious fascist with your smear tactics and non-technical 'baloney". I have an engineering degree and know how to construct a logical train of thought. If you presented me information one way or another I'm not "delusional" as you you seem to be.I gave you credit for your reference to Shermer's piece but again pointed out that you don't even follow his rules of debunking. I don't need to be right, I'd just like to know truth from error. Stop insulting me.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito "non-technical 'baloney'" - NICLY SAID!!!!! <3
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx Can you believe how confused this guy is? He regurgitates the same non sense over and over, doesn't realize the contradictory nature of his approach, blah blah straw blah man blah blah . . LMFAO
supobrecito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supobrecito Yea, this guy knows whats up on the real side, he's just some ball-sack trying to get extra attention by being a dingleberry ... this isn't the first time I've seen this douche flapping his cunt lips.
incaseofx 2 months ago
@a1mint Science clearly is something you don't understand so of course you would call me insane. Your "technical article" was not "technical" at all. It stated what H/\/\RP was being used for but then went on to say that it was essentially useless for what it was claimed to be used for. WTF?! How does that make any sense? You made yourself look like a pimple faced high school dropout with your contributions."Want fries with that?"
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito I have another little video that will exposes your flawed insane mindset:
watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
a1mint 2 months ago
Comment removed
supobrecito 2 months ago
@a1mint Dude, NEXT? This video does nothing for your position. You present what your own hero Shermer calls "Negative Evidence Against". You use all the tactics he frowns upon when constructing an argument. You're making yourself look really really dumb. I have a video for you amigo watch?v=22YWYAtcyEA Enjoy fool!
supobrecito 2 months ago
@a1mint Its not like its a secret what "HAARP" is doing,
Here is the Acronym for HAARP:
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is an ionospheric research program jointly funded by the US Air Force, the US
Here's Auroral defined:
of or relating to the atmospheric phenomenon auroras
You know what high frequency, research, and the ionosphere is?
"HAARP" is OFFICIAL NAME of a military program.
The title of this video = HAARP Clouds?
its a Question
Proof Not Needed...
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx Of course you don't need proof or evidence. Everything you think you know about it is based on beliefs, assumptions, paranoia, and delusions.
No amount of explanations will change you mind.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Guys . . "The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling" -Thomas Sowell (I'm giving this to you as an early Christmas gift. I'm sure you'll use it wisely?)
supobrecito 2 months ago
@a1mint seriously.... Does research NOT include testing? Who said its a conspiracy? Jesse ventura? WWF? LOL.... In that case, there's another conspiracy... its CALLED "NASA"...
Jesus... Its like saying since you don't understand what a doctor does, its a conspiracy, and uploading a video of a tonsil removal as proof... WHO CARES? Some people believe beaming energy up into the ionosphere is wrong... others don't... me? I just don't give a shit...
incaseofx 2 months ago
@incaseofx People that want to sell stories that contradict rational thinking, and without evidence, will use every tactic in the book. Lying, distorting, bringing in other claims, making out-of-context comparisons, accusations, ridiculous claims, distorting reality, discarding anything that contradicts your doctrines, straw man arguments, and all the rest of it.
You're a hopeless lost case. Glad I'm not suffering from delusions like you do.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Wait... let me get this strait... You are saying HAARP isnt real? HAHAHA dummy...
incaseofx 2 months ago
@a1mint and the award for "Weakest Rebuttal" goes to? . . . What's your deal dude? You're not smart enough to get paid to heckle people so what's up? Does little Atilla need a hug?
supobrecito 2 months ago
It's not the clouds that are strange, it's the weird music playing in the background, lol
EagleEyeGolfer 2 months ago
Haarp for sure, the non believers need to carry on being brainwashed by mainstream media
realtimes1980 2 months ago
there is nothing normal about those clouds at all.. wierd....
nitajo45 2 months ago
the music is annoying, the video is fine
99Ragdoll 2 months ago
Scary
razielbase 2 months ago
sure thing a1, you've got a really solid argument and how could anyone try to contend with your wisdom? Gosh, ya know you're right about everything. I've never encountered anyone like you. Thanks for educating myself and the rest of the "conspiracy" theorists. Take care now -Supobrecito
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito The usual thing I say when someone that's losing an argument, that tries to make claims about someone else's position and intelligence, in an effort to make it appear that you are on the winning side, is that we'll leave the judging to others. I'm not worried for a split second.
The only logical rational conclusion anyone can draw here, is that you and your friends here are paranoid and delusional.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint It's called maintaining dignity and trying to restore some level of civility. There's no winning or losing, only truth and non truth. You presented nothing and you claim I've presented nothing so do yourself and everyone else a favor and silence your foul mouth. As you can see, you're in a minority here. Whether there are or are not aerosols being sprayed over our heads by aircraft is a subject which is moving away from fiction and into mainstream media. Stay behind the curve if you want
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito None of the people making claims about conspiracies have presented anything but unsubstantiated claims, assumptions, paranoia, and all the rest of it.
The onus is on the ones making the claims, to prove it. Not on others to disprove it.
a1mint 2 months ago
How strange. סּ_סּ
flameringstudios 2 months ago
A bit more HAARP direct proof for the lazy ass who doesn't feel like checking it by himself. This is a webstire, i let it to you to look up in the official places as you seem feel devotion for them :)
colinandrews -dot- net/Cloud-Radar-Circle-Australia-2010-0116.html
Aphorism89 2 months ago
@Aphorism89 ps. that link was messed up by youtube. The dot thing I can figure out. Youtube changed the i in Australia to a two character sequence. Copy-paste it into the browser's address field, and try to delete that i. It'll take two backspace presses.
At first glance it looks photoshopped.
a1mint 2 months ago
- straw man I contest and counter
- refusing to acknowledge I contest, this statement isn't even complete
- pretend things are backwards -- what kind of statement is that?! That's like grade school vernacular
- I'm right because you're not disproving it? Dude, if I tell you the sky is pink and fail to provide supporting evidence to your argument that it's blue does not mean that you are "right" or rather "correct" by default..
These clouds may or may not be normal, I never said they weren't
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito A straw man argument is where you pretend my point is different from what I have stated, and something you *think* is easy to defeat. It is a typical common tactic by delusional paranoid con artists such as yourself.
The only one not acknowledging a goddamn thing is you, you backwards creep!
It is *YOU* that needs to prove your claims. *I* am not the one making wild outrageous claims.
a1mint 2 months ago
There are soooooo many factual and verifiable accounts of weather modification it's inconceivable that anyone could possibly try to argue contrary. If a "conspiracy" exists then it's nothing more than an attempt to "stem the tide" of an already awakened population. Gosh, China used for the 2008 Olympics and made no attempts at concealing it. Man will invariably control every aspect of creation if it's within grasp simply because "he can" technologyreviewdotcom/Infotech/20463/ Idiots can shut it
supobrecito 3 months ago
@supobrecito Link does not work. I replaced dot with . but still get a 404.
I know there are ways to influence weather, but that's only relatively local, and it's only done in despair for things like the Beijing Olympics, and to combat drought on Chinese farms.
Normal western societies don't do this. Unless you provide credible evidence that this is done on a regular basis.
Provide some evidence here please - so far there's absolutely nothing !
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint OK I'll humor you if you'd like to be "civil" and non derogatory . . You tell me . . "what do you believe the issue here is? What are you actually debating?
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito That the clouds presented are a normal natural explainable documented phenomena and not the result of some sort of conspiracy and having nothing to do with HAARP or chemtrails.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint read my last reply to you. I never said these were abnormal cloud patterns. I do contest your style of conjecture. You try to present yourself as a learned and scholarly individual but you're not fooling anyone. Your style is sophmoric at best and the only one who's impressed by it is yourself, I certainly am not.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito I gave you the links, stop being a lazy ass and look them up
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito that link you provided did not work (technologyreview...). Youtube mocks with words where it thinks looks like a link. I copy-pasted it to a terminal and saw that the h of tech was replaced with a two-character sequence that appears normal in the browser, but won't work. Copy-paste it into your address bar, and place the cursor on the h. It takes two backspace hits to erase the character.
Now I can access your link...
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Yes, i have given you things you can look up in the internet, you are just too lazy and closed to your ideas, and now seriously, stop writting me back, go and watch your tv, new might have started don't miss them!
Aphorism89 2 months ago
@Aphorism89 You're again pretending that things are the other way around. Every link I have been provided was unrelated or unscientific. It is you that are too lazy to look for normal rational explanations of phenomena.
The only thing you've been going on is that it is possible and that in some cases there are efforts to influence local weather. It has nothing to do with strange clouds, "HAARP", geo-engineering, chemtrails, or any conspiracies.
You are in fact, delusional.
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito Again, the link you provided is just a local means of intentionally creating rain. That that does constitute "geo-engineering". There are no chemtrails. HAARP does nothing for weather. There is no conspiracy.
If you think otherwise, then back it up with evidence, not a link to a silly local thing that's not a conspiracy at all !
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito Look up "Guidelines for cloud seeding to augment precipitation" by American Society of Civil Engineers . . to say that cloud seeding for the purposes of "weather (I won't use the term modification because you might get your panties in a twist) engineering" is a fallacy is wholly incorrect and false. They're using silver iodide to (can't say manipulate here) influence the size of the water droplets in the clouds.
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito He won't even consider what you say. Weather engineering is as real as turltes, but i start to think he's just frustrated. However i'm out of this video for ever, i got enough and i was stupid enough by trying to show that guy how things are, he just refuses to even check it out :P good luck!
Aphorism89 2 months ago
@Aphorism89 It's the other way around, you distortionist con artist lying sack of shit !
It's possible to make it rain in a local area, but that does not mean that "geo-engineering" is a wide spread common occurrence. If you have evidence that claims otherwise, let's see it. And fuck off with the "I already provided you with evidence". You you haven't !
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito Just because it is possible to make it rain does not mean that "geo-engineering" is a normal daily occurrence.
If you have evidence that this is a normal common wide spread occurrence, then provide evidence. And fuck off with the "I already provided you evidence". No you haven't !
a1mint 2 months ago
@supobrecito We leave the judging to others. I'm not worried for a split second, because I'm not the one using deceptions, distortions, and lies. You on the other hand, are.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Dude, don't you see that i gave up with you? you jsut ignore everything i told you to check by teliing me that i didn't tel lyou anything. Is not liek you can delete it, everyone can read and check it. However, i was educated telling you to go away, but you keep the brain-dead reply to me. Seriously, Bye bye (hopefully you understand it this way) And again, go read some book,s it's good ;)
Aphorism89 2 months ago
@Aphorism89 It's the other way around, you lying sack of shit!
You're simply refuse to respond to any rationality. You're making wild idiotic claims and you're not backing that with any actual credible evidence. Just claim after claim and nothing but.
a1mint 2 months ago
Comment removed
Aphorism89 2 months ago
watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU
watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
a1mint 3 months ago
@a1mint tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/climate-engineering/ oh and just because you like egg on your face (among other things) so much . . here's one for your perusal fuckface . . weathermodificationdotcom . . . Hey everyone . . a1mint says there's no such thing as weather engineering . . LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!! Sign up here for the next semester . . also . . everyone that thinks a1mint is a complete cowfucker please post accordingly. LMFAOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
supobrecito 3 months ago
@supobrecito Just because some people have contemplated ways of influencing climate, does not mean that this is happening all around us all the time.
The likelihood of similar morons like yourself getting attracted to this video is high, so the reaction of people here isn't exactly a good gauge on how "others" perceive either you or me.
I know that in a rational science minded setting, you wouldn't last 2 seconds.
a1mint 3 months ago
@a1mint I watched your Strawman videos and again, just like you did with the Shermer video, you argue off point. You're not even playing by the same rules you're accusing others of breaking. Unreal man. For you to say something like "chemtrails do not exist" is what Shermer calls "negative proof against". Until you provide what Shermer calls "positive proof against" you only make yourself look like a dumbass. You've been given the information you need to make "rational" decisions. Good luck man
supobrecito 3 months ago
@supobrecito Another typical tactic is to pretend a position is backwards. The straw man tactic is about you pretending I'm making a point that you then can easily ridicule. The not playing by the rules thing in the Baloney Detection Kit video applies to you, because you're not sticking to the issues raised.
As for proof, it's YOU that fails to present any positive evidence. The onus is on YOU to prove it, not on me to disproof it. I'm not the one making insane claims, but you are !
a1mint 3 months ago
Comment removed
supobrecito 2 months ago
@supobrecito It's YOU that's not making any sense. I'm asking for evidence of any conspiracies. You're not providing any evidence.
So to sum up your tactics:
- straw man
- refusing to acknowledge
- pretend things are backwards
- I'm right because you're not disproving it
- pretending that you had the last word
I think it's safe to call you pathetic in a scientific way.
But... facts remains. These clouds are a normal natural occurrence, and normal rational scientific docs support that.
a1mint 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supobrecito Why did you remove one of your own comments 8 minutes ago?
a1mint 2 months ago
These types of patterns can be the effect of geomagnetic stresses caused by solar radiation, like when we see auroral lights in the northern skies. There are geomag field lines that can produce linear formations like this due to ionization effects in the clouds and atmosphere. However, some speculate that H/\/\RP effects are intensified during these earth stress events. I've simply been asking about the nature of the "trails" produced by airplanes w/ respect to the climate engineering program
supobrecito 3 months ago
@supobrecito Instead of fantasizing an explanation, why not read about the scientific documents that have been written about it?
Start here: Wikededia, List_of_cloud_types. Pick a cloud that you think is interesting, then find a matching picture.
Altocumulus undulatus, and Cirrus and Altostratus undulatus clouds seems a match here.
"...result from wind shear...direction of the shear..."
links provided to Meteorology sources.
So stop fantasizing, and simply look things up. Much healthier.
a1mint 3 months ago
@a1mint No Sh!t ya fruity bird . . I NEVER SAID the clouds in this video were the product of anything. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT A "CONSPIRACY" . . Cloud formations, big F'ing deal, I studied meteorology for a short time. If you read my earlier post today I illustrated how geo-magnetics can contribute to linear cloud formations, no shit . . the problem I have with YOU is that you seem to claim to be the final authority on EVERY SINGLE ATOMIC PARTICLE EMITTED from all the air traffic EVER. WTF?
supobrecito 3 months ago
@supobrecito Yes you *DID* suggest a conspiracy, you LYING SACK OF SHIT ! "...RP effects are intensified during these earth stress events". "(quote)trails(quote)...climate engineering ".
And then, you're using the usual tactic of the day: sense of entitlement, and straw man arguments.
The paranoia and delusions are dripping off left and right around here.
a1mint 3 months ago
Seems more like a type of thick cirrocumulus than contrail to me.
theextremechaser 3 months ago
Okayyy, guys, there is NOTHING paranormal or extraterrestrial about this, okay? it is purely nature. okay? Take it from a meteorologist.
theextremechaser 3 months ago
@theextremechaser Agreed, but the argument that seems to have ensued is the validity of "chemtrails" vs "contrails. We've all observed contrails for most of our lives, short tails comprised of water vapor or exhaust but the visibly elongated lines that span for many, many miles that do not seem to dissipate and have random intermittent starting and ending points pose a different set of questions. We know that climate engineering is well underway but are these trails used for this purpose?
supobrecito 3 months ago
@supobrecito Contrails are no different now than from the day they started. Weather conditions, altitude, saturation, all contribute to how well they dissolve. It's perfectly well documented how they can last long.
I find it amazing how some people *think* that just because they sometimes last long, that instead of looking for a rational answer, that they instead assume it's a conspiracy, and then reject all information that says otherwise.
It's delusional and paranoia.
a1mint