From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.And any other sane person.
From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?
Why do you feel a need to feed the trolls of this site?
You're doing all of us a great disservice, especially when we just finished a multi-page thread on this exact same topic. (Which was also in the upper fora, and stayed there for whatever reason.)
All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.
Is all of this just an over-elaborate attempt to knock a straw man down?From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?
Why do you feel a need to feed the trolls of this site?
You're doing all of us a great disservice, especially when we just finished a multi-page thread on this exact same topic. (Which was also in the upper fora, and stayed there for whatever reason.)
All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.
Well, FE general is for conspiracy related topics. One could argue that the "RE conspiracy" is run by the same people that do chemtrails. How are chemtrails any more ridiculous than FET?
Is all of this just an over-elaborate attempt to knock a straw man down?From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?
Why do you feel a need to feed the trolls of this site?
You're doing all of us a great disservice, especially when we just finished a multi-page thread on this exact same topic. (Which was also in the upper fora, and stayed there for whatever reason.)
All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.
That's what it is, after all.
Well, FE general is for conspiracy related topics. One could argue that the "RE conspiracy" is run by the same people that do chemtrails. How are chemtrails any more ridiculous than FET?
Obviously those are contrails.
FE General is for FE related conspiracy topics. Not things like chemtrail conspiracies.
All chemtrail nonsense should be promptly moved to CN.Hey, once you have opened the door to one barking mad conspiracy theory, you might as well go with them all.
That's what it is, after all.
Around air travel hubs in certain weather? Perhaps, yeah. This video (http://www.wired.com/2014/03/plane-viz/) aside from being an epic, (if slightly overproduced) visualisation shows you (as will the real sky, outside) that most of the world isn't covered by contrails.
/edit: That quote would also imply that the rest of the time satellite photos work fine.
And any other sane person.
Can we move on from this topic?
I mean, really, what's this doing in FE General?
What does this have to do with a flat Earth?
They create so many contrails that cross each other's paths that the satellite images are just a blur. Minnis found that the cirrus clouds formed from these contrails lasted an average of six to eight hours and that six to eight contrails can grow to form a cloud cover the size of Massachusetts."[/i]
Can you explain the section I've made bold? Am I to understand that on an average day, satellite photography will not produce anything other than a blurry mess due to the contrails?
During the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.
I've no idea where legion gets his quote from, and I bet he has no idea of the provenance either. However here is an interview with Minnis debunking chemtrails (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/research/2007-02-22-contrails_x.htm) where he states:QuoteDuring the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.
So, no he doesn't suggest that contrails cover the whole earth every day - that would be damn silly.
I've no idea where legion gets his quote from, and I bet he has no idea of the provenance either. However here is an interview with Minnis debunking chemtrails (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/research/2007-02-22-contrails_x.htm) where he states:QuoteDuring the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.
So, no he doesn't suggest that contrails cover the whole earth every day - that would be damn silly.
It wasn't my quote. It was ausGeoff's.
I've no idea where legion gets his quote from, and I bet he has no idea of the provenance either. However here is an interview with Minnis debunking chemtrails (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/research/2007-02-22-contrails_x.htm) where he states:QuoteDuring the course of his research, Minnis and associates have discovered that airplane contrails — the non- poisonous variety — actually create cirrus clouds on days they wouldn't usually exist. Because of this, he calculates that cirrus-cloud cover over the United States is increasing by 1% each decade.
So, no he doesn't suggest that contrails cover the whole earth every day - that would be damn silly.
It wasn't my quote. It was ausGeoff's.
You don't think in that quote they were talking about contrails created by the em teased number of military jets in the air during 9/11?
You obviously missed my clarification of this first time around legion:
Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites. Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured. And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.
The original quote doesn't even seem to be genuine, or if it is, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Can you find an original source for it? It only seems to be on chemtrail websites as far as I can see.
Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?
The original quote doesn't even seem to be genuine, or if it is, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Can you find an original source for it? It only seems to be on chemtrail websites as far as I can see.
Ask ausGeoff. I agree that some more context would be helpful.
Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge? ::)
This article may clear up a few things:
Langley Scientist Takes the Conspiracy out of Contrails (http://usat.ly/UAAPpk)
Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge?
....and you should know when someone is being sarcastic.Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge?
Can you cite some references that prove Minnis is a "NASA stooge" or is this just an unsupported personal guess? Guesses don't count in any scientific debate. You should know that by now.
Oh, so you expect us to believe a NASA stooge?
Can you cite some references that prove Minnis is a "NASA stooge" or is this just an unsupported personal guess? Guesses don't count in any scientific debate. You should know that by now.
...you should know how these conspiracy theories work by now.
Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?
Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up. I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.
Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?
Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites. Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured. And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?
Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up. I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.
Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?
Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites. Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured. And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.
Yes, of course.
1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.
For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?
Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up. I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.
Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?
Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites. Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured. And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.
Yes, of course.
1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.
For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.
No, the correct term is contrail. That's what people should research.You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?
Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up. I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.
Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?
Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites. Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured. And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.
Yes, of course.
1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.
For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.
The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.
Edit: or Climate Engineering.
How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?
Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen? ::)How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?
Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen? ::)How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?
Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Zombies and dinosaurs don't exist.Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen? ::)How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?
Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Yes I do. Make sure you are more technologically advanced than everyone else. Then, when the SHTF, unleash weather war on them. That was evidently possible back in 1976, so goodness knows what they can do now.
By the way, how many zombie or dinosaur infestation treaties are there????
...85 countries signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques...So, who's trying to be more technologically advanced, and who are they trying to "unleash weather war" on"?
Zombies and dinosaurs don't exist.Do you have a better way to prevent things that you don't want to happen? ::)How does a treaty signing equate to it being possible?
Good point. They sit around all day and imagine what might be possible in the future and then all meet up and sign a treaty. Nice theory.
Yes I do. Make sure you are more technologically advanced than everyone else. Then, when the SHTF, unleash weather war on them. That was evidently possible back in 1976, so goodness knows what they can do now.
By the way, how many zombie or dinosaur infestation treaties are there????
From you:Quote...85 countries signed the U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques...So, who's trying to be more technologically advanced, and who are they trying to "unleash weather war" on"?
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.I'm not sure if zombies exist outside fantasy.
Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.I'm not sure if zombies exist outside fantasy.
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.Zombies would be covered under biological warfare. I'm not sure if they have outlawed the use of engineered animals as weapons in war, butI'm sure PETA would be up in arms over that.I'm not sure if zombies exist outside fantasy.
Remember, these people contingency plan. They have to have everything covered. Zombies, dinosaurs, aliens, killer ants, killer bees, killer frogs (you never know), locust swarms etc. The treaties must be never ending.
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What?
Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.
What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What?Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.
Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What?Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.
duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?
Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up. I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.
Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?
Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites. Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured. And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.
Yes, of course.
1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.
For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.
The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.
Edit: or Climate Engineering.
Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What?Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.
duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.
No, I'm not.Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What?Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.
duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.
Read again. You are wrong. Again.
You should brush up on your understanding of "contrails" instead of "chemtrails" (which still, for the record, is not a word).
Well, your original post with the NASA quote didn't mention any of that. Have you made it up?
Contrary to the habits of many flat earthers, as a scientific rationalist and round earther, I never make stuff up. I don't need to because the empirical evidence of the sciences during the past 400 years or so supports my claims.
Can you tell me specifically—what parts of my comment you disagree with?
Like any other "naturally" forming clouds, a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites. Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured. And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time.
Yes, of course.
1. "Like any other "naturally" forming clouds..." contrails/chemtrails are not natural.
2. "...a mass of overlapping contrails will definitely obscure part of the earth's surface from imaging satellites." How much of the earth? Enough to render all photos a blur?
3. "Which is why images are captured continuously with each orbit of the satellites. If one part of the earth's surface is obscured by clouds—of any kind—then on the next orbit, or the next, its image will be captured." Why is there a need to have the surface of the earth photographed? I thought Minnis and co. were studying the atmosphere?
4. "And, obviously, all clouds move and/or dissipate over time." Apparently, they present a big problem for imaging satellites as planes are creating the trails day and night.
For the record, my understanding of chemtrails, or properly termed - Geoengineering, is that weather modification is the goal. Not poisoning the population.
Searching and "learning" about "chemtrails" will just lead you to more conspiracy theory sites and the like.
The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.
Edit: or Climate Engineering.
That's quite misleading as Climate Engineering and geoengineering are real terms in their own right. By calling chemtrails geoengineering you're sneaking in the premise that geoengineering and/or climate engineering involve the use of these so called chemtrails. However the whole argument here is whether chemtrails are actually being used for the purpose of modifying the climate etc. You don't get to just do an end run and refer to chemtrails as geoengineering. Which by the way in the normal use of the word has little to to with climate and more to do with geology, mining, groundwater and underground structures.
No, I'm not.Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What?Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.
duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.
Read again. You are wrong. Again.
He said they have contingency planning for things like weather manipulation.
You know, things that could actually happen.
Not zombies and dinosaurs.
Your argument is fallacious.
You're exaggerating his point to make yours seem more credible, and his less credible.No, I'm not.Duck suggested contingency for things that can happen.What duckdodgers is suggesting is actually quite funny:Real = Unreal = Win
ambassador 1: How do we know you haven't got a farm or numerous farms filled with killer donkeys?
ambassador 2: You don't. But we suspect you might have a fleet of killer penguins!
ambassador 1: Bring out the treaty writer. Two new treaties (so far) today.
+1 to you.
What?Well, seeing as how weather exists, and zombies and dinosaurs do not - I think this is more of a straw man than anything.
You're equating the real and unreal - and trying to use it to support your point.
duck suggested that these people contingency plan. Not me. Get your facts straight.
He didn't say they prepare for fantasy annihilation.
You took his point and applied it to things that can't happen, to make his point seem less relevant.
This is an example of a fallacious argument.
Read again. You are wrong. Again.
He said they have contingency planning for things like weather manipulation.
You know, things that could actually happen.
Not zombies and dinosaurs.
Your argument is fallacious.
The replies are there for all to see. Apart from you, obviously.
The correct term is geoengineering. That is what interested people should research.
Edit: or Climate Engineering.
That's quite misleading as Climate Engineering and geoengineering are real terms in their own right. By calling chemtrails geoengineering you're sneaking in the premise that geoengineering and/or climate engineering involve the use of these so called chemtrails. However the whole argument here is whether chemtrails are actually being used for the purpose of modifying the climate etc. You don't get to just do an end run and refer to chemtrails as geoengineering. Which by the way in the normal use of the word has little to to with climate and more to do with geology, mining, groundwater and underground structures.
What? Who says that is what geoengineering is?
"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".
Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain. The official term for this process is "weather modification". Pretty obvious name for it I guess.
"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".
Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain. The official term for this process is "weather modification". Pretty obvious name for it I guess.
To offer my conclusions to this thread:
1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm)
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.
"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".
Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain. The official term for this process is "weather modification". Pretty obvious name for it I guess.
To offer my conclusions to this thread:
1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm)
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.
5. and 6. don't in any way follow from 1-4. You go from saying the "chemtrail conspiracy is vague and undefined", and "some geoengineering may have already occurred", to "chemtrails are responsible for ongoing geoengineering"
Maybe you could take a step back and give reasons and evidence for contrails having added chemicals in them?
Yes, all of the world's governments are conspiring against the citizens of the world to hit their own land with hurricane and earthquakes.
"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".
Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain. The official term for this process is "weather modification". Pretty obvious name for it I guess.
To offer my conclusions to this thread:
1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm)
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.
Yes, all of the world's governments are conspiring against the citizens of the world to hit their own land with hurricane and earthquakes.
"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".
Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain. The official term for this process is "weather modification". Pretty obvious name for it I guess.
To offer my conclusions to this thread:
1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm)
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.
They love to spend all the money initially doing that, and then all the money emergency services cost, and all the money rebuilding the area costs...
With no gain.
Highly logical!
Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.
"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".
Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain. The official term for this process is "weather modification". Pretty obvious name for it I guess.
To offer my conclusions to this thread:
1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm)
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.
5. and 6. don't in any way follow from 1-4. You go from saying the "chemtrail conspiracy is vague and undefined", and "some geoengineering may have already occurred", to "chemtrails are responsible for ongoing geoengineering"
Maybe you could take a step back and give reasons and evidence for contrails having added chemicals in them?
They are my conclusions. Others are welcome to draw their own.
Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.
You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.
Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?
No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.
Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.
You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.
Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?
No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.
LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?
Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.
You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.
Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?
No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.
LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?
Point out the logical error.
Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.
You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.
Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?
No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.
LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?
Point out the logical error.
One problem I can see is affirming the consequent.
1. Chemtrails cause geoengineering
2. Geoengineering exists.
3. Therefore chemtrails exist.
However geoengineering doesn't necessarily involve chemtrails so your reasoning isn't valid.
It's like saying
1. Rain will cause the street to get wet.
2. The street is wet
3. Therefore it's raining
Streets can get wet from things like floods and overenthusiastic lawn sprinkling.
Also, you haven't even shown that chemtrails can cause geoengineering, because nobody has ever shown that chemtrails are anything other than just normal contrails.
I've already told you about the Pentagon having a plan for zombies. Besides, there is no need to sign an extra treaty as using these fictitious creatures as weapons would be equivalent to biological warfare, which is already prohibited.
Do you have any evidence which does show that weather had been controllable as far back as 77?
You already have... the treaty from 1977.
Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then. You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm. However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.
Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then. You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm. However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.
Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then. You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm. However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html)
Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.
Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then. You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm. However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html)
Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.
Tornadoes in the Midwest? What a crazy freak occurrence!
http://www.tornadochaser.net/tornalley.html (http://www.tornadochaser.net/tornalley.html)
So there are just crazy weather wars all about the plane of the Earth, eh?Yes, all of the world's governments are conspiring against the citizens of the world to hit their own land with hurricane and earthquakes.
"Chemtrails" is nothing more than a made-up word coined by conspiracy theorists, and has no more scientific credence than other made-up things like "atmoplane", atmolayer" and even "denpressure".
Incidentally, Australia's CSIRO was seeding clouds with salt and silver iodide in the 1950s to produce rain. The official term for this process is "weather modification". Pretty obvious name for it I guess.
To offer my conclusions to this thread:
1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm (http://web.archive.org/web/20070914081350/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm)
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.
They love to spend all the money initially doing that, and then all the money emergency services cost, and all the money rebuilding the area costs...
With no gain.
Highly logical!
Who said they are only hitting their own lands?
You are really naive, aren't you? Governments are filled with kind, loving, honest people who just want you to be happy? And the military are also filled with the same kinds of saints? And scientists never conduct experiments where harm may come to some people?
You should leave your Mum's basement every once in a while.
Wait, so now you've adapted your theory to what legion has been saying?Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then. You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm. However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html)
Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.
Tornadoes in the Midwest? What a crazy freak occurrence!
http://www.tornadochaser.net/tornalley.html (http://www.tornadochaser.net/tornalley.html)
and I suppose you believe these are all natural occurrences too, huh? ::)
Are they making LSD tornadoes? :o
Are they making LSD tornadoes? :oWhy not? They have Sharknados...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_engine)Because the weaponization of weather is impossible today, let alone then. You can make a rain storm or thunderstorm. However, you can't make a tornado occur and direct it to a specific location.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2008/06/artificial-tornado-plan-to-generate.html)
Except, "they" can. This is simple technology, too. I'm surprised you are so ignorant. The Govt has large tornado machines in secret bases across the world. This explains most freak tornado occurrences, like several that were documented in the mid-west. Next time you post, please do some research.
Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.
You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.
Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?
No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.
LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?
Point out the logical error.
One problem I can see is affirming the consequent.
1. Chemtrails cause geoengineering
2. Geoengineering exists.
3. Therefore chemtrails exist.
However geoengineering doesn't necessarily involve chemtrails so your reasoning isn't valid.
It's like saying
1. Rain will cause the street to get wet.
2. The street is wet
3. Therefore it's raining
Streets can get wet from things like floods and overenthusiastic lawn sprinkling.
Also, you haven't even shown that chemtrails can cause geoengineering, because nobody has ever shown that chemtrails are anything other than just normal contrails.
Rubbish.
1. Geoengineering exists.
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.
Logical errors, my arse.
All of these premises are pretty ridiculous to me.Your conclusion regarding that treaty is still faulty, as has already been pointed out.
You say it is faulty. I say there is plenty of evidence of weather modification going back decades.
Have any countries signed a zombie treaty? Or any other (thus far) fictional scenario requiring contingency planning?
No? Of course not. Technology which is available, at the time, is what they hope to prevent misuse of.
LOGIC says it's faulty, as well as DuckDodgers. It just doesn't logically follow, so why would you even want to draw that conclusion?
Point out the logical error.
One problem I can see is affirming the consequent.
1. Chemtrails cause geoengineering
2. Geoengineering exists.
3. Therefore chemtrails exist.
However geoengineering doesn't necessarily involve chemtrails so your reasoning isn't valid.
It's like saying
1. Rain will cause the street to get wet.
2. The street is wet
3. Therefore it's raining
Streets can get wet from things like floods and overenthusiastic lawn sprinkling.
Also, you haven't even shown that chemtrails can cause geoengineering, because nobody has ever shown that chemtrails are anything other than just normal contrails.
Rubbish.
1. Geoengineering exists.
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.
Logical errors, my arse.
4. is what you're trying to prove. Quit sneaking in premises.
Which is actually quite logical, as "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and never have. Which is why their purported existence is termed a conspiracy.
To offer my conclusions to this thread:
1. The chemtrail conspiracy is an undefined, vague concept that doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
2. The real conspiracy is geoengineering or climate modification which could be at least partially responsible for freakish weather and so called "natural" disasters.Like much of your flat earth pseudo-science, you're confusing "weather" with "climate". Two different things altogether. Your weasel words, "could", at least" and "partially" prove the weakness of your argument.
3. The above was deemed serious enough for an international treaty to be signed in 1977.The Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD) does not mention "chemtrails". Why quote the Convention? It's not a scientifically accredited term; just something the conspiracists have made up.
4. The treaty was signed because some countries were already engaged in geoengineering and recognised the potential for enormous, lasting damage. I have no proof, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "natural" disaster led to the treaty.You need to know that your repeated use of the term "geoengineering" is erroneous. It's obvious you don't understand what it means, other than it sounds knowledgeable LOL. Geoengineering refers to the exploration, development, and extraction of subsurface earth resources, and has nothing at all to do with the weather. One of the more recent environmental modification techniques used was the US aerial spraying of napalm in order to defoliate large tracts of Vietnam.
5. So yes, some of the trails in the sky contain extra chemicals for the purposes of weather modification.Citation please. Personal opinions are valueless without viable supporting evidence.
6. Therefore, chemtrails are fact.Non sequitur. See [5] above.
You are really naive, aren't you? Governments are filled with kind, loving, honest people who just want you to be happy? And the military are also filled with the same kinds of saints? And scientists never conduct experiments where harm may come to some people?
1. Geoengineering exists.If chemtrails are supposed to modify weather, then why are the chemicals released at a altitude well above where most weather happens?
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.
Logical errors, my arse.
1. Geoengineering exists.If chemtrails are supposed to modify weather, then why are the chemicals released at a altitude well above where most weather happens?
2. Geoengineering is concerned, amongst other activities, with modifying the weather.
3. This is achieved through releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.
4. Therefore, some vapour trails are chemtrails.
5. Therefore, chemtrails exist.
Logical errors, my arse.
You are really naive, aren't you? Governments are filled with kind, loving, honest people who just want you to be happy? And the military are also filled with the same kinds of saints? And scientists never conduct experiments where harm may come to some people?
And you really need to more thoroughly investigate all these conspiracy theories you so easily fall for at first glance. I'm guessing you'd agree with the following bizarre conspiracy theory?
Many conspiracy theorists (you, maybe?) consider the Great Seal of the United States and the motto Novus Ordo Seclorum (new order of the ages) to be Masonic and to mean New World Order. These purported "facts" are considered evidence in the argument to prove the vast conspiracy of the Illuminati. It's useless to argue against these "facts" with conspiracy theorists. They consider everyone else to be dupes—who would note that the Latin is usually translated as "New Order of the Ages" and that the symbol of the eye in the pyramid relates to a poem in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Even granting that the Great Seal of the United States and the symbols on the US dollar bill are Masonic (which they are not) and that Novus Ordo Seclorum means New World Order (which it does not), nothing significant follows, certainly not that there is a vast, government-sanctioned conspiracy to take over the world.
I do agree that governments have conducted experiments that have harmed people. The British nuclear tests in Australia are a classic example of government malfeasance: "...troops had been ordered to run, walk and crawl across areas contaminated by the Buffalo, SA tests in the days immediately following the detonations; a fact that the British government later admitted. In 2001, UK researcher Dr Sue Rabbit Roff stated that "it puts the lie to the British government's claim that they never used humans for guinea pig-type experiments in nuclear weapons trials in Australia".
—And your snide comment about mother's basements is typical of the childish personal insults flat earthers so often resort to. How long is it since you graduated grade school sonny?
I don't. I'm not a chemtrail conspiracy theorist.If chemtrails are supposed to modify weather, then why are the chemicals released at a altitude well above where most weather happens?
You'll have to explain the following to me:
1. How do you know the height at which chemicals are released?
2. How do you know the height when weather 'stops happening'?I didn't say that weather "stops happening" at any particular altitude, however it is common for commercial airliners to fly above bad weather.
You're assuming that I meant tornados were caused by chemtrails, when I never explicitly said that. Tornados are caused by large wind machines, and of course by natural causes as well.
Its moronic to even suggest that chemtrails could cause something like a tornado to begin with. I thought you all were reasonably intelligent until you made that connection. Chems don't make tornados, period. Trails don't make them either. Maybe your misunderstanding about trails is what causes you to think that they could be made by exhaust? Perhaps you should do some research.
You make a lot of assumptions about conspiracy researchers. As usual with you, everything-is-fine-so-keep-working-and-keeping-the-wheels-turning types, you accept that small conspiracies happen, but cannot comprehend big conspiracies happening. You lack the imagination of your rulers.
I'm sure there are plenty of RErs that would argue for a chemtrail conspiracy.There's possibly tens of thousands of round earthers that claim that fictitious "chemtrails" actually exist outside of science fiction stories. Which, I have to admit, I find rather disillusioning.
You're probably right on that point. But then again, how many RErs actually care about the accuracy of science? I'd wager that is about half.
It is very interesting that you all still cling to the idea that chemtrails do not exist, yet the govt has admitted to spraying chems into the Earth's atmosphere. Why do you all deny evidence, even when it's from the source?Did you read the headline?
Read this article for further information. (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/18/nasa-admits-to-chemtrails-as-they-propose-spraying-stratospheric-aerosols-into-earths-atmosphere/)
“We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time off-course, so it’s not as though the stratosphere is absolutely pristine. But you don’t want to have people going off and doing things that involve large radioactive forgings, or programs that go on for extended periods or for that matter provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction.”
- M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences Member
Please open your eyes. It is childish to keep them closed when the evidence for chemtrails is overwhelming. The fact is: NASA has admitted to spraying a variety of chems into the Earth's atmosphere. They have admitted this. Can we stop talking about this now? All of you detractors are wrong. I know it's hard to accept defeat, but please try to have some dignity. You're all embarrassing yourselves at this point.
I always suspected that you didn't know what you were talking about and now you've just confirmed it. Please don't respond without reading the article. Your stupid is showing.Your arrogance astounds me sometimes.
With the skies so full of contrails, it can be hard to see how long they last or how far they move. So the government found a way to do some checking. Imagine what the chemtrailers thought the day they flew a DC-8 off the coast of Northern California, in perfectly clear air, and went round and round over the same area to make a racetrack pattern for Minnis and others to watch.
They tracked the massive oval as it passed over Northern California, floated over the Sierra Nevada mountain range and disappeared. Another time, a plane nicknamed the NASA Vomit Comet made a figure-8 in the sky off the Texas coast.
Minnis tracked the contrail for 14 hours as it oozed over the Gulf of Mexico, then across Florida, before it turned into an amorphous blob.
"Again," he said, "if you had been sitting in a fishing boat down in the Gulf, you would have just thought this thing was a cirrus cloud."
Unless you were a chemtrailer — then you would be even more sure that something was up. For the record, even though the government has planes and the government can make clouds, "There is no real truth to weather modification," Minnis said. "That is not going on now. What we're able to do now is inadvertent."
Besides, what's being talked about in that article is nothing close to your claim that they're dosing us with minute amounts of LSD.Strange how you resort to ad-hominem when you are trying to assert that you've won this debate.
If you were talking to me: It's not an ad-hominen when it's been proven amply that you cannot read and/or your comprehension skills are incredibly low. I have not seen you bring anything to any debate you've been in other than "no the earth is flat" or "no, chemtrails are ludicrous". And of course, you never address the points of others. You avoid answering questions and acknowledging facts that prove you're wrong. Similar to RE'ers. Are you sure you're not an RE'er?Not sure why you're so mad at me.
You do know how a debate works right? Have you ever considered taking a break from the internet and getting some schooling? I'm not trying to be insulting, so please try not to take offense to this. I seriously believe that this will help you develop intellectually, and it might also help you understand how to quote posts correctly. If you need pointers, you can always PM me.
I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail. Disprove that.
It is very interesting that you all still cling to the idea that chemtrails do not exist, yet the govt has admitted to spraying chems into the Earth's atmosphere. Why do you all deny evidence, even when it's from the source?
Read this article for further information. (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/04/18/nasa-admits-to-chemtrails-as-they-propose-spraying-stratospheric-aerosols-into-earths-atmosphere/)
“We do stuff in the stratosphere all the time off-course, so it’s not as though the stratosphere is absolutely pristine. But you don’t want to have people going off and doing things that involve large radioactive forgings, or programs that go on for extended periods or for that matter provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction.”
- M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, University and Lord Chair Professor of Engineering and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences Member
Please open your eyes. It is childish to keep them closed when the evidence for chemtrails is overwhelming. The fact is: NASA has admitted to spraying a variety of chems into the Earth's atmosphere. They have admitted this. Can we stop talking about this now? All of you detractors are wrong. I know it's hard to accept defeat, but please try to have some dignity. You're all embarrassing yourselves at this point.
I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail. Disprove that.
I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail. Disprove that.No, you didn't. That was easy to disprove.
I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail. Disprove that.
Pretty tough to disprove something like that don't you agree? You can't disprove I wasn't Marilyn Monroe in a former life. That doesn't mean I was though.
I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail. Disprove that.
Pretty tough to disprove something like that don't you agree? You can't disprove I wasn't Marilyn Monroe in a former life. That doesn't mean I was though.
We could easily confirm this if you give us your birth date.
former life
former life
former life
former life
former lifeAnd you say I have comprehension issues.
Monroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?Are you saying if he was born after 1962 he was Marilyn Monroe?
I think that's enough information to constitute a "proof" for Mr. Vauxy. ;DMonroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?Are you saying if he was born after 1962 he was Marilyn Monroe?
Monroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?Ahhh, so that's how you work out if someone was Marilyn Monroe in a former life....I had been looking for a tried and tested method.
Geoff, you've made the same claims about aerosol containers at least 4+ times now. We know you want us to think they are used for weight tests, but the evidence contradicts your claim completely.
I've seen a flock of birds fly through a contrail and die immediately. Now either 40+ birds died at the same time for no reason or they were killed by the chems in the trail. Disprove that.
Monroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?
I think that's enough information to constitute a "proof" for Mr. Vauxy. ;DMonroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?Are you saying if he was born after 1962 he was Marilyn Monroe?
You don't say.I think that's enough information to constitute a "proof" for Mr. Vauxy. ;DMonroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?Are you saying if he was born after 1962 he was Marilyn Monroe?
All I meant is that it's a possibility that he was Marilyn Monroe in a past life, not that he actually was. Further testing will need to be conducted.
I've heard that hypnosis is a good place to start for past life regression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_life_regression).You don't say.I think that's enough information to constitute a "proof" for Mr. Vauxy. ;DMonroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?Are you saying if he was born after 1962 he was Marilyn Monroe?
All I meant is that it's a possibility that he was Marilyn Monroe in a past life, not that he actually was. Further testing will need to be conducted.
You would test this, how, exactly?
I don't think I buy it.I've heard that hypnosis is a good place to start for past life regression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_life_regression).You don't say.I think that's enough information to constitute a "proof" for Mr. Vauxy. ;DMonroe died in 1962. If Shmeggles was born before that date then there is no way he could have been Marilyn Monroe in a former life. You understand?Are you saying if he was born after 1962 he was Marilyn Monroe?
All I meant is that it's a possibility that he was Marilyn Monroe in a past life, not that he actually was. Further testing will need to be conducted.
You would test this, how, exactly?
We don't care if you buy it, th3rm0. The world doesn't revolve around you and your childish understanding of even the simplest ideas.You know you used the word "chems" like it is actually a word. Seems to me you don't even understand that "chem" is short for chemical in"chemtrail".
Conclusive.
We don't care if you buy it, th3rm0. The world doesn't revolve around you and your childish understanding of even the simplest ideas.What? I was talking about past life regression.
We don't care if you buy it, th3rm0. The world doesn't revolve around you and your childish understanding of even the simplest ideas.What? I was talking about past life regression.
Who do you mean we, by the way?
Multiple personality syndrome?
Don't you mean we?We don't care if you buy it, th3rm0. The world doesn't revolve around you and your childish understanding of even the simplest ideas.What? I was talking about past life regression.
Who do you mean we, by the way?
Multiple personality syndrome?
I was talking about past life regression too...
How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
Well if you did your research properly . You would of come across a treaty signed in 1978 by all United nation signatory countries. That treaty was for the banning of weather modification. It is deemed under international law, an act of terrorism & a gross violation of human rights, for any country or corporation to engaging in weather modification with out consent . It is all so an act of terrorism & a gross violation of human rights to wilfully contaminate anther countries air & water supply. Have Governments been engaging in geoengineering & still are. YES. no consent from the population by Governments, in countries who are signatories & engaging in weather modification is an act of terrorism & a gross violation of human rights. Do you really think theses Government officials are going to admit they have been conducting acts of terrorism on the non consenting population.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
New evidence has come to light.Meh... photoshopped. Anyone can use Gimp.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/32d56e8379955870d3e603c6326e15cc/tumblr_n7riabjk8e1qzjw8go1_1280.jpg (http://38.media.tumblr.com/32d56e8379955870d3e603c6326e15cc/tumblr_n7riabjk8e1qzjw8go1_1280.jpg)
Here you go Geoff. http://www.colinandrews.net/Australian-Government-Contract.html (http://www.colinandrews.net/Australian-Government-Contract.html)
What the.....? It's nothing more than an ad for insurance Charles. Are you sure you're not under the influence of some hallucinatory drug?
What's this add telling you Geoff. Its telling you if you where born in Australia after December 1984. Your not classed as a Human, a Natural person flesh & blood in law. Your deemed in law as not being human & just a corporate commodity.
Geoengineering is not taking place? bullshit its not.Ahhh... so eloquent Charles. You certainly have a way with words. What a pity they're usually the wrong words LOL.
I didn't make or are running Health insurances add on television. I have though read the application form for an Australian passport & the Nationality No24 act 1922. Assented to 18th October, 1922. Maybe you should look up that word indissoluble in law. Agenda lackeyWhat the.....? It's nothing more than an ad for insurance Charles. Are you sure you're not under the influence of some hallucinatory drug?
What's this add telling you Geoff. Its telling you if you where born in Australia after December 1984. Your not classed as a Human, a Natural person flesh & blood in law. Your deemed in law as not being human & just a corporate commodity.QuoteGeoengineering is not taking place? bullshit its not.Ahhh... so eloquent Charles. You certainly have a way with words. What a pity they're usually the wrong words LOL.
Removed text wall for ease of quoting.Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
The Delphi Technique
I have the original UN agenda 21document that was realest. On file on anther PC. Its not much good me linking you to the redrafted sanitised version UN agenda 21 document.Removed text wall for ease of quoting.Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
The Delphi Technique
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting, have to do with Agenda 21. And how does the Delphi Technique show that this UN Agenda talks about reducing the world population by 70%.
Answering the question is simple
1. Open the PDF of Agenda 21
2. Locate the text within Agenda 21 where it talks about population reduction
3. Highlight this text about population reduction
4. Press 'ctrl' +'C' on your keyboard at the same time
5. Open the reply message box in TFES website forums
6. Click within the reply message box to make sure the reply box will allow you to write text
7. Press 'ctrl' + 'V' on your keyboard at the same time
8. Click the 'Post' button underneath the reply box on TFES forum.
Simple. So get too it.
*whispering carefully*Its all one package deal. Total control UN Agenda 21 psychopaths operate that way.
how did debating about Planetology get here?
*whispering carefully*Its all one package deal. Total control UN Agenda 21 psychopaths operate that way.
how did debating about Planetology get here?
Good for you. Chem trials or contrails. Its clear as the sky's aren't there is an intentional pretence of not noticing by governments & mainstream media.Even though artificial clouds are forming regardless of the claims for there cause. When planes fly over leaving trails that then spread out & make a large cloud & you point it out & people pretend they dont see the trail or clouds form from it, then something doesn't seem to be quite right.*whispering carefully*Its all one package deal. Total control UN Agenda 21 psychopaths operate that way.
how did debating about Planetology get here?
quietly backs away
Yes, a forecasting method.I have the original UN agenda 21document that was realest. On file on anther PC. Its not much good me linking you to the redrafted sanitised version UN agenda 21 document.Removed text wall for ease of quoting.Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
The Delphi Technique
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting, have to do with Agenda 21. And how does the Delphi Technique show that this UN Agenda talks about reducing the world population by 70%.
Answering the question is simple
1. Open the PDF of Agenda 21
2. Locate the text within Agenda 21 where it talks about population reduction
3. Highlight this text about population reduction
4. Press 'ctrl' +'C' on your keyboard at the same time
5. Open the reply message box in TFES website forums
6. Click within the reply message box to make sure the reply box will allow you to write text
7. Press 'ctrl' + 'V' on your keyboard at the same time
8. Click the 'Post' button underneath the reply box on TFES forum.
Simple. So get too it.
My question to you is where are all the Americans going to live, as per the UN agenda 21 map of human exclusion zones ? This forum seems to be a jack pot for Agenda 21 sustainable elitist scum. ;)
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting Forecasting !!!! For fark sake. find your self a safe rock to hide under. The the world has truly caught on & their not going to be that forgiving.
The Delphi method (/ˈdɛlfaɪ/ del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Good for you. Chem trials or contrails. Its clear as the sky's aren't there is an intentional pretence of not noticing by governments & mainstream media.Even though artificial clouds are forming regardless of the claims for there cause. When planes fly over leaving trails that then spread out & make a large cloud & you point it out & people pretend they dont see the trail or clouds form from it, then something doesn't seem to be quite right.*whispering carefully*Its all one package deal. Total control UN Agenda 21 psychopaths operate that way.
how did debating about Planetology get here?
quietly backs away
LOL Wikipedia NO!!! university in Australia will except Wikipedia as a referencing source for any paper presented. Because its not a reliable source for factual information.Yes, a forecasting method.I have the original UN agenda 21document that was realest. On file on anther PC. Its not much good me linking you to the redrafted sanitised version UN agenda 21 document.Removed text wall for ease of quoting.Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
The Delphi Technique
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting, have to do with Agenda 21. And how does the Delphi Technique show that this UN Agenda talks about reducing the world population by 70%.
Answering the question is simple
1. Open the PDF of Agenda 21
2. Locate the text within Agenda 21 where it talks about population reduction
3. Highlight this text about population reduction
4. Press 'ctrl' +'C' on your keyboard at the same time
5. Open the reply message box in TFES website forums
6. Click within the reply message box to make sure the reply box will allow you to write text
7. Press 'ctrl' + 'V' on your keyboard at the same time
8. Click the 'Post' button underneath the reply box on TFES forum.
Simple. So get too it.
My question to you is where are all the Americans going to live, as per the UN agenda 21 map of human exclusion zones ? This forum seems to be a jack pot for Agenda 21 sustainable elitist scum. ;)
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting Forecasting !!!! For fark sake. find your self a safe rock to hide under. The the world has truly caught on & their not going to be that forgiving.
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method)QuoteThe Delphi method (/ˈdɛlfaɪ/ del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Also, please provide this "original" file. Which you just happen to have on another computer ::)
Also, could not find the term "human exclusion zone" in the file that I have found. ALso, while scrolling through, saw I saw no maps.
Please provide that too.
As far as I can tell, you are just taking the anti-agenda 21 propaganda at face value without actually even looking into what the UN has said about sustainability.
You obviously don't understand what the Delphi method is for. I could look it up in one of my text books that I have laying around, but you would probably say that it is wrong too. The Delphi Technique IS a forecasting method. Businesses use it to try ti figure out what will happen in the future. What you are describing IS NOT the Delphi Technique. I couldn't care less if Wiki is not allowed in Universities. We are on an internet forum.LOL Wikipedia NO!!! university in Australia will except Wikipedia as a referencing source for any paper presented. Because its not a reliable source for factual information.Yes, a forecasting method.I have the original UN agenda 21document that was realest. On file on anther PC. Its not much good me linking you to the redrafted sanitised version UN agenda 21 document.Removed text wall for ease of quoting.Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
The Delphi Technique
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting, have to do with Agenda 21. And how does the Delphi Technique show that this UN Agenda talks about reducing the world population by 70%.
Answering the question is simple
1. Open the PDF of Agenda 21
2. Locate the text within Agenda 21 where it talks about population reduction
3. Highlight this text about population reduction
4. Press 'ctrl' +'C' on your keyboard at the same time
5. Open the reply message box in TFES website forums
6. Click within the reply message box to make sure the reply box will allow you to write text
7. Press 'ctrl' + 'V' on your keyboard at the same time
8. Click the 'Post' button underneath the reply box on TFES forum.
Simple. So get too it.
My question to you is where are all the Americans going to live, as per the UN agenda 21 map of human exclusion zones ? This forum seems to be a jack pot for Agenda 21 sustainable elitist scum. ;)
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting Forecasting !!!! For fark sake. find your self a safe rock to hide under. The the world has truly caught on & their not going to be that forgiving.
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method)QuoteThe Delphi method (/ˈdɛlfaɪ/ del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Also, please provide this "original" file. Which you just happen to have on another computer ::)
Also, could not find the term "human exclusion zone" in the file that I have found. ALso, while scrolling through, saw I saw no maps.
Please provide that too.
As far as I can tell, you are just taking the anti-agenda 21 propaganda at face value without actually even looking into what the UN has said about sustainability.
I have taken on those implementing UN Agenda 21 at council state & federal level. UN agenda 21 is not Lawful in Australia, so why is it being implemented with out the consent of its sovereign people ?
If you think the Delphi is not a means to obtain a predetermined out come via fraud & deception. Then next time they run one in your neck of the woods asking for community input. Insist all information tended & gathered & minutes taken at the meeting by those calling & facilitating it. Be put on public record. The meeting wont go ahead, you can bet your last dollar on it. Privacy laws have never been about protecting an individuals privacy.There to protect those implementing the agenda & their fraudulent deceptive conduct (crime) from the public. When they tell you their protecting your privacy. What they are really doing is providing them self No!!! requirement to provide any proof that you & the public voted for the out come of the proposal adopted .
Didn't claim it to be my work. & I keep copies with a reference on file of who's work it is. After years of having to tolerate you agenda scum inhabiting the same planet with your sly underhanded stealth ways. Iv have found the Agenda have a habit of removing publications with opposing views. be it fore me to help them find them all.You obviously don't understand what the Delphi method is for. I could look it up in one of my text books that I have laying around, but you would probably say that it is wrong too. The Delphi Technique IS a forecasting method. Businesses use it to try ti figure out what will happen in the future. What you are describing IS NOT the Delphi Technique. I couldn't care less if Wiki is not allowed in Universities. We are on an internet forum.LOL Wikipedia NO!!! university in Australia will except Wikipedia as a referencing source for any paper presented. Because its not a reliable source for factual information.Yes, a forecasting method.I have the original UN agenda 21document that was realest. On file on anther PC. Its not much good me linking you to the redrafted sanitised version UN agenda 21 document.Removed text wall for ease of quoting.Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
The Delphi Technique
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting, have to do with Agenda 21. And how does the Delphi Technique show that this UN Agenda talks about reducing the world population by 70%.
Answering the question is simple
1. Open the PDF of Agenda 21
2. Locate the text within Agenda 21 where it talks about population reduction
3. Highlight this text about population reduction
4. Press 'ctrl' +'C' on your keyboard at the same time
5. Open the reply message box in TFES website forums
6. Click within the reply message box to make sure the reply box will allow you to write text
7. Press 'ctrl' + 'V' on your keyboard at the same time
8. Click the 'Post' button underneath the reply box on TFES forum.
Simple. So get too it.
My question to you is where are all the Americans going to live, as per the UN agenda 21 map of human exclusion zones ? This forum seems to be a jack pot for Agenda 21 sustainable elitist scum. ;)
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting Forecasting !!!! For fark sake. find your self a safe rock to hide under. The the world has truly caught on & their not going to be that forgiving.
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method)QuoteThe Delphi method (/ˈdɛlfaɪ/ del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Also, please provide this "original" file. Which you just happen to have on another computer ::)
Also, could not find the term "human exclusion zone" in the file that I have found. ALso, while scrolling through, saw I saw no maps.
Please provide that too.
As far as I can tell, you are just taking the anti-agenda 21 propaganda at face value without actually even looking into what the UN has said about sustainability.
I have taken on those implementing UN Agenda 21 at council state & federal level. UN agenda 21 is not Lawful in Australia, so why is it being implemented with out the consent of its sovereign people ?
If you think the Delphi is not a means to obtain a predetermined out come via fraud & deception. Then next time they run one in your neck of the woods asking for community input. Insist all information tended & gathered & minutes taken at the meeting by those calling & facilitating it. Be put on public record. The meeting wont go ahead, you can bet your last dollar on it. Privacy laws have never been about protecting an individuals privacy.There to protect those implementing the agenda & their fraudulent deceptive conduct (crime) from the public. When they tell you their protecting your privacy. What they are really doing is providing them self No!!! requirement to provide any proof that you & the public voted for the out come of the proposal adopted .
Also, still waiting on you actually citing Agenda 21 AT ALL to support your claims.
And also, next time you rant, try not to copy and paste someone else's work
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html (http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html)
Care to explain why theses trails left by planes are hanging around for extended time in the atmosphere & spreading out to form cloud.
Care to tell us why there are companies advertising to supply planes for the purpose of seeding clouds on the internet & why there are companies advertising fit out of planes with dispersant tanks for atmosphere spraying. I thought it was not lawful to disperse chemical agents or compounds in to the atmosphere. Even low altitude crop dusting requires a licence with spraying to be contained to the area being sprayed. Spray drifting in to anthers owners air space or land & water ways being punishable by Law.
Its all one package deal. Total control UN Agenda 21 psychopaths operate that way.
Didn't claim it to be my work. & I keep copies with a reference on file of who's work it is. After years of having to tolerate you agenda scum inhabiting the same planet with your sly underhanded stealth ways. Iv have found the Agenda have a habit of removing publications with opposing views. be it fore me to help them find them all.You obviously don't understand what the Delphi method is for. I could look it up in one of my text books that I have laying around, but you would probably say that it is wrong too. The Delphi Technique IS a forecasting method. Businesses use it to try ti figure out what will happen in the future. What you are describing IS NOT the Delphi Technique. I couldn't care less if Wiki is not allowed in Universities. We are on an internet forum.LOL Wikipedia NO!!! university in Australia will except Wikipedia as a referencing source for any paper presented. Because its not a reliable source for factual information.Yes, a forecasting method.I have the original UN agenda 21document that was realest. On file on anther PC. Its not much good me linking you to the redrafted sanitised version UN agenda 21 document.Removed text wall for ease of quoting.Here suck on this while I find you the main course.Why? The 350 page pdf has been provided. You apparently already know where it "talks of reducing the world population by 70%." Just simply post the page number.Care to state if you are or aren't pro UN Agenda 21 & happy for its implantation world wide. First !!! then I'm happy to provide it.I also looked it up and found nothing that supports charles bloomington's claim. Makes sense for a wannabe fe;er to lie in a thread about chemtrails.Your not really that dumb are you ? Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%. Taking land ownership away from privet citizens & using deceptive environmental laws & overlays to creating thousands of square miles of human exclusion zones. The reality total one corporation corporate control & self written licences to plunder the worlds resources. A sly underhanded way of removing common law rights & anyone objecting to their corporate greedy activities.And that they outlawed weather warfare, so there's even less of a chance they're using it against citizens.How's about you get back on topic? Has anyone read the NSF report from 1965? Or are you more interested in deciding who used to be Marilyn Monroe?
The evidence is there if you want to find it. Let me spell it out for you:
1. Documented multinational experimental climate modification programs since (at least) the 1940's.
2. A treaty agreed to in the 1970's outlawing weather warfare.
The crucial bit you are missing is how any of this relates to contrails.
Funny, I couldn't find that in there at all. Could you please quote the document please?
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf)
I obviously didn't read the entire 350 pages of it, but did search for the words "population reduction" which returned 0 results. I then searched for the words "70 per cent" and it returned 4 results.
The first result mentioned about reduction of childhood diarrhea by 50 to 70 per cent in developing countries
The second and third mentioned that desertification affected 70 per cent of the world's drylands
The fourth said that 70 per cent of marine pollution came from land-based sources.
So please cite your source instead of just mentioning some made up statistics.
The Delphi Technique
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting, have to do with Agenda 21. And how does the Delphi Technique show that this UN Agenda talks about reducing the world population by 70%.
Answering the question is simple
1. Open the PDF of Agenda 21
2. Locate the text within Agenda 21 where it talks about population reduction
3. Highlight this text about population reduction
4. Press 'ctrl' +'C' on your keyboard at the same time
5. Open the reply message box in TFES website forums
6. Click within the reply message box to make sure the reply box will allow you to write text
7. Press 'ctrl' + 'V' on your keyboard at the same time
8. Click the 'Post' button underneath the reply box on TFES forum.
Simple. So get too it.
My question to you is where are all the Americans going to live, as per the UN agenda 21 map of human exclusion zones ? This forum seems to be a jack pot for Agenda 21 sustainable elitist scum. ;)
What does the Delphi Technique, a method of forecasting Forecasting !!!! For fark sake. find your self a safe rock to hide under. The the world has truly caught on & their not going to be that forgiving.
From wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method)QuoteThe Delphi method (/ˈdɛlfaɪ/ del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.
Also, please provide this "original" file. Which you just happen to have on another computer ::)
Also, could not find the term "human exclusion zone" in the file that I have found. ALso, while scrolling through, saw I saw no maps.
Please provide that too.
As far as I can tell, you are just taking the anti-agenda 21 propaganda at face value without actually even looking into what the UN has said about sustainability.
I have taken on those implementing UN Agenda 21 at council state & federal level. UN agenda 21 is not Lawful in Australia, so why is it being implemented with out the consent of its sovereign people ?
If you think the Delphi is not a means to obtain a predetermined out come via fraud & deception. Then next time they run one in your neck of the woods asking for community input. Insist all information tended & gathered & minutes taken at the meeting by those calling & facilitating it. Be put on public record. The meeting wont go ahead, you can bet your last dollar on it. Privacy laws have never been about protecting an individuals privacy.There to protect those implementing the agenda & their fraudulent deceptive conduct (crime) from the public. When they tell you their protecting your privacy. What they are really doing is providing them self No!!! requirement to provide any proof that you & the public voted for the out come of the proposal adopted .
Also, still waiting on you actually citing Agenda 21 AT ALL to support your claims.
And also, next time you rant, try not to copy and paste someone else's work
http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html (http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html)
Gezz I dont know. Putting together a meth lab is not the same as cooking meth. But then you dont need a meth lab unless your cooking meth. Thats really a tuff one to figure out. ::)Care to explain why theses trails left by planes are hanging around for extended time in the atmosphere & spreading out to form cloud.
http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/ (http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/)QuoteCare to tell us why there are companies advertising to supply planes for the purpose of seeding clouds on the internet & why there are companies advertising fit out of planes with dispersant tanks for atmosphere spraying. I thought it was not lawful to disperse chemical agents or compounds in to the atmosphere. Even low altitude crop dusting requires a licence with spraying to be contained to the area being sprayed. Spray drifting in to anthers owners air space or land & water ways being punishable by Law.
Selling a plane capable of dispersing chemicals is not the same as dispersing chemicals is it?
Really? So are you now saying there is no legitimate reason to seed clouds for rain or to spray pesticides on crops?Gezz I dont know. Putting together a meth lab is not the same as cooking meth. But then you dont need a meth lab unless your cooking meth. Thats really a tuff one to figure out. ::)Care to explain why theses trails left by planes are hanging around for extended time in the atmosphere & spreading out to form cloud.
http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/ (http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/)QuoteCare to tell us why there are companies advertising to supply planes for the purpose of seeding clouds on the internet & why there are companies advertising fit out of planes with dispersant tanks for atmosphere spraying. I thought it was not lawful to disperse chemical agents or compounds in to the atmosphere. Even low altitude crop dusting requires a licence with spraying to be contained to the area being sprayed. Spray drifting in to anthers owners air space or land & water ways being punishable by Law.
Selling a plane capable of dispersing chemicals is not the same as dispersing chemicals is it?
Read the Commonwealth of Australia 1900uk constitution. Your indissoluble Constitution Geoff. Are you a loyal Australian to this country or are you Just as your portraying your self to be, a traitor & UN agenda 21 treasonous scum bag . There's no voluntary about it. No referendum yes vote for its implementation. No Agenda 21 implementation to take place. Wilfully doing so is treason. ludicrous conspiracy theories manufactured in order to damn and misrepresent Agenda 21. NO REFERENDOM Geoff. I dont know how you can call it a conspiracy theory.Its all one package deal. Total control UN Agenda 21 psychopaths operate that way.
Oh dear. Our resident and leading conspiracy theorist Charles is off and running with yet another freight-train load of unsubstantiated scaremongering, fuelled—like most of his other whacky ideas—by sheer ignorance and/or avoidance of the actual facts. But then paranoid people like Charles never let the facts get in the way of a good panic story do they?
"Agenda 21" is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to global development, and posits suggestions for sustainable ways local, state and national governments can combat poverty and pollution and conserve natural resources in the 21st century. It was promulgated in 1992 and in the ensuing 22-year period, there has not been one iota of evidence supporting any of the ludicrous conspiracy theories manufactured in order to damn and misrepresent Agenda 21.
I suggest Charles reads Demented Agitprop: The Myth and Madness of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theories HERE (http://bit.ly/1z9MTxJ) which will hopefully calm his unnecessarily agitated though processes. Although I doubt it LOL.
So know your admitting they are seeding clouds? Make up your mind, their ether dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere or their not ? At what altitude are they seeding theses clouds & releasing theses chemical agents & what chemicals are they using. I thought you were adamant its all condensation.Really? So are you now saying there is no legitimate reason to seed clouds for rain or to spray pesticides on crops?Gezz I dont know. Putting together a meth lab is not the same as cooking meth. But then you dont need a meth lab unless your cooking meth. Thats really a tuff one to figure out. ::)Care to explain why theses trails left by planes are hanging around for extended time in the atmosphere & spreading out to form cloud.
http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/ (http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/)QuoteCare to tell us why there are companies advertising to supply planes for the purpose of seeding clouds on the internet & why there are companies advertising fit out of planes with dispersant tanks for atmosphere spraying. I thought it was not lawful to disperse chemical agents or compounds in to the atmosphere. Even low altitude crop dusting requires a licence with spraying to be contained to the area being sprayed. Spray drifting in to anthers owners air space or land & water ways being punishable by Law.
Selling a plane capable of dispersing chemicals is not the same as dispersing chemicals is it?
So know your admitting they are seeding clouds? Make up your mind, their ether dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere or their not ? At what altitude are they seeding theses clouds & releasing theses chemical agents & what chemicals are they using. I thought you were adamant its all condensation.Really? So are you now saying there is no legitimate reason to seed clouds for rain or to spray pesticides on crops?Gezz I dont know. Putting together a meth lab is not the same as cooking meth. But then you dont need a meth lab unless your cooking meth. Thats really a tuff one to figure out. ::)Care to explain why theses trails left by planes are hanging around for extended time in the atmosphere & spreading out to form cloud.
http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/ (http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/)QuoteCare to tell us why there are companies advertising to supply planes for the purpose of seeding clouds on the internet & why there are companies advertising fit out of planes with dispersant tanks for atmosphere spraying. I thought it was not lawful to disperse chemical agents or compounds in to the atmosphere. Even low altitude crop dusting requires a licence with spraying to be contained to the area being sprayed. Spray drifting in to anthers owners air space or land & water ways being punishable by Law.
Selling a plane capable of dispersing chemicals is not the same as dispersing chemicals is it?
Why move onto other claims of yours when you haven't even supported your first claim yet?mmmmmm let me see, We have Governments of sovereign countries & public servants implementing laws by stealth, that are not lawful to implement in theses sovereign countries. We have the majority of the population of theses sovereign countries. Not giving consent to there implantation.
Are you going to do that?
Are you going to support your claims about Agenda 21 before we move onto more of your unsubstantiated claims?
I dont care what you want to call dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere. Its dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere. Seeding clouds, would that not be modifying weather with a chemical agent. No consent from the population to be doing so. I'm afraid that constitutes an act of terrorism as deemed by the 1978 UN treaty on weather modification.So know your admitting they are seeding clouds? Make up your mind, their ether dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere or their not ? At what altitude are they seeding theses clouds & releasing theses chemical agents & what chemicals are they using. I thought you were adamant its all condensation.Really? So are you now saying there is no legitimate reason to seed clouds for rain or to spray pesticides on crops?Gezz I dont know. Putting together a meth lab is not the same as cooking meth. But then you dont need a meth lab unless your cooking meth. Thats really a tuff one to figure out. ::)Care to explain why theses trails left by planes are hanging around for extended time in the atmosphere & spreading out to form cloud.
http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/ (http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/)QuoteCare to tell us why there are companies advertising to supply planes for the purpose of seeding clouds on the internet & why there are companies advertising fit out of planes with dispersant tanks for atmosphere spraying. I thought it was not lawful to disperse chemical agents or compounds in to the atmosphere. Even low altitude crop dusting requires a licence with spraying to be contained to the area being sprayed. Spray drifting in to anthers owners air space or land & water ways being punishable by Law.
Selling a plane capable of dispersing chemicals is not the same as dispersing chemicals is it?
This is a false dilemma. Planes can spray chemicals and create contrails. Chemtrails are a description for a particular type of chemical spraying. Its definition is as follows:
A trail created by an unknown chemical with an unknown purpose sprayed by no one knows who for whatever reason with zero evidence.
I dont care what you want to call dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere. Its dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere. Seeding clouds, would that not be modifying weather with a chemical agent. No consent from the population to be doing so. I'm afraid that constitutes an act of terrorism as deemed by the 1978 UN treaty on weather modification.
When I boil my kettle to make a cupper & then turn it off. The small amount of steam released from it, doesn't spread out & form a large cloud that floats around my kitchen for days.I dont care what you want to call dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere. Its dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere. Seeding clouds, would that not be modifying weather with a chemical agent. No consent from the population to be doing so. I'm afraid that constitutes an act of terrorism as deemed by the 1978 UN treaty on weather modification.
Water vapor is a chemical agent that is created when hydrocarbons are burned. Therefore, any airplane that burns hydrocarbons (aka, fuel) is seeding clouds, modifying the weather and engaging in terrorism. Also, by your definition, anyone who heats their house with gas, oil or wood is creating water vapor (as well as poisonous CO2 gas) that gets into the atmosphere, seeds clouds, modifies the weather and is therefore engaging in an act of terrorism. Don't forget cars, factories, trees, animals and just about anything else that generates water vapor.
There are plenty of natural and man made chemicals that get into the atmosphere and modify the weather. Why bother with chemtrails?
Other than nothing demonstrably harmful coming from them and the robust scientific explanation? I guess nothing really.Nothing demonstrably harmful coming from them [/color] Total contamination of the land & the water supply every living thing on this planet depends on for survival . A monopolised move of corporately controlling all water stores & resources. The ability to hold populations to ransom. The ability to contaminate the atmosphere & water supply with any harmful agent they wish to. Are you that pharken stupid ?
Just a technical point: you aren't questioning the nature of contrails; you have decided what they are already.
When I boil my kettle to make a cupper & then turn it off. The small amount of steam released from it, doesn't spread out & form a large cloud that floats around my kitchen for days.I'm willing to bet that odors from some of your burnt meals have hung around for quite some time.
I can see your mentally challenged.Perhaps, but at least I know the difference between "your" and "you're".
All those activities your describing are not a wilful act to deliberately set out to make clouds & modify weather.And you haven't provided any evidence that high altitude contrails deliberately created to modify weather either. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
And you haven't provided any evidence that high altitude contrails deliberately created to modify weather either. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
Did you even read that article that you linked? How is a carbon fiber smoke cloud on the sea relevant high altitude contrails?And you haven't provided any evidence that high altitude contrails deliberately created to modify weather either. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
Oh really?
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918 (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918)
Did you even read that article that you linked? How is a carbon fiber smoke cloud on the sea relevant high altitude contrails?And you haven't provided any evidence that high altitude contrails deliberately created to modify weather either. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
Oh really?
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918 (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918)
Modifying the weather helps ships avoid incoming missiles? ???Did you even read that article that you linked? How is a carbon fiber smoke cloud on the sea relevant high altitude contrails?And you haven't provided any evidence that high altitude contrails deliberately created to modify weather either. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
Oh really?
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918 (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918)
Different method. Same goal.
Modifying the weather helps ships avoid incoming missiles? ???Did you even read that article that you linked? How is a carbon fiber smoke cloud on the sea relevant high altitude contrails?And you haven't provided any evidence that high altitude contrails deliberately created to modify weather either. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
Oh really?
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918 (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=81918)
Different method. Same goal.
Do you expect a naval website to cite the real reason for the clouds if those reasons don't have the best intentions?Do you expect a naval website to post anything at all about projects that don't have the best intentions?
Do you not understand what seeding clouds is? ALso, please go back and quote me where I said that planes didn't seed clouds.So know your admitting they are seeding clouds? Make up your mind, their ether dispersing chemical agents in to the atmosphere or their not ? At what altitude are they seeding theses clouds & releasing theses chemical agents & what chemicals are they using. I thought you were adamant its all condensation.Really? So are you now saying there is no legitimate reason to seed clouds for rain or to spray pesticides on crops?Gezz I dont know. Putting together a meth lab is not the same as cooking meth. But then you dont need a meth lab unless your cooking meth. Thats really a tuff one to figure out. ::)Care to explain why theses trails left by planes are hanging around for extended time in the atmosphere & spreading out to form cloud.
http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/ (http://contrailscience.com/how-long-do-contrails-last/)QuoteCare to tell us why there are companies advertising to supply planes for the purpose of seeding clouds on the internet & why there are companies advertising fit out of planes with dispersant tanks for atmosphere spraying. I thought it was not lawful to disperse chemical agents or compounds in to the atmosphere. Even low altitude crop dusting requires a licence with spraying to be contained to the area being sprayed. Spray drifting in to anthers owners air space or land & water ways being punishable by Law.
Selling a plane capable of dispersing chemicals is not the same as dispersing chemicals is it?
Do you expect a naval website to cite the real reason for the clouds if those reasons don't have the best intentions?Do you expect a naval website to post anything at all about projects that don't have the best intentions?
Well will you be chowing down on GM food ? & drinking your toxic poison ?Which has nothing to do with the existence of "chemtrails" so if you want to discuss those, please make another thread to do so. Please don't muddle up the conversation with off topic subjects when you can't even back up your main arguments here.
So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Why present facts when you can rant about unsubstantiated claims and your only rebuttal to those that have different views is "of course they won't tell you what they are REALLY doing." ::)
Why present facts when you can rant about unsubstantiated claims and your only rebuttal to those that have different views is "of course they won't tell you what they are REALLY doing." ::)
What facts do you have? About anything...
So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
You people dont seem to be at all concerned . Hummmmm what makes people behave in that manner is what really should be, being questioned. Care to explain your lack of concern?
I & others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming . I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days So your not denying you have been seeing trails . Why would anyone think there anything but condensation trails.The fact you will have two jets of the same model type. Flying at the same altitude, same atmospheric conditions .One producing a massive trail that spreads out & forms a cloud & the other jet is not producing any trail. That requires a better explanation then its just condensation. Please explain Geoff Agenda.So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Our skies are NOT "littered" with contrails every day Charles. Again, you're simply dreaming and/or making things up. I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days, and I live near a RAAF base. (For our overseas members, that's a government airfield.) Charles is simply one of those people who make rash generalisations about stuff; he happens to notice a couple of contrails one day, and then his paranoia sets in—the skies are "littered" with them LOL.
Further, his comparison with the steam from his kitchen kettle and contrails indicates that he has absolutely no idea how contrails are formed. He seems to think that ice crystals are gonna form in his kitchen at room temperature, or clouds are gonna hover below his ceiling! Better wear your raincoat next time you make a cuppa Charles.
I & others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming . I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days So your not denying you have been seeing trails . Why would anyone think there anything but condensation trails.The fact you will have two jets of the same model type. Flying at the same altitude, same atmospheric conditions .One producing a massive trail that spreads out & forms a cloud & the other jet is not producing any trail. That requires a better explanation then its just condensation. Please explain Geoff Agenda.So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Our skies are NOT "littered" with contrails every day Charles. Again, you're simply dreaming and/or making things up. I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days, and I live near a RAAF base. (For our overseas members, that's a government airfield.) Charles is simply one of those people who make rash generalisations about stuff; he happens to notice a couple of contrails one day, and then his paranoia sets in—the skies are "littered" with them LOL.
Further, his comparison with the steam from his kitchen kettle and contrails indicates that he has absolutely no idea how contrails are formed. He seems to think that ice crystals are gonna form in his kitchen at room temperature, or clouds are gonna hover below his ceiling! Better wear your raincoat next time you make a cuppa Charles.
http://www.google.com/patents/US5003186 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5003186)So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Our skies are NOT "littered" with contrails every day Charles. Again, you're simply dreaming and/or making things up. I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days, and I live near a RAAF base. (For our overseas members, that's a government airfield.) Charles is simply one of those people who make rash generalisations about stuff; he happens to notice a couple of contrails one day, and then his paranoia sets in—the skies are "littered" with them LOL.
Further, his comparison with the steam from his kitchen kettle and contrails indicates that he has absolutely no idea how contrails are formed. He seems to think that ice crystals are gonna form in his kitchen at room temperature, or clouds are gonna hover below his ceiling! Better wear your raincoat next time you make a cuppa Charles.
Why would I bother trying to explain A B & C to you. Its kind of pointless dont you think ? When its blatantly obvious your a Shill & a supporter of Agenda 21. But will humour you, Till my browser is hijacked again or anther root kit is installed to crash my PC. Both carries fly the same jets, both carries fly the same route & altitude. The flights of the two carriers where only 15 min apart on that particular time of the day. flight path was clear blue sky. That was until the second jet left its trail.I & others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming . I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days So your not denying you have been seeing trails . Why would anyone think there anything but condensation trails.The fact you will have two jets of the same model type. Flying at the same altitude, same atmospheric conditions .One producing a massive trail that spreads out & forms a cloud & the other jet is not producing any trail. That requires a better explanation then its just condensation. Please explain Geoff Agenda.So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Our skies are NOT "littered" with contrails every day Charles. Again, you're simply dreaming and/or making things up. I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days, and I live near a RAAF base. (For our overseas members, that's a government airfield.) Charles is simply one of those people who make rash generalisations about stuff; he happens to notice a couple of contrails one day, and then his paranoia sets in—the skies are "littered" with them LOL.
Further, his comparison with the steam from his kitchen kettle and contrails indicates that he has absolutely no idea how contrails are formed. He seems to think that ice crystals are gonna form in his kitchen at room temperature, or clouds are gonna hover below his ceiling! Better wear your raincoat next time you make a cuppa Charles.
Charles could you first explain how you determined that A) the models of the jets, B) Their altitudes, and C) the atmospheric conditions were all the same both times?
Because it is you with the outlandish claims.Why would I bother trying to explain A B & C to you. Its kind of pointless dont you think ? When its blatantly obvious your a Shill & a supporter of Agenda 21. But will humour you, Till my browser is hijacked again or anther root kit is installed to crash my PC. Both carries fly the same jets, both carries fly the same route & altitude. The flights of the two carriers where only 15 min apart on that particular time of the day. flight path was clear blue sky. That was until the second jet left its trail.I & others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming . I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days So your not denying you have been seeing trails . Why would anyone think there anything but condensation trails.The fact you will have two jets of the same model type. Flying at the same altitude, same atmospheric conditions .One producing a massive trail that spreads out & forms a cloud & the other jet is not producing any trail. That requires a better explanation then its just condensation. Please explain Geoff Agenda.So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Our skies are NOT "littered" with contrails every day Charles. Again, you're simply dreaming and/or making things up. I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days, and I live near a RAAF base. (For our overseas members, that's a government airfield.) Charles is simply one of those people who make rash generalisations about stuff; he happens to notice a couple of contrails one day, and then his paranoia sets in—the skies are "littered" with them LOL.
Further, his comparison with the steam from his kitchen kettle and contrails indicates that he has absolutely no idea how contrails are formed. He seems to think that ice crystals are gonna form in his kitchen at room temperature, or clouds are gonna hover below his ceiling! Better wear your raincoat next time you make a cuppa Charles.
Charles could you first explain how you determined that A) the models of the jets, B) Their altitudes, and C) the atmospheric conditions were all the same both times?
How about the fact that UN Agenda 21 does not mention anything about reducing the population by 70%Why present facts when you can rant about unsubstantiated claims and your only rebuttal to those that have different views is "of course they won't tell you what they are REALLY doing." ::)
What facts do you have? About anything...
Why would I bother trying to explain A B & C to you. Its kind of pointless dont you think ? When its blatantly obvious your a Shill & a supporter of Agenda 21. But will humour you, Till my browser is hijacked again or anther root kit is installed to crash my PC. Both carries fly the same jets, both carries fly the same route & altitude. The flights of the two carriers where only 15 min apart on that particular time of the day. flight path was clear blue sky. That was until the second jet left its trail.I & others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming . I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days So your not denying you have been seeing trails . Why would anyone think there anything but condensation trails.The fact you will have two jets of the same model type. Flying at the same altitude, same atmospheric conditions .One producing a massive trail that spreads out & forms a cloud & the other jet is not producing any trail. That requires a better explanation then its just condensation. Please explain Geoff Agenda.So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Our skies are NOT "littered" with contrails every day Charles. Again, you're simply dreaming and/or making things up. I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days, and I live near a RAAF base. (For our overseas members, that's a government airfield.) Charles is simply one of those people who make rash generalisations about stuff; he happens to notice a couple of contrails one day, and then his paranoia sets in—the skies are "littered" with them LOL.
Further, his comparison with the steam from his kitchen kettle and contrails indicates that he has absolutely no idea how contrails are formed. He seems to think that ice crystals are gonna form in his kitchen at room temperature, or clouds are gonna hover below his ceiling! Better wear your raincoat next time you make a cuppa Charles.
Charles could you first explain how you determined that A) the models of the jets, B) Their altitudes, and C) the atmospheric conditions were all the same both times?
I dont assume anything, but I do listen when someone of high integrity bravely speaks out. What purpose would Ted Gunderson possible have to lie.He die of arsenic poisoning. Arsenic poisoning!!! HOW does a man of his standing die from Arsenic poisoning ?Why would I bother trying to explain A B & C to you. Its kind of pointless dont you think ? When its blatantly obvious your a Shill & a supporter of Agenda 21. But will humour you, Till my browser is hijacked again or anther root kit is installed to crash my PC. Both carries fly the same jets, both carries fly the same route & altitude. The flights of the two carriers where only 15 min apart on that particular time of the day. flight path was clear blue sky. That was until the second jet left its trail.I & others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming . I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days So your not denying you have been seeing trails . Why would anyone think there anything but condensation trails.The fact you will have two jets of the same model type. Flying at the same altitude, same atmospheric conditions .One producing a massive trail that spreads out & forms a cloud & the other jet is not producing any trail. That requires a better explanation then its just condensation. Please explain Geoff Agenda.So anyone who questions why their seeing the sky's littered with theses trails on a daily bases, according to your doctrine. Is in your opinion wearing a tinfoil hat & someone of unsound mind. I would have to say a rational human would be some what concerned at seeing their sky continually littered with theses trails daily.
Our skies are NOT "littered" with contrails every day Charles. Again, you're simply dreaming and/or making things up. I haven't seen any contrails in the sky for days, and I live near a RAAF base. (For our overseas members, that's a government airfield.) Charles is simply one of those people who make rash generalisations about stuff; he happens to notice a couple of contrails one day, and then his paranoia sets in—the skies are "littered" with them LOL.
Further, his comparison with the steam from his kitchen kettle and contrails indicates that he has absolutely no idea how contrails are formed. He seems to think that ice crystals are gonna form in his kitchen at room temperature, or clouds are gonna hover below his ceiling! Better wear your raincoat next time you make a cuppa Charles.
Charles could you first explain how you determined that A) the models of the jets, B) Their altitudes, and C) the atmospheric conditions were all the same both times?
And where did you get all this information? Sounds like you are doing nothing but making assumptions.
But let's say all these assumptions are correct. You then go on to assume that under the same conditions, contrails will always behave the same way. How do you know this is the case? Have you studied enough real contrails to know that they will always behave exactly the same way? For someone who claims to know so much you certainly assume a lot to be true charles.
Ted's a real character, I particularly enjoy his story about the thousands of ritual human sacrifices that go on in each major city each year. It's a bit disingenuous to describe him as "former FBI chief" though, he was an agent who went on to be the head of a few regional offices at the end of the 70s. Then he left and ranted about a variety of conspiracies for the rest of his life and eventually died of cancer.Where were your ichthyology crew when it came to what dispersant should be used for the BP gulf cost oil spill.
Naturally, it's assumed that he was assassinated to prevent the truth from getting out, and yet this assassination could apparently wait until 2011 when he was an old man and had already been shouting the truth to anyone who'd listen for two or three decades, entirely unsilenced.
Also, how is it that he knows about the millions of unnatural fish deaths but the entire field of ichthyology does not?
Since when does a patent for something mean that it is actually being used.Why file a patent for something you dont intend to use. Why file a patent for something that is outlawed international to use & would require international approval to be used. Which not all sovereign countries would approve of. Rendering the patten pointless. Its pretty damning evidence. Beyond reasonable doubt is not needed for a civil law suit, Only evidence of probability. That is damming evidence of probability.
I & others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming.Can you please post a link to a video that you've personally filmed of contrails (or what you claim are "chemtrails") Charles?
So your [sic] not denying you have been seeing trails. Why would anyone think there [sic] anything but condensation trails.Of course I see a couple of contrails every week—providing the atmospheric conditions and the plane's flight path are conducive to their formation. And you're right about one thing Charles: why would any rational person think that contrails were anything but what we know them to be?
The fact you will have two jets of the same model type. Flying at the same altitude, same atmospheric conditions. One producing a massive trail that spreads out & forms a cloud & the other jet is not producing any trail.Once again, can you please post a link to a video of this actually happening Charles? As it stands, and without any visual evidence, this scenario is nothing more than something you've made up on the spur of the moment.
That requires a better explanation then its just condensation. Please explain Geoff Agenda.No it doesn't Charles. Contrails are more than well explained thusly:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5003186 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5003186)
Talks for Implementing UN Agenda 21 & addressing gobble warming & climate change. Started taking place approximately around 1987. It would be very hard for anyone to ignore there seems to be a strong connection. That is of course unless your doing your utmost to insure others are distracted from ever questioning, are the two connected.http://www.google.com/patents/US5003186 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5003186)
To save anybody wasting their time reading through this patent Charles has cited, it's a 25-year-old patent for a procedure involving spraying thorium dioxide and other metal oxides into the upper atmosphere for the purpose of reducing global warming.
But there's a lot more to patents than just submitting an application. Most patented devices or procedures never see the light of day, and the one quoted by Charles falls into this category. In fact, as it was granted 25 years ago, it's now null and void.
A patent does NOT give a right to make or use or sell an invention. Rather, a patent provides the legal right to exclude others from manufacturing, using, selling, or importing the patented invention or methodology for the term of the patent, which is 20 years from the date of the granting of the patent. A patent—being an exclusionary right—does not necessarily give the owner of the patent rights to exploit, manufacture, on-sell, or utilise the subject of the patent.
It's obvious that poor old Charles thinks the granting of a patent automatically implies that something has been "approved" by the government or that it's actually been manufactured and put into use, or can be put into use. This patent he's using as a debating point to somehow reinforce the rubbish he's been posting about alleged "chemtrails" is therefore worthless as any sort of supporting evidence.
—Sorry Charles.
Please cite the UN Agenda 21 document where it says it aims to reduce the population by 70% and where it sets up "human exclusion zones" and you have claimed.You wont find a copy of it on the internet .I have all ready told you that , they have been removed & I'm sure as hell not going to put a copy I have at risk of being trashed.
Talks for Implementing UN Agenda 21 & addressing gobble [sic] warming & climate change. Started taking place approximately around 1987. It would be very hard for anyone to ignore there seems to be a strong connection. That is of course unless your [sic] doing your utmost to insure others are distracted from ever questioning, are the two connected.
http://americanpolicy.org/agenda21/ (http://americanpolicy.org/agenda21/)
Your point of the year the patten [sic] was lodged & obtained is? Geoff Agenda
PS: I must speak to my partner about "gobble warming". She's very warm of heart, but boy, those lips of hers can be like ice on these winter mornings LOL.
It seems anyone who questions anything, is a nut job conspiracy theorist according to you Geoff. I can only go on my own experiences dealing with UN agenda 21.A council CEO & town planer resining over fraudulent township & district maps. A cover up by a now no longer state member of parliament. 7 different unlawful plaining overlays on my property that never existed in 1999 . Lets talk about common law. Why has it been removed from our courts & replaced by commerce Law. When the laws of the land in Australia is common law. If you Google the shire I live in & UN Agenda 21.You get the environmental policy's of the shire. Ask them about it & those scum bags will lie & tell you they dont know what UN agenda 21 is. So ether talk truth Geoff or phark off ya clown .
Talks for Implementing UN Agenda 21 & addressing gobble [sic] warming & climate change. Started taking place approximately around 1987. It would be very hard for anyone to ignore there seems to be a strong connection. That is of course unless your [sic] doing your utmost to insure others are distracted from ever questioning, are the two connected.
http://americanpolicy.org/agenda21/ (http://americanpolicy.org/agenda21/)
Your point of the year the patten [sic] was lodged & obtained is? Geoff Agenda
It's not unexpected to me that Charles has posted a link to a US group of loonies who masquerade under the impressive but misleading title of "The American Policy Center" or APC. Its president is a guy by the name of Tom DeWeese, a noted, lifelong US conspiracy theorist.
For an in-depth, and amusingly disparaging look at DeWeese and his absurd APC organisation, check out this site: Wingnut Watch: Tom DeWeese and the American Policy Center (http://bit.ly/1jYiNUh).
I mentioned the year the patent was granted Charles simply to prove that its methodology of climate modification had never even been considered as a technically viable, working solution since that time, and that it had expired anyway—relegated to the dustbin of technological absurdities.
PS: I must speak to my partner about "gobble warming". She's very warm of heart, but boy, those lips of hers can be like ice on these winter mornings LOL.
It seems anyone who questions anything, is a nut job conspiracy theorist according to you Geoff. I can only go on my own experiences dealing with UN agenda 21.Uh... I'm more inclined to believe that you're the one sucking up the conspiracy theories like a defective intellectual sponge Charles. Earlier on, you posted "Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%".
7 different unlawful plaining [sic] overlays on my property that never existed in 1999. So ether talk truth Geoff or phark off ya clown.As it's obviously affected you at a personal level Charles, could you please list those seven specific amended overlays?
Good for you & while your at it read up on the 1914 Commonwealth of Australia Crimes act still enforce.It seems anyone who questions anything, is a nut job conspiracy theorist according to you Geoff. I can only go on my own experiences dealing with UN agenda 21.Uh... I'm more inclined to believe that you're the one sucking up the conspiracy theories like a defective intellectual sponge Charles. Earlier on, you posted "Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%".
And we're still waiting for you to substantiate this claim. So, a direct link please.
You also claimed earlier that "I and others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming". I then—quite reasonably— asked you to post a link to one of these videos of yours, and you've not yet done so. Why is that? Were you maybe misrepresenting the truth a little Charles?
Anyway, I'll await your video link.Quote7 different unlawful plaining [sic] overlays on my property that never existed in 1999. So ether talk truth Geoff or phark off ya clown.As it's obviously affected you at a personal level Charles, could you please list those seven specific amended overlays?
(You should also know that I've reported your repeated personal insults and foul language to the moderators.)
Oh yes, we must take your word for it because, you know, yeah...Please cite the UN Agenda 21 document where it says it aims to reduce the population by 70% and where it sets up "human exclusion zones" and you have claimed.You wont find a copy of it on the internet .I have all ready told you that , they have been removed & I'm sure as hell not going to put a copy I have at risk of being trashed.
Just for curiosity's sake, how did you come to be in possession of this secret unaltered UN document?For curiosity's sake: how do you know about a secret document?
Are you trying to quibble with me for no reason or did you fail to read Charles' s post?Just for curiosity's sake, how did you come to be in possession of this secret unaltered UN document?For curiosity's sake: how do you know about a secret document?
Bit of both really.Are you trying to quibble with me for no reason or did you fail to read Charles' s post?Just for curiosity's sake, how did you come to be in possession of this secret unaltered UN document?For curiosity's sake: how do you know about a secret document?
Just for curiosity's sake, how did you come to be in possession of this secret unaltered UN document?It wasn't secret. It was on the internet, I down loaded it about 14 years ago. When I was researching the then newly introduced plaining schemes & rezoning of area maps . At the time I didn't give it much of a thought. I was more interested in how it was possible for my state guaranteed fee simple land titles, to be now encroached upon with restrictive overlays & no compensation paid in just terms. Agenda 21 has nothing to do with the environment as its proclaimed. Its about removing the right of the common man to be self sufficient or own property.Non limited tax burdens on everything!!!. Agenda 21implamataion completion,insures a guaranteed complete dependence on high profit based corporate service providers.
Just for curiosity's sake, how did you come to be in possession of this secret unaltered UN document?It wasn't secret. It was on the internet, I down loaded it about 14 years ago. When I was researching the then newly introduced plaining schemes & rezoning of area maps . At the time I didn't give it much of a thought. I was more interested in how it was possible for my state guaranteed fee simple land titles, to be now encroached upon with restrictive overlays & no compensation paid in just terms. Agenda 21 has nothing to do with the environment as its proclaimed. Its about removing the right of the common man to be self sufficient or own property.Non limited tax burdens on everything!!!. Agenda 21implamataion completion,insures a guaranteed complete dependence on high profit based corporate service providers.
Complete Monopolization of land, sea, air & all other resources.
They do carry it out at night now. I say due to the multitude of phone calls the EPA was receiving. Me being one of them. No denying its taking place from the state EPA .Only a statement its not their legislated state Jurisdiction & they have no authority . Aviation is federal Jurisdiction. I wouldn't call them incompetent. More an arrogance of we make the laws we are above the law & can do as we please.Just for curiosity's sake, how did you come to be in possession of this secret unaltered UN document?It wasn't secret. It was on the internet, I down loaded it about 14 years ago. When I was researching the then newly introduced plaining schemes & rezoning of area maps . At the time I didn't give it much of a thought. I was more interested in how it was possible for my state guaranteed fee simple land titles, to be now encroached upon with restrictive overlays & no compensation paid in just terms. Agenda 21 has nothing to do with the environment as its proclaimed. Its about removing the right of the common man to be self sufficient or own property.Non limited tax burdens on everything!!!. Agenda 21implamataion completion,insures a guaranteed complete dependence on high profit based corporate service providers.
Complete Monopolization of land, sea, air & all other resources.
So how does this version of the document, which apparently was not adopted, and for which you have no evidence, have any relevance to whether unknown chemicals are dumped on people on a regular basis? Sounds like an extremely tenuous link to me.
And if the government was going to carry this out in secret, why would they do it in the middle of the day in plain sight? Why not just do it at night and when it's cloudy? Another example of the conspiracy theorist's paradox - a shadowy organization has nearly unlimited resouces and ability to deceive, but they are also so incompent that Joe Six-pack can spot them in action from his back yard. Ridiculous.
But why would they ever have done during the day in the first place? It makes no sense at all. Either they can do it anytime, in which case they would only do it at night, or it must do it in they day, which would contradict you statement that they have changed to doing it at night. Not to mention that other people still claim to see them in the day, which means either you, they, or both are wrong.Your asking me why. Ask them, see the bullshit response you get back & if that dont work in curtailing your inquisitiveness to ask questions, then comes their threats & intimidation . Its obviously cheaper having commercial flights conduct aerosol spraying. routes to locations,flight paths available & frequency of flights. . I thought the old bloke that told me of chem trails & synthetic forming clouds, had lost his marbles. I just smiled, humoured him at the time by listening to what he had to say & hoped in the back of my mind the old bugger would get some help with his delusion. It wasn't till a month later on a hot still summers day when I was out cutting hay. Stopped for a breather, cracked a longneck from me esky & rolled a smoke. I noticed a jet leaving a mighty big trial behind it that didn't dissipate. With in half an hour that trail had spread out & formed three large white fluffy clouds. That's when the penny dropped. The old bugger wasn't crazy at all & That was the start of me consciously to take note in noticing jets trials & abnormal formations of clouds taking place.
Uh, cool story bro. So do they only do it at night now, or what?No they still do some of it during the day. But no way near as obverse as it was getting. Mostly early mornings & their not using commercial jets as often. The morning jet flight paths are not from or to any domestic air port.
Uh, cool story bro. So do they only do it at night now, or what?No they still do some of it during the day. But no way near as obverse as it was getting. Mostly early mornings & their not using commercial jets as often. The morning jet flight paths are not from or to any domestic air port.
Wow, awesome. Well, I have a secret document from the UN that says that they put out this secret Agenda 21 document to fool people into thinking that contrails were really chemtrails. Of course I have it saved on another computer and won't produce it for you to peruse. You know, the men in suits would come and confiscate my family and create bogus weapon charges against me. I of course downloaded it 16 years ago back when I was really questioning why people thought chemtrails existed.Basically you can believe who or what ever you like. I dont need your endorsement & you dont need mine. You see that's what make Agenda elitist scum, morally different to me the common man. I dont need to control every aspect of anther persons life or property. I dont need to order you how to think. What I do demand though in society is honesty integrity & decency towards other human beings.Which is a simplistic rule to follow that your Agenda mob cant seem to fathom.
So basically, I am getting at that your story is just as credible as the one I just typed up. Unless of course you can provide evidence for yours. Such as providing the document. WHich you obviously can't because it does not exist. Prove to me that I am wrong. Provide the document. Cite the areas that specifically mention reducing the population and setting up human exclusion zones.
Good for you & while your at it read up on the 1914 Commonwealth of Australia Crimes act still enforce.It seems anyone who questions anything, is a nut job conspiracy theorist according to you Geoff. I can only go on my own experiences dealing with UN agenda 21.Uh... I'm more inclined to believe that you're the one sucking up the conspiracy theories like a defective intellectual sponge Charles. Earlier on, you posted "Read UN agenda 21, their own literature talks of reducing the world population by 70%".
And we're still waiting for you to substantiate this claim. So, a direct link please.
You also claimed earlier that "I and others have filmed plenty of documenting footage of jets trails & clouds forming". I then—quite reasonably— asked you to post a link to one of these videos of yours, and you've not yet done so. Why is that? Were you maybe misrepresenting the truth a little Charles?
Anyway, I'll await your video link.Quote7 different unlawful plaining [sic] overlays on my property that never existed in 1999. So ether talk truth Geoff or phark off ya clown.As it's obviously affected you at a personal level Charles, could you please list those seven specific amended overlays?
(You should also know that I've reported your repeated personal insults and foul language to the moderators.)
They do carry it out at night now.Nope. You're just making this up Charles. Do you seriously expect us to believe that not one member of the public living near airports would notice hundreds of planes taking off and landing at night? You're dreaming I'm afraid.
I say due to the multitude of phone calls the EPA was receiving.Citation please confirming this "multitude" of calls to the EPA. Or is this just another unfounded dream of yours?
Why are you promoting the implementation of UN Agenda 21 for the Commonwealth Australia & its territories? That which is clearly defined as being an act of treachery & sabotage under the Commonwealth of Australia crimes Act.
Is it an admission that you possess neither NO. I guess the fish just aren't biting. Oh & look it up.Its not a crime to possess or not possess ether. The same cant be said for your agenda Geoff.
I cant fathom for the likes of me, why you would start a chem trail thread Geoff. If not an attempt to engage in mixed views on the subject?.
Do you seriously expect us to believe that not one member of the public living near airports would notice hundreds of planes taking off and landing at night?
And; citation please confirming this "multitude" of calls to the EPA.
I know the stinking stench of a scum bag treasonous treacherous dog a mile away & I know the Commonwealth of Australia crime acts & their interpretation acts like the back of my hand. Complements of a previous occupation. ;) Commonwealth of Australia constitution Indissoluble Geoff. Section 109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. Indissoluble means just that Indissoluble.Why are you promoting the implementation of UN Agenda 21 for the Commonwealth Australia & its territories? That which is clearly defined as being an act of treachery & sabotage under the Commonwealth of Australia crimes Act.
Is it an admission that you possess neither NO. I guess the fish just aren't biting. Oh & look it up.Its not a crime to possess or not possess ether. The same cant be said for your agenda Geoff.
I cant fathom for the likes of me, why you would start a chem trail thread Geoff. If not an attempt to engage in mixed views on the subject?.
You really need to stop rambling on about this Agenda 21 stuff Charles; you're starting to sound awfully like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I also note you failed to address either of the points I raised:QuoteDo you seriously expect us to believe that not one member of the public living near airports would notice hundreds of planes taking off and landing at night?
And; citation please confirming this "multitude" of calls to the EPA.
And you do realise (or maybe you don't?) that the Agenda 21 has nothing at all to do with your allegations of "chemtrails" being used in Australia—were they even to exist in reality. You've hijacked this thread simply to rant on about what's obviously your favourite whipping boy of the moment; Agenda 21.
Also, you obviously know very little about Australian constitutional law (acts of "treachery" and "sabotage" LOL)—like you know very little about scientific principles and practices. You're really overextending your intellectual limits on these forums Charles. You need to take a deep breath and acknowledge that you're not nearly smart enough to play with the grownups just yet. Sorry.
Looks like you need to study the back of your hand better. You can't even back up your claims about anything you say. You have not yet shown us, in Agenda 21, where it states its intent is to reduce the population by 70% or where it sets up "human exclusion zones". All you have done so far is link us to other websites and videos that you are just parroting.I know the stinking stench of a scum bag treasonous treacherous dog a mile away & I know the Commonwealth of Australia crime acts & their interpretation acts like the back of my hand. Complements of a previous occupation. ;) Commonwealth of Australia constitution Indissoluble Geoff. Section 109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. Indissoluble means just that Indissoluble.Why are you promoting the implementation of UN Agenda 21 for the Commonwealth Australia & its territories? That which is clearly defined as being an act of treachery & sabotage under the Commonwealth of Australia crimes Act.
Is it an admission that you possess neither NO. I guess the fish just aren't biting. Oh & look it up.Its not a crime to possess or not possess ether. The same cant be said for your agenda Geoff.
I cant fathom for the likes of me, why you would start a chem trail thread Geoff. If not an attempt to engage in mixed views on the subject?.
You really need to stop rambling on about this Agenda 21 stuff Charles; you're starting to sound awfully like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I also note you failed to address either of the points I raised:QuoteDo you seriously expect us to believe that not one member of the public living near airports would notice hundreds of planes taking off and landing at night?
And; citation please confirming this "multitude" of calls to the EPA.
And you do realise (or maybe you don't?) that the Agenda 21 has nothing at all to do with your allegations of "chemtrails" being used in Australia—were they even to exist in reality. You've hijacked this thread simply to rant on about what's obviously your favourite whipping boy of the moment; Agenda 21.
Also, you obviously know very little about Australian constitutional law (acts of "treachery" and "sabotage" LOL)—like you know very little about scientific principles and practices. You're really overextending your intellectual limits on these forums Charles. You need to take a deep breath and acknowledge that you're not nearly smart enough to play with the grownups just yet. Sorry.
And it looks like your loyalties lay with a foreign entity & its Agenda. Not your sovereign country or its sovereign people. The words for a person of that lowlife standing, is treasonous traitorous dog. Bark away all you like. It doesn't change a thing , your still a treasonous traitorous dog.Until you can substantiate your claims, with any sort of citation at all, it will hold no sway over me. It is obvious that you haven't looked into the subject other than conspiracy websites that confirm your views. You won't even look into the original document and see what it actually says.
Spoken like a true treasonous traitorous dog. I dont need to post what information I hold. The present churched up UN Agenda 21 document displayed on the internet at present.Only needs the person reading it to apply a little maths, to come up with the same outcome & conclusion.And it looks like your loyalties lay with a foreign entity & its Agenda. Not your sovereign country or its sovereign people. The words for a person of that lowlife standing, is treasonous traitorous dog. Bark away all you like. It doesn't change a thing , your still a treasonous traitorous dog.Until you can substantiate your claims, with any sort of citation at all, it will hold no sway over me. It is obvious that you haven't looked into the subject other than conspiracy websites that confirm your views. You won't even look into the original document and see what it actually says.
Earlier in this thread you told me that wiki links were not allowed at Australian universities. Would they be more acceptable than no sources at all?
Well, yes you do. If you don't, you have an unsubstantiated claim.Spoken like a true treasonous traitorous dog. I dont need to post what information I hold.And it looks like your loyalties lay with a foreign entity & its Agenda. Not your sovereign country or its sovereign people. The words for a person of that lowlife standing, is treasonous traitorous dog. Bark away all you like. It doesn't change a thing , your still a treasonous traitorous dog.Until you can substantiate your claims, with any sort of citation at all, it will hold no sway over me. It is obvious that you haven't looked into the subject other than conspiracy websites that confirm your views. You won't even look into the original document and see what it actually says.
Earlier in this thread you told me that wiki links were not allowed at Australian universities. Would they be more acceptable than no sources at all?
The present churched up UN Agenda 21 document displayed on the internet at present.Please provide evidence of your claim that the document available on the internet is not the original.
Only needs the person reading it to apply a little maths, to come up with the same outcome & conclusion.Oh really? Show me the maths. And why you they should be applied and why you are right in applying them.
you do need to support your claims. I have supported mine, you have not supported yours.Well, yes you do. If you don't, you have an unsubstantiated claim.Spoken like a true treasonous traitorous dog. I dont need to post what information I hold.And it looks like your loyalties lay with a foreign entity & its Agenda. Not your sovereign country or its sovereign people. The words for a person of that lowlife standing, is treasonous traitorous dog. Bark away all you like. It doesn't change a thing , your still a treasonous traitorous dog.Until you can substantiate your claims, with any sort of citation at all, it will hold no sway over me. It is obvious that you haven't looked into the subject other than conspiracy websites that confirm your views. You won't even look into the original document and see what it actually says.
Earlier in this thread you told me that wiki links were not allowed at Australian universities. Would they be more acceptable than no sources at all?QuoteThe present churched up UN Agenda 21 document displayed on the internet at present.Please provide evidence of your claim that the document available on the internet is not the original.QuoteOnly needs the person reading it to apply a little maths, to come up with the same outcome & conclusion.Oh really? Show me the maths. And why you they should be applied and why you are right in applying them.
See Charles, you do need to support your claims. I have supported mine, you have not supported yours.
Yes you have indeed . You have admitted to supporting implementation of a foreign entities agenda by stealth means. Which is sabotaging your countries sovereignty & the sovereignty of its people. Which makes you admitting to being a treasonous traitorous dog. That I do not wish to engage in correspondence with any more.
Please re-read my posts and point out where I said I supported Agenda 21. All I have done is refute your claims that it wants to reduce world population by 70% and that it sets up human exclusion zones. I looked through the document and saw nothing of the sort in it. I have asked you to please quote the document where it says that. You have not done so.you do need to support your claims. I have supported mine, you have not supported yours.Well, yes you do. If you don't, you have an unsubstantiated claim.Spoken like a true treasonous traitorous dog. I dont need to post what information I hold.And it looks like your loyalties lay with a foreign entity & its Agenda. Not your sovereign country or its sovereign people. The words for a person of that lowlife standing, is treasonous traitorous dog. Bark away all you like. It doesn't change a thing , your still a treasonous traitorous dog.Until you can substantiate your claims, with any sort of citation at all, it will hold no sway over me. It is obvious that you haven't looked into the subject other than conspiracy websites that confirm your views. You won't even look into the original document and see what it actually says.
Earlier in this thread you told me that wiki links were not allowed at Australian universities. Would they be more acceptable than no sources at all?QuoteThe present churched up UN Agenda 21 document displayed on the internet at present.Please provide evidence of your claim that the document available on the internet is not the original.QuoteOnly needs the person reading it to apply a little maths, to come up with the same outcome & conclusion.Oh really? Show me the maths. And why you they should be applied and why you are right in applying them.
See Charles, you do need to support your claims. I have supported mine, you have not supported yours.
Yes you have indeed . You have admitted to supporting implementation of a foreign entities agenda by stealth means. Which is sabotaging your countries sovereignty & the sovereignty of its people. Which makes you admitting to being a treasonous traitorous dog. That I do not wish to engage in correspondence with any more.
Please re-read my posts and point out where I said I supported Agenda 21. All I have done is refute your claims that it wants to reduce world population by 70% and that it sets up human exclusion zones. I looked through the document and saw nothing of the sort in it. I have asked you to please quote the document where it says that. You have not done so.
Hearing your own echo are you Geoff. Do you think people haven't woke up to UN agenda 21 & the ICLEI already Geoff ?.Yes you have indeed . You have admitted to supporting implementation of a foreign entities agenda by stealth means. Which is sabotaging your countries sovereignty & the sovereignty of its people. Which makes you admitting to being a treasonous traitorous dog. That I do not wish to engage in correspondence with any more.
I'm guessing that poor old Charles has forgotten to take his medication today?
One of these may be of some help:(http://www.pharmacydirect.com.au/ShowImage.aspx?image=ProductImages/31483.jpg&width=400&height=400)—Is that distant barking I can hear Charles?
;D
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/nsw-hunger-striker-peter-spencer-12-06-14/5518916 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/nsw-hunger-striker-peter-spencer-12-06-14/5518916)And what does that have to do with Chemtrails and UN Agenda 21? Nothing.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/nsw-hunger-striker-peter-spencer-12-06-14/5518916 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/nsw-hunger-striker-peter-spencer-12-06-14/5518916)And what does that have to do with chemtrails and UN Agenda 21? Nothing.
That's how you scum work. By claiming anything that implicates you in wrong doing, is nothing more then a conspiracy theory. But then you can expect nothing less from lying sacks of shit.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/nsw-hunger-striker-peter-spencer-12-06-14/5518916 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/nsw-hunger-striker-peter-spencer-12-06-14/5518916)And what does that have to do with chemtrails and UN Agenda 21? Nothing.
I agree... Absolutely nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. It's a feeble distraction; nothing more LOL.
Poor old Charles is simply trying to divert attention from his inability to quote any citations to his loony tunes notions about 70% depopulation and "exclusion zones" by posting totally irrelevant links intended to derail the thread and/or create a smoke screen.
That's how you scum work.And precisely which "scum" would that be Charles? The government, the scientific fraternity, university educators, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the CSIRO, the Australian Federal Police, the Army and Navy and Air Force, the Bureau of Meteorology, the EPA, private pilots and merchant sea captains, paleontologists, aeronautical engineers, climatologists, geophysicists... you know, all those people and organisations that you believe are involved with their opposite numbers in every other country in the world?
By claiming anything that implicates you in wrong doing, is nothing more then a conspiracy theory.Ah yes. I knew the good old, tried and trusted "conspiracy theory" would rear its tired old head again. We thank you for this Charles. A truly convincing argument. ;D
But then you can expect nothing less from lying sacks of shit.Gee whiz... with such a thorough debunking as that, it's hard not to believe all of Charles's contrary theories. I mean... we all know for a fact that those "sacks of shit" inevitably fail to tell the truth. Spot on again Charles. Well done mate.
Before placing any dependable faith what so ever, in what a group had to say when they are lying sly treasonous conniving untrustworthy bastards.Uh... can you tell us what you really think of these government conspirators Charles?
Charles is not 8 years old boy. This thing is a professional idiot. He need our sympathy and emergency psychiatric help.A you dont know much about Trusts trusties & beneficiaries .A countries constitution is a Trust document a contract with terms & conditions set out. The people of the sovereign country are the share holders & beneficiaries of the trust. The politicians are only the administrators. Who's job is to administer the trust in accordance with the lawful terms & conditions of the trust. The administrators can not lawful operate out side the provisions laid down in that Trust. The administrates cant transfer control of that Trust when the provisions are not in that trust to do so. with out the majority consent of the share holders & beneficiaries. The administrators can not appoint them self holder of the trust, administrates & sole beneficiaries. That is breach of Trust and an indictable crime. That is treason & fraud.
(http://)
If chemtrails are so natural, why did they add chemtrails to an old movie. I'm sorry if this has been gone over already.
This is a blatantly obvious and well established fact with tons of evidence. Even the government agencies now admit it openly (research on: geoengineering project)
It is indeed a litmus test. In my view whoever denies it:
1- either hasn't done his due diligence,
2- or was unable to process the info properly to find the truth,
3- or... is a) an ignorant person b) troll c) disinfo agent etc.
This is a blatantly obvious and well established fact with tons of evidence.
Chemtrails are a fact.
Chemtrails are a fact. Look into the people that you are following. If they are trying to leave you with this situation saying that they are really "contrails", then they are a shill. Plain and simple. At least chemtrails is good for that. People don't really know that Alex Jones, Abby Martin, Joe Rogan, and many other people that we see in media are shills. It's bad enough the main news organizations give us fake news, but the "alternative" media is just simply controlled opposition. Learn about the Jesuit order, because they are the ones that own you and who are destroying your futures.
Chemtrails are a fact. Look into the people that you are following. If they are trying to leave you with this situation saying that they are really "contrails", then they are a shill. Plain and simple. At least chemtrails is good for that. People don't really know that Alex Jones, Abby Martin, Joe Rogan, and many other people that we see in media are shills. It's bad enough the main news organizations give us fake news, but the "alternative" media is just simply controlled opposition. Learn about the Jesuit order, because they are the ones that own you and who are destroying your futures.I'm sorry.
Contrails disappear quickly, a few minutes. Chemtrails stay above for hours and often spread into a general haze in the sky.
Chemtrails are a fact. They are so obvious that sometimes even the shills have to give in to that they might actually be being sprayed. There are some things however that the shills will never talk about. The space/universe fraud and nuclear weapons being all lies. I have been looking at evidence for over a year now. I have two 15 minute videos here that I put together that are damning for this global control and lies that we are told. Please take the time to watch and share the information. You have my permission to download and use these in any way possible. The world needs to wake up to what's going on, our rights are being destroyed. Our futures are being destroyed.Much of what I know about physics I learned from experimentation, does the government control physics too?
(http://)
(http://)
Stop watching television, it is controlled. Learn about Freemasons, and more importantly, learn of the Jesuit order.
Chemtrails are a fact. They are so obvious that sometimes even the shills have to give in to that they might actually be being sprayed. There are some things however that the shills will never talk about. The space/universe fraud and nuclear weapons being all lies. I have been looking at evidence for over a year now. I have two 15 minute videos here that I put together that are damning for this global control and lies that we are told. Please take the time to watch and share the information. You have my permission to download and use these in any way possible. The world needs to wake up to what's going on, our rights are being destroyed. Our futures are being destroyed.I have taken the time to watch your videos and all they are is this kind of thing: "These people are f***ing idiots because they don't f***ing care that they are f***ing lying to the f***ing public and the f***ers only care about their f***ing pay check rather then f***ing ethics."
(http://)
(http://)
Stop watching television, it is controlled. Learn about Freemasons, and more importantly, learn of the Jesuit order.
Sorry guys, there are shills commenting on this forum. There are millions of people all over the world involved in this corruption against humanity at various levels, and you get shills galore as a result. Timelapse videos of chemtrails and "chem halo" videos from the saturation of the sky are damning. Learn about Freemasons and the Jesuit order, the world governments are controlled. And the shills are the biggest losers in all of human history lol
(http://)
Sorry guys, there are shills commenting on this forum. There are millions of people all over the world involved in this corruption against humanity at various levels, and you get shills galore as a result. Timelapse videos of chemtrails and "chem halo" videos from the saturation of the sky are damning. Learn about Freemasons and the Jesuit order, the world governments are controlled. And the shills are the biggest losers in all of human history lol
Sorry guys, there are shills commenting on this forum. There are millions of people all over the world involved in this corruption against humanity at various levels, and you get shills galore as a result. Timelapse videos of chemtrails and "chem halo" videos from the saturation of the sky are damning. Learn about Freemasons and the Jesuit order, the world governments are controlled. And the shills are the biggest losers in all of human history lol
It never ceases to amuse me that when the predictable crop of conspiracy nutters are called out as blatant liars and messengers of disinformation, they invariable call their critics "shills" or claim they're in the thrall of the world governments or the CIA or the New World Order or whatever. And like most flat earthers, Reynaga doesn't even understand what the word "shill" means—maybe he's been taking the same drugs as sceptimatic? It's actual meaning? A shill is "person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty". And I'm "praising" Reynaga? Hardly LOL. Quite the opposite in fact. Whack jobs rate very poorly even in my book of cyberspace characters to avoid.
For an independent view of the allegations about "chemtrails" check out THIS (http://bit.ly/10Ne4Bx) site.
There are of course no such thing as "chemtrails" other than in the distorted imaginations of the conspiracy theorists. None of them has ever had the purported chemical discharges analysed by a laboratory—which is proof in itself that they don't exist as alleged. None of them has ever posted a video of the chemicals being loaded onto planes, or the empty containers being offloaded. This despite the conspiracy theorists claiming this is happening all over the world. No airline maintenance engineer has ever reported sighting anything like like happening, nor has any pilot, or any air traffic controller, or even any commercial airline passengers.
I can only suggest—again—that this John Reynaga be totally ignored. His comments are nothing more than the delusional ramblings of somebody totally out of touch with the real world, and very little—if any—understanding of the real world the rest of us inhabit.
There's a very revealing exposé of paranoid conspiracy theorists you can check out HERE (http://bit.ly/1r9sKHb). And Reynaga ticks all the boxes they bring up LOL.
Hehe, that's what you think.Sorry guys, there are shills commenting on this forum. There are millions of people all over the world involved in this corruption against humanity at various levels, and you get shills galore as a result. Timelapse videos of chemtrails and "chem halo" videos from the saturation of the sky are damning. Learn about Freemasons and the Jesuit order, the world governments are controlled. And the shills are the biggest losers in all of human history lol
(http://)
I dunno, I have a beautiful Australian woman, a good job and a beautiful house.
All on top of that phat shill money. While you are kinda greasy.
I'd say I'm winning.
I dunno, I have a beautiful Australian woman, a good job and a beautiful house.
All on top of that phat shill money. While you are kinda greasy.
I'd say I'm winning.
Hehe, that's what you think.
Flat earthers have posted proof, diagrams, pictures, long conversations and other irrefutable proof of flatness. If you are unable to comprehend these matters, maybe a reading comprehension course would help. Perhaps you are too lazy to spend your time learning, if this is the case I doubt that we will be able to help you.I dunno, I have a beautiful Australian woman, a good job and a beautiful house.
All on top of that phat shill money. While you are kinda greasy.
I'd say I'm winning.
Hehe, that's what you think.
There's no "think" about it hoppy. We're winning hands down. The spherical earth model is the only viable model. This is even more the obvious case, because despite asking the flat earthers innumerable times on these forums to post a model of their flat earth, they are unable to do so. Not even one single flat earther will give it a go.
So... until, or if, the flat earthers ever post a working model of their proposed flat earth, the spherical earth model wins by default alone LOL.
C'mon flat earthers, surely one of you can post a diagram of your flat earth?
Flat earthers have posted proof, diagrams, pictures, long conversations and other irrefutable proof of flatness. If you are unable to comprehend these matters, maybe a reading comprehension course would help. Perhaps you are too lazy to spend your time learning, if this is the case I doubt that we will be able to help you.I dunno, I have a beautiful Australian woman, a good job and a beautiful house.
All on top of that phat shill money. While you are kinda greasy.
I'd say I'm winning.
Hehe, that's what you think.
There's no "think" about it hoppy. We're winning hands down. The spherical earth model is the only viable model. This is even more the obvious case, because despite asking the flat earthers innumerable times on these forums to post a model of their flat earth, they are unable to do so. Not even one single flat earther will give it a go.
So... until, or if, the flat earthers ever post a working model of their proposed flat earth, the spherical earth model wins by default alone LOL.
C'mon flat earthers, surely one of you can post a diagram of your flat earth?
Flat earthers have posted proof, diagrams, pictures, long conversations and other irrefutable proof of flatness. If you are unable to comprehend these matters, maybe a reading comprehension course would help. Perhaps you are too lazy to spend your time learning, if this is the case I doubt that we will be able to help you.I dunno, I have a beautiful Australian woman, a good job and a beautiful house.
All on top of that phat shill money. While you are kinda greasy.
I'd say I'm winning.
Hehe, that's what you think.
There's no "think" about it hoppy. We're winning hands down. The spherical earth model is the only viable model. This is even more the obvious case, because despite asking the flat earthers innumerable times on these forums to post a model of their flat earth, they are unable to do so. Not even one single flat earther will give it a go.
So... until, or if, the flat earthers ever post a working model of their proposed flat earth, the spherical earth model wins by default alone LOL.
C'mon flat earthers, surely one of you can post a diagram of your flat earth?
Flat earthers have posted proof, diagrams, pictures, long conversations and other irrefutable proof of flatness. If you are unable to comprehend these matters, maybe a reading comprehension course would help. Perhaps you are too lazy to spend your time learning, if this is the case I doubt that we will be able to help you.
Big claims from such a little lady.Flat earthers have posted proof, diagrams, pictures, long conversations and other irrefutable proof of flatness. If you are unable to comprehend these matters, maybe a reading comprehension course would help. Perhaps you are too lazy to spend your time learning, if this is the case I doubt that we will be able to help you.I dunno, I have a beautiful Australian woman, a good job and a beautiful house.
All on top of that phat shill money. While you are kinda greasy.
I'd say I'm winning.
Hehe, that's what you think.
There's no "think" about it hoppy. We're winning hands down. The spherical earth model is the only viable model. This is even more the obvious case, because despite asking the flat earthers innumerable times on these forums to post a model of their flat earth, they are unable to do so. Not even one single flat earther will give it a go.
So... until, or if, the flat earthers ever post a working model of their proposed flat earth, the spherical earth model wins by default alone LOL.
C'mon flat earthers, surely one of you can post a diagram of your flat earth?