bit_pattern
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2008
- Messages
- 8,127
Acting as if they aren't is crazy and puts you in the realm of conspiracy theorists.
Pretty sure it's not me everybody is laughing at in this thread.
Acting as if they aren't is crazy and puts you in the realm of conspiracy theorists.
I don't believe they are significant or a real threat but they are definitely real and anyone denying that (bit_pattern) has a radical view of the world based on fantasy.
Chemtrails, LOL.
lolAlso, bit_pattern: Everyone knows Ancient Aliens is full of shit and the fact you spent 3 hours watching a video debunking it shows a slight delay in speed of thought.
lol
He has a point, bit pattern.
Oh good, I suppose I can rest easy now. I'm sure you've conducted a comprehensive MSDS calibration standard on soil samples from all regions that claim to be affected. (even though the burden of proof lies on those who make the claims, it's obvious that you are just an overachiever. burden of proof smurdan of proof amIright!) Which University did you obtain your Ph D in meteorology at again? Which channel do you appear on, again? Tell me, then in your next weather segment would you mind going into a quick diatribe debunking the other meteorologist? Can't have them fudging public perception, right? 8)
It's cute that you think TV weather guys have PhDs.
Having a PhD would obviously denote authority on the subject over other weather men/women. That's exactly why I said that, because I know that T.V. weather people usually have a lesser degree in meteorology
Which University did you obtain your Ph D in meteorology at again? Which channel do you appear on, again? Tell me, then in your next weather segment would you mind going into a quick diatribe debunking the other meteorologist?
I'm sure you've conducted a comprehensive MSDS calibration standard on soil samples from all regions that claim to be affected. (even though the burden of proof lies on those who make the claims, it's obvious that you are just an overachiever. burden of proof smurdan of proof amIright!)
You misinterpret everything I post, so I'm not surprised you didn't.Lol, you think that is what we were supposed to interpret from this?
Sarcasm. Obviously.I really think the question should be what the fuck are YOU talking about?![]()
![]()
Um, guys.
I thought I'd humour you and actually watch your videos but they aren't even talking about "chemtrails", they're talking about military radar countermeasures that have been widely used since WW2.
actually, it looks quite like it, a difference in the mechanism of delivery is conspicuous though.I hate to break it to you but when the military releases chaff it doesn't even look like the kinds of contrails that are persistently put forward as evidence of "chemtrails"
You don't even know my hypothesis.Your hypothesis is internally inconsistent.
and you're still hung up on the sarcasm.Um, no. You're wrong. EW wasn't making a claim, he was laughing at at the claims you guys are making. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
And now the burden of proof is on you to show: a). what regions are being affected; b). how they're being affected; and c) why relatively small (relative to the geographic distribution) innocuous strips of aluminium released high in the stratosphere would have any effect on any soil anywhere for any reason whatsoever.
High levels of Silver (Ag), Barium (Ba) and Strontium (Sr) and low levels of copper (Cu) have been measured in the antlers, soils and pastures of the deer that are thriving in the chronic wasting disease (CWD) cluster zones in North America in relation to the areas where CWD and other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) have not been reported. The elevations of Ag, Ba and Sr were thought to originate from both natural geochemical and artificial pollutant sources--stemming from the common practice of aerial spraying with 'cloud seeding' Ag or Ba crystal nuclei for rain making in these drought prone areas of North America, the atmospheric spraying with Ba based aerosols for enhancing/refracting radar and radio signal communications as well as the spreading of waste Ba drilling mud from the local oil/gas well industry across pastureland.
Oh good, I suppose I can rest easy now. I'm sure you've conducted a comprehensive MSDS calibration standard on soil samples from all regions that claim to be affected. (even though the burden of proof lies on those who make the claims, it's obvious that you are just an overachiever. burden of proof smurdan of proof amIright!) Which University did you obtain your Ph D in meteorology at again? Which channel do you appear on, again? Tell me, then in your next weather segment would you mind going into a quick diatribe debunking the other meteorologist? Can't have them fudging public perception, right? 8)
Wait, "MSDS calibration standard"? As far as I know, if you say MSDS in a lab, you'd be most likely referring to a Material Safety Data Sheet - a sheet of information the government mandates for any material that may be hazardous, and that manufacturers, in true cover-thy-ass fashion, produce for almost anything.
"MSDS calibration standard" isn't a phrase that I've heard, and when I enter it into Google, with quotes, I get the MSDS for a few substances used to calibrate certain pieces of equipment. It does not appear to be a commonly used term.
Seems you still didn't make your way through the conversation. This has already happened. I haven't heard one claim that anything is related to an 'unknown' chemical.But considering soil analysis is cheap enough to do even at a community college level, it seems very unlikely that chemicals from contrails has been overlooked.
Someone would have noticed an unknown chemical, publicized the results, and triggered an investigation. If, for nothing else, than notoriety or profit.
Pretty sure it's not me everybody is laughing at in this thread.
Why are you acting like you're crazy? It's sane to believe Internet conspiracies. Questioning them is crazy!
Um, guys.
I thought I'd humour you and actually watch your videos but they aren't even talking about "chemtrails", they're talking about military radar countermeasures that have been widely used since WW2.
I hate to break it to you but when the military releases chaff it doesn't even look like the kinds of contrails that are persistently put forward as evidence of "chemtrails"
![]()
Your hypothesis is internally inconsistent.
Um, no. You're wrong. EW wasn't making a claim, he was laughing at at the claims you guys are making. The burden of proof is entirely on you. And now the burden of proof is on you to show: a). what regions are being affected; b). how they're being affected; and c) why relatively small (relative to the geographic distribution) innocuous strips of aluminium released high in the stratosphere would have any effect on any soil anywhere for any reason whatsoever.
1. You show bias by calling those you disagree with "conspiracy theorists". You're biased.* And I could be wrong, but probably not as wrong as you.
** Hopefully spellcheck is getting those words right, if not, well this will be embarassing!
*** Technically contrails do influence climate, but not in the way conspiracy theorists suggest. People have written papers on this, with the grounding of planes in the aftermath of 9/11 providing some interesting controls.
Seems you still didn't make your way through the conversation. This has already happened. I haven't heard one claim that anything is related to an 'unknown' chemical.
read the convo if you're going to comment again. otherwise I'm just going to wait for bit pattern.
How so?I don't care if you're laughing at me, that just ruins your credibility.
People look bad when they disagree with you?It's nothing crazy and you guys are making yourselves look bad.
plenty of reasons has been posted, it seems like you missed it (over and over)pretending you were right for some reason.
lolSeriously, you guys should be receive a warning for this immature behavior.
do you know what hubris is?You, again, display much hubris when you're wrong.
do you really think that this is a coherent sentence?The burden of proof is on you to disprove it because apparently Bill Nye fucking believes it and enjoys talking about it and you're just acting like you know it all because you can't seem to wrap your mind around this little concept of chemtrails.
No, that's what you did. Believing in "chemtrails" is to subscribe to the belief that there is a plot which involves more than one person, ie a conspiracy.1. You show bias by calling those you disagree with "conspiracy theorists". You're biased.
"i mean really?" is not a sentence nor a question.2. If you knew anything about the "theories" you'd know it's about CHEMTRAILS which are NOT CONTRAILS. ...blah blah... Not motherfucking contrails, I mean really??
explain how.Also, EW seems to be using some bad logic in his arguments against you, like he's high or something.