Your beliefs of "what is true" are irrelevant. The evidence either supports something or it doesn't. The evidence is the evidence is the evidence. If people aren't allowed to present evidence, how can you possibly see it? How can anyone see it? How can we debate it?
You are making yourself The Arbiter of Truth. You aren't helping anyone by silencing evidence you think is bunk, you are harming an honest investigation into the Truth. If you think the evidence is bunk, present evidence to the contrary. Protesting "but why haven't we seen X, Y, and Z" is not an argument against evidence.
Let me give you an example you might appreciate.
"How can Pizzagate be real if there is no basement!?!"
How often do we see exactly this argument. If evidence of the basement is censored, the belief continues ad infinitum. This is exactly the same type of action of censorship you are promoting with your "disbelief" argument (and power to censor).
How? The same way I debate everything else, by presenting arguments and evidence. The point is not whether you, or I, or anyone believes in Chemtrails (or any topic), the point is whether or not someone who presents evidence of it should be censored. I suggest that is the worst possible action that can be taken. You support such censorship of evidence you don't like full Gestapo style, because you think it must be bullshit.
As an aside (because it's not my point), after all the evidence I've seen, I am fairly convinced that you haven't seen anything on Chemtrails (likely because you censor it before looking). The evidence is substantial. I may not be "beyond a reasonable doubt" on it, but it is definitely in the "maybe" range. I'd even go so far as to call it "likely true." However, that is my personal view on it based on the evidence I've seen; i.e. the stuff that wasn't censored before I was able to see it (or found elsewhere).
I assert neither you nor I know the Truth about it, or anything else, at least not the Whole Truth. If censorship of evidence we don't like is allowed, getting closer to that Whole Truth can't happen.
I've even posted the US patents to chemtrail technology directly to Cats5 and he ignored them. He's even admitted to being the least popular mod on here.
Odd how this evidence is substantially missing from this conversation.
The evidence is missing from this conversation because that is not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about censorship of evidence! What the fuck dude?
injection hardware, installed en masse, in commercial aircraft
Wait, I need to show you the evidence you insist on for people to be able to show evidence at all? This "I know what is true better than anyone" logic here is insane. It's not about me. It's not about you. It's not about chemtrails. It's about evidence and debate.
The path to the Truth is not based on your beliefs, or my beliefs, or anyone's beliefs, it is based on debating the evidence.
The only way to debate the evidence is to see the evidence and then debate it.
Now I understand why this board is so censored.
While I have other evidence, I don't have any of the evidence you want to see. I woudln't even look for such evidence because none of that would be even slightly convincing for me. I look for other evidence; chemical evidence, atmospheric evidence.
I am a scientist. My investigations into chemtrails are science based. I don't care about trying to figure out how they get it up there. I care about whether or not there is evidence in the atmosphere, in the ground, in the groundwater, in the plants, in our bodies, etc.
This video is not the best exposition because it's not a long list of peer reviewed papers (which I doubt you would want to wade through), but it gives a good amount of detail in some of the specifics, and is the best exposition I've found all in one place.
The exposition on aluminum salts is particularly interesting (starts around 12-13 mins).
Maybe if it wasn't all censored, I'd have a lot more "non-science" stuff to show you, though probably not, because I don't generally consider that to be good evidence and probably wouldn't save it unless it was really good.
Because chemtrails are a chemical fuckery, I prefer chemical evidence.
Lol. You don't even know who I am or how I operate. You whine like a Snowflake lolbtard making baseless accusations and grossly exaggerated comparisons. Whatever point you were trying to make is forever flushed as far as I am concerned. Good day.
Your beliefs of "what is true" are irrelevant. The evidence either supports something or it doesn't. The evidence is the evidence is the evidence. If people aren't allowed to present evidence, how can you possibly see it? How can anyone see it? How can we debate it?
You are making yourself The Arbiter of Truth. You aren't helping anyone by silencing evidence you think is bunk, you are harming an honest investigation into the Truth. If you think the evidence is bunk, present evidence to the contrary. Protesting "but why haven't we seen X, Y, and Z" is not an argument against evidence.
Let me give you an example you might appreciate.
How often do we see exactly this argument. If evidence of the basement is censored, the belief continues ad infinitum. This is exactly the same type of action of censorship you are promoting with your "disbelief" argument (and power to censor).
How can you debate it? It's simple, and has been outlined here many times before: on conspiracies.win. If it's not on Q, take it there.
How? The same way I debate everything else, by presenting arguments and evidence. The point is not whether you, or I, or anyone believes in Chemtrails (or any topic), the point is whether or not someone who presents evidence of it should be censored. I suggest that is the worst possible action that can be taken. You support such censorship of evidence you don't like full Gestapo style, because you think it must be bullshit.
As an aside (because it's not my point), after all the evidence I've seen, I am fairly convinced that you haven't seen anything on Chemtrails (likely because you censor it before looking). The evidence is substantial. I may not be "beyond a reasonable doubt" on it, but it is definitely in the "maybe" range. I'd even go so far as to call it "likely true." However, that is my personal view on it based on the evidence I've seen; i.e. the stuff that wasn't censored before I was able to see it (or found elsewhere).
I assert neither you nor I know the Truth about it, or anything else, at least not the Whole Truth. If censorship of evidence we don't like is allowed, getting closer to that Whole Truth can't happen.
I've even posted the US patents to chemtrail technology directly to Cats5 and he ignored them. He's even admitted to being the least popular mod on here.
Odd how this evidence is substantially missing from this conversation. Show me:
Am I looking? I'm furiously refreshing my inbox. This is your chance. In the meantime, chemtards will be relocated to the sidelines where they belong.
The evidence is missing from this conversation because that is not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about censorship of evidence! What the fuck dude?
Wait, I need to show you the evidence you insist on for people to be able to show evidence at all? This "I know what is true better than anyone" logic here is insane. It's not about me. It's not about you. It's not about chemtrails. It's about evidence and debate.
The path to the Truth is not based on your beliefs, or my beliefs, or anyone's beliefs, it is based on debating the evidence.
The only way to debate the evidence is to see the evidence and then debate it.
Now I understand why this board is so censored.
While I have other evidence, I don't have any of the evidence you want to see. I woudln't even look for such evidence because none of that would be even slightly convincing for me. I look for other evidence; chemical evidence, atmospheric evidence.
I am a scientist. My investigations into chemtrails are science based. I don't care about trying to figure out how they get it up there. I care about whether or not there is evidence in the atmosphere, in the ground, in the groundwater, in the plants, in our bodies, etc.
This video is not the best exposition because it's not a long list of peer reviewed papers (which I doubt you would want to wade through), but it gives a good amount of detail in some of the specifics, and is the best exposition I've found all in one place.
The exposition on aluminum salts is particularly interesting (starts around 12-13 mins).
Maybe if it wasn't all censored, I'd have a lot more "non-science" stuff to show you, though probably not, because I don't generally consider that to be good evidence and probably wouldn't save it unless it was really good.
Because chemtrails are a chemical fuckery, I prefer chemical evidence.
You should be deported for your abuse of the green text. You come off condescending like a Now This video.
But that's not in the rules, so I'm not going to. If you aren't happy, start your own WIN.
You go right ahead and Hitler your way down to that deport button and do your worst.
Everyone you disagree with should be censored amirite?
Lol. You don't even know who I am or how I operate. You whine like a Snowflake lolbtard making baseless accusations and grossly exaggerated comparisons. Whatever point you were trying to make is forever flushed as far as I am concerned. Good day.