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.
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.
That's so spectacularly retarded, I can't even. So I'm not going to.
Wait, because I prefer scientific evidence and I personally don't care about how airplanes are built, everything I said is "so spectacularly retarded you can't even"???
Wow.
Look at the evidence I presented. If you would like follow up info on anything, I will provide it if I have it.
Or don't. I don't give a fuck.
But don't tell me that just because I don't care about what you care about I must be wrong. You haven't even looked at the fucking evidence. HOLY FUCK!
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.
That's so spectacularly retarded, I can't even. So I'm not going to.
Sidebar is life.
Wait, because I prefer scientific evidence and I personally don't care about how airplanes are built, everything I said is "so spectacularly retarded you can't even"???
Wow.
Look at the evidence I presented. If you would like follow up info on anything, I will provide it if I have it.
Or don't. I don't give a fuck.
But don't tell me that just because I don't care about what you care about I must be wrong. You haven't even looked at the fucking evidence. HOLY FUCK!
That is next level hubris man. Major applause.