You can believe it...but people can believe anything. Intensity of belief is meaningless. You can't prove it and you cant demonstrate it. I live in the midst of continual "weather" and it is beyond controlling. (Hint: nothing is in defiance of physics.)
You don't understand logic. It is not true that all statements are equally possible and that therefore the onus of proof is on the doubter. The onus of proof is always on the person alleging a statement to be true. If you allege zebras exist, then it is on you to provide the doubter with evidence. Likewise, if he alleges leprechauns exist, the onus is not on you to prove they don't exist.
In no way does logic dictate that it is possible to "control" the weather (by which I mean something orders of magnitude more significant than squeezing a little water out of a cloud by seeding). It is a matter of physics. I have had occasion to run the numbers on what it would take to clear an airport runway of incoming fog by evaporating the droplets with an infrared laser. Seems possible, right? Totally wrong. The power requirement is enormous. And that's just fog.
You see, physics is the tangible embodiment of logic. If something is not physically true, then it cannot logically be true. All this reference to HAARP is not based in physics at all, but in superstition. Basically, no one understands it, and they use that lack of understanding to justify the accusation of magical powers. It is like witchcraft. I hate to see people falling back into the Dark Ages.
Logic absolutely dictates that it is possible because the weather is a system of pure physicality, it's an obviously observable system with easy to identify attributes. Just because your dogbrain doesn't know how to do it, doesn't mean it's impossible.
I know you don't understand the physics because you refuse to accept the truth that the physics your entire world view is based on is completely flawed ala particle physics aka Einstonian physics, Jewish physics. Now I know you're a jewish faggot that sucks baby dick, so I know you'll never accept the simple truth that Einstein stole his dogshit theories from the patent office, and they're completely flawed. Not to mention he went on to marry his 1st cousin like a typical weirdo jewish degenerate, and like to cross dress. That's the dude you dogbrained shitkicking physics world view is based on.
Since your understanding of physics is missing a major part of the equation you'll never be able to grasp the idea that weather is absolutely controllable, once you accept the basic truths that the earths magnetic field & electric fields can be manipulated to control the weather.
I have three degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, including fluid physics, atmospheric physics, and applied physics. I have actually worked on the problem. The physics works, as demonstrated repeatedly by products that rely on them (e.g., aircraft, missiles, radar, lasers, launch vehicles, satellites).
Since I have apparently more understanding of physics than your screed would suggest, I don't think you win this argument.
You can believe it...but people can believe anything. Intensity of belief is meaningless. You can't prove it and you cant demonstrate it. I live in the midst of continual "weather" and it is beyond controlling. (Hint: nothing is in defiance of physics.)
Hint: You can't prove it isn't true possible either, and logic dictates that it is indeed possible. Retard.
You don't understand logic. It is not true that all statements are equally possible and that therefore the onus of proof is on the doubter. The onus of proof is always on the person alleging a statement to be true. If you allege zebras exist, then it is on you to provide the doubter with evidence. Likewise, if he alleges leprechauns exist, the onus is not on you to prove they don't exist.
In no way does logic dictate that it is possible to "control" the weather (by which I mean something orders of magnitude more significant than squeezing a little water out of a cloud by seeding). It is a matter of physics. I have had occasion to run the numbers on what it would take to clear an airport runway of incoming fog by evaporating the droplets with an infrared laser. Seems possible, right? Totally wrong. The power requirement is enormous. And that's just fog.
You see, physics is the tangible embodiment of logic. If something is not physically true, then it cannot logically be true. All this reference to HAARP is not based in physics at all, but in superstition. Basically, no one understands it, and they use that lack of understanding to justify the accusation of magical powers. It is like witchcraft. I hate to see people falling back into the Dark Ages.
Logic absolutely dictates that it is possible because the weather is a system of pure physicality, it's an obviously observable system with easy to identify attributes. Just because your dogbrain doesn't know how to do it, doesn't mean it's impossible.
I know you don't understand the physics because you refuse to accept the truth that the physics your entire world view is based on is completely flawed ala particle physics aka Einstonian physics, Jewish physics. Now I know you're a jewish faggot that sucks baby dick, so I know you'll never accept the simple truth that Einstein stole his dogshit theories from the patent office, and they're completely flawed. Not to mention he went on to marry his 1st cousin like a typical weirdo jewish degenerate, and like to cross dress. That's the dude you dogbrained shitkicking physics world view is based on.
Since your understanding of physics is missing a major part of the equation you'll never be able to grasp the idea that weather is absolutely controllable, once you accept the basic truths that the earths magnetic field & electric fields can be manipulated to control the weather.
I have three degrees in aeronautics and astronautics, including fluid physics, atmospheric physics, and applied physics. I have actually worked on the problem. The physics works, as demonstrated repeatedly by products that rely on them (e.g., aircraft, missiles, radar, lasers, launch vehicles, satellites).
Since I have apparently more understanding of physics than your screed would suggest, I don't think you win this argument.