How could you prove Intentional Covert Atmospheric Aerosol Injection Program exists

[Noble1965]

And since the original question has been answered several time, and the thread has degenerated somewhat, it's going to get moved to a more appropriate location.

And a word of warning: since you all "know" each other, I've been less stringent on enforcing the politeness policy. While the insults on both sides are not without merit, they reflect poorly on the site and I'm going to be taking a more aggressive approach in the future. I may also attempt to add an "on topic" policy to the site rules.

So pointing out a lack of evidence isn't allowed?

[George B]

I understand.....just another chemmie....won't help others......won't help himself.....an underdog by choice...victim of his own folly... another member of the sob story of chemtrails........

Your attitude is your own undoing . . . you are not my knight in shinning armor and I doubt others would think so as well . . . by all means fight your crusade . . . make your arguments . . . if people are disposed to listen they will . . . I don't plead for people to believe me . . . I present my case . . . seems you think if one person believes counter to your beliefs they must be stupid, evil, corrupt or manipulative . . . how about they believe what they are saying after a long investigation . . .

[George B]

Which is why the thread title was changed. This discussion is not about the broader topic of proving if "Chemtrails" exist, it's about proving if George's covert geoengineering scheme exists.

No. . . I disagree . . . it was to elicit what evidence would convince debunkers that ICAAIP could exist . . . and I have my answer . . . the rest was my trying to answer the questions directed at me . . .

1) Your responses . . . Would be 'in situ' sampling and testing . . .
2) I still ask how can that be accomplished in the stratosphere? and How do I target the appropriate sample area?

[Mick]

So pointing out a lack of evidence isn't allowed?

Of course it's allowed. Pointing out the lack of evidence is a large part of what debunking is about. In fact it's often at the top of the pyramid - if the claim is that there's evidence of chemtrails, then the lack of evidence explicitly refutes the central point.

You just have to do it without name-calling.

Are you misreading the intent of the "Contradiction" level?

[Mick]

lee h oswald has been banned for 24 hours for reposting private messages, which is very impolite.

Private messages only work if there is an expectation of privacy. If you don't like the messages you get then delete them, ignore them, and/or block the sender.

I don't have a full set of rules, but if I did they would look like this:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-To-This-Board

[George B]

It is now evident that much of the effort on this Forum is dedicated to the total and complete repudiation of anything appearing to resemble a chemtrail theory . . . I obviously thought, my error, that someone could present a rational argument that such activity was possible and even a rational response by authorities to the environmental threats they may understand better than the public . . . they may also be very reluctant to inform the public for fear of interference or spooking the herd . . . I do not believe this is correct public policy if the above is true . . .

Forgive me for my naiveté . . . no wonder you are unable to maintain composure while in the heat of battle . . . so go slay your dragons . . . I will watch from the sidelines making occasional observations . . .

[Mick]

The fact that your theory was not believed does not mean that that was the intent of this forum. It's a debunking forum, it's about identifying what is bunk by examining the evidence, not about prejudging bunk.

[George B]

The fact that your theory was not believed does not mean that that was the intent of this forum. It's a debunking forum, it's about identifying what is bunk by examining the evidence, not about prejudging bunk.

It is not the rational debunking arguments I am reacting about . . . it is the emotional and sometimes personal attacks . . . if it were not part of your official policy I could say little . . . no such policy exists elsewhere . . . so as I said . . . I will be less obvious here for a while . . .

[Spongebob]

At last...

[George B]

At last...

Typical . . . MetaBunk response. . . I couldn't have demonstrated it any better . . . Thanks Sb!!!! Debunk this Mick . . . LoL!!!!

[Spongebob]

You talk rubbish for long enough... you get tidied up

See you soon, when you start the same thread again.

[George B]

You talk rubbish for long enough... you get tidied up

See you soon, when you start the same thread again.

Don't hold your breath . . .

"An average person can hold their breath for 1 minute. People vary and are able to hold their breath much longer or much less. Some practiced swimmers are able to hold their breath for over 2 minutes. David Blaine set a record for holding his breathe for 9 minutes."


http://www.reference.com/motif/Healt...d-their-breath

[Spongebob]

Don't hold your breath . . .

"An average person can hold their breath for 1 minute. People vary and are able to hold their breath much longer or much less. Some practiced swimmers are able to hold their breath for over 2 minutes. David Blaine set a record for holding his breathe for 9 minutes."


http://www.reference.com/motif/Healt...d-their-breath

If David Blaine practised really hard - do you think he could break your record for talking endless shite ?

I doubt it.

Good down here in the obscure bin is it not??

[George B]

If David Blaine practised really hard - do you think he could break your record for talking endless shite ?

I doubt it.

Good down here in the obscure bin is it not??

Can't help slumming can you???

[Spongebob]

Can't help slumming can you???

[lee h oswald]

lee h oswald has been banned for 24 hours for reposting private messages, which is very impolite.

Private messages only work if there is an expectation of privacy. If you don't like the messages you get then delete them, ignore them, and/or block the sender.

I don't have a full set of rules, but if I did they would look like this:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-To-This-Board

Thanks boss - I got it now. As long as I call my close relative's new friend a c**t quietly and so no one else can hear, then it's ok; if anyone else hears it, it's unacceptable. Got it boss, sorry boss.

ps Mick, I just sent you a private message

[lee h oswald]

Kafka got nothing on you!