I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[George B]

Yeah George, people do think differently, at all levels...and what do we do when someone "thinks" that something that doesn't exist...exists? We question them! And as we question them, we can often see a pattern in their thought processes.

And sometimes it's so easy to see this pattern that only a limited number of conclusions can be made.

Sometimes it's obvious that people are suffering form some form of delusion.

To me, it's obvious in this case.

The "evidence" you present is no such thing...it's just what YOU "use" to justify your beliefs...and it isn't working all that well. Sorry.

The "evidence" you offer can be used to to manipulate ANYTHING into a believable hoax/urban legend.

One area of evidence Advocates like to use is the existence of relevant patents . . . however, even here we are at a disadvantage because of the system does not allow full disclosure . . . as with much of our potential evidence

"Patent secrecy enforcement lasted the duration of that war and then lapsed.It resumed in October 1941, on the eve America’s entry into WWII. The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, when theCold War started to simmer in earnest, made patent secrecy a permanent part ofU.S. law.
“War always generates people’s creativity to protect the nation,” says MikeCarone, supervisory patent examiner at the USPTO. He notes that since the 9/11terrorist attacks, there has been “more awareness of the need for secrecyorders.”
There were 5,023 patents undersecrecy orders in 2008, up from 4,741 in 2000. The vast majority of these werefor technologies developed by or for various military branches.'
http://www.inventorsdigest.com/archives/984

 

[Noble1965]

One area of evidence Advocates like to use is the existence of relevant patents . . . however, even here we are at a disadvantage because of the system does not allow full disclosure . . . as with much of our potential evidence

"Patent secrecy enforcement lasted the duration of that war and then lapsed.It resumed in October 1941, on the eve America’s entry into WWII. The Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, when theCold War started to simmer in earnest, made patent secrecy a permanent part ofU.S. law.
“War always generates people’s creativity to protect the nation,” says MikeCarone, supervisory patent examiner at the USPTO. He notes that since the 9/11terrorist attacks, there has been “more awareness of the need for secrecyorders.”
There were 5,023 patents undersecrecy orders in 2008, up from 4,741 in 2000. The vast majority of these werefor technologies developed by or for various military branches.'
http://www.inventorsdigest.com/archives/984

A patent is just a way to secure the rights to intellectual property.

I have seen many patents listed as evidence of "chemtrails". In every case, the person makes assumptions based on the fact that the patent includes the words "airplane" and "spray". Which don't necessarily mean they have anything to do with "chemtrails".

The number of patents over any given number of years isn't all that interesting to me...neither is any secrecy associated with them..If they are military, I would rather the technology remain a secret from our enemies. I also prefer it remain a secret from those who would wish to profit from the sale of the information to our enemies.

It's funny how these things really fire up YOUR imagination though.

 

[Mick West]

The existence of secrets does not indicate that any particular secret is true.

George you seem to continually conflate the possibility of something with the probablity of something.

Just because it's possible that unicorns exist, and just because we can't prove that they don't, it does not mean that we need advocate that they do.

 

[George B]

The existence of secrets does not indicate that any particular secret is true.

George you seem to continually conflate the possibility of something with the probablity of something.

Just because it's possible that unicorns exist, and just because we can't prove that they don't, it does not mean that we need advocate that they do.

This debate is based on the sufficiency of evidence . . . where do we find an " an unprejudiced mind" . . . that is a third party not prejudiced by either side of the debate? This is not a criminal case it is a civil issue . . .

"Sufficient evidence refers to evidence of such probative value as to support the verdict of the jury or a finding of fact by the court. The word sufficient does not mean conclusive. Conclusive evidence is evidence that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something.
Evidence is sufficient when it satisfies an unprejudiced mind." [Estate of Cruson v. LONG, 189 Ore. 537, 562 (Or. 1950)].
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sufficient-evidence/

 

[firepilot]

This is excellent info I ever knew about, it sheds a whole new light on what chemmies could do if they wanted to.

George, this is probably the best thing you never thought of.
Firepilot, many thanks for this info.

If they wanted to, but of course chemtrail promoters hide information and facts from their flocks of followers. Michael J Murphy, Will Thomas, Roxy Lopez, etc could all be buying this equipment or even just the software and subscribing to it. Or even if a chemtrailer just wanted to figure out once and for all about the flights, it would be a small price to pay, compared to the years that some of these people are online, posting about the chemtrail hoax.

The webmaster of the site "Dreamland Resort" (Dreamlandresort.com), which is the best site for discussing/speculating on what goes on in the Nellis Ranges, has an SBS-1 decoder, audio scanner, and routinely watches and listens to military traffic. Even with Flightaware, there are people that know which of the flights leaving Las Vegas are heading up to Tonopah or Groom Lake. The excuse that chemmies used, about it not showing secret/blocked/miltary traffic, is just an excuse, because just like with George in this case, when it was pointed out that yes you can watch military aircraft, and yes you can watch aircraft with these that would be blocked on a faa feed, it was not like he cared anyways. It was just an excuse to avoid actually doing effort to learn, and to make it easier to stay comfortable in the chemtrail delusion.

There are thousands of people who are enthusiasts, or actually hard core aviation geeks, that photograph aircraft, track planes by serial number, run flight tracking software, sit at airport viewing areas, and just are quite knowledgable about aviation and aircraft. Chemtrailers never seek them out though, which is too bad for the chemmies, who end up wasting years of their time before moving on.

And besides, I am sure it costs a lot less, even to buy the hardware for this, than it does to make a silly junk science movie. Yes, MJM, I am talking to you.

 

[Mick West]

This debate is based on the sufficiency of evidence . . . where do we find an " an unprejudiced mind" . . . that is a third party not prejudiced by either side of the debate? This is not a criminal case it is a civil issue . . .

"Sufficient evidence refers to evidence of such probative value as to support the verdict of the jury or a finding of fact by the court. The word sufficient does not mean conclusive. Conclusive evidence is evidence that serves to establish a fact or the truth of something.
Evidence is sufficient when it satisfies an unprejudiced mind." [Estate of Cruson v. LONG, 189 Ore. 537, 562 (Or. 1950)].
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sufficient-evidence/

You've satisfied yourself. But that does not make you any more correct than David Wynn Miller is about his bizarre theory of language.

You have presented your case here in great detail. Clearly you've not convinced us. You claim this is because we are prejudiced.

David Wynn Miller would probably make the same claim.

 

[firepilot]

Ahhh, apparently the reason we do not take this silly chemtrail hoax seriously, is because we are all prejudiced. Funny, I thought it was the lack of evidence, the decieving practiced by the promoters of it, and the utter lack of any knowledge by those who are involved in it.

I guess its apparently all our faults then. Not the fault of Will Thomas for manufacturing a fairy tale to sell books and videos, or MJM/Roxy Lopez/Len Horowitz/Tony Hilder for spreading utter lies to be conspiracy entrepreneurs.

Why if we only opened up our minds, and were not so "prejudiced", we would not require such silly things as proof, evidence and credibility, we could have more faith in the unseen and unproven. We can just believe anything and everything then!

Silly me for being a skeptic, and thinking that claims require proof. Someday I will get over my Prejudice problem and will believe anything on conspiracy boards.

 

[Noble1965]

Right...why should we EVER require "evidence" to believe in anything ever again! We have learned here that it's just a formality we can do without. Just imagine how much time this line of thinking could save for a jury! All we need is intuition to know if someone is innocent or guilty. We can just do away with courts altogether!

We can even gert rid of the whole education system...as long as we believe in something hard enough, we can find a way to manipulate the facts to work in our favor...

 

[George B]

Let me make you a proposition . . .
1) You Find three people . . . they must not have an opinion regarding Chemtrails . . .
2) Allow me to debate on a new Thread . . . you may have as many people debating on your side as you wish . . . you instruct the three people you chose to not look at any other Thread except the one the debate will be conducted on until the debate is over . . .
3) I will not use any VIDEO produced by a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I will not use quotes or link to any Chemtrail Advocate site . . .
4) The one except is I will need to use quotes regarding Whistleblowers . . .
5) You may use any evidence you choose . . .
6) At the end of the debate the three people will vote on the presentation . . . Do Chemtrails exist? Yes, No, Don't Know
7) If you accept we will work out the minor details
8) I did this on GLP but we never really had judges . . . so the outcome was unspecified . . .

 

[George B]

I spent 26.5 years in military/government service with an extremely high security clearance. Your "career" is not a tiebreaker.

Until you put forth empirical evidence to support your instincts and feelings, your responses are nothing more than cut-n-paste comic relief for the people on the forums where you usually hang out.

Thank you for your service . . . I don't think service in the military or government is a tie breaker either; however, like yourself it gives us possibly a deeper understanding of how a large compartmentalized and a necessarily secretive organization functions . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Let me make you a proposition . . .
1) You Find three people . . . they must not have an opinion regarding Chemtrails . . .
2) Allow me to debate on a new Thread . . . you may have as many people debating on your side as you wish . . . you instruct the three people you chose to not look at any other Thread except the one the debate will be conducted on until the debate is over . . .
3) I will not use any VIDEO produced by a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I will not use quotes or link to any Chemtrail Advocate site . . .
4) The one except is I will need to use quotes regarding Whistleblowers . . .
5) You may use any evidence you choose . . .
6) At the end of the debate the three people will vote on the presentation . . . Do Chemtrails exist? Yes, No, Don't Know
7) If you accept we will work out the minor details
8) I did this on GLP but we never really had judges . . . so the outcome was unspecified . . .

Sorry, Aviation and atmospheric science are a rare and complicated study. The average person can EASILY be tricked into believing the urban legend of "chemtrails". We all understand that it's actually kind of EASY for the average Joe to get suckered into this.

Your idea is flawed. Just because people fall for this hoax...doesn't mean they SHOULD!

Convincing people that whistle blowers have already exposed "chemtrails" will NOT be honest.

 

[George B]

You've satisfied yourself. But that does not make you any more correct than David Wynn Miller is about his bizarre theory of language.

You have presented your case here in great detail. Clearly you've not convinced us. You claim this is because we are prejudiced.

David Wynn Miller would probably make the same claim.

I have not presented all my evidence (I held some back) . . . there is also much other evidence I felt would be repetitive to most of you so I didn't present it either . . .

 

[Noble1965]

Hehe, sure....

Saved the best...for yourself, Huh George?

 

[George B]

Sorry, Aviation and atmospheric science are a rare and complicated study. The average person can EASILY be tricked into believing the urban legend of "chemtrails". We all understand that it's actually kind of EASY for the average Joe to get suckered into this.

Your idea is flawed. Just because people fall for this hoax...doesn't mean they SHOULD!

Convincing people that whistle blowers have already exposed "chemtrails" will NOT be honest.

I will be using "Aviation and atmospheric science" as well . . . from the official sources . . . you will have your chance to point any flaws in my presentation without my ability to stop you . . . so you think this is an unfair offer?

 

[Noble1965]

I will be using "Aviation and atmospheric science" as well . . . from the official sources . . . you will have your chance to point any flaws in my presentation without my ability to stop you . . . so you think this is an unfair offer?

No, you will be using what YOU understand about the subjects...from your LIMITED understanding based on a VERY narrow "education" on the subject...through google searches....for "chemtrails".

This is the problem to begin with! Too many people feel they understand these subjects enough to "educate" others on the subject.

Personally, I don't think you are even remotely qualified to influence anyone on these subjects. You make far too many assumptions and you misinterpret so many things.

Tell me, what were the conclusions about the circular contrail created over the UK by the AWAC...and what were YOU suggesting...despite the admission in the conclusions that it was quite possibly a normal occurrence?

What about your insistence that the appleman chart was meant to be used with sounding data, when the info you posted was lifted from a link from a classroom setting...where the exercise was carried out using sounding data...ONLY because they weren't flying...and unable to use real time data.



Again, I have witnessed you manipulate "evidence" to support your "beliefs" too many times...

It would be an absolute travesty for you to influence anyone on these subjects. That isn't meant as an insult. It's a statement of fact based on your performance.

Pointing out your mistakes after the fact wouldn't work...you'll aready have let the genie out of the bottle...Your influence will be out there. Any refutation will look desperate...which is why chemtrail advocartes always refer to those who disagree as "shills".

You are NOT qualified...

 

[George B]

Ahhh, apparently the reason we do not take this silly chemtrail hoax seriously, is because we are all prejudiced. Funny, I thought it was the lack of evidence, the decieving practiced by the promoters of it, and the utter lack of any knowledge by those who are involved in it.

I guess its apparently all our faults then. Not the fault of Will Thomas for manufacturing a fairy tale to sell books and videos, or MJM/Roxy Lopez/Len Horowitz/Tony Hilder for spreading utter lies to be conspiracy entrepreneurs.

Why if we only opened up our minds, and were not so "prejudiced", we would not require such silly things as proof, evidence and credibility, we could have more faith in the unseen and unproven. We can just believe anything and everything then!

Silly me for being a skeptic, and thinking that claims require proof. Someday I will get over my Prejudice problem and will believe anything on conspiracy boards.

"is because we are all prejudiced." in a legal sense it just means you have already made up your mind and have a position you believe is true . . . it does not have a pejorative connotation . . .

 

[firepilot]

I did not realize there were any actual "whistleblowers". You have a real one you found? By all means, send them over. I am sure you would not just be talking about the anonymous chemtrailers who make these things up, in order to help spread their conspiracy, or hoax.

 

[Spongebob]

I have not presented all my evidence (I held some back) . . . there is also much other evidence I felt would be repetitive to most of you so I didn't present it either . . .

I have corrected this for you George:

"I have not presented ANY evidence (I will pretend I held some back)" ...

 

[Mick West]

I will be using "Aviation and atmospheric science" as well . . . from the official sources . . . you will have your chance to point any flaws in my presentation without my ability to stop you . . . so you think this is an unfair offer?

Where am I going to find three people willing to wade through your evidence?

Why don't you:

A) Define "chemtrails"
and
B) Explain the relevant parts of "Aviation and atmospheric science", consider the responses, and see if YOU still believe.

 

[Noble1965]

"is because we are all prejudiced." in a legal sense it just means you have already made up your mind and have a position you believe is true . . . it does not have a pejorative connotation . . .

And so have you...

It's obvious that you chose a side from the beginning...and have been sculpting your "research" to fit your beliefs all along. Confirmation bias....

You aren't searching for the truth..you are just trying to get as many people as you can to believe you are right.

 

[Mick West]

And I'm a bit confused as to why you would hold back any evidence, when you had no problem in giving a laundry list of some frankly rather specious speculation in your first post.

 

[George B]

No, you will be using what YOU understand about the subjects...from your LIMITED understanding based on a VERY narrow "education" on the subject...through google searches....for "chemtrails".

This is the problem to begin with! Too many people feel they understand these subjects enough to "educate" others on the subject.

Personally, I don't think you are even remotely qualified to influence anyone on these subjects. You make far too many assumptions and you misinterpret so many things.

Tell me, what were the conclusions about the circular contrail created over the UK by the AWAC...and what were YOU suggesting...despite the admission in the conclusions that it was quite possibly a normal occurrence?

What about your insistence that the appleman chart was meant to be used with sounding data, when the info you posted was lifted from a link from a classroom setting...where the exercise was carried out using sounding data...ONLY because they weren't flying...and unable to use real time data.



Again, I have witnessed you manipulate "evidence" to support your "beliefs" too many times...

It would be an absolute travesty for you to influence anyone on these subjects. That isn't meant as an insult. It's a statement of fact based on your performance.

Pointing out your mistakes after the fact wouldn't work...you'll aready have let the genie out of the bottle...Your influence will be out there. Any refutation will look desperate...which is why chemtrail advocartes always refer to those who disagree as "shills".

You are NOT qualified...

I disagree with your analysis on the above but will not go into a debate at this time . . . seems you think you are not capable of advocating for your position with the full resources of the expertise on this forum . . . ? Fascinating . . . !!!! Do others here feel the way Noble does?

 

[Noble1965]

I have corrected this for you George:

"I have not presented ANY evidence (I will pretend I held some back)" ...

That made me giggle a bit...

I was thinking the same thing..

 

[George B]

And I'm a bit confused as to why you would hold back any evidence, when you had no problem in giving a laundry list of some frankly rather specious speculation in your first post.

Primarily, I got sidetracked . . . more than anything else . . . but would like to use it later when it becomes appropriate . . .

 

[Noble1965]

I disagree with your analysis on the above but will not go into a debate at this time . . . seems you think you are not capable of advocating for your position with the full resources of the expertise on this forum . . . ? Fascinating . . . !!!! Do others here feel the way Noble does?

Probably not...

I'm not speaking for them...I'm speaking for myself.

Based on my personal experience with you in your threads over the last several months.

Hence the use of the word "Personally".

 

[George B]

Where am I going to find three people willing to wade through your evidence?

Why don't you:

A) Define "chemtrails"
and
B) Explain the relevant parts of "Aviation and atmospheric science", consider the responses, and see if YOU still believe.

OK . . . how about one or two . . .

 

[firepilot]

"is because we are all prejudiced." in a legal sense it just means you have already made up your mind and have a position you believe is true . . . it does not have a pejorative connotation . . .

Actually its you that have your mind made up. Even when your "evidence" did not withstand any scrutiny, and was found to usually be something different than what you claimed, it was YOU that held onto your beliefs. You did not re-evaluate any of your beliefs whatsoever.

When your NOAA article was not about mysterious aerosols with no known source like you said, but instead was actually about naturally emitted gases that chemically form aerosols later on, you did not rethink things.
When you insisted that Open Skies was a way for foreign aircraft to penetrate US airspace at will and was a covert program, you did not at all rethink things when it was shown to be much different than what you presented it to be
When you insisted that there is no way to monitor monitor military/blocked aircraft in flight, but when there actually is software and hardware than you can get to watch military aircraft, and even civilian aircraft that would normally be blocked, you just then went right on like nothing happened, yet again.

It is YOU that is prejudiced more than anyone else here. It is us that were giving you a fair shake to offer up real proof. And your "proof" was anything but. Instead of calling us "prejudiced" because you can not present real proof, maybe you should look at yourself and why you feel victim to a hoax and will manipulate reality in order to stay comfortably in the chemtrail hoax. And examine why you cling to it so much, even when what helped form your beliefs, actually debunks those beliefs when looked at rationally.

 

[George B]

Actually its you that have your mind made up. Even when your "evidence" did not withstand any scrutiny, and was found to usually be something different than what you claimed, it was YOU that held onto your beliefs. You did not re-evaluate any of your beliefs whatsoever.

When your NOAA article was not about mysterious aerosols with no known source like you said, but instead was actually about naturally emitted gases that chemically form aerosols later on, you did not rethink things.
When you insisted that Open Skies was a way for foreign aircraft to penetrate US airspace at will and was a covert program, you did not at all rethink things when it was shown to be much different than what you presented it to be
When you insisted that there is on way to monitor aircraft in flight, but when there actually is software and hardware than you can get to watch military aircraft, and even civilian aircraft that would normally be blocked, you just then went right on like nothing happened, yet again.

It is YOU that is prejudiced more than anyone else here. It is us that were giving you a fair shake to offer up real proof. And your "proof" was anything but. Instead of calling us "prejudiced" because you can not present real proof, maybe you should look at yourself and why you feel victim to a hoax and will manipulate reality in order to stay comfortably in the chemtrail hoax. And examine why you cling to it so much, even when what helped form your beliefs, actually debunks those beliefs when looked at rationally.

I never once said I did not have a prejudiced position . . . I think that is very clear . . .

 

[Mick West]

I disagree with your analysis on the above but will not go into a debate at this time . . . seems you think you are not capable of advocating for your position with the full resources of the expertise on this forum . . . ? Fascinating . . . !!!! Do others here feel the way Noble does?

Noble is just relating his previous experience debating the subject with you.

MY position is that you don't have good evidence of the existence of chemtrails (using the wikipedia definition). I'm more than happy to explain why I feel that way about any particular piece of evidence you are curious about.

I would not say "advocate", as that implies being somewhat deceptive about one's information to better argue a position, which is not what I want to do.

 

[George B]

Noble is just relating his previous experience debating the subject with you.

MY position is that you don't have good evidence of the existence of chemtrails (using the wikipedia definition). I'm more than happy to explain why I feel that way about any particular piece of evidence you are curious about.

I would not say "advocate", as that implies being somewhat deceptive about one's information to better argue a position, which is not what I want to do.

I made an offer to have a formal debate with a way to evaluate the outcome . . . I am by myself and have no other resources . . . you don't consider my information as evidence . . . I don't think everyone would agree with your position except the consensus of opinion on this Forum . . . this is your Forum and you, of course, can do as you choose . . . I don't understand your reluctance . . . if my information is not valid, incorrect, or inflammatory you and everyone else can say so . . .

 

[George B]

Noble is just relating his previous experience debating the subject with you.

MY position is that you don't have good evidence of the existence of chemtrails (using the wikipedia definition). I'm more than happy to explain why I feel that way about any particular piece of evidence you are curious about.

I would not say "advocate", as that implies being somewhat deceptive about one's information to better argue a position, which is not what I want to do.

In your opinion what should I use if I don't use advocate . . . ?

 

[Mick West]

And I've asked you to define "chemtrails" before considering the debate, let's move forward.

 

[George B]

And I've asked you to define "chemtrails" before considering the debate, let's move forward.

And this was my answer . . .
"

CHEMTRAIL DEFINITION:By George B.​

Chemtrails are: particulates, aerosols, and other substances released at altitude (usually by aircraft) and without the consent or knowledge of the vast majority of the population for purposes the people are not aware of and for goals they may or may not agree with. The trails may or may not be visible and they may or may not be visualized by radar or other technologies (i.e. lasers). When seen from the ground, at altitude or from space they may appear similar to persistent contrails. NOTE: Chemtrails in effect are indistinguishable from and are sometimes actually contrails. " ​

 

[Mick West]

In your opinion what should I use if I don't use advocate . . . ?

Describing what you believe, and why you believe it.

"Explain", if you want a single word to replace "advocate"

 

[Mick West]

And this was my answer . . .
"

CHEMTRAIL DEFINITION:By George B.​

Chemtrailsare: particulates, aerosols, and othersubstances released at altitude (usually by aircraft) and without the consent orknowledge ofthe vast majority of the population for purposes the people are not aware ofand for goals they may or may not agree with. The trails may or may not be visible and they may or may not bevisualized by radar or other technologies (i.e. lasers). When seen from the ground, at altitudeor from space they may appear similar topersistent contrails. NOTE: Chemtrails ineffect are indistinguishable from and are sometimes actually contrails. " ​

Sigh.

"Chemtrails in effect are indistinguishable from and are sometimes actually contrails."


Then you've already won the debate.

 

[Noble1965]

I made an offer to have a formal debate with a way to evaluate the outcome . . . I am by myself and have no other resources . . . you don't consider my information as evidence . . . I don't think everyone would agree with your position except the consensus of opinion on this Forum . . . this is your Forum and you, of course, can do as you choose . . . I don't understand your reluctance . . . if my information is not valid, incorrect, or inflammatory you and everyone else can say so . . .

Are you actually suggesting that the proper way to evaluate how a debate is going is to have 3 guinea pigs watching and then ask them at the end who is telling the truth? All the while manipulating what can and can't be brought into the debate?

I don't agree.

We are already having a debate...and it's going fine.

I want to go on record, AGAIN, as saying I don't think you should be in a position to influence anyone in the subjects of aviation and atmospheric science. I will certainly take myself out of any such experiment. I have seen you manipulate information to suit you way too many times.
All it seems you want to accomplish is prove that you can convince someone that something is true by using supposed whistleblowers to do so. When, you will have ZERO evidence that a single one even exists.

 

[Mick West]

Oh, and normal cloud seeding also meets your definition.

 

[George B]

Sigh.

"Chemtrails in effect are indistinguishable from and are sometimes actually contrails."


Then you've already won the debate.

What definition do you want me to use . . .? I have to believe the definition is correct . . .

 

[Noble1965]

In your opinion what should I use if I don't use advocate . . . ?

I know I know!!

Wait...nevermind...We can't use THAT word here...

 

[George B]

Are you actually suggesting that the proper way to evaluate how a debate is going is to have 3 guinea pigs watching and then ask them at the end who is telling the truth? All the while manipulating what can and can't be brought into the debate?

I don't agree.

We are already having a debate...and it's going fine.

I want to go on record, AGAIN, as saying I don't think you should be in a position to influence anyone in the subjects of aviation and atmospheric science. I will certainly take myself out of any such experiment. I have seen you manipulate information to suit you way too many times.
All it seems you want to accomplish is prove that you can convince someone that something is true by using supposed whistleblowers to do so. When, you will have ZERO evidence that a single one even exists.

"All the while manipulating what can and can't be brought into the debate?" . . . What? Please explain?