Undeniable Chemtrail Evidence

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Perhaps, they are good for the planet yet harmful to us. Or maybe there is something more sinister.

Why do you dismiss out of hand the improbable as impossible?

So lets be clear, on the one hand we have new jet engines which leave different contrails in the atmosphere, and have been doing so for decades.

Alternatively we have a secret plan that, for some reason, may or may not be bad for us, or good for the environment, for some reason, if it's bad for us they've figured out a way to harm huge swaths of the planet while protecting the NWO, somehow. This plan involves dozens of planes yet has either been kept secret, or involves just about everyone in air traffic control, climatologists, aviation technicians, and frankly a list so boggling endless that it staggers the mind. It's not improbable it's stupid.

These planes that you saw, do you suppose they were non regular non commercial flights? Do you not suppose that Air Traffic controls would not notice if they were launched? Were they launched from commercial airports in Ireland? If they weren't where were they launched? If they were do you not suppose ground crews would have noticed. Shannon peace campaigners where able to track CIA rendition flights using log books, and binoculars, do you not think someone on the ground would have noticed all this suspicious activity.

if they were commercial airlines, retrofitted to release some sort of chemical mid air, do you not suppose ground crews doing preflight checks wouldn't have noticed? Don't you think that would be dangerous, this whole conspiracy could be undo by one greasemonkey in an airport anywhere noticing the unusual parts.

Sofa, your personal Occam's razor wasn't made by Gillette, I suspect yours is akin something made from rubber they give to the criminally stupid, in order not to hurt themselves.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

So lets be clear, on the one hand we have new jet engines which leave different contrails in the atmosphere, and have been doing so for decades.

Alternatively we have a secret plan that, for some reason, may or may not be bad for us, or good for the environment, for some reason, if it's bad for us they've figured out a way to harm huge swaths of the planet while protecting the NWO, somehow. This plan involves dozens of planes yet has either been kept secret, or involves just about everyone in air traffic control, climatologists, aviation technicians, and frankly a list so boggling endless that it staggers the mind. It's not improbable it's stupid.

These planes that you saw, do you suppose they were non regular non commercial flights? Do you not suppose that Air Traffic controls would not notice if they were launched? Were they launched from commercial airports in Ireland? If they weren't where were they launched? If they were do you not suppose ground crews would have noticed. Shannon peace campaigners where able to track CIA rendition flights using log books, and binoculars, do you not think someone on the ground would have noticed all this suspicious activity.

if they were commercial airlines, retrofitted to release some sort of chemical mid air, do you not suppose ground crews doing preflight checks wouldn't have noticed? Don't you think that would be dangerous, this whole conspiracy could be undo by one greasemonkey in an airport anywhere noticing the unusual parts.

Diogenes wrote: »

Sofa, your personal Occam's razor wasn't made by Gillette, I suspect yours is akin something made from rubber they give to the criminally stupid, in order not to hurt themselves.

Your kinda funny. I've never been called fool in such an intellectual manner before.

Seriously though all i was saying was the sky was full of intersecting trails and parallel trails remarkably close. It was markedly different to anything i had noticed before in the sky. As to what or why 'i have no clue.

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Seriously though all i was saying was the sky was full of intersecting trails and parallel trails remarkably close. It was markedly different to anything i had noticed before in the sky. As to what or why 'i have no clue.

The vast majority of times the trails aren't intersecting at all. One would be considerably high that the other, unless of course you can judge the exact height with the naked eye.
Also the are more planes now than ever and there's an airport in Dublin, so a lot of contrails shouldn't be a surprise.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Seriously though all i was saying was the sky was full of intersecting trails and parallel trails remarkably close. It was markedly different to anything i had noticed before in the sky. As to what or why 'i have no clue.

We had exceptionally mild and clear atmospheric conditions in the run up for christmas, a time period I hasten to add where you will find increased commercial air traffic, (for some weird reason everyone want to fly around about then) and you have a very plausible explanation for what you saw.

But hey keep up the paranoia, and the shoddy use of the quote function, it's kinda endearing.

Sofa_King Good

at your service diogenes.

Mahatma coat

Sofa, your personal Occam's razor wasn't made by Gillette, I suspect yours is akin something made from rubber they give to the criminally stupid, in order not to hurt themselves.

dressing it up in fancy language does not detract from the fact that that is personal abuse, as noted by the reciepient


Diogenes gets a 1 week ban

Sofa_King Good

Don't know if it makes a difference, and I am probably speaking out of place here, forgive me if I am and feel free to delete but as the "insulted" I was not at all offended and would have no problem with leniency being applied in this case.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

dressing it up in fancy language does not detract from the fact that that is personal abuse, as noted by the reciepient


Diogenes gets a 1 week ban

So we're not allowed use the word stupid when responding to someone?
Hardly a banable offense.

If someone looks in the sky and notices a lot of contrails on a clear day and during a busy period in air traffic and their first thought is "It must be a government conspiracy!" It's a very fair assessment their critical thinking skills are not up to scratch.

Mahatma coat

no mob, you are not allowed to call people stupid.

attack the post not the poster.


N leniency in this case Sofa Diogenes is a repeat offender

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

no mob, you are not allowed to call people stupid.

attack the post not the poster.


N leniency in this case Sofa Diogenes is a repeat offender

And diogenes clearly did not call anyone stupid. Just than Sofa wasn't subjecting his theory to critical evaluation namely Occam's razor.

To be honest It seems very much that you are looking for any reason to ban diogenes.

Mahatma coat

Nah, not going to debate it.

I found what he said to be abusive and snide, fancy words or not it was meant as an insult, this is not the first time Diogenes has skirted around the personal abuse rule.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Nah, not going to debate it.

I found what he said to be abusive and snide, fancy words or not it was meant as an insult, this is not the first time Diogenes has skirted around the personal abuse rule.

But it's cool to call people sheeple right?

Mahatma coat

referrin to a population as sheple, possibly, singling out an individual, NO.

I suppose I'll have to crackdown on that as well now wont I.



ooooh theres gonnabe some bannins

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Nah, not going to debate it.

Keep up the good work, MC.

Mahatma coat

Why Thank you Ibid, I truly value your input into such matters

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Why Thank you Ibid, I truly value your input into such matters

Your post speaks like a man whose contempt for the users of his forum exceeds his grandiose intelligence. As ever, MC, as ever.

nyarlothothep

King Mob wrote: »

So we're not allowed use the word stupid when responding to someone?
Hardly a banable offense.

If someone looks in the sky and notices a lot of contrails on a clear day and during a busy period in air traffic and their first thought is "It must be a government conspiracy!" It's a very fair assessment their critical thinking skills are not up to scratch.

its ad hominem, a good argument it does not make

Sofa_King Good

The Economist wrote: »

Your post speaks like a man whose contempt for the users of his forum exceeds his grandiose intelligence. As ever, MC, as ever.

In fairness this post would be far better suited to Diogenes (http://www.pauleidelberg.com/articles/2008/9/8/diogenes-in-israel.html). I don't get why people feel the need to jump on the bandwagon of Mahatma Coat every time he bans someone.

I would prefer if Diogenes was not banned but that is not to say that I don't think it can be argued it was undeserved. He was infering in an arrogant manner that I was stupid and below him.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

its ad hominem, a good argument it does not make

No but all the evidence against chemtrails and the lack of supporting evidence a good argument makes.

Saying "I looked up and saw more contrails then I used to" is evidence of someone not using occam's razor.

Sofa_King Good

King Mob wrote: »

No but all the evidence against chemtrails and the lack of supporting evidence a good argument makes.

Saying "I looked up and saw more contrails then I used to" is evidence of someone not using occam's razor.

This is what I said: "Seriously though all i was saying was the sky was full of intersecting trails and parallel trails remarkably close"

Not once in any post have I mentioned the word chemtrails. So I reckon you owe me an apology too.

nyarlothothep

King Mob wrote: »

No but all the evidence against chemtrails and the lack of supporting evidence a good argument makes.

Saying "I looked up and saw more contrails then I used to" is evidence of someone not using occam's razor.

nonetheless it wasn't necessary or justified to call someone stupid.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

nonetheless it wasn't necessary or justified to call someone stupid.

And he didn't. He called the occams razor sofa was using like a blunt razor for stupid people.
It's a bit of a stretch.

King Mob

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

This is what I said: "Seriously though all i was saying was the sky was full of intersecting trails and parallel trails remarkably close"

Not once in any post have I mentioned the word chemtrails. So I reckon you owe me an apology too.

Implying quite heavily that the "official" explanation was insufficient. But maybe I got the wrong impression. What point were you trying to make?

nyarlothothep

King Mob wrote: »

And he didn't. He called the occams razor sofa was using like a blunt razor for stupid people.
It's a bit of a stretch.

not really if other people considered it an insult. Its quite common practice to sneak in insults in this way.

King Mob

nyarlothothep wrote: »

not really if other people considered it an insult. Its quite common practice to sneak in insults in this way.

Case and point.

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Don't know if it makes a difference, and I am probably speaking out of place here, forgive me if I am and feel free to delete but as the "insulted" I was not at all offended and would have no problem with leniency being applied in this case.

Mahatma coat

I consder it an insult and a personal attack

case closed

Time Magazine

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I consder it an insult and a personal attack

case closed

So say you consider "I love you MC" as an insult and a personal attack, I will be banned, case closed?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

That's not how this site works.

Mahatma coat

this has ben bugin me for a while, I was gonna just ignore it but

Ibid, WTF

exactly what do you mean?

you've lost me somewhere along the way.

King Mob

I believe he wishes to imply that you don't like debate on your decisions.

Nick_oliveri

Bad form, but yet ye are still debating it, whats the topic again?

The Economist wrote: »

Your post speaks like a man whose contempt for the users of his forum exceeds his grandiose intelligence. As ever, MC, as ever.

I see what you did there, very clever. Wanna take some jabs at me too?

Contempt? Bull****, feedback is but a mouse movement and a click aweh. Make that thread better than the last one. You'll need to.

Edit:

King Mob wrote: »

I believe he wishes to imply that you don't like debate on your decisions.

What other mod lets his forum clutter up with "Why was he banned" threads? Thats for feedback, theres already been "Attack MC Now" threads started here.