CHEMTRAILS

chazbar

Has anyone noticed the crazy amounts of chemtrails over north wexford recently. Pretty obvious grid-like formation. At one stage it was three in a line. The sky literally looked like it was sprayed. We can be fairly certain that although the government has no regard for the safety and well being of its people, they lack the ability to pull such a task off. SO WHO? Unless it was the ministerial jet swooping around.
p.s Where the hell is that useless prick john gormley and the green gang., all this rubbish over carbon emissions and we are being gased.

Check out David Icke , Ian R Crane

Zombienosh

I noticed loads today, all over north dublin.

demonspawn

It's weather modification. They are spreading a layer of toxic heavy metals and other substances with the goal of reflecting some of the Sun's light away from Earth to combat the effects of global warming. It's a noble act in theory, but with complete disregard as to the effects of releasing tons of poisonous material into the atmosphere.

The "spirals" we've seen in Norway and China are also linked to this. They send rockets up higher than commercial airplanes can fly then release materials in a spiral formation to spread these materials as far as possible. The purpose of releasing these materials higher is to ensure they stay up longer than materials released by chemtrails.

This is why you hear the argument by anti-global warming folks that "the global temperature has actually been cooling for the last 40 years", because they've been doing this stuff for the last 50 years or so. It's a man made global cooling effect.

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

It's weather modification. They are spreading a layer of toxic heavy metals and other substances with the goal of reflecting some of the Sun's light away from Earth to combat the effects of global warming. It's a noble act in theory, but with complete disregard as to the effects of releasing tons of poisonous material into the atmosphere.

The "spirals" we've seen in Norway and China are also linked to this. They send rockets up higher than commercial airplanes can fly then release materials in a spiral formation to spread these materials as far as possible. The purpose of releasing these materials higher is to ensure they stay up longer than materials released by chemtrails.

This is why you hear the argument by anti-global warming folks that "the global temperature has actually been cooling for the last 40 years", because they've been doing this stuff for the last 50 years or so. It's a man made global cooling effect.

Any evidence to support this?

demonspawn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Any evidence to support this?

Eh.......look up?

Also, there's a lot of evidence to support this. Most of it is quickly discounted as deranged CT fantasy so I won't bother. The "spirals" theory is my own and I have no evidence to back it up. It just seems like the most logical explanation considering the locations of the HAARP weather modification installations in Norway, China, and Russia.

meglome

awkward that these look exactly like ordinary contrails. Since all flights are logged (see CIA being caught doing extraordinary rendition) you should be easily be able to track down the offending planes, right?

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

Eh.......look up?

Also, there's a lot of evidence to support this. Most of it is quickly discounted as deranged CT fantasy so I won't bother. The "spirals" theory is my own and I have no evidence to back it up. It just seems like the most logical explanation considering the locations of the HAARP weather modification installations in Norway, China, and Russia.

So no evidence then.

Sparticle

demonspawn wrote: »

It might be weather modification. I hypothesize that they(specify) are spreading a layer of toxic heavy metals and other substances with the goal of reflecting some of the Sun's light away from Earth to combat the effects of global warming. It might be a noble act in theory, but with complete disregard as to the effects of releasing tons of poisonous material into the atmosphere.

The alleged "spirals" we've seen in Norway and China may also be linked to this. I have a theory that they send rockets up higher than commercial airplanes can fly then release materials in a spiral formation to spread these materials as far as possible. The purpose of releasing these materials higher may be to ensure they stay up longer than materials released by chemtrails.

I think this is why you hear the argument by anti-global warming folks that "the global temperature has actually been cooling for the last 40 years", because if my theory is true I also think they've been doing this stuff for the last 50 years or so. It's a man made global cooling effect.... I think

Fixed. Don't assert things as fact without evidence, it doesn't do you any favours.

demonspawn

namloc1980 wrote: »

So no evidence then.

I'm sure you can explain this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KLLqEL96Y

demonspawn

Sparticle wrote: »

Fixed. Don't assert things as fact without evidence, it doesn't do you any favours.

This is CONSPIRACY THEORIES forum. If you're looking for facts you've come to the wrong place. In fact, the charter clearly states that people shouldn't come here demanding facts and proof.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

awkward that these look exactly like ordinary contrails. Since all flights are logged (see CIA being caught doing extraordinary rendition) you should be easily be able to track down the offending planes, right?

Watch the video I just posted as say that again please.

These chemicals are added to the fuel and that fuel is used in random airplanes. I'm sure many have tried what you're suggesting and many have been laughed out of the airport. I don't think many regular citizens will be given permission to access fuel storage containers, especially considering the global terrorism scare.

gizmo

demonspawn wrote: »

I'm sure you can explain this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9KLLqEL96Y

One plane is bigger than the other?
One plane is higher or further away than the other?

demonspawn wrote: »

This is CONSPIRACY THEORIES forum. If you're looking for facts you've come to the wrong place. In fact, the charter clearly states that people shouldn't come here demanding facts and proof.

Actually the charter states that if you state that something is a fact, then it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to show that there is a strong basis for making such a claim.

Sparticle

demonspawn wrote: »

This is CONSPIRACY THEORIES forum. If you're looking for facts you've come to the wrong place. In fact, the charter clearly states that people shouldn't come here demanding facts and proof.

You are taking the piss aren't you....?


For example, if you state that something is a fact, then it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to show that there is a strong basis for making such a claim. Conversely, if you state that you personally tend to favour one interpretation over another, it would be unreasonable for someone to ask you to prove your stance to be correct.

You stated your opinion as fact last time I checked.

demonspawn

gizmo wrote: »

One plane is bigger than the other?
One plane is higher or further away than the other?

The conditions that allow the creation of contrails would not change so dramatically in such a small area. The size of a plane makes little difference to the length of the trail, certainly not as much as the example shown in the video.

Actually the charter states that if you state that something is a fact, then it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to show that there is a strong basis for making such a claim.

The title of this forum is conspiracy theories. This would imply that the views expressed therin are simply theories. Does that make any sense?

Sparticle

demonspawn wrote: »

The title of this forum is conspiracy theories. This would imply that the views expressed therin are simply theories. Does that make any sense?

I draw your attention to this
The word "Theory" is not limited to the strict scientific meaning of the word. In general, it should be taken to mean an idea which has supporting evidence, which is neither proven true nor false. (See below regarding proof, evidence, etc.)

Is it unrealistic to demand that a theory be based on fact?

You stated your theory using definite language which led me to believe you were stating fact. My "fixed" post is meant as honest advice.

demonspawn

Radiation balance and radiative forcing

Examples and history of climate modification

Weather control

Now, I've provided historical evidence of weather modification and examples of why it would be used.

Can you explain to me why you believe my theories have no basis or will you just demand more proof in every single post? It's becoming rather tedious and boring to be honest.


Edit: If weather modification with the intent of negatively affecting the climate is such a pipe dream, then why did the UN pass legislation banning the use of weather modification for warfare in 1977?

Edit 2: Funny how the "show us proof" crowd disappears when you actually provide evidence.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Radiation balance and radiative forcing

Examples and history of climate modification

Weather control

Now, I've provided historical evidence of weather modification and examples of why it would be used.

Can you explain to me why you believe my theories have no basis or will you just demand more proof in every single post? It's becoming rather tedious and boring to be honest.


Edit: If weather modification with the intent of negatively affecting the climate is such a pipe dream, then why did the UN pass legislation banning the use of weather modification for warfare in 1977?

Edit 2: Funny how the "show us proof" crowd disappears when you actually provide evidence.

I think there's no doubt that many countries have tried to modify the weather however most have stopped as it really doesn't work.

So what you're saying is all the contrails are the the government spraying us with chemical for weather modification? So presumably the countryside is covered in these chemicals and could be tested easily. So where are the tests? And what are the changes to the weather that we should be looking out for?

drdeadlift

demonspawn wrote: »

It's weather modification. They are spreading a layer of toxic heavy metals and other substances with the goal of reflecting some of the Sun's light away from Earth to combat the effects of global warming. It's a noble act in theory, but with complete disregard as to the effects of releasing tons of poisonous material into the atmosphere.

The "spirals" we've seen in Norway and China are also linked to this. They send rockets up higher than commercial airplanes can fly then release materials in a spiral formation to spread these materials as far as possible. The purpose of releasing these materials higher is to ensure they stay up longer than materials released by chemtrails.

This is why you hear the argument by anti-global warming folks that "the global temperature has actually been cooling for the last 40 years", because they've been doing this stuff for the last 50 years or so. It's a man made global cooling effect.

I would love to know how an operation like this works,like running an airline isnt hard enough these days.

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

Radiation balance and radiative forcing

Examples and history of climate modification

Weather control

Now, I've provided historical evidence of weather modification and examples of why it would be used.

Can you explain to me why you believe my theories have no basis or will you just demand more proof in every single post? It's becoming rather tedious and boring to be honest.


Edit: If weather modification with the intent of negatively affecting the climate is such a pipe dream, then why did the UN pass legislation banning the use of weather modification for warfare in 1977?

Edit 2: Funny how the "show us proof" crowd disappears when you actually provide evidence.

Yes we all know weather modification has been tried before. Any chance you could show us evidence that our skies are full of toxic heavy metals as a result of aircraft spraying them? That should easy to prove.

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

I think there's no doubt that many countries have tried to modify the weather however most have stopped as it really doesn't work.

That's just blatantly not true. Governments around the world have continuously found better and more efficient ways to manipulate weather patterns.

So what you're saying is all the contrails are the the government spraying us with chemical for weather modification? So presumably the countryside is covered in these chemicals and could be tested easily. So where are the tests? And what are the changes to the weather that we should be looking out for?

They are not intentionally spraying us with these chemicals, that's just an unfortunate side effect. Collateral damage if you will. And yes, there have been tests taken of ground water and soil located below chemtrail "hotspots" and various substances such are barium, lead, aluminum, amongst other things.

I'll have a look if I can find the site where I first saw these test results. While you wait, can you please explain to me what's happening in the following photos?

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

your second picture, from nasa:

Explanation: Artificial clouds made by humans may become so common they change the Earth's climate. The long thin cloud streaks that dominate the above satellite photograph of Georgia are contrails, cirrus clouds created by airplanes. The exhaust of an airplane engine can create a contrail by saturating the surrounding air with extra moisture. The wings of a plane can similarly create contrails by dropping the temperature and causing small ice-crystals to form. Contrails have become more than an oddity - they may be significantly increasing the cloudiness of Earth, reflecting sunlight back into space by day, and heat radiation back to Earth even at night. The effect on climate is a topic of much research. You can help NASA measure the actual abundance of contrails by participating in a contrail counting exercise that runs over the next two days.

demonspawn

drdeadlift wrote: »

I would love to know how an operation like this works,like running an airline isnt hard enough these days.

Airlines have little, if any, knowledge of this. The chemicals are introduced into the jetfuel before it's shipped to the airport.

demonspawn

You can help NASA measure the actual abundance of contrails by participating in a contrail counting exercise that runs over the next two days.

Seems like an excellent way for the government to find these "looney CTers" and keep tabs on them, don't you think? Why don't get local authorities to count these contrails? Surely they would be a more credible source of information? And I seriously doubt NASA is willing to spill the beans about this program to artificially reverse the effects of global warming. Someone leaked that photo and NASA is covering it up.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

They are not intentionally spraying us with these chemicals, that's just an unfortunate side effect. Collateral damage if you will. And yes, there have been tests taken of ground water and soil located below chemtrail "hotspots" and various substances such are barium, lead, aluminum, amongst other things.

So when the country councils all over Ireland test the drinking water they should find these chemicals in unusually high concentrations. Why haven't they?

demonspawn wrote: »

I'll have a look if I can find the site where I first saw these test results. While you wait, can you please explain to me what's happening in the following photos?

I have no idea what's happening in these photo's as there's no context. They may just be photoshop'd up. I tend not to believe any old random stuff on the internet.

And what weather changes should we be looking for?

demonspawn

After a five-year investigation into chemtrails - including interviews with air traffic controllers (thanks to reporter ST Brendt), scientists actually involved in this project (thanks to reporter Bob Fitrakis), NASA and NOAA atmospheric studies, and corroboration from independent scientific lab tests on rain and snow samples falling through chemtrails (thanks to my Espanola correspondent, and Dave Dickie in Edmonton), I can state emphatically that chemtrails are not contrails. So what exactly are chemtrails? And what evidence is offered by the award-winning reporter who first broke this story?

Winner of four Canadian journalism awards, articles and photographs by William Thomas have appeared in more than 50 publications in eight countries, with translations into French, Dutch and Japanese. Clips from his video documentaries have appeared on CNN, NBC, the CBC and the current mainstream movie release, “The Corporation”.
The following investigations span the latter years of a 38-year career as a working reporter. Health topics taken from my weekly “Alt Health” column in Monday magazine include the documented dangers of microwave ovens, cell phones and bras, as well as the latest longevity research. Other front-line stories include dispatches to the Globe & Mail and Toronto Star from Jordan and Kuwait during and immediately following Desert Storm.

http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/index.htm


Me thinks it's time for skeptics to disprove these theories.

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

Seems like an excellent way for the government to find these "looney CTers" and keep tabs on them, don't you think? Why don't get local authorities to count these contrails? Surely they would be a more credible source of information? And I seriously doubt NASA is willing to spill the beans about this program to artificially reverse the effects of global warming. Someone leaked that photo and NASA is covering it up.

No not really. You get satellite photos of the planet from many sources (incl NASA) every day of the week, showing contrails etc. No coverup here I'm afraid.

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

Seems like an excellent way for the government to find these "looney CTers" and keep tabs on them, don't you think? Why don't get local authorities to count these contrails? Surely they would be a more credible source of information? And I seriously doubt NASA is willing to spill the beans about this program to artificially reverse the effects of global warming. Someone leaked that photo and NASA is covering it up.

Nonsense. I'm sure there's plenty of people that aren't 'looney CTers' who are interested in contrails who would like to contribute. And what would the govt do if they were keeping tabs on them?

And I seriously doubt NASA is willing to spill the beans about this program to artificially reverse the effects of global warming. Someone leaked that photo and NASA is covering it up.

That would be why NASA put it up on their own site then would it?

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

And what weather changes should we be looking for?

The continued decline in global temperatures over the past 40-50 years which are repeatedly quoted by climate change skeptics.

meglome

demonspawn wrote: »

Me thinks it's time for skeptics to disprove these

em no... if this is happening then these chemicals should appears all over the country in unusually large concentrations. So all you have to do is show that to be the case. There are many organisations testing water in Ireland so someone should have spotted it.

demonspawn wrote: »

The continued decline in global temperatures over the past 40-50 years which are repeatedly quoted by climate change skeptics.

Em haven't global temperature provably risen?

demonspawn

meglome wrote: »

em no... if this is happening then these chemicals should appears all over the country in unusually large concentrations. So all you have to do is show that to be the case. There are many organisations testing water in Ireland so someone should have spotted it.

Perhaps Ireland doesn't see the concentration of chemtrails that other countries see.

Em haven't global temperature provably risen?

No they haven't, hence the whole "climategate" scandal we've seen recently. Scientists are currently unable to account for the recent drop in global temperatures. I don't really think you know enough on this subject to make accurate statements.

Anyway, this is the problem with being a skeptic. You refuse to believe what's staring you in the face, regardless of any evidence provided. As such, I'm not going to pull my hair out trying to provide what you may deem as sufficient evidence to prove my case. You either get it or you don't.

bytey

chemtrail or not

simple fact is

I DONT WANT MY SKY CLOUDY

Lone Stone

I never beleaved in chem trail stuff but then when that volcano went off last year and all the planes were grounded the skys were crystal clear very few clouds and now im i am paronoid *puts on tin foil hat*

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

Perhaps Ireland doesn't see the concentration of chemtrails that other countries see.

Convenient. Can you show evidence of heavy metals as a direct result of aircraft in other countries?

demonspawn wrote: »

No they haven't, hence the whole "climategate" scandal we've seen recently. Scientists are currently unable to account for the recent drop in global temperatures. I don't really think you know enough on this subject to make accurate statements.

So do you have any studies that global temps have actually decreased over the last say, 50 years? I suppose the increased melting of the Arctic is being made up too. Or how about this:



The volume of sea ice has fallen significantly over just 30 years. Is this made up?

demonspawn wrote: »

Anyway, this is the problem with being a skeptic. You refuse to believe what's staring you in the face, regardless of any evidence provided. As such, I'm not going to pull my hair out trying to provide what you may deem as sufficient evidence to prove my case. You either get it or you don't.

If evidence was actually provided it might help.

Jeboa Safari

Lone Stone wrote: »

I never beleaved in chem trail stuff but then when that volcano went off last year and all the planes were grounded the skys were crystal clear very few clouds and now im i am paronoid *puts on tin foil hat*

It was nice to see the skies clear alright, but thats not evidence of chemtrails.

Scarab80

demonspawn wrote: »

The continued decline in global temperatures over the past 40-50 years which are repeatedly quoted by climate change skeptics.

Oh Really??

demonspawn

Yes really. You can clearly see that from 1940 to 1980 there was a very distinct drop in global temperatures. This is what scientists are having difficulty explaining.

Perhaps the sudden rise in temperatures after 1980 is due to an over saturation of chemicals in the atmosphere and it's now reflecting the earth's own radiation back down, causing another greenhouse effect.

demonspawn

namloc1980 wrote: »

If evidence was actually provided it might help.

Winner of four Canadian journalism awards, articles and photographs by William Thomas have appeared in more than 50 publications in eight countries, with translations into French, Dutch and Japanese. Clips from his video documentaries have appeared on CNN, NBC, the CBC and the current mainstream movie release, “The Corporation”.

After a five-year investigation into chemtrails - including interviews with air traffic controllers (thanks to reporter ST Brendt), scientists actually involved in this project (thanks to reporter Bob Fitrakis), NASA and NOAA atmospheric studies, and corroboration from independent scientific lab tests on rain and snow samples falling through chemtrails (thanks to my Espanola correspondent, and Dave Dickie in Edmonton), I can state emphatically that chemtrails are not contrails. So what exactly are chemtrails? And what evidence is offered by the award-winning reporter who first broke this story?

I really hate to repeat myself, so try to keep up. Please disprove this guy's claims before asking for further evidence.

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

I really hate to repeat myself, so try to keep up. Please disprove this guy's claims before asking for further evidence.

Where are his claims/evidence?? All I can find are links to "buy this book/video".

demonspawn

namloc1980 wrote: »

Where are his claims/evidence?? All I can find are links to "buy this book/video".

Nah man, I'm done providing evidence. You disprove his claims, stop being a lazy skeptic.

Scarab80

demonspawn wrote: »

Yes really. You can clearly see that from 1940 to 1980 there was a very distinct drop in global temperatures. This is what scientists are having difficulty explaining.

Perhaps the sudden rise in temperatures after 1980 is due to an over saturation of chemicals in the atmosphere and it's now reflecting the earth's own radiation back down, causing another greenhouse effect.

Ok let's first of all ignore the fact that you said the last 40 -50 years during which time temperatures have been consistently warmer.....

Scientists have no problem in explaining the drop in temperature from 1940, the reason was the increase in industrial activity during and after WW2 prior to the introduction of clear air acts. During this period we pumped out millions of tons in sulphate particulates into the air reflecting the sun's light and decreasing global temperature. Following the introduction of the clean air acts the amount of sulphate aerosols decreased and the effect of greenhouse gases which had been masked by this effect became apparent. Also there was a major volcanic eruption in 1963 which had the same effect and is believed to have reduced global temperatures by 0.5% alone. Its the same kind of geo-engineering you attribute to contrails, however inhaling sulphate aerolsols is not good for your health.

The rise in temperature is indeed due to chemicals in the atmosphere, specifically CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), N20 (Nitrous Oxide) and CH4 (Methane), unfortunately for your theory the sources of these chemicals are well understood.

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

Nah man, I'm done providing evidence. You disprove his claims, stop being a lazy skeptic.

LOL :pac: I went to his website, clicked on the video link for his "chemtrail" video but it must be paid for. So this "chemtrail" warrior is out to make €€€'s. :pac: So can you link his evidence that doesn't have to be paid for???

demonspawn

Scarab80 wrote: »

Ok let's first of all ignore the fact that you said the last 40 -50 years during which time temperatures have been consistently warmer.....

Scientists have no problem in explaining the drop in temperature from 1940, the reason was the increase in industrial activity during and after WW2 prior to the introduction of clear air acts. During this period we pumped out millions of tons in sulphate particulates into the air reflecting the sun's light and decreasing global temperature. Following the introduction of the clean air acts the amount of sulphate aerosols decreased and the effect of greenhouse gases which had been masked by this effect became apparent. Also there was a major volcanic eruption in 1963 which had the same effect and is believed to have reduced global temperatures by 0.5% alone. Its the same kind of geo-engineering you attribute to contrails, however inhaling sulphate aerolsols is not good for your health.

The rise in temperature is indeed due to chemicals in the atmosphere, specifically CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), N20 (Nitrous Oxide) and CH4 (Methane), unfortunately for your theory the sources of these chemicals are well understood.

Links would be nice, and your comment also confirms man-made climate change. All those climate deniers are gonna be pissed!

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

They are not intentionally spraying us with these chemicals, that's just an unfortunate side effect. Collateral damage if you will.

Wouldn't they also end up spraying themselves with these chemicals if that was the case? Which doesn't seem like a likely thing for them to do.

demonspawn wrote:

Airlines have little, if any, knowledge of this. The chemicals are introduced into the jetfuel before it's shipped to the airport.

The Discover Channel did a documentary which tested jet fuel, and didn't find a significant ammount of these chemicals.

demonspawn

namloc1980 wrote: »

LOL :pac: I went to his website, clicked on the video link for his "chemtrail" video but it must be paid for. So this "chemtrail" warrior is out to make €€€'s. :pac: So can you link his evidence that doesn't have to be paid for???

I've already found several sites claiming he's a fraud. You're not trying hard enough man!! As I said, I'm done providing evidence. Time for you to provide evidence to back up your claims, that is if you actually do have a claim to back up and you're not just here to refute any and all claims made by CTers.

lalee17

I've a complete open mind to this whole thing. However I don't understand why these mystery men would put chemicals like aluminium dust into the atmosphere..?

Wouldn't remains from these added chemicals show up in the jet engines?

demonspawn

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Wouldn't they also end up spraying themselves with these chemicals if that was the case? Which doesn't seem like a likely thing for them to do.


The Discover Channel did a documentary which tested jet fuel, and didn't find a significant ammount of these chemicals.

So you're saying they did actually find these chemicals, but only in small quantities? Perhaps those would be residues left behind from when the tanks were full of treated fuel? I think you just proved my point quite nicely, thanks.

demonspawn

lalee17 wrote: »

I've a complete open mind to this whole thing. However I don't understand why these mystery men would put chemicals like aluminium dust into the atmosphere..?

Wouldn't remains from these added chemicals show up in the jet engines?

To reflect the sun's rays in order to reverse the effects of man-made global warming.

They probably would but regular citizens are not allowed to inspect commercial aircraft as far as I know.

lalee17

Well of course 'regular citizens' aren't allowed inspect commercial aircraft. Surely aeronautical engineers do. But why wouldn't they raise questions about strange residue on the engines?

Jeboa Safari

demonspawn wrote: »

So you're saying they did actually find these chemicals, but only in small quantities? Perhaps those would be residues left behind from when the tanks were full of treated fuel? I think you just proved my point quite nicely, thanks.

Jesus if your going to be so tedious let me rephrase it then. They didn't find anything abnormal on the test, which was a random sample.

And well done on ignoring my first point.

Scarab80

demonspawn wrote: »

Links would be nice, and your comment also confirms man-made climate change. All those climate deniers are gonna be pissed!

Sure, here you go

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/full/nature06982.html

Yes my comments support man made global warming, I believe that anthropogenic factors are a major cause in the rise in global temperatures, as that is what the evidence bears out.

I don't know why you would bring that up as a point, you wouldn't have gone and lumped climate skeptics and CT skeptics together purely on the basis that the word skeptic is included in both there would you, nahhhh you couldn't have......

namloc1980

demonspawn wrote: »

I've already found several sites claiming he's a fraud. You're not trying hard enough man!! As I said, I'm done providing evidence. Time for you to provide evidence to back up your claims, that is if you actually do have a claim to back up and you're not just here to refute any and all claims made by CTers.

:pac: and the backing down begins. So the guy you linked with the "evidence" turns out to be in it for the €€€$$$£££ and you have nothing else?? BTW you are the one making claims, and the evidence you linked must be paid for :pac: