IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Geoengineering - A Fancy Word For Murder, HIGH BYPASS TURBOFAN JET ENGINES & CONTRAILS

almerie
post Feb 24 2014, 04:12 AM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-March 10
Member No.: 4,959



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 24 2014, 03:17 AM) *
I understand completely JimMac's preference not wanting to entertain your comments on his threads ...
this is the second post when you've recklessly thrown "nutcase" into a serious discussion.
If you cannot, correction, WILL not, understand why some folks would consider the term
as argumentum ad hominem you're on your own.

HINT: If you do have solid insider information, please tell us what the government is/are up to in the skies:
give us all the benefit of your wisdom.

I am sure many if not most who read this thread will have absolute-zero objective information
on the topic for the simple reason that Government refuses to provide any info.
The Government and its NGOs refuse point blank to take ANY questions
that could jeopardize their self-imposed ban on any comment that We the People
might interpret as pertaining to chemtrailing or to persistent contrails.

The floor is yours: no more trick questions.... perleese rolleyes.gif


Argumentum ad hominem? Not directly, but no matter.

How should your post blaming the Jews of causing a tsunami and the Fukushima incident be categorized then?

From your Hint I can guess that you have NO idea of what the government 'are up to in the skies'? Otherwise why ask?
So if you have no information at all, do you not find it hard to draw any conclusions at all?
If not, what might these conclusions be based upon?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 24 2014, 04:15 AM
Post #22





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 24 2014, 07:45 PM) *


This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 24 2014, 04:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almerie
post Feb 24 2014, 07:53 AM
Post #23





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-March 10
Member No.: 4,959



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 23 2014, 05:29 PM) *
What I do for myself, for now (and I stress, "for now"), is to occasionally consume chlorophyll in the form of capsules or liquid. Because it is expensive, every 6 to 12 months, I'll spring for modified citrus pectin (Pecta-Sol). I also will consume a clove of raw garlic and wash it down with fruit juice, Juicy Juice preferred. Never wash raw garlic down with soda unless you are extremely masochistic . These practices purify one of heavy metals and other contaminants.


Well, I don't know how I'll get along without adequate oxygen, and if there is no more photosynthesis, then I guess supplies of powered or liquid chlorophyll will dry up.

P.M.


How do you know that the juice is not contaminated?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 24 2014, 01:11 PM
Post #24





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (paulmichael @ Feb 23 2014, 04:13 PM) *
Obwon, what you say has great validity, but try being the voice of reason.

I have witnessed incredible examples of self-destructiveness in the workplace on the part of managers and executives. It's hard to imagine, but self-destructiveness is a very real psychological profile. Megalomania is yet another all too real psychological profile.

[snips]

P.M.


It's a difficult theory to understand, because the possible goals would be so counter productive to people intending to live a life of increased ease and luxury. The only viable goal of such an operation would be for some group of individuals to survive, by reducing the demand on earths resources. In exchange for having to live a much harder life, they would be seeking to extend their own survival. But the problem would be that any such plan would take a very long time to effect, and be very obvious in it's progression. Nor would it attract many converts/cohorts, there would be large resistance within their own ranks, and require the cooperation of many different governments too boot. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Feb 24 2014, 02:08 PM
Post #25





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (Obwon @ Feb 24 2014, 01:11 PM) *
It's a difficult theory to understand, because the possible goals would be so counter productive to people intending to live a life of increased ease and luxury. The only viable goal of such an operation would be for some group of individuals to survive, by reducing the demand on earths resources. In exchange for having to live a much harder life, they would be seeking to extend their own survival. But the problem would be that any such plan would take a very long time to effect, and be very obvious in it's progression. Nor would it attract many converts/cohorts, there would be large resistance within their own ranks, and require the cooperation of many different governments too boot. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.


While its interesting to speculate on WHY this phenomenon is occurring, i think any such speculation will end up down the rabbit hole. More important is the question (for me at least) as to WHAT is actually going on. 'Chemtrails' per se, is probably the hottest 'conspiracy' topic on the Internet at present - i think it dwarfs any other topic in the genre, which means there is a metric ton of disinfo floating around. There are also a number of co-intel websites devoted to such info, where you may get some facts mixed in with the bullshyt. Among the so-called conspiracy crowd, it seems to be divided into several camps, the largest of which seems to be eugenics, population reduction etc. Personally, I don't give that idea any credence. I think that's part of the disinfo effort, along with the Georgia guide stones, David Icke's lizard people, Jone's fear-mongering, etc

The obvious connection here is military (weather warfare) and corporate interests combined. I think after we know WHAT is going on, then the WHY will be easier to pinpoint.

The WHY must also consider climate change, the new idiom for global warming. If the methane hydrate expulsion in the arctic is as as alarming as it seems to be, then I would look there as a prime cause underlying the phenomena.

Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Feb 25 2014, 04:19 PM
Post #26





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



As regards the 'WHY' this interview with Dane Wigington over the weekend is very interesting. The radio host and the panel bring the usual questions to the table. Dane's answers present a cogent argument.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org/lopvox-live-with-guest-dane-wigington

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Feb 27 2014, 11:11 PM
Post #27





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 162
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (almerie @ Feb 24 2014, 08:12 PM) *
Argumentum ad hominem? Not directly, but no matter.

How should your post blaming the Jews of causing a tsunami and the Fukushima incident be categorized then?

From your Hint I can guess that you have NO idea of what the government 'are up to in the skies'? Otherwise why ask?
So if you have no information at all, do you not find it hard to draw any conclusions at all?
If not, what might these conclusions be based upon?


The reason NONE of US has the foggiest (sic) idea what's going on in our totally-toxic skies
is that the chemtrailing is being conducted under total military secrecy....a secrecy so fracking militant
that many/most of We the long-suffering People have become trail-blind... a fact NOT
helped by THEM resorting to chicanery such as coloring-in extra skylines in kids'
storybooks and movies. Now, why would THEY resort to such drastic deviousness,
if THEY weren't hellbent on keeping us totally in the dark even about the existence of chemtrailing?

Yet some people SEEM hellbent on refusing to even check the fraudulent-bogus-baloney of the
jet-exhaust condensation-trail axiom**... upon which I resist all temptation to start, you'll doubtless be glad to know.

MikeR

**Albert Einstein (asked to what did he attribute his success): "I never believed an axiom"

This post has been edited by MikeR: Feb 27 2014, 11:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almerie
post Feb 28 2014, 02:10 AM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-March 10
Member No.: 4,959



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 27 2014, 11:11 PM) *
The reason NONE of US has the foggiest (sic) idea what's going on in our totally-toxic skies
is that the chemtrailing is being conducted under total military secrecy


This quoted sentence does not add up.

If we dont know what is going on, how would we know that this is a secret military operation?
Are you just guessing or do you have any evidence?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almerie
post Feb 28 2014, 02:17 AM
Post #29





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-March 10
Member No.: 4,959



QUOTE (JimMac @ Feb 24 2014, 02:08 PM) *
The obvious connection here is military (weather warfare) and corporate interests combined. I think after we know WHAT is going on, then the WHY will be easier to pinpoint.


I am sorry, but how is this connection obvious?

I agree with you though that there are many odd theories out there and something more substantial should be presented.

If we go with WHAT instead of WHY, would this not require evidence of some kind?

By the way, I have tried to find the credentials of Dane Wigington but without success. Anyone know his background and education?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Feb 28 2014, 08:45 AM
Post #30





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (almerie @ Feb 28 2014, 02:17 AM) *
I am sorry, but how is this connection obvious?

I agree with you though that there are many odd theories out there and something more substantial should be presented.

If we go with WHAT instead of WHY, would this not require evidence of some kind?

By the way, I have tried to find the credentials of Dane Wigington but without success. Anyone know his background and education?

First, kindly appreciate i'm speaking to you from a separate reality than yours. I live in a reality where I look up and observe a phenomena, one that is recent in my 61 years of life. I trust my observations. You on the other hand have not arrived at that place, and perhaps never will (no matter). Therefore to me, you are 'asleep', whereas to you, I appear to be probably crazy. I fully understand that position, as I was once in those same shoes, as it were. Before I 'woke-up' to what is going on overhead, I wouldn't bother to give such people talking about chemtrails any credibility whatsoever, in fact I just plain ignored them as being nuts, and some of these people in fact are members of this forum; those who were more advanced in their recognition of this phenomena than i was at the time.
As regards the 'WHAT', i need no further evidence that there is a phenomena, because I am seeing it, almost every day where I live. I am not here to question or to argue whether such phenomena exists, because I clearly see it.
The military is the obvious connection, because we see what appear to be military vehicles conducting the operation, that combined with the fact that military is the only organisation capable of such a global operation, and obviously, the only party that has dominion over the skies.
As for Dane, listen to his presentations, he discusses his background on most of his interviews. He btw is just one person who has documented the phenomena, here's another source that some people will be interested in, if not yourself. I live close enough to this fellow Brian Holmes, such that we observe the same skies. http://www.holmestead.ca/
Jim

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Feb 28 2014, 02:24 PM
Post #31





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



These chemicals they're supposed to be spraying as observed, most likely would have to fall all the way to the ground to have any effect. Okay for the observations part, but any real scientist would collect samples for testing, so the chemical content could be identified.

For years we've been hearing about the chem trails being observed, but we never hear of any samples being collected and tested. I assume that this should have been the next step, but since it has never yet happened, I tend to disbelieve anything that's all observation and talk about observations, with never anything being collected, tested, and presented as proof.

Or... Perhaps this has been done and I am simply not aware of it?
If that's the case, a link to the research would be nice.
TIA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Mar 1 2014, 02:07 AM
Post #32





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (Obwon @ Feb 28 2014, 02:24 PM) *
These chemicals they're supposed to be spraying as observed, most likely would have to fall all the way to the ground to have any effect.

Ignoring sentence as nonsensical.

QUOTE
Okay for the observations part

Observation is the biggest part of science.

QUOTE
but any real scientist would collect samples for testing, so the chemical content could be identified..


See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics for a definition and examples of real science. Specifically, " The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory."

QUOTE
For years we've been hearing about the chem trails being observed, but we never hear of any samples,

Quoting Tonto, 'What mean 'We'? White man.."

QUOTE
being collected and tested. I assume that this should have been the next step, but since it has never yet happened,

Reread my above post, carefully.

QUOTE
I tend to disbelieve anything that's all observation and talk about observations,


Observations are science

QUOTE
with never anything being collected, tested, and presented as proof.

Reread my above post, the one you replied to, more carefully.

QUOTE
Or... Perhaps this has been done and I am simply not aware of it?

Good. You scored the first right answer.

QUOTE
If that's the case, a link to the research would be nice.

You've already been told.

Jim

This post has been edited by JimMac: Mar 1 2014, 02:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 1 2014, 09:50 AM
Post #33





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (JimMac @ Mar 1 2014, 01:07 AM) *
Ignoring sentence as nonsensical.


Observation is the biggest part of science.


See theoretical physics verses experimental physics for a definition and examples of real science. Specifically, " The advancement of science depends in general on the interplay between experimental studies and theory."

Jim


The link above is broken/doesn't work, please advise, Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Mar 1 2014, 02:25 PM
Post #34





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (Obwon @ Mar 1 2014, 09:50 AM) *
The link above is broken/doesn't work, please advise, Thank you.


fixed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almerie
post Mar 2 2014, 04:43 AM
Post #35





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-March 10
Member No.: 4,959



QUOTE (JimMac @ Mar 1 2014, 02:07 AM) *
Observation is the biggest part of science.


No, it is not.

Scientific Theory has many components which vary in importance from project to project.

A typical flow in Scientific Theory could be:
Problem/Question
Observation/Research
Formulate a Hypothesis
Experiment
Collect and Analyze Results
Conclusion
Communicate the Results

Scientific Theory

This post has been edited by almerie: Mar 2 2014, 04:43 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Mar 2 2014, 11:33 AM
Post #36





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (almerie @ Mar 2 2014, 04:43 AM) *
No, it is not.

Theory and Observation in Science
First published Tue Jan 6, 2009; substantive revision Fri Jan 11, 2013

Scientists obtain a great deal of the evidence they use by observing natural and experimentally generated objects and effects. Much of the standard philosophical literature on this subject comes from 20th century logical positivists and empiricists, their followers, and critics who embraced their issues and accepted some of their assumptions even as they objected to specific views. Their discussions of observational evidence tend to focus on epistemological questions about its role in theory testing. This entry follows their lead even though observational evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery and the application of scientific theories to practical problems.

The issues that get the most attention in the standard philosophical literature on observation and theory have to do with the distinction between observables and unobservables, the form and content of observation reports, and the epistemic bearing of observational evidence on theories it is used to evaluate. This entry discusses these topics under the following headings:

1. Introduction
2. What do observation reports describe?
3. Is observation an exclusively perceptual process?
4. How observational evidence might be theory laden
5. Salience and theoretical stance
6. Semantic theory loading
7. Operationalization and observation reports
8. Is perception theory laden?
9. How do observational data bear on the acceptability of theoretical claims?
10. Data and phenomena
11. Conclusion

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-...ry-observation/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
N2264J
post Mar 2 2014, 11:37 AM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 5-July 13
Member No.: 7,439



QUOTE (MikeR @ Feb 23 2014, 01:24 AM) *
Fukushima is a huge false-flag event, bigger by far than 9/11 ever was. Fukushima MUST sooner or later be recognized by the whole wide world as an INTENTIONAL genocidal attack...


So are you guys taking a creative writing class?

Fukushima is a horrible tragedy because GE didn't build the facility hard enough to withstand a tsunami. Once again, huge corporations like General Electric are socializing the risks while privatizing the profits and last year, they paid no taxes. We need a new sheriff in town.

Did you know that there are 12 GE nuclear plants like Fukushima built on US coasts and/or near earthquake fault lines?

QUOTE
There are also eight nuclear power plants located along the seismically active West coast. Twelve of the American reactors that are of the same vintage as the Fukushima Daiichi plant are in seismically active areas...

Experts have long criticized General Electric's Mark I reactor containment design, because it offered a relatively weak containment vessel...

111 million people live within 50 miles of a U.S. nuclear power plant...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_safet...e_United_States

Instead of wringing your hands over false flag tsunamis, you might consider focusing your energy with anti-nuclear groups and/or renewable energy proponents.

This post has been edited by N2264J: Mar 2 2014, 11:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 2 2014, 12:43 PM
Post #38





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (JimMac @ Mar 1 2014, 01:25 PM) *


In theoretical physics, they are dealing with theories that are based upon the theories, that are themselves based on observations. In short, they are picking up where actual observations and experimentation is no longer possible, in most cases, this is because we have not yet developed instruments nor techniques necessary to conduct or observe experiments in these areas.

You, however, are presenting observations that are not beyond our levels of technological expertise to sample, collect, manipulate, experiment or observe the results. So then I must ask again, why are you still dealing with theory when it is clear that hard evidence should not be too difficult to obtain? It's not like we're asking you to pinpoint the exact location of an electron in some point in time, or explain the operations of a Higgs Boson or "God Particle".

We're simply asking that if chemicals are being sprayed in the atmosphere, to destroy or alter the environment on the ground. Why haven't samples of these chemicals been obtained, analyzed and presented as cause?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almerie
post Mar 2 2014, 12:57 PM
Post #39





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 96
Joined: 13-March 10
Member No.: 4,959



QUOTE (JimMac @ Mar 2 2014, 11:33 AM) *
Theory and Observation in Science
First published Tue Jan 6, 2009; substantive revision Fri Jan 11, 2013

Scientists obtain a great deal of the evidence they use by observing natural and experimentally generated objects and effects. Much of the standard philosophical literature on this subject comes from 20th century logical positivists and empiricists, their followers, and critics who embraced their issues and accepted some of their assumptions even as they objected to specific views. Their discussions of observational evidence tend to focus on epistemological questions about its role in theory testing. This entry follows their lead even though observational evidence also plays important and philosophically interesting roles in other areas including scientific discovery and the application of scientific theories to practical problems.

The issues that get the most attention in the standard philosophical literature on observation and theory have to do with the distinction between observables and unobservables, the form and content of observation reports, and the epistemic bearing of observational evidence on theories it is used to evaluate. This entry discusses these topics under the following headings:

1. Introduction
2. What do observation reports describe?
3. Is observation an exclusively perceptual process?
4. How observational evidence might be theory laden
5. Salience and theoretical stance
6. Semantic theory loading
7. Operationalization and observation reports
8. Is perception theory laden?
9. How do observational data bear on the acceptability of theoretical claims?
10. Data and phenomena
11. Conclusion

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-...ry-observation/


Ok, we need to clarify this a bit.

Lets assume that you have formulated a theory like this:

"Our environment is being sprayed with chemicals using military aircraft that leaves socalled chemtrails in the sky" (Please correct me if this should be formulated otherwise)

Like all scientists you would like to prove this.

How would you proceed with your scientific research to prove this theory? By observation alone?

Remember scientists are expected to have their work peer reviewed at some point.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Mar 2 2014, 01:21 PM
Post #40





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (almerie @ Mar 2 2014, 12:57 PM) *
Ok, we need to clarify this a bit.

Lets assume that you have formulated a theory like this:

"Our environment is being sprayed with chemicals using military aircraft that leaves socalled chemtrails in the sky" (Please correct me if this should be formulated otherwise)

Like all scientists you would like to prove this.

How would you proceed with your scientific research to prove this theory? By observation alone?

Remember scientists are expected to have their work peer reviewed at some point.


Au contraire mon ami, i am not here to debate whether geoengineering exists. If that's not clear to you, then let's establish that now. This thread is based on the reality that geoengineering exists. So please move on. You're free to establish your own thread as regards similar debate of existence. I thank you in advance to cease derailing the conversation in this thread.
Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2019 - 05:43 PM