Reply With Quote
http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-...s-and-hr-2977/
Kucinich didn't write the damn bill.
And since you know so much, praytell how these chemicals would work. What chemicals have been detected?
http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-...s-and-hr-2977/
Kucinich didn't write the damn bill.
There is no physical evidence for this bull .
they made the same bogus argument about e.t. weapons that you did (weapons in space, not UFO bull , btw) and they discount military attempts to use mind control which is do ented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
These guys are skeptics at all costs right off the bat. Cred 0.
#2. Congressmen NEVER write the damn bill. It gets written by attys usually specializing in legislative drafting. The legislator takes his or her wants/desires to them and they draft it in language that holds water.
#3. If you think that Kucinich didnt know thet language was in the bill, regardless of who wrote it, you are on crack. And that is his effective endorsement of the language, which amounts to the same thing as him drafting it for all intents and purposes. Nothing to see here.
#4. That website you are reciting verbatim in your arguments over this thread is full of holes, and now you are too.
LNG, you are arguing without having read the thread. Nuff said.
@ you saying an argument against a conspiracy theory with no evidence is full of holes.
Rich rich rich irony.
Pretty sure this thread guarantees what little cred you had left here is gone. I'm sure you'll chalk it up to it having to do with no one wanting to listen to you, however. Just like a conspiracy theororist to blame everyone else.
Way to sidestep every hole I just shot in their argument. It speaks all the volumes I need to hear. And you claim to actually have credibility?
.
as for "no evidence," have you tried post #1? Or any of the subsequent posts for that matter?
Your unconditional/uninformed skepticism is pretty sad.
I read the thread. DoD said it didnt agree. Did they post specifics?
And again, what chemicals are they using? Do they have hard evidence? How would spraying chemicals in the air affect the human body?
Seriously. Some clouds in the sky don't immediately dissipate; THEY THEREFORE ARE CHEMCLOUDS FILLED WITH CHEM.
Thank you. A fair answer.
Does it bother you that it is impossible to actually affect anything on the ground with such spraying?
Spraying of pesticides is done from 30-150 feet.
Attempting to target something with an aerosol from 30,000 feet is next to impossible, according to any weapons expert that has been pestered about the subject. Winds, dispersion and evaporation all work against any such attempt.
Do you have evidence that shows, on a scientific basis, how this would be accomplished, given the above mentioned factors?
You have to be very specific, a valid proposal in any defense journal would do, showing concentrations, dispersal patterns etc.
I'm unaware of any holes you've produced in this thread,Parker...and, this morning at least, I'm relatively open to a cogent argument.Way to sidestep every hole I just shot in their argument. It speaks all the volumes I need to hear. And you claim to actually have credibility?
as for "no evidence," have you tried post #1? Or any of the subsequent posts for that matter?
Your unconditional/uninformed skepticism is pretty sad.
Touchdown dance much?
By the by, the film is debunked here:
http://contrailscience.com/what-in-t...they-spraying/
That website seems to be the best clearinghouse for information. Here is an excerpt from the section on this specific house bill:
http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-...s-and-hr-2977/
Kucinich’s motivations are perhaps revealed by his speech to the house on May 18th, 2005, introducing a newer version of the bill:
“What has happened to our country? Why are we projecting fear and paranoia to such heights? Have we so lost our way and our faith that we are prepared to transform the heavens into ? If the kingdom and the will of God is to be done on earth as it is in heaven, what is to happen when the United States takes nuclear fire up to the gates of heaven?
“Such an offense against humanity could bring the wrath of God upon this nation.”
So Kucinich thinks that space based weapons will offend God, since space is close to heaven, and if you put nuclear weapons near heaven then God will be offended and bring his wrath against us.
If you actually ARE a conspiracy theorist, then all this will come as little surprise to you. You will already believe the government is covering up technology based on crashed UFOs. Yet HR2977 is constantly being mentioned solely to make the case that “chemtrails” are something the government is aware of. The reality is that they were simply given a passing mention in bill written by new-age UFO conspiracy theorists and sponsored by an eccentric politician, all of who believe in things that are far more unusual than “chemtrails”. [emphasis mine-RG]
You do know that the reporter misplaced a decimal, right?
Or did you just accept that video as fact without verifying its veracity?
Damn. I just went back and re-read the thread.
The self-pwnage on the part of Mr. Parker is epic. I will catalogue it at some point, it is highly illuminating. I honestly wonder how high he was when he posted half this stuff.
Not only that, some clouds, and I will assume contrails, cause moisture in the air to add to them and they actually get bigger. Clouds do this naturally, no reason contrails can't do it too.
Here we have a fun exchange, in which Mr. Parker is asked to say exactly what the DOD said.
Mr. Parker implies rather strongly that Kucinich was told to shut up by the DOD, and not mention chemtrails in the bill.
On what exactly does it seem Mr. Parker has made this fairly specific claim?
What did Wild Corbra find?
"unfavorable comment"4/19/2002:
Unfavorable Executive Comment [about the bill in general] Received from DOD.
The question remains unanswered by Mr. Parker.
What *exactly* did the DOD say about the mention of "chemtrails" in the initial draft of the bill, Parker?
"It's what they didn't say!"
Blatant straw argument. No one said the activity needed to be aimed at a target.
I dont claim to know what why or how. Or even if its harmful. But the evidence is there if your not biased towards skepticism. There is a ton of it in this thread as a matter of fact. But the evidence isnt getting near as much airtime as the namecalling and laughing smilies. Need I say more?
Nice unicycle.
BTW: Strawman argument.
keep in mind that this thread started with
- a "no such thing as chemtrails,"
- advanced through a govt admission that the term chemtrails is at least credible enough to find its way into federal legislation (no skeptic spoke on that)
- instead skeptics proceeded to "chemtrails are credible as a photo unicorn meat" (without addressing the bill at all)
-then on to "the congressmen who sponsored the bill had no idea nor control over the contents" implication (congressmen was absolutely made aware of the contents and probably advised against the inclusion...once thats pointed out, skeptics never addressed it again)
- and on to "we cant prove DoD forced Kucinich to redact the chemtrails reference" so that washes the whole thing into the refuse bin, evidently
-the whole time with a blatant attempt disregard for cir stantial evidence up to the rafters.
Mind you, B. Whiteshoes never made an appearance
save face with a grammar check?
Not really a strawman argument. I didn't distort what you said, merely tried to fill in the holes with some reasonable assumptions.
Since there seems to be some ambiguity:
Do tell, for what purpose would these "chemical component"s be introduced into atmosphere? Pretty rainbows?
It is your job to define the problem you seem to be so concerned about.
read above. That take is .
FIRST: they misinterpreted extraterrestrial weapons as being of alien origin, rather than being weapons stationed in space. That tells you the intelligene of the author/s was limited.
SECOND: They imply that a congressman doesnt know whats in the bills he sponsors, and that he will sponsor a bill by any kook with an agenda. WHAT A CROCK.
I knew what you meant, others might not. The correction was not intended to do anything but clarify enough so that anyone unfamiliar with the strawman logical fallacy might be able to determine what you were referring to, as opposed to a straw poll, or something similar.save face with a grammar check?
Grammar smack is not my thing, unless you start a thread ing about someone else's grammar, then it is fair game. This is not one of those.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
