How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

Originally posted by qmantoo
Money talks and is the reason why some things such as orgone is never going to be accepted because no money is going to be allocated for reasonable research into it.

All it would take for orgone to be accepted is for someone to demonstrate it works.

If orgone cloud busters work, then make three holes in a row in the cloud cover and video it. What would that cost?

80 years and still no actual demonstration of something working is pretty good evidence that it does not work. Instead just videos of what looks exactly like regular weather.



He's not even pointing his cloudbuster stick at the cloud.

And no, bsbray11, I can't prove it's not working. But in 80 years nobody has provided the slightest evidence that it does.

Originally posted by adeclerk
If I were you I wouldn't make daft claims of life energy when theres no evidence to support that it exists.

Hardly "daft," love. *I* have evidence - I can feel it. If You cannot... [shrug] I guess that means You're right.

Uh... I guess.

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I've been receiving acupuncture treatments for a few years now so I thought I would comment. The needles, while not causing a level of pain so as to be physically felt (yes sometimes you do feel them) do cause stimulation of the nerve endings which leads to the release of endorphins.

That's the theory, yes. But I suspect there's more to it for the simple reason that pain often vanishes completely, and even when We break legs - which is VERY painful and causes a LOT of endorphins to be released - the pain does not simply vanish.

Just sayin'.

It is also a well known fact that pain in one place can distract us from pain in another. A prime example of this is a swimmer getting a muscle cramp while in deep water. It is a commonly practiced tactic to bite one's tongue in this circumstance as the pain from the tongue bite will "override" the cramp pain and save the swimmer from drowning in the process.

Yes, One can override one pain with another - but merely an endorphin release does not eliminate pain the way the needles in the proper places does.

(Do They have tests where They did acupuncture and measured a great increase of endorphins? Or is this untested theory still?)

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by adeclerk
If I were you I wouldn't make daft claims of life energy when theres no evidence to support that it exists.

Hardly "daft," love. *I* have evidence - I can feel it. If You cannot... [shrug] I guess that means You're right.

Uh... I guess.

You can feel it? That may suffice as evidence for yourself, but some of us have real standards of evidence. Myself, I believe in what can be proven.

reply to post by Uncinus


Great video, I almost peed myself when that cloud started getting busted. Strange thing is, it didn't make the cloud go away or cause rain. Case closed (unless he didn't align the crystals correctly with the scraps of copper ).

Originally posted by wcitizen

Don't lecture me - lecture him, since it was he who made the ridiculous claim in the first place.

In case you don't remember, here is what he said:

clearly there is evidence for zero - for example the word itself exists

Therefore the logical equation he is postulating as evidence is:

It has a name = therefore it exists.

Bzztt......where did I say that the existence of the word zero PROVES the existence of zero?

I didn't - you are making up the connection - it's just another case of a chemmie dishonestly manufacturing "evidence"

If you go back to what I was actually referring to, someone had said there was NO evidence for zero. Well the fact that hte name exists is evidence - it does not PROVE that zero exists....it is not SUFFICIENT evidence...but it is evidence.

The fact that the word chemtrails exist is also evidence for chemtrails - but it does not prove the existence of chemtrails.

As I have always said, the quality of the evidence matters.

Certainly there is also other evidence for the existence of chemtrails - but when that evidence is examined it falls well short of actually proving they exist - indeed IMO i does not even suggest a meaningful possibility that they might exist.

But then I'm geting used to blatant dishonesty from chemmies

By the same logic he has just admitted that chemtrails exist, because according to HIS logic, anything with a name exists.

You are a liar - I did not say that and you dishonestly manufacturing this "evidence" evidence is more proof of the bankruptcy of the chemtrails hoax.

So, why are you trying to turn this around and make it look as though I came up with this ridiculous nonsense?

Oh yes, I forgot, that's what you do.

Indeed - identifying your ridiculous hoax, pointing out your dishonesty is EXACTLY what debunkers do.

You can stop it at any time - be honest for a change.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by wcitizen

Don't lecture me - lecture him, since it was he who made the ridiculous claim in the first place.

In case you don't remember, here is what he said:

clearly there is evidence for zero - for example the word itself exists

Therefore the logical equation he is postulating as evidence is:

It has a name = therefore it exists.

Bzztt......where did I say that the existence of the word zero PROVES the existence of zero?

I didn't - you are making up the connection - it's just another case of a chemmie dishonestly manufacturing "evidence"

If you go back to what I was actually referring to, someone had said there was NO evidence for zero. Well the fact that hte name exists is evidence - it does not PROVE that zero exists....it is not SUFFICIENT evidence...but it is evidence.

The fact that the word chemtrails exist is also evidence for chemtrails - but it does not prove the existence of chemtrails.

As I have always said, the quality of the evidence matters.

Certainly there is also other evidence for the existence of chemtrails - but when that evidence is examined it falls well short of actually proving they exist - indeed IMO i does not even suggest a meaningful possibility that they might exist.

But then I'm geting used to blatant dishonesty from chemmies

By the same logic he has just admitted that chemtrails exist, because according to HIS logic, anything with a name exists.

You are a liar - I did not say that and you dishonestly manufacturing this "evidence" evidence is more proof of the bankruptcy of the chemtrails hoax.

So, why are you trying to turn this around and make it look as though I came up with this ridiculous nonsense?

Oh yes, I forgot, that's what you do.

Indeed - identifying your ridiculous hoax, pointing out your dishonesty is EXACTLY what debunkers do.

You can stop it at any time - be honest for a change.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

Oh, come on. You truly showed yourself up by making that statement.

Let me repeat it:

"CLEARLY THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR ZERO - FOR EXAMPLE THE WORD ITSELF EXISTS."

You have totally discredited yourself with that kind of nonsensical logic. You've shown you'll spew any kind of utter nonsense just to contradict.

Keep on wriggling.




.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Oh, come on. You truly showed yourself up by making that statement.

Let me repeat it:

"CLEARLY THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR ZERO - FOR EXAMPLE THE WORD ITSELF EXISTS."

Right - so I did NOT say that the existence of the word zero PROVES the existence of zero.

Thank you for proving that, but I think you should go further and retract your comment.

You have totally discredited yourself with that kind of nonsensical logic.

In what way is it illogical to say that evidence is not the same as proof?

Go on - tell us all how that works.....

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by adeclerk
If I were you I wouldn't make daft claims of life energy when theres no evidence to support that it exists.

Hardly "daft," love. *I* have evidence - I can feel it. If You cannot... [shrug] I guess that means You're right.

Uh... I guess.

You can feel it? That may suffice as evidence for yourself, but some of us have real standards of evidence. Myself, I believe in what can be proven.

Here's the thing. Do You believe Your eyes? I mean, Your senses. If You were given the means, would experimentation give You a clue, doing it hands on convince You that something is real?

By experimentation, I have determined that I can feel the movement of the plenum energy. Others are amazed that They can feel it as well. I have Student X's report of another One. It seems that, to varying degrees, Humans can sense it.

Ah. The experiment...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"
1 inch diameter galvanized steel pipe, 8-10" long.
One galvanized steel cap that screws onto the end.
6-8" wide strips of:
Wool cloth - virgin is best, no dyes
Steel mesh - that stuff that is about 3/8" squares is excellent

Take pipe and attach cap. Layer the strips, leaving about 2 1/2-3" of wool at the end sticking out.

Wrap pipe with the layers of wool and mesh, encircling the pipe with the wool first and ensuring the mesh does not touch the pipe.

Wrap 6 or 7 times around the pipe, trim strips and adhere with duct or best, electrical tape.

It takes a while to charge, an hour or two, but if you're sensitive enough, you will feel a temperature drop and even a tingle when passing your hand (or other part) in front of the open end of the pipe.

Hope that helps.
"

reply to post by Amaterasu

I find my eyes play tricks.
I find my hearing, when it worked better than it does now, played tricks.

I've learned to not entirely trust my senses. They've tried to kill me more than once while hang gliding. I learned to place trust in my instruments.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Subject X's subjects didn't notice it anymore than what would be expected by chance, plus you said it was invalid because he didn't have a control.

What is the difference between using quartz crystal or something else, like sugar?

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Here's the thing. Do You believe Your eyes? I mean, Your senses. If You were given the means, would experimentation give You a clue, doing it hands on convince You that something is real?

If we could just trust our "senses", then there would be no such thing as spacial disorientation

There was a study done, of putting non-instrument rated pilots into a simulator, and doing a scenario that they just flew into the clouds and lost all visibility. I think they all died, and the average time it took was 180 seconds.

When getting an instrument rating for a pilot license, you are specifically told to disregard senses and look at the instruments, because there are so many ways your senses and equilibrium system can lie to you, and kill you

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I find my eyes play tricks.
I find my hearing, when it worked better than it does now, played tricks.

I've learned to not entirely trust my senses. They've tried to kill me more than once while hang gliding. I learned to place trust in my instruments.

Well, until We learn how to measure the plenum energy and its flow, We are left with Our senses (isn't that what Humans started with?). And as I offered in the thread I linked to, there are experiments.

I had one in which I was blindfolded and placed my hands out about a foot apart. A friend put the shooter in between my hands facing left or right. I could tell which hand was being "shot." 100% of the time.

What do I make of that, then?

For Those insensitive to the energy, I know I cannot convince You. But just because One cannot see does not follow that no One can see. I contend that the plenum energy can be felt and manipulated - and energy drawn from.

Maybe You should build a shooter as I describe and do a set of more controlled experiments than Student X did. (I do appreciate that Student X was willing to put forth effort!) I would be thrilled, in fact, if You did, Phage!

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Subject X's subjects didn't notice it anymore than what would be expected by chance, plus you said it was invalid because he didn't have a control.

Yeah, but My point was that there was One who said She felt a distinct effect. I am betting, based on My own observations, that She is indeed sensitive to the flow of the energy.

What is the difference between using quartz crystal or something else, like sugar?

As I said, I am not "into crystals." My guess would be the resonances of the substances. That and the state of the Whittaker Potentials...

Originally posted by firepilot

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Here's the thing. Do You believe Your eyes? I mean, Your senses. If You were given the means, would experimentation give You a clue, doing it hands on convince You that something is real?

If we could just trust our "senses", then there would be no such thing as spacial disorientation

There was a study done, of putting non-instrument rated pilots into a simulator, and doing a scenario that they just flew into the clouds and lost all visibility. I think they all died, and the average time it took was 180 seconds.

When getting an instrument rating for a pilot license, you are specifically told to disregard senses and look at the instruments, because there are so many ways your senses and equilibrium system can lie to you, and kill you

While this is all very true, it is rather irrelevant. In order for it to be relevant One must presume that because there are conditions in which Our senses can give Us incorrect impressions We must conclude that Our senses ALWAYS give Us incorrect impressions. And that is absurd, based on My observations.

While this is all very true, it is rather irrelevant. In order for it to be relevant One must presume that because there are conditions in which Our senses can give Us incorrect impressions We must conclude that Our senses ALWAYS give Us incorrect impressions. And that is absurd, based on My observations.

Where did I say anything about our senses are always incorrect?

What we can know, that our senses are not always correct and can mislead us, so should not think that our senses are always correct, and to just always go with that, regardless of everything else. We just have to know that our senses can be incorrect, and to take that into consideration, rather than assuming that they are more accurate than anything else

reply to post by Amaterasu


The one who couldn't tell where it was pointed? From the 'experiment' you wrote off because there was no control?

Do you accept the results or not?

Originally posted by Amaterasu

I had one in which I was blindfolded and placed my hands out about a foot apart. A friend put the shooter in between my hands facing left or right. I could tell which hand was being "shot." 100% of the time.

What do I make of that, then?

Well, you could make two thinks of that.

Firstly you could make $1,000,000 by taking the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge.
www.randi.org...

Secondly you could start a revolution in science by demonstrating it. I would start with a video that you put on youtube that shows you doing it say 20 times. Then you can move on to having it verified by neutral parties.

Both those things seem very significant. So why don't you do one, or both of them.

... and before there were scientific measuring unstruments, how did man achieve many of the amazing things we still se in this world? By accident?

You all seem to think that without science we were just cavemen grunting to each other. There are many civilisations which have produced marvellous structures etc without todays scientific instruments, so relying on those are only good as long as we have logic and scientific authorities ruling our lives.

It is sad that many people have lost contact with their other senses as they may actually be able to be used to discover and to achieve far more than present day science has with its logic-based paradigms.