r0llinlacs
(Banned)
- 233
- r0llinlacs
The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread
- Thread starter Ryanswannell
- 1,372 comments
- 84,842 views
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Can't read all of them now, but they look more like reasonable research rather than nefarious plans. Weather modification is no surprise. Using it to reshape the planet is, especially since we can't really get all that much out of weather modifying currently.
Why are you making a spectacle out of nothing?
- 11,119
- Central Coast, NSW
- Com_Fox5
- EelX 5
You personally attack users yet you complain when they "attack" you.
r0llinlacs
(Banned)
- 233
- r0llinlacs
That's quite like the Creationists posting links from answersingenesis.org to prove creationism right.Saying you're acting like a child might be insulting, but pointing out that if you act like a child you will be treated as one is not.Apparently you read insults into things other people write quite a lot.No-one here is insulting you. However if you keep insulting other people, you will stop.If any member is insulting you, they have the consequence of having their access to the site limited. If any moderator is, they have the consequence of me removing their moderation abilities. If I am, I have the consequence of the site owner removing my administration abilities.
At present, it's only you.
Yeah, just ignore everything I posted, whatever makes you feel better about yourself. It's obvious you're in an extreme state of denial.
This is why this whole thread is pointless. You ask for and demand proof, then when you get the proof, YOU WON'T EVEN READ IT. WHY? YOU SCARED? SCARED YOU MIGHT LOSE A DEBATE?
I don't want to hear a F$&*^*& word from any of you until you read every single article and source thoroughly, and if you won't, then you have no place in this debate.
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
Got a feeling you might be one who we won't be hearing from. Posting links is one thing but you haven't explained anything about how they back you up.
- 86,689
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Science doesn't operate to make me feel better - nor does it operate to make Dane Wigington feel better. It operates objectively and Wigington is a severe junk science merchant - ignoring vast swathes of data and selective quote-mining to advance his own eco-warrior agenda. Nothing he says about chemtrails is true - but since chemtrails don't exist that's not really a surprise.
A particular highlight is his reliance on "nanoparticle" (so small you can't verify it and have to take him at his word) cloud condensation nuclei seeding. Objective data taken by actual scientists - at Mauna Loa - shows that atmospheric cloud condensation nuclei is actually at a 40 year low but occasionally spikes following larger eruption events.
No I'm not...
r0llinlacs
(Banned)
- 233
- r0llinlacs
That's your job to read them. I'm not going to post links and give a brief description of each. I'm not getting paid for this, I'm not a teacher.
Science doesn't operate to make me feel better - nor does it operate to make Dane Wigington feel better. It operates objectively and Wigington is a severe junk science merchant - ignoring vast swathes of data and selective quote-mining to advance his own eco-warrior agenda. Nothing he says about chemtrails is true - but since chemtrails don't exist that's not really a surprise.No I'm not...
So anyway. We're still waiting for that independent, peer-reviewed evidence, rather than the insidious musings of an agenda-led tripe merchant.
So you're in denial. That's all I needed to know to make your opinion irrelevant. You can stop replying now.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,399
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Your sources are a mix of valid research that doesn't support your claims (unless you ignore half of what is being said and distort the rest) and others doing exactly the same as you are.
Not a bit of it is actual proof of what you have claimed.
We also don't need a ream of worthless and/or invalid sources. A single peer reviewed source will do the job, however I seriously doubt that you will be able to provide one.
Fortunately for the site as a whole you do not have the mandate to do this, as such please refrain from acting as if you do.
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
You don't make an argument unless you can prove it.
- 86,689
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Uh-huh. Anyone who doesn't agree with you right off the bat or swallows Wigington's ridiculous - and debunked - geoengineering drivel hook line and sinker is "in denial". Got it.
Got any comment on his misrepresentation of CCN data?
All opinion is irrelevant. Science is not a matter of opinion!
Yep. There's many other things I can do too. I may not choose to do all of them.
Peer-reviewed, published evidence from real scientists, please - not wool-pulling, web-published selective reading from the likes of Wigington.
r0llinlacs
(Banned)
- 233
- r0llinlacs
Jesus Christ you people are ****ing thick!!! BAN ME!! God damn the only ****ing reason this thread is open is so you ****ing piece of **** arrogant power hungry moderators can bully people!! **** your website and take your administrative powers and shove them up your ignorant asses!
r0llinlacs
(Banned)
- 233
- r0llinlacs
- 44,185
- Blackburn
- Furinkazen_54
Einstein also could prove his theories and publish his own findings and evidence.
- 31,544
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
After the first link I took off my tinfoil hat, and made one out of lead foil.
So much nonsense. So much pick and choose.
Edit.
And it seems I have been tree'd by many posts.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,399
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Rather ironic given that you've not suipplied a single bit of evidence that Einstein would consider valid himself. Peer reviewed as requested please.
One more time and your gone.
Drop the allegation of bullying, you have been given fair warning as to what is acceptable and have chosen to ignore it. Sort yourself out or your out.
- 86,689
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
As I'm sure you can tell, I've investigated Dane Wigington and Geoengineeringwatch.org before. I know that he relies on misrepresenting data - generally by selectively quote-mining real research but sometimes by just plain old making it up - and every single one of his key claims with regards to artificial climate engineering has been thoroughly debunked. He is a full-on horsemanure merchant and nothing he says on the matter can be regarded as factual or relevant without independent corroboration - which always, always says something different to what he says.
Any comment on his misrepresentation of CCN data? No?
There's a gulf between "being open minded" and "just swallowing rubbish because it has big words in it". Accepting the drivel posted on geoengineeringwatch.org without question is the latter. And you should always question sources, even if they agree with you.
Any comment on his misrepresentation of CCN data? No?
There's a gulf between "being open minded" and "just swallowing rubbish because it has big words in it". Accepting the drivel posted on geoengineeringwatch.org without question is the latter. And you should always question sources, even if they agree with you.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,399
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
I have looked, it doesn't take a great deal of time to see that the sources are either being missused or are hocum.
As I have said a single peer reviewed source (which you have not yet supplied) and I will be more than happy to accept what you say as valid.
And as Famine has said, this is not the first time we have looked at this subject.
- 31,544
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Ok.
I clicked the first 6 or so. After that I knew it was the typical History channel BS I've seen so many times.
Science only works when you use all and everything in an investigation.
Science does not work when you pick and choose the parts you like. It is not a religion.
Also, don't act like a little kid. Swearing does not get you anywhere. Yeah, you could end up in the BUL.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,399
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The valid ones are being misrepresented as I say (take the US military bug spraying one as an example of that) and the rest seem to mainly be from a 'woo' source, namely geoengineeringwatch, a site that has been debunked on a regular basis.
Hence why I said "the sources are either being missused or are hocum."
Not a single one is a peer reviewed piece on chemtrails.
r0llinlacs
(Banned)
- 233
- r0llinlacs
Thank you. This is all I'm trying to make a point out of.
According to everyone in here though, nothing exists unless there is peer reviewed articles? I'd like to see a peer reviewed article on my penis, but since there isn't one, I must not have a penis. That is the logic I'm dealing with.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,399
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Already covered and once again ignored by yourself.
Half of them are papers, that while valid, do not support the claims you are making. The rest are debunked nonsense from a source that is well known for quote mining and missleading statements.
Someone doesn't seem to understand the scientific method. Quite a few peer-reviewed papers exists on the penis and its function, conditions, etc. Now if you were claiming something different or outside common knowledge for yours (maybe it ejaculates vinegar to get rid of those pesky chemtrails), then yes that would require independent evidence (and the best is peer reviewed) to back up your claim,
Just as a claim of chem-trails requires the same, and not one of the sources you have provided to date proves the existence of chem-trails.
Lets take one example of your evidence for chem-trails shall we...
http://www.youngstown.afrc.af.mil/units/aerialspraysquadron/index.asp
...which is proof that the US military operate what amounts to giant crop sprayers. Nothing more, it doesn't support a claim for Chem-trails or any of the other 'woo' you have proposed.
Last edited:
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
If the author of the article claims to be the tooth fairy is there a reason to read it? You can dismiss something without reading every line. If what you presented was solid proof of a secret(?) plan I should have found it in the couple of links I looked over. From what I read, weather control for use against people is something you made up or it's burried in a random pile of other stuff that you needlessly also linked to.
Like I said before, no one should be surprised that weather control research has been done. That was yesterday's news yesterday. More often than not, it's for things people would support too.
You're off. Peer review does not grant existence, but it does grant validity. I know nothing of your anatomy, but I'm not interested in it so I won't challenge what you say about it. Unless maybe it was an outlandish claim like having wings. Likewise, as chemtrails are not supported by evidence, to claim that they exist requires serious proof.
Enemem
(Banned)
- 304
- Planet Earth
- Enemem
I don't need to back up my claim that the all-seeing eye is evidence of the illuminati. Because it isn't, but it could be. MI5 doesn't exist either, nor does the FBI. Why? Because you can't provide prove that they exist. You can't even prove to us that you exist.
More to follow.......
More to follow.......
Last edited:
- 27,205
- United Kingdom
That can't be true - you're clearly thinking with it.
Enemem
(Banned)
- 304
- Planet Earth
- Enemem
Off topic, not necessary, of no use to anyone. You tell us more about you, than you do about r0llinlacs. Moderator!!!
What logic would cause you to deduce, that there are not Machiavellian forces at work, but that those with the power wouldn't be evil.
History would indicate otherwise.
Last edited:
r0llinlacs
(Banned)
- 233
- r0llinlacs
Similar threads
