This thread has my name on it so I don't really figure how I have managed to disrupt it. My impression is that if the people who you designate as trolls don't behave according to what thoughts should be presented then that is disruptive. Take a look at the posters on this thread. From my point of view there are several whose only purpose is to be disruptive. I don't see anyone taking note of those. Or is it really that the folks here, as elsewhere, prefer to preach to the choir. And it is fair to label them as trolls. Ignoring the trolls that have become permanent fixtures.

Here's a troll response.

"Just because you are too thick or too blind or too bigoted or too up your own arse to be bothered to check facts"

But not a word is ever forth coming about what those fact might be. Just an attempt at being crude, rude and disruptive.

Stewgreen

Too many threads. What have I missed this time?

Martin A - the problem is that certain cranks have been making assertions about chemtrails for about 20 years now, without ever producing any evidence. Many government agencies all round the world have put out statements "denying" the existence of chemtrails. But people like replicant believe that governments and big business are in a conspiracy to manipulate or even kill people in strange ways - such as by erecting mobile phone masts and power cables...and spraying chemicals into the sky etc. Even Rational wiki - the site that libels Steve McIntyre, for example - has produced an article debunking the myth of chemtrails.

Martin A

Chemtrails are a conspiracy theorist meme. Supposedly "they" are releasing chemicals in airliner exhausts to poison us, control our minds, adjust the weather or whatever. There are many such ideas sloshing around the web. There are even people that believe climate change is a government conspiracy. :-)

I've mentally classified replicant asmong the conspiracy theorists and avoided the discussion. Once convinced that "they" are out to get us, such people have impregnable opinions, and are not worth the effort. For other examples, consider David Icke, who is convinced that we are ruled by green dinosaurs in people suits; as an engineer you might also enjoy the strange things apparently done by HAARPS.

Mike Jackson
replicant
You sneer at my reference to Strong and the Club of Rome but refuse to go the effort of clicking to check for yourself what I'm talking about.</I>

This is your first reference.

"Sorry, replicant, you've got it back to front (why am I not surprised).
The genesis of the present scare lies with the likes of Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome, not to mention all the other pseudo-Malthusians, control freaks and eugenicists who long ago decided that mankind was a blight on the planet"</I>

This was my first response.

"pseudo-Malthusians, control freaks and eugenicists" are not descriptive of anything identifiable that I understand. But supposing I accept that you are referring to 'something', are you suggesting that this 'something' is separate from the military? The military industrial complex?

That seems like a legitimate question to me. I ignored your sneering remark about why you weren't surprised I got it wrong.

That has been the extent of your discussion on this matter. I am extremely sorry if you found that first exchange to be offensive. Personally I didn't find anything offensive about it. Perhaps you could explain how and why you found it offensive so I can ensure I don't make that mistake again. The next time you bring up the topic it is as if you felt I should have already found out everything about them but am apparently too stupid to have known about them or too lazy to click on links or anything else. It seems that if I don't already agree with you about them, much less know how this great population reduction is supposed to take place, then I have no business being here. And now you are here accusing me of sneering at you. And this is your example? I'm afraid I'll just have to disagree with your assessment until such time as you explain yourself.

I am here. I give you the opportunity. I'm all ears. You have the floor. No one is stopping you from showing your case.

EM
"Once convinced that "they" are out to get us, such people have impregnable opinions, and are not worth the effort. "

Apparently this opinion isn't shared when it comes to the conspiracy about the Club of Rome who are out to kill a whole lot of people. Apparently this conspiracy is not considered a conspiracy where 'they are out to get us'. How this distinction works within your minds is something that I confess, befuddles me.

Martin

I tried to explain my view to replicant - that the water vapour (produced by burning 1 gallon of jet fuel per second)

If you are boiling off 6 gallons a mile and chucking it into air that would make your deep freeze seem warm, it'll condense into visible cloud - a.k.a. vapour trails

replicant

Well obviously 6 gallons of water per linear mile is not going to spread out until they stretch several degrees to each side of the flight path and at the same time still maintain horizon to horizon continuity.

Martin

You'll find I said nothing about "6 gallons of water can now cover the sky and last for days when previously contrails lasted only a few seconds".

And I agreed with you. Yet what we see in our skies are trails that do indeed cover the sky and last for days. So now you are saying that 6 gallons of water per mile can spread out and cover the sky. I'd sure like to know the basis for that claim. Or why make that statement above. At the time of the discussion why didn't you just say, yes that is a fact. 6 gallons of water per mile out of the back of a plane can create a vapour trail that stretches several hundred meters to each side of the plane. Why the duplicity?

diogenes

But people like replicant believe that governments and big business are in a conspiracy to manipulate or even kill people in strange ways

I have never said anything of the kind. That is Mike Jackson's conspiracy. Perhaps you got the two of us mixed up.

replicant

earlier in this thread you said:

Corporations and international money, with the great help of the government and their judicious use of military thugs have imposed their interests upon others and have systematically engineered to rid the world of any capacity for independence. From organic farming to slaughtering your farm meat to collecting rainwater, any and all abilities to maintain independence is being systematically undermined. And we have you to thank that their endeavours are greased as well as can be expected.

Now you are claiming that you never said anything to imply that

governments and big business are in a conspiracy to manipulate or even kill people in strange ways

Can you explain what the differences between the 2 statements are?

Absolutely, it would take me some time as I don't have such information at my fingertips but there are laws that exist that restrict such activity in each of these cases. There is no question that GMO and pesticides endanger organic farmers and there is no question the courts side with the GMO producer. There exist in certain places a law against collecting rainwater. But these issues are for control. The same as any government produces. Where is it that I implied they were seeking to kill people. Mike on the other hand has explicitly stated that exact thing yet produces no proof of any kind. If you want to find out how the government intends to kill people you should ask him as he claimed that they seek to do exactly that. And not in phrases which you might seek to interpret a statement for your own argument to mean something else than is stated.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/329723

Oregon man sentenced to jail for collecting rain water.

Despite massive protests, US Senate passes S 510 Food Safety Bill

http://www.naturalnews.com/030576_Food_Safety_S_510.html

This bill, as originally written, would have outlawed most nutritional supplements through "harmonization" with European laws. It also would have authorized ten-year prison sentences for farmers selling raw milk to their neighbors. Both of those provisions were eventually stripped out of the bill thanks to some last-minute amendments, but it gives you an idea of the outright police state mentality of the original bill authors who attempted to put in place complete government control over food, gardens, raw milk and more.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030799_food_freedom_Wickard_vs_Filburn.html

How the tyrants came after a farmer named Roscoe Filburn
It all starts with a farmer named Roscoe Filburn, a modest farmer who grew wheat in his own back yard in order to feed his chickens.

One day, a U.S. government official showed up at his farm. Noting that Filburn was growing a lot of wheat, this government official determined that Filburn was growing too much wheat and ordered Filburn to destroy his wheat crops and pay a large fine to the federal government.

The year was 1940, you see. And through a highly protectionist policy, the federal government had decided to artificially drive up the prices of wheat by limiting the amount of wheat that could be grown on any given acre. This is all part of Big Government's "infinite wisdom" of trying to somehow improve prosperity by destroying food and impairing economic productivity. (Be wary any time the government says it's going to "solve problems" for you.)

The federal government, of course, claims authority over all commerce (even when such claims are blatantly in violation of the limitations placed upon government by the Constitution). But Roscoe Filburn wasn't selling his wheat to anyone. Thus, he was not engaged in interstate commerce. He wasn't growing wheat as something to use for commerce at all, in fact. He was simply growing wheat in his back yard and feeding it to his chickens. That's not commerce. That's just growing your own food.

But get this: The government insisted he pay a fine and destroy his wheat, so Filburn took the government to court, arguing that the federal government had no right to tell a man to destroy his food crops just because they wanted to protect some sort of artificially high prices in the wheat market.

This case eventually went to the US Supreme Court. It's now known as Wickard v. Filburn, and it is one of the most famous US Supreme Court decisions ever rendered because it represents a gross expansion of the tyranny of the federal government.

See what I mean? I could go on all day.

"Corporations and international money, with the great help of the government and their judicious use of military thugs have imposed their interests upon others and have systematically engineered to rid the world of any capacity for independence."

Governments seek to control people. That should be something that is obvious to the people on this site. In fact I get the impression that that is the main theme here. The last example is from all the way back in 1940. Before my time.

<I>What I was pointing out is that 6 gallons/mile can explain normal vapour trails that, in some circumstances (high relative humidity) hang around almost indefinitely. Low humidity - they can evaporate in seconds as you say.</I>

Of course it explains normal vapour trails. But what we are witnessing almost daily are not normal vapour trails. And no, they cannot hang around almost indefinitely. We are talking about atmospheric conditions at the altitude where commercial jets fly. Not some imaginary invented condition that could achieve a particular situation. There are no conditions, either natural or artificial, that would allow 6 gallons of water to create the aircraft trails being created today.

"Yet for some reason you are not prepared to take the trouble to look that up."

This is ridiculous. You make a claim that the Club of Rome wants to kill of a good portion of mankind and I am supposed to look it up and I am the one who is stupid because I don't understand a conspiracy that apparently everyone else on this site knows about but nobody will present even the slightest detail.

Mike Jackson

"but regrettably you do."

I'm not forcing you to read my posts or even look at the thread. But since you do, you could at least explain yourself when I ask a question. What kind of connections do these people have? Are they separate from the military? Do they have military backing? What methods could they use to achieve their goals?