And? If I BELIEVE it is ok to firebomb an abortion clinic because god wants me to, is that something we should condone?
I don't care what people believe, but if they don't have evidence to back it up then they can't expect it to be treated like fact. For most things like religious belief thats fine, but when someone starts peddling ideas that can undermine the safety of the public or cause harm to others, I refuse to sit idly by and let their "Belief" stand equal with fact.
I posted in the first post you linked trying to explain that its nonsense back when it was first posted. You aren't the only one trying to fight against the conspiracy garbage.
Your bias is blinding you to the piles of evidence that is out there, including patents, videos, testimonies, and ground level tests for particulate on crops.
I never said anything about mind control but there's no doubt that hazardous elements are being released daily into our skies. Weather (punny huh) it's for climate modification, to keep people sick, or to harm non gmo crops, I just don't know, but someone is spraying crap in the sky, in grid patterns over cities, and that's undeniable to anyone that's taken the time to look.
"Patents"
There are patents for anti-gravity machines that are nothing but a 50 gallon metal drum filled with magnets. Unless you can prove these things were made and used for the purpose you're saying they were, then It means nothing.
"Videos"
Ok. Such as?
"Testimonies"
I can find you testimony that the pope is ushering in an alien god and that CERN is using the large hadron collider to dig a portal to hell. Do these people have any empirical evidence? Or should I just accept them at their word?
"Ground level tests for particulate on crops"
First, source. Second, what do you mean by this? Spraying chemicals at ground level to see what they do? Low level crop dusting flybys? High altitude dispersal and then analysis? What?
And? If I BELIEVE it is ok to firebomb an abortion clinic because god wants me to, is that something we should condone?
I don't care what people believe, but if they don't have evidence to back it up then they can't expect it to be treated like fact. For most things like religious belief thats fine, but when someone starts peddling ideas that can undermine the safety of the public or cause harm to others, I refuse to sit idly by and let their "Belief" stand equal with fact.
I posted in the first post you linked trying to explain that its nonsense back when it was first posted. You aren't the only one trying to fight against the conspiracy garbage.
Sorry, probably a bit harsh of a tone on my part.
Your bias is blinding you to the piles of evidence that is out there, including patents, videos, testimonies, and ground level tests for particulate on crops.
Chemtrails do not exist bud, there is no bias, its just plane fantasy talk.
I say "chemtrails" as defined as chemicals dispersed by overhead flying planes for the purpose of controlling the minds of the general population.
Nice pun. ;)
I never said anything about mind control but there's no doubt that hazardous elements are being released daily into our skies. Weather (punny huh) it's for climate modification, to keep people sick, or to harm non gmo crops, I just don't know, but someone is spraying crap in the sky, in grid patterns over cities, and that's undeniable to anyone that's taken the time to look.
"Patents"
There are patents for anti-gravity machines that are nothing but a 50 gallon metal drum filled with magnets. Unless you can prove these things were made and used for the purpose you're saying they were, then It means nothing.
"Videos"
Ok. Such as?
"Testimonies"
I can find you testimony that the pope is ushering in an alien god and that CERN is using the large hadron collider to dig a portal to hell. Do these people have any empirical evidence? Or should I just accept them at their word?
"Ground level tests for particulate on crops"
First, source. Second, what do you mean by this? Spraying chemicals at ground level to see what they do? Low level crop dusting flybys? High altitude dispersal and then analysis? What?
Sorry about your tiny penis.