Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "CBC News" channel.

  1. "This video absolutely proves once and for all that Chemtrails are indeed real. " How? "This video was taken in Orlando on December 3, 2018." I'm fully aware of that, I had a very civilised exchange with the person that filmed it. I assure you that those are nothing more than contrails. Later in the week a frontal system moved across Southern Florida from the South West. Surely, you can't be suggesting that the overcast conditions captured in the culmination of this video are related? The cloud cover owed to low pressure migrating in from the gulf. "It clearly shows the same two airplanes in the sky" No it doesn't show anything of the sort. "You can clearly see the difference between the contrails and the Chemtrails." Which is? Perhaps then you could become the first to define both your precise qualitative and quantitative methodology to allow the differentiation between a contrail and a chemtrail and provide statistics as to the reliability and error margins of your method. Your alternative is to admit that you have no such methodology.
    13
  2. Try actually understanding what you are looking at first.
    6
  3. A belief in alien visitation as absurd and unlikely as it may be is more rational than the ludicrous chemtrail hoax.
    6
  4.  @mr.bonkers8525  ..."yet you pack such ignorance into it. Pretty amazing. Hats off" Speaking of ignorance, to remind you, here's your OP: "Notice how he implements the textbook association shame game: being sure to mention unrelated and more ridiculed beliefs like aliens etc. with chemtrails as to equate them to belonging to anyone who believes chemtrails." Why is entertaining the notion of the existence of alien life forms more ridiculous than the misidentification of the persistent contrails that have been observed, documented, recorded, photographed, measured and studied since the early advent of powered aviation and the best part of a century - and subsequently claiming that they are some sinister planned programme of global spraying? Moreover, the recent intentional conflation of this hoax with geoengineering is frankly even more absurd.
    6
  5.  @mr.bonkers8525  "You really believe that it's more likely that the movie E.T. occurs in real life, than a bunch of powerful men plot evil? That speaks volumes. Thank you"" Actually, that's not remotely what I said is it? Perhaps an understanding of the strawman logical fallacy woul...oh hold on - "You attempt to first move the goal posts by changing your terms from the specific "alien visitation" to mere existence of the blanket term"alien life forms." Then you put a strawman claim in my mouth so you can feel like you're actually making a point". Tell me, do you have a post-graduate qualification in unintentional irony? Actually, I was trying to be more faithful to your original post in which you said the following, remember?... "being sure to mention unrelated and more ridiculed beliefs like aliens etc" And although it's not something that I entertain - for a myriad of reasons - the possibility of previous alien visitation nonetheless cannot be disproved. Certainly such a notion is more credible than the physical impossibility of the chemtrail belief which debunks itself through being a physical and mathematical impossibility. "I remember when I bought my first thesaurus". It's a great shame they didn't sell you any science text books while you were there.
    6
  6.  @mr.bonkers8525  Much like your OP then. My reply was a single sentence.
    5
  7. +Keenstone "Damn I really got you mad" Amused would be a better way of putting it, but you're rather fond of assumptions aren't you. "perhaps I can also waste as much of your life as you'll let me :)" Perhaps you could - today amounted to all of about ten seconds. "You're turn" No, I'm 'Yassassin' - perhaps the suggestion of a science text book was way too premature. Grammar for Dummies maybe? Clever lad.
    5
  8. What precisely can you see above your head everyday?
    4
  9. The very fact that you are terming contrails as 'chemtrails' suggests that indeed you did - through baseless online junk conspiracy theory.
    4
  10. Who precisely are "they"? - What "secrets" are you referring to?
    3
  11. "You're pretty f** naive" Said the online conspiracy believer. "you can look into the sky on any given day and I know you're old enough to realize this when you were a kid in the 70s or the 80s you can see how clear this guy's used to be does clouds in the sky are dim and gray even on sunny days and not only that even when it's all the way clear it looks as if the sky has a gray tint over it the world has gotten darker" Firstly, if you actually employ punctuation even your randomly erratic and senseless diatribe will be slightly easier to assimilate. Secondly, the tonality of clouds is dependent upon lighting...clouds which have for time immemorial covered 75% of the earth's surface. The world has not got darker...although metaphorically, you do I concede have a point.
    3
  12. You mean a persistent contrail which have been documented, observed, studied and understood since the dawn of the jet age and before?
    3
  13.  @lindarichards7087  This is David Keith talking about his research proposals in relation to SAI. What's your point?
    3
  14. What about it?
    2
  15. What on earth does that have to do with aircraft contrails?
    2
  16. "They're not commercial aircraft. These are privately owned and operated companies that are doing the spraying" Really? Then why are you lunatics continuously posting footage of civil airliners then? "I'm suprised I can even comment on here." It's a comments section...that's the general idea. I'm not in the least 'surprised' that you can't spell though. "Usually CBC closes their comment section, to avoid the truthful comments." Or to avoid trolling from scientific illiterates and gullible believers in baseless online conspiracy such as yourself perhaps. "This guy is a bought of clown" Bought 'off' by who precisely? It's Harvard's David Keith, the main proponent of research into the hypothetical concept of SAI. What does this have to do with your ludicrous chemtrails hoax? "Jesus Christ." Another of your irrational beliefs?
    2
  17. "ask yourself how did me and the soil and the water get full of toxic metals, namely nano aluminum" Nothing to do with being the third most abundant element on the planet then. Toxicity is a product of pathways, time, exposure and dosage.
    2
  18. So they "are real" because a conspiracy video on You Tube told you so?
    2
  19.  @ceeaki22ndcentury  What "confirmation"? Tell me, how do you differentiate between a persistent contrail and one of your supposed chemtrails aside from that fact that a You Tube video tells you what to believe?
    2
  20. 3.00am in the morning Keith? - wow what a loser.
    2
  21. Puppet for who precisely? What specifically are you disagreeing with?
    2
  22. He's simply discussing his hypothetical research into SAI which chemtrail believers have used as false equivalence to bolster their spurious claims. Since you think that there are both 'contrails and chemtrals' perhaps then you could become the first of your ilk to detail your precise methodology to allow differentiation between the two?
    2
  23. You are referring to aircraft contrails, which have nothing to do with research into SAI.
    2
  24. About what?
    2
  25. Chemtrails are simply misidentified contrails. It's not about "trusting anyone from Harvard", rather the independent and reproducible evidence that must support any scientific contention.
    2
  26. Online gullible scientifically illiterate conspiracy believer brands Harvard Professor a dumbass. 🤣
    2
  27.  Jeff Malone  Your keyboard appears to be jammed Keith.
    2
  28. Oh look - a Pan Am Being 707 filmed in 1959... https://youtu.be/C0umWIPCPd4?t=23m28s - Or the skies over London in the 1940s? http://veryfunny.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/4ki5p4w6jvp9h50atm53.jpeg http://hurricane501.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/contrail_chaos_3440631b.jpg Or perhaps Ansell Adams' famous "Rails and Jet Trails" photographed in 1953: https://image1.slideserve.com/2430285/slide4-n.jpg Ohio 1960s - https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/barn-and-contrails-picture-id988961174 1970s - https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150212-120047-k2z1d.jpg Contrails have been documented, photographed, studied and understood since the advent of early aviation. This paper from 1972 explains what you are seeing - feel free to attempt to refute the scientific content: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281972%29029%3C1367%3AMOTGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
    2
  29. Said the illiterate online conspiracy believer to the atmospheric physicist.
    2
  30. Protect him against what precisely? How does that work? Government plant??? That'll be why he has had to scavenge for private sector funding then?
    2
  31. What in particular do you regard as 'lies'?
    2
  32. And how did you do your own "research"?
    2
  33. No thanks, I'm fully aware of the existence and science behind cloud seeding. What's your point? This video pertains to "chemtrails" - the belief that regular contrails observed in the wake of commercial aircraft are evidence of a global programme of chemical spraying. Cloud seeding does not produce long white trails behind large jet aircraft at altitudes of 6-8 miles that proponents of this conspiracy theory erroneously ascribe to chemtrails.
    2
  34. "CNN just came out and said they are going to start spraying haha." Who are going to start spraying? "Theyve been doing it for years" Who have? How have you established this?
    2
  35.  @emdieselify  Incorrect - there are hundreds of videos incorrectly posted capturing persistent contrails as a consequence of commercial air traffic cruising in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Why do you believe that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection would resemble a large white plume in the wake of a civil airliner?
    2
  36.  @owlhater270  Since the chemtrails conspiracy theory started telling gullible scientific illiterates what to believe.
    2
  37.  @owlhater270  I just did. The chemtrails conspiracy theory - which coincidentally originated in the late 1990s. And "people" aren't confused, only those that are uninformed and allow themselves to accommodate baseless online conspiracy theory. Like I said, the trails that you are seeing have been observed, documented, measured and studied since the early advent of powered flight. That the 'people' that you refer to don't understand what they are seeing, choose to substitute the internet for an education and believe in a nonsensical hoax are very likely the same ones that refuse to vaccinate their children or think that the earth is flat.
    2
  38. Please actually understand what HAARP actually is instead of tastelessly and insensitively posting junk conspiracy theory on these comments sections. No, HAARP cannot cause earthquakes. It is an HF pump and an ionospheric research tool.
    2
  39.  @lusiscus  Unusual for a conspiracy believer to completely change the subject, deflect and respond with logical fallacy.
    2
  40.  @lusiscus  "I know HAARP can cause earthquakes" A You Tube conspiracy video told you so. Oh bless x
    2
  41. Knowledge of what topic precisely?
    2
  42. https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/chemtrails-conspiracy-theory
    1
  43. Because a crap chemtrails conspiracy theory forum told you so?
    1
  44. Because you read it on the internet? What does an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory have to do with geoengineering research which has never been out of the public domain?
    1
  45. Said the online conspiracy believer.
    1
  46. "Chemicals analysis has found extremely high levels of aluminum, barium, strontium and even nano particles( man made) in soil, water and air samples, higher than the EPA should tolerate." Chemtrails analysis you say. No one has ever analysed a chemtrail at source in spite of the sophistication and availability of environmental monitoring and remote sensing technology. Plenty of such studies into contrails though. Soil water and air samples? How interesting. Could you present them? We can start with your claims about strontium then we can address your "man made nano particles". You are surely aware that nano particulate generated by anthropogenic activity is everywhere and impossible to avoid? So, your claims about strontium first, "in soil, water and air samples, higher than the EPA should tolerate." Could you produce your data and the corresponding analytical studies? Thanks.
    1
  47. "I've seen planes change where they lay their chemtrails based on where high energy spots are." And how did you establish this?
    1
  48. ...About things that they don't understand. Therein lies the problem.
    1
  49. And thanks to Chase_Uzumaki for sending in this week's logical fallacy.
    1
  50.  @terencemckenna9760  Known science is not about 'belief'. To answer your question, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but an absent cannot be proved and is unfalsifiable. Therefore any claim needs to be substantiated.
    1