BT

[Dale Eastman]

I'd be happy to never come across another flerfer, chermtrail doofus, moon landing denier, etc...
It would be different if they had evidence, used reason, and understood falsification criteria..

I finally had evidence presented on the chemtrail - contrail controversy that I found to be definitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q-BZxl-Zxk
And I recommend visiting the site.
Also, as a Boomer, I remember a deeper blue sky. It's faded blue now because of what is being sprayed in an attempt to change the Earth's albedo..

Can you account for the change in fuel quality?
How about the lift capacity of wings and the weight of these massive loads of liquids?
Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone flying the planes, on the ground, working air ports, etc, are magically protected from these mystery chemicals that no one has shown any hint of any evidence of?

Oh, and can you justify the universalization from an "instance" as logically valid?

Thank you for admitting that the 3 minute, 12 second video was just too long for your short attention span. And that you couldn't be bothered to visit the source, https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Snarky insult comment about your pedigree withheld (self-censored).

Wow.. Thanks for admitting offering any answers is too much effort and you could not be bothered with reason and evidence.

Also thanks for admitting that you fail to understand that universalizing from an "instance" is a well known fallacy and so logically CANNOT count as proof of this faith.
But thanks too for immediately going to personal attacks instead of offering anything any thinking person would accept as engaging in the topic.

Can you also share the "great" youtube "proof" of the sky being CGI, NASA inventing the Ancient Greeks, and the massive ice wall surrounding the flat earth?
Thanks for outing yourself.

[Dale Eastman]

I'm going to do what I always do when I attempt to interact with folks like you. I'm going to ask you specific questions about the claims you have made. And in your case, I am going to ask you questions about the questions you have asked me.

You have asked six questions. I disassembled your compound sentence/question as I often do to get to the facts and truth of the matter.

➽ Can you account for the change in fuel quality?

Irrelevant. You are using this question as a distraction based upon whatever assumption you have in your thoughts.

➽ How about the lift capacity of wings and the weight of these massive loads of liquids?

Again, you are telegraphing your ignorant assumption. Have you ever watched airborne fire fighting drops?

🔍 Most large air tankers carry up to 3,000 gallons of retardant. The 747 is capable of carrying far more retardant than any other. When first introduced it was listed at 20,000 gallons. Then the federal government certified it at 19,200 gallons. More recently it was required to carry no more than 17,500 gallons. The second-largest capacity air tanker is the Russian-made Ilyushin IL-76 at 11,574 gallons. The DC-10 until a couple of years ago was allowed to hold 11,600 but federal officials now restrict it to 9,400.🔍

KC-135: 200,000 pounds fuel carrying capacity.
The KC-46A’s 212,000 pounds fuel carrying capacity.

➽ Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone flying the planes,

Why are you assuming the pilots don't know what they are doing? During ww2 the gubment kept a whole fucking city hidden: Oak Ridge, Tennessee: America's Secret Atomic City

➽ Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone  on the ground,

Thank you for admitting you had no clue as to what you allegedly watched in that 3 minute, 12 second video. I say "allegedly" because I will be asking you specific questions so you can prove to me that you actually watched that video.

➽ Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone working air ports,

How do you know these aircraft aren't being flown out of military bases?

➽ Can you explain how those who are magically protected from these mystery chemicals that no one has shown any hint of any evidence of?

The evidence is being collected. You didn't read the cited website https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ wherein the evidence is presented.

➽ Also thanks for admitting that you fail to understand that universalizing from an "instance" is a well known fallacy and so logically CANNOT count as proof of this faith.

More of your ignorant assumptions.

Two questions to follow in two posts with two images the questions are about.

[Dale Eastman]

Please explain what is causing this between the alleged contrails.

[Dale Eastman]

Please explain what is causing this twisting of the alleged contrails. On both sides.

[Dale Eastman]

Since you refuse to answer the very simple questions or defend your claims, I am not inclined to play games. Learn that truth is correspondence with reality, and that bad youtube videos are not evidence. Until you have some falsification criteria and understand what evidence is, there is nothing you could even in theory have to offer any thinking person.

A great primer on critical thought is The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy. In it, or in any intro to logic text you can learn that the fact that universalizing from an instance is in fact a well known fallacy, not an ignorant assumption.

Given infinite time and an education you could never make a case for your faith.

Why are you calling me by your maiden name?

I addressed all of your questions. You disrespected my by ignoring my questions and posting laugh reacts.

I asked you to explain what you see in those two vid screen caps. So my apology for assuming you were a sighted person. I'm going to assume you can't see any of the following images.