Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[Oakie]

Conspiracy theorists ... you know who you are.

My own take is that conspiracy theorists often believe in multiple conspiracies. So you'll believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that man never landed on the moon, that Monsanto is taking over the world seed supplies, the Crown ordered Princess Diana's accident etc

I belong to a gardening website where a member has blamed chem trails for the apparant ills in another member's garden. The proponant acknowledged that most people don't believe "because they don't understand' but I'm interested to know what those who believe in other 'conspiracies' think of this.

I know the idea had it's genesis many years ago as a 'force multiplier' for the military allowing you to influence the weather over your enemy so the idea was real. While I concede it is probably technically possible to deliver stuff from a jet, being able to do something like that from commerial jets in the quantities required and keeping it secret is surely absurd.

For those who aren't familiar, this theory all came about because vapour trails seemed to hang about longer than they used to. Some decided that it was because chemicals were being pumped out with the vapour to affect the atmosphere or earth surface for whatever nefarious reason. Reality seems to be a combination of the changes to jet engines over the years and possibly the effects of global warning in the upper atmosphere where the jets do their thing made the vapour trails last longer

Go.

[oldrider]

Just never take anything at face value = accepting branding as a conspiracy theorist - I.E. thinking for your self is discouraged by TPTB. :ride:

[OddDuck]

OK, pragmatic reasons that someone's garden might not be doing so well right now...

- unseasonably warm weather
- watering with increasingly chlorinated tap water due to E.coli problems etc
- attention hours have decreased due to other commitments maybe?
- random plant by plant variation
- OK, am out of ideas at this point.

Chemtrails - well - let me consider the practical difficulties of actually doing this to affect ground targets...

It's up high. Cross winds are a reality in New Zealand... how much chem is going to get blown right out to sea without hitting anything?

Dosage and chemical lifetime. How much chem concentration at the target do you need before you achieve the desired result? How long will the chem itself endure before reacting with something and breaking down?

Secrecy. Yes, it might be possible to put such a bind on everyone involved that they'd keep their traps shut forever. What about witnesses though? If this is happening, it'd be a pretty major logistical exercise. Tankers of chem would be rolling in and out of airports, that sort of thing. The clever answer to that is that it's mixed with jet fuel, but then whatever the chem is, it would have to survive being injected into a jet engine's combustion chamber and torched at about 800+ degrees C.

Secrecy again... this is the kind of media story that would sell like hot cakes. MSM suppressed / bought / complacent etc fine, but what about minor players looking to break in?

Practical experience: the USA using Agent Orange in Vietnam - just how low did they have to fly, how much tonnage did they have to haul, and just how obvious was the whole thing? Or topdressing pilots for that matter.

Operatives would have to be OK with dumping chem on themselves and everyone they care about too. Same thing for the people running the whole show. Chemtrails go everywhere right?

The basic nature of secrets is that they get out, sooner or later. This particular conspiracy theory has been running for... how long, now? Decades?

Unfortunately good luck getting a chemtrail believer to seriously consider this sort of counterargument. They can see the contrails, they feel the fear, bingo, now it's believable. And that's it, anything you say, they'll get their backs up and then it's argument time.

[BMWST?]

add the flat eathers to your list of theorists

[Katman]

add the flat eathers to your list of theorists

As you're probably well aware, there are a number of happenings these days where I question whether we're being told the truth or not, but to try suggesting that anyone who questions 9/11 or alleged gas attacks automatically subscribes to a flat earth theory shows just how well the propaganda machine is working.

[george formby]

Nematodes. Little buggers...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZrogAKO3dhI" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[george formby]

Chem trails are pie in the sky..

Trying to make it rain over the Gobi desert is one thing, cloud seeding, but NZ? Only logical-ish thing that springs to mind is sun block.

[Berries]

Quite a surprise when you see a chemtrail down south. 'They' claim it is a flight from Sydney to South America but when I cross reference my notes I see that it always coincides with pension day. Now, the only explanation I can come up with is that it is government sponsored and related to the well known problem with ballooning superannuation payments. I am told from a source close to Clarke Gayford that the plane is actually ZK-WIN. Spooky.

For all of you who have been to the UK in the last 20 years you will have no doubt noticed the number of chemtrails criss crossing the sky every day. If you read this link about highest number of deaths in UK in nearly 50 years you can begin to put two and two together -

The report showed there was also a rise in the number of people whose death certificate said the underlying cause was dementia or Alzheimer’s, accounting for 41% of extra deaths among over-75s, although a third of these also had a respiratory disease, such as flu. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/07/number-deaths-england-wales-12-year-high-life-expectancy)

On top of that, my tomatoes were shit this year.

[george formby]

The largest majority, aged 75 and over....

Seems like people are living longer so their is a higher percentage of age related deaths.:shifty: Whodda thunk it?

Me toms were pants this year, too, and me Yacons still haven't flowered. Been a cracking season for caterpillars.

[Berries]

Been a cracking season for caterpillars.
Yes, and don't believe all that butterfly bullshit either. The only way caterpillars can get in to your garden is if they are dropped from a plane.

[george formby]

Yes, and don't believe all that butterfly bullshit either. The only way caterpillars can get in to your garden is if they are dropped from a plane.

You may well be onto something, seen a lot of THESE (https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/topic/9435) wee critters this year. Is Australia trying to get rid of it's creepy crawlies?

[AllanB]

Cem trails? Used to call them vapor trails.

Still see them local.

Worms are where the real influences could be - little buggers with TNT backpack sneaking around under ground.

[george formby]

Cem trails? Used to call them vapor trails.

Still see them local.

Worms are where the real influences could be - little buggers with TNT backpack sneaking around under ground.

Jihadi worms? Interestin line of thought. If they were being dropped from planes would they need wee parachutes?

[TheDemonLord]

It's easier to blame a mystical plane in the sky than to accept you might be a shit Gardener...

[Berries]

You may well be onto something, seen a lot of THESE (https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/topic/9435) wee critters this year.
Jeez, I think I had one of those from Dominoes last night.

Bloody huge insect flew in to my green house last week and then blew up.






It was a jihadi longlegs.

[Graystone]

As you're probably well aware, there are a number of happenings these days where I question whether we're being told the truth or not, ... shows just how well the propaganda machine is working.

FTFY

The irony is delicious

[YellowDog]

add the flat eathers to your list of theorists

Andrew Flintoff is a Flat Earther, so it must be true :yes:

No hint of drugs or alcohol influencing his mind :wacko:

[Katman]

FTFY

The irony is delicious

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you never question any story you're told by an official source - even if it's a story that you could drive a truck through it's many holes.

[Oakie]

Ha ha. This thread is going way better than I thought it would. Terrorist worms! Never thought of that.

[Oakie]

Unfortunately good luck getting a chemtrail believer to seriously consider this sort of counterargument. They can see the contrails, they feel the fear, bingo, now it's believable. And that's it, anything you say, they'll get their backs up and then it's argument time.

Yep. He bit like a big fish.
"Anyone that believes they are contrails and not chem trails is highly indoctrinated. Just because they use the word scientist doesn't mean they are right!!!" (This last bit was in reference to 76 scientists in a group of 77 saying there was no evidence to support the theory).

I thought about responding something along the lines of believing 76 scientists ahead of a home gardener in matters of science but then thought - head / brick wall so just left it.

[MarkH]

As you're probably well aware, there are a number of happenings these days where I question whether we're being told the truth or not

What you are describing: https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/paranoia
You should seek help.

[Woodman]

As you're probably well aware, there are a number of happenings these days where I question whether we're being told the truth or not, but to try suggesting that anyone who questions 9/11 or alleged gas attacks automatically subscribes to a flat earth theory shows just how well the propaganda machine is working.

The mere fact that you think that the propoganda machine is making people think that 9/11 etc questioners are flat earthers tells me that the propoganda machine is definitely working, just not the one you are thinking of.

[GazzaH]

Does anyone here still believe in god?

If so, which one?

[Akzle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_2


Conspiracy theorists ... you know who you are.

My own take is that conspiracy theorists often believe in multiple conspiracies. So you'll believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that man never landed on the moon, that Monsanto is taking over the world seed supplies, the Crown ordered Princess Diana's accident etc.

are you suggesting that any of those things happened according to "the official story"?

[ellipsis]

Does anyone here still believe in god?

If so, which one?


...yeah of course...I berieve in dogs...there is one next door...barks every 14.2 seconds...I can't kill it...the little girls who own it wouldn't like me anymore...life is complex at times...I'd like to nail the cunt to a fence but that would always come back to haunt you...

[eldog]

You should seek Cassina for your answers.

Fixed it for ya.:calm:

[Oakie]

...yeah of course...I berieve in dogs...there is one next door...barks every 14.2 seconds...I can't kill it...the little girls who own it wouldn't like me anymore...life is complex at times...I'd like to nail the cunt to a fence but that would always come back to haunt you...

One bit my courier daughter on the arm and lip today so she elbowed it in the throat and made it run away. Tough my wee girl.

[husaberg]

Does anyone here still believe in god?

If so, which one?
Conspiracy theory is the new religion.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-consumericus/200909/conspiracy-theories-form-religious-belief-the-911-case
Last night, I watched a National Geographic television show titled 9/11: Science and Conspiracy(link is external) (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067/article-2). As I listened to the conspiracists, I was struck by the similarities between their belief systems and associated cognitive (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognition) processes (or lack thereof) and those inherent to religious (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/religion) narratives. Let me explain.

(1) Both religion and grand conspiracies are immune from reason and both are impervious to evidentiary standards. Irrespective of all of the evidence in support of what actually happened on 9/11, and despite any evidence in support of the endless conspiracy storylines (many of which are contradictory with one another), the conspiracists hold on to their firm beliefs. Even when a given conspiratorial statement (e.g., "jet fuel cannot weaken iron") is refuted via a controlled scientific experiment, the evidence is dismissed as suspect, irrelevant, or better yet, the experimenters are apparently in on the conspiracy!

(2) Both religion and grand conspiracies ascribe great power to "invisible" forces. In the case of the 9/11 conspiracies, these shadowy puppet masters are one of several possible groups including the New World Order, the American government (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/politics)/military complex, the Illuminati, the Jews, the Zionists, George Bush (who is apparently controlled by an evil (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/ethics-and-morality) group of neo-cons), oil companies, and real estate moguls (many of whom are Jewish).

(3) These "invisible" forces appear to be as omnipotent as are Gods in the various religious traditions. For example, it has been estimated that the most basic version of the various strands of 9/11 conspiracies would require a level of unimaginable coordination between at the very least several thousand people. Incredibly, not a single individual within the conspiracy has ever broken silence. Such is the power of the conspirators.


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00424/full
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190466176.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190466176-e-14
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/conspiracy-theories-are-the-new-religion-and-the-demented-911-plots-have-no-shortage-of-believers-35028073.html

[matt.of.the.ingh]

Why would chemtrails only affect one garden?

Sent from my HTC One X9 dual sim using Tapatalk

[ellipsis]

Why would chemtrails only affect one garden?

Sent from my HTC One X9 dual sim using Tapatalk


...they affected mine this year...I had the best crop in years...where can a get more of these chemicals?...

[Moi]

Why would chemtrails only affect one garden?

They have the technology...


...they affected mine this year...I had the best crop in years...where can a get more of these chemicals?...

Which ones? For you or the garden?

[T.W.R]

Chem trails are all related to the HEPCAT (http://homepages.uc.edu/~harmonti/hollow/) and battling the Greys :shutup::whistle::wacko:



https://youtu.be/V5iUIgJp6vs



https://youtu.be/ylhMkVUvNyc

[oldrider]

How BI BI Became The President Of Syria - with a cast of thousands/millions? :rolleyes: Is it all simply theater for world conspiracy theorist consumption? :scratch:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AQgAf3e2eKA" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[YellowDog]

Why would chemtrails only affect one garden?

Sent from my HTC One X9 dual sim using Tapatalk

You can specifically target them at the garden(s) of your choice

Costs more, but certainly worth it :yes:

[Banditbandit]

add the flat eathers to your list of theorists

What ??? You mean the earth is not flat? How do you know that? have you ever seen it? Every day I look out the window and it looks flat to me ..

[Banditbandit]

Conspiracy theorists ... you know who you are.

My own take is that conspiracy theorists often believe in multiple conspiracies. So you'll believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that man never landed on the moon, that Monsanto is taking over the world seed supplies, the Crown ordered Princess Diana's accident etc

I belong to a gardening website where a member has blamed chem trails for the apparant ills in another member's garden. The proponant acknowledged that most people don't believe "because they don't understand' but I'm interested to know what those who believe in other 'conspiracies' think of this.

I know the idea had it's genesis many years ago as a 'force multiplier' for the military allowing you to influence the weather over your enemy so the idea was real. While I concede it is probably technically possible to deliver stuff from a jet, being able to do something like that from commerial jets in the quantities required and keeping it secret is surely absurd.

For those who aren't familiar, this theory all came about because vapour trails seemed to hang about longer than they used to. Some decided that it was because chemicals were being pumped out with the vapour to affect the atmosphere or earth surface for whatever nefarious reason. Reality seems to be a combination of the changes to jet engines over the years and possibly the effects of global warning in the upper atmosphere where the jets do their thing made the vapour trails last longer

Go.

Chemtrails are made by the BIG food corporations - to damage gardens so people have to buy their food from the BIG corporations. They contain damaging chemicals, but also Biots - nanotechnology that infests the soil and eat the plants from the roots. They can be carried from place to place by worms, which are controlled by the biots which use worms and a form of transportation.

See - this is what the 'scientists' call worm castings, or worm poo.

http://www.walterreeves.com/uploads/JPGs/wormcasting.JPG

No matter what colour the soil - this is always the colour of the worm castings. We all know that what we eat affects the colour of our own poo - but whatever the colour of the soil the worms are living in - the worm poo is always this colour. You can see them in your own garden - they will be this colour.

Most of these piles are made up of the old biots that have ceased functioning - and have begun to rust, assisted by the acids in the stomach of the worms.

Here's a lawn where the grass roots have been eaten by the biots - you can clearly see the worm poo of old biots mixed into this.

https://www.extension.umn.edu/garden/diagnose/plant/images/turf/field%20ant/fieldant2_600px.jpg

Here's some Zucchini plants that have had their roots eaten by the biots. Again, you can clearly see the old biots in the colour of the soil.

https://ladymin.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/wiltedzucchiniplant.jpg?w=300&h=200

[Voltaire]

Does anyone here still believe in god?

If so, which one?

One of the biggest conspiracy's of all time.

In past times encouraged by the Kings/Queens ( rich) to keep the plebs in place.

[YellowDog]

What ??? You mean the earth is not flat? How do you know that? have you ever seen it? Every day I look out the window and it looks flat to me ..

Here's your proof :yes:


https://youtu.be/erA3WQE9Zes

[Luckylegs]

Conspiracy theorists ... you know who you are.

My own take is that conspiracy theorists often believe in multiple conspiracies. So you'll believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that man never landed on the moon, that Monsanto is taking over the world seed supplies, the Crown ordered Princess Diana's accident etc

I belong to a gardening website where a member has blamed chem trails for the apparant ills in another member's garden. The proponant acknowledged that most people don't believe "because they don't understand' but I'm interested to know what those who believe in other 'conspiracies' think of this.

I know the idea had it's genesis many years ago as a 'force multiplier' for the military allowing you to influence the weather over your enemy so the idea was real. While I concede it is probably technically possible to deliver stuff from a jet, being able to do something like that from commerial jets in the quantities required and keeping it secret is surely absurd.

For those who aren't familiar, this theory all came about because vapour trails seemed to hang about longer than they used to. Some decided that it was because chemicals were being pumped out with the vapour to affect the atmosphere or earth surface for whatever nefarious reason. Reality seems to be a combination of the changes to jet engines over the years and possibly the effects of global warning in the upper atmosphere where the jets do their thing made the vapour trails last longer

Go.

I'm just frickin surprised no-one has laughed at you yet for belonging to a gardening website... WTF lololololol

[YellowDog]

Conspiracy theorists ... you know who you are.

My own take is that conspiracy theorists often believe in multiple conspiracies. So you'll believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that man never landed on the moon, that Monsanto is taking over the world seed supplies, the Crown ordered Princess Diana's accident etc



Did someone mention Princess Diana's death?

Firstly, she was no longer a Princess!

[YellowDog]

Did someone mention Princess Diana's death?

Firstly, she was no longer a Princess!

But secondly:


https://youtu.be/b4meFC1ee7Q

[husaberg]

What ??? You mean the earth is not flat? How do you know that? have you ever seen it? Every day I look out the window and it looks flat to me ..

GO to Bonnyville you can see the curve there pretty easy or look at the horizon out at sea.
I know this is a fact because Elvis told me last week.
https://thedailybale.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/02.jpg (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj8_eyJ6_LaAhVEspQKHVJPBPEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthedailybale.wordpress.com%2F201 4%2F10%2F18%2Felvis-presley-found-alive-by-daily-bale-and-gives-message-on-ebola-outbreak%2F&psig=AOvVaw3qFi243jINU_-zLeFoXUvY&ust=1525756224272642)

[oldrider]

The birth of a nation and the quality of government that has formed the modern world - Trust em? - Sure can. (NOT) :rolleyes:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qr-lCJp9v1E" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[george formby]

I'm just frickin surprised no-one has laughed at you yet for belonging to a gardening website... WTF lololololol

Oy!:2guns:

Gardening groups / forums / websites, are a wonderful place to meet, engage, learn and create provenance. What have you gained from being on Kiddy Biker, hmmmmm?


When was the last time you swapped chutney with someone?

Has your marrow ever been selected as best in class? Yeah, thought not.

Can you cope with a drought, deluge or a nasty bit of fungal rot?

Do you know what makes your petunia bigger and hold it's blossom for longer?

Don't knock those with dirty fingers, when all supermarkets ban plastic bags you will come back grovelling for a decent brassica.:msn-wink:

[Graystone]

When was the last time you swapped chutney with someone?

Careful, you'll get our resident conspiracy kat excited with euphemisms like that!

[Luckylegs]

Ummmm - Ok, where to start


Oy!:2guns:

Gardening groups / forums / websites, are a wonderful place to meet, engage, learn and create provenance. What have you gained from being on Kiddy Biker, hmmmmm?

Syphilis, An enormous ego, and the Axman



When was the last time you swapped chutney with someone?

Excuse me that's personal - Anyway, i'm married so ummmmmmm, cant remember



Has your marrow ever been selected as best in class? Yeah, thought not.

Again, personal... but yes I have been complimented and congratulated



Can you cope with a drought, deluge or a nasty bit of fungal rot?

Fungal rot, not so much but drought and deluge are all good. We have the long acre and a brand new 30000 tank for drought and deluge respectively, thank you.

NB We need only grow meat, veges can be taken or left



Do you know what makes your petunia bigger and hold it's blossom for longer?

That's just silly, no-one gives a fuck about petunias



Don't knock those with dirty fingers, when all supermarkets ban plastic bags you will come back grovelling for a decent brassica.:msn-wink:

All I got was a memory about Jessica and her bra, but that's another story


....In summary - Im off to get another jagermeister and coke

[husaberg]

Careful, you'll get our resident conspiracy kat excited with euphemisms like that!
I understand the conspiracy kat went on a group ride and binned it.

[Luckylegs]

Oy!:2guns:

Now, if that pear schnapps is home made from your own pear tree(s) then I take it all back ;)

[Oakie]

Oy!:2guns:

Gardening groups / forums / websites, are a wonderful place to meet, engage, learn and create provenance. What have you gained from being on Kiddy Biker, hmmmmm?


When was the last time you swapped chutney with someone?

Has your marrow ever been selected as best in class? Yeah, thought not.

Can you cope with a drought, deluge or a nasty bit of fungal rot?

Do you know what makes your petunia bigger and hold it's blossom for longer?

Don't knock those with dirty fingers, when all supermarkets ban plastic bags you will come back grovelling for a decent brassica.:msn-wink:

Exactly what I was going to say!

[Oakie]

Now, if that pear schnapps is home made from your own pear tree(s) then I take it all back ;)

Would you settle for passionfruit infused vodka? (Next autumn's project)

And my pear tree gives me way more pears than I need for preserving so pear schnapps ... why not?

[Luckylegs]

Exactly what I was going to say!

Exactly? - like exactly? - do you gardening guys have a manual or something

[Luckylegs]

Would you settle for passionfruit infused vodka? (Next autumn's project)

And my pear tree gives me way more pears than I need for preserving so pear schnapps ... why not?

Oh hell yes - i take back everything i said

[Oakie]

Actually, we made limoncello a couple of years back. Glorious!

[oldrider]

Why do we have conspiracies and where do they spring from? - I.E. is the message in this video clip true or false? - Is it a conspiracy or simply theoretic garbage? :scratch: MAGA or MIGA? :shutup:

<iframe width="728" height="440" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m9H5w-4pYQw" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[R650R]

Weather modification patents actually exist and public record exists of the govt and military speaking of this all under the umbrella of geo engineering. However this does not mean every contrail is a chemtrail....
911.... too many things for it to have happened as they said.... expertly coordinated, expertly capitalised on (airline futures bets, carriers already stationed with signed battle plans for next day), and all by bunch of cavemen unable to conduct anything of similar magnitude since....
Monsanto is taking over world seed supplies.... through terminator genes and copyrights, farmer doesn’t even own his own seed anymore...
Diana.... the most popular lady of the people ever with a genuine kind heart was not going to be allowed to marry a Muslim before they got 911 done...

[george formby]

Pear Schnaps is home made but my pear are just little, starting to set their first fruit. I had to swap other produce for my glorious bottles of elixir. Probably over 60%, German distillation technique and no smoking while drinking.

The above statements may demonstrate the underlying conspiracy of conspiracy theories. You think what you drink, when I drink I don't think. Much. That's the point, shirley?

[pete376403]

.........!

[oldrider]

After 253 Holocaust movies and no Holodomor movies, do we have to ask ourselves if there is a bias by the media-Scribes? :scratch:

<iframe width="660" height="525" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hOTVsFLX_ms" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[pete376403]

Some Holodomor movies, but not a lot:
Cinema
1984 Жнива розпачу / Harvest of Despair, directed by Sviatoslav Novytsky (documentary film)
1991 Голод-33 / Famine-33, directed by Oles Yanchuk
2014 Поводир / The Guide, directed by Oles Sanin
2015 Child 44, directed by Daniel Espinosa based on the book by Tom Rob Smith briefly describes the Holodomor
2017 Гіркі Жнива / Bitter Harvest, directed by George Mendeluk

[TheDemonLord]

There's something to be said - that people will retreat with horror at the sight of a Swastika, but show them a Hammer and Sickle and they feel no such revulsion.

JBP talks quite a bit to this point

[Katman]

There's something to be said - that people will retreat with horror at the sight of a Swastika, but show them a Hammer and Sickle and they feel no such revulsion.

Let's not forget about America's attempted annihilation of the Indians, or Australia's attempted annihilation of the Aborigines.

How about the Irish potato famine?

[YellowDog]

Let's not forget about America's attempted annihilation of the Indians, or Australia's attempted annihilation of the Aborigines.

How about the Irish potato famine?

Makes you feel blessed (and better fighters too) to be Maori :yes:

[Dadpole]

How about the Irish potato famine?

Those potatoes and their attempted annihilation of the Irish. :angry:

[Katman]

Those potatoes and their attempted annihilation of the Irish. :angry:

Do you think the English had no part to play in it?

[Katman]

How about Belgium?

Any revulsion towards them?

[TheDemonLord]

Let's not forget about America's attempted annihilation of the Indians, or Australia's attempted annihilation of the Aborigines.

How about the Irish potato famine?

Slightly different scenarios....

Namely - with the ones that you raised - we realized it wasn't a good idea and we stopped.

People are still trying to bring about the Communist Utopia, regardless of how many corpses continue to pile up in the name of Marx....

[Katman]

Slightly different scenarios....

Only in your eyes.

[Katman]

People are still trying to bring about the Communist Utopia, regardless of how many corpses continue to pile up in the name of Marx....

How many corpses are piling up in the name of Democracy?

[husaberg]

Slightly different scenarios....

Namely - with the ones that you raised - we realized it wasn't a good idea and we stopped.

People are still trying to bring about the Communist Utopia, regardless of how many corpses continue to pile up in the name of Marx....

More than slightly he is suggesting it was a concerted effort of a goverment rather than the well documented and in a lot of case persecuted acts of individuals and groups.
I find it ironic that the information he has used that suggests the events occured in the first place is the same form of text books where he claims the events that were a actual state run and organised and driven sanctioned genocide of a number of groups of people by the Nazis never happened.

[Banditbandit]

People are still trying to bring about the Communist Utopia, regardless of how many corpses continue to pile up in the name of Marx....

Yes - that is true - both them and you fail to understand what Marx actually said about communism ...

[Dadpole]

Do you think the English had no part to play in it?

The Catholic church closed the factories where the potatoes were made. I know, because I saw it on Father Ted.

[TheDemonLord]

How many corpses are piling up in the name of Democracy?

Well, do you think that freedom of all individuals in a society is something worth defending?

You've got your business (and more power to you), you've got the ability to criticize the government, you've got a system that protects your rights.

The difference is that on the one hand people died because of Communism, on the other hand - people voluntarily sacrificed themselves to defend democracy.

[TheDemonLord]

Only in your eyes.

Okay then - how are they the same?

If your response is "People died" - then really there is no distinction between Small Pox and a Dictator.

There's also a lot to be said for what the standards of the day were: Are you as upset with the Maori for what they did to the Moriori as you are with Europeans with what they did to the Aboriginals?

Afterall, it's about the same time span in the passed, it's the same principle (one group invaded another and then committed numerous acts we would class as war crimes or genocide today).

[TheDemonLord]

Yes - that is true - both them and you fail to understand what Marx actually said about communism ...

Okay, I'll bite - how so?

[Katman]

Well, do you think that freedom of all individuals in a society is something worth defending?

How exactly was America 'defending the freedom' of the American Indians?.

And how exactly was Australia 'defending the freedom' of the Aboriginies?

And how exactly was Belgium 'defending the freedom' of the Congolese?

[Banditbandit]

Okay, I'll bite - how so?

Oh God - do you really want me to repeat all of Das Capital? Do you want the high school or Marx101 version ..

I'll try to keep it simple .. first of all Communism was NOT Marx's ideal or his utopia, nor the end-point of his process.

Marx was writing about massive change in society - which in his day was moving from a feudal structure to a capitalist industrialized structure - a shift in power from those who held their position by force and hierarchy (Divine right to rule shit) to those who held position and ruled society by Capital - Money - invested in industrialization.

Marx said the resulting industrialized society would form naturally into three groups - the Capitalists (bourgeoisie) the Middle Class (petti-bourgeoisie) and the Working Class (proletariat). The Middle class would be the people appointed by the capitalists to oversee the working class. They would see that their interested lie with the capitalists - and would be largely irrelevant.

The capitalists would oppress the workers - who, bonded by their mutual oppression, would resist . The Capitalists had no bonding mechanism and would remain a disparate group - while the middle classes would be eased by their position as bosses and their immediate rewards of more money than the workers, would probably oppose the workers, who threatened their position. The working class would be the largest group in such a society.

Eventually the workers would rise up in revolution and overthrow the Capitalists .. and set up a socialist state, which would move naturally to a communist state, and then the state would wither and die - leaving a society very similar to the Anarchist ideals.

To Marx this is the natural progression of history ... so people 'trying' to bring about communism fail 1) to realize that you do not 'try' communism, it occurs as a progression of history or not at all, and 2) the resulting communist state is NOT Marx's utopia ...

So you do not TRY communism ... any attempt will fail - as history has proven. Which was the point of my comment.

Since Marx, Stalin thought that a strong leader (a dictator) could overcome the objection that it was a natural progression, and a strong leader could impose Communism - wrong - it cant be imposed - communism is not the end result. Stalin was Lenin's book-keeper -so Russia got a dictatorship of a book-keeper ..

Mao is an interesting one - he certainly had peasant backing - he became a dictator - China was not an industrialized country at the time .. very small working class ... does not fulfill Marx's conditions for revolution and the path the Utopia either.

Others, like Guevara, thought that if the working class was not "mature" in the sense that they were ready to revolt, then a "revolutionary vanguard" (read intellectuals) had a moral right to assume that position and start the revolution - wrong. If you do not have the working class with you, the revolution will fail - and will become a dictatorship run by intellectuals.

History has proven Marx's politics to be wrong. He was in London because he expected the revolution in either England or Germany - the most industrialized countries in the world at that time. The revolution occurred in Russia - and was essentially a peasant revolution, not a working class revolution .. Lenin and co stepped in after the revolt had started - they did not start it.

There has been no revolution in the largely industrialized countries .. and, interestingly, there has been no revolution in a Protestant country - France, catholic; Russia, Eastern Orthodox; Cuba, Catholic; China and Asia - not even Christian.

That's enough - I share Marx's sociology and his structuralist analysis - I do not share his politics ..

[TheDemonLord]

Oh God - do you really want me to repeat all of Das Capital?

Tempting to say yes...


I'll try to keep it simple .. first of all Communism was NOT Marx's ideal or his utopia, nor the end-point of his process.

For me, Marx's projection of societal change (and I'll take your interpretation of it - there's a few areas that I disagree with - see below) is foundationally wrong because it made several assumptions about Humans as a species.

And just like in maths - if your initial calculation is wrong, then any additional equations that use that erroneous result will also be wrong (often in orders of Magnitude from the correct answer)


Marx was writing about massive change in society - which in his day was moving from a feudal structure to a capitalist industrialized structure - a shift in power from those who held their position by force and hierarchy (Divine right to rule shit) to those who held position and ruled society by Capital - Money - invested in industrialization.

This is probably the part of Marx where I give him most credit - which capitalism and industrialization at the time was causing massive changes and there were a LOT of issues.

But even here he makes a fundamental mistake: He doesn't take into account competence or human Ability. His system does account that some of those who 'rule' - do so because they are good at it, that they were able to make wise decisions.


Marx said the resulting industrialized society would form naturally into three groups - the Capitalists (bourgeoisie) the Middle Class (petti-bourgeoisie) and the Working Class (proletariat). The Middle class would be the people appointed by the capitalists to oversee the working class. They would see that their interested lie with the capitalists - and would be largely irrelevant.

Again Marx is wrong here - It's spoiled little rich kids at university who are the ardent Marxists ;)


The capitalists would oppress the workers - who, bonded by their mutual oppression, would resist . The Capitalists had no bonding mechanism and would remain a disparate group - while the middle classes would be eased by their position as bosses and their immediate rewards of more money than the workers, would probably oppose the workers, who threatened their position. The working class would be the largest group in such a society.

What Marx failed to account for here is two-fold: Legislation (aka workers rights) and that something happened as a result of Industrialization and Capitalism - The quality of life for the Working Class started to get better.

This is perhaps the biggest failing of Marx - he saw it as a pure power dynamic - it's more symbiotic. This is not to say that there is not a difference between the influence that a Billionaire can muster and the influence that someone on the street can muster - however, History has shown that the best companies are the ones that not only make good decisions and have good leadership, but also incentivize their works (through salary or other means) to work hard.

When the company wins, the workers also win. When the Workers win, the Company Wins.


Eventually the workers would rise up in revolution and overthrow the Capitalists .. and set up a socialist state, which would move naturally to a communist state, and then the state would wither and die - leaving a society very similar to the Anarchist ideals.

To Marx this is the natural progression of history ... so people 'trying' to bring about communism fail 1) to realize that you do not 'try' communism, it occurs as a progression of history or not at all, and 2) the resulting communist state is NOT Marx's utopia ...

So you do not TRY communism ... any attempt will fail - as history has proven. Which was the point of my comment.

So, I've got to first nitpick these series of statements (I wouldn't be me otherwise...)

You say that the workers would rise up, revolt and setup a socialist state - I'd argue that this is exactly what happened - People tried something new - now, you'll counter nitpick that you said that people will try socialism and this then changes into Communism - What is the agent of change if not the people trying for something? I know what your meaning is, but functionally it doesn't happen like that - First there is a societal change (shift in attitudes, better argumentation etc.) which then escalates to the point where governmental and legislative changes occur - this is the point where there is a conscious choice (both in the zeitgeist of the people and in the leadership of the country) to enact legal change to TRY something better.

Then you've got Marx's idea that this is a natural progression of Society - I think he is foundationally wrong on this point - which is why every time it was attempted, it was through the use of Force.

Even Marx indicates that the working class need to rise up and Revolt, which is where my critique was more aimed at, Marx effectively mandates the use of force - that it is right for the workers to rise up against the 'evil' capitalists - once you give people a virtuous reason AND moral authority to commit violence - that's when we see rivers of blood and anguish.

Whilst it may not have been Marx's intention - his permitting of an entire class of people to use violence against those they self-identify as oppressing them leads exactly to the 'Communist utopia' I sarcastically refer to.


Since Marx, Stalin thought that a strong leader (a dictator) could overcome the objection that it was a natural progression, and a strong leader could impose Communism - wrong - it cant be imposed - communism is not the end result. Stalin was Lenin's book-keeper -so Russia got a dictatorship of a book-keeper ..

Mao is an interesting one - he certainly had peasant backing - he became a dictator - China was not an industrialized country at the time .. very small working class ... does not fulfill Marx's conditions for revolution and the path the Utopia either.

Others, like Guevara, thought that if the working class was not "mature" in the sense that they were ready to revolt, then a "revolutionary vanguard" (read intellectuals) had a moral right to assume that position and start the revolution - wrong. If you do not have the working class with you, the revolution will fail - and will become a dictatorship run by intellectuals.

History has proven Marx's politics to be wrong. He was in London because he expected the revolution in either England or Germany - the most industrialized countries in the world at that time. The revolution occurred in Russia - and was essentially a peasant revolution, not a working class revolution .. Lenin and co stepped in after the revolt had started - they did not start it.

He was wrong because of his underlying a priori assumptions about humans and human nature. It's why Communism had to be tried, at the barrel of a gun. It's also why it fails. Whether or not you see it as a stepping stone to the an AnCom type existence to me is largely irrelevant - at every step of Marx proposed progression, it fails.


There has been no revolution in the largely industrialized countries .. and, interestingly, there has been no revolution in a Protestant country - France, catholic; Russia, Eastern Orthodox; Cuba, Catholic; China and Asia - not even Christian.

I suspect, that this has something to do with the protestant interpretation of the Bible - something along the lines that the individual has an element of divinity that should not be tampered with.

I also suspect (at least with the Catholic countries) that if you have a working mass who venerate the Pope (who is a Man) as some form of divine figure, it's not an entire leap to replace a Man with another Man as the target of the veneration (the Cult of Personality for a Dictator).

I think it was Hitchens who made this point - "I'd argue that North Korea is the most religious country on earth, only their deity is their Dear Leader"


That's enough - I share Marx's sociology and his structuralist analysis - I do not share his politics ..

I think his critique of 19th Century Capitalism has some merits when taken in Historical context. The rest is resentment masquerading as compassion - which interestingly enough describes the current crop of Marxists....

[Graystone]

How many corpses are piling up in the name of Democracy?

You mean capitalism?

Capitalism is to Communism as Dictatorship is to Democracy, we* can have democratic communism.




*I mean, not me, but...

[sugilite]

I did not think much about chem trails until I got to the West Coast. Every fine day it seemed a few appeared. I noticed some stayed around literally all day long, getting wider and wider, until it was kilometers wide, that sure is a lot of vapor I found myself thinking. So I started watching closer, and I saw planes go by leaving the trail that I just described, yet ones going by a very short time later where the trails disappeared in seconds. I know, I know, different altitudes blah blah.
I used to get up a bit late as I often worked late at night, and there they would be. So I got up really early for a week and watched for where and when these things turned up. And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?

[Laava]

I did not think much about chem trails until I got to the West Coast. Every fine day it seemed a few appeared. I noticed some stayed around literally all day long, getting wider and wider, until it was kilometers wide, that sure is a lot of vapor I found myself thinking. So I started watching closer, and I saw planes go by leaving the trail that I just described, yet ones going by a very short time later where the trails disappeared in seconds. I know, I know, different altitudes blah blah.
I used to get up a bit late as I often worked late at night, and there they would be. So I got up really early for a week and watched for where and when these things turned up. And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?

I think you'll find that, the earth being flat, the pilots have reached the edge and rather than just "fly off into space" they turned around to dust over to the other edge. I think they are releasing an agent that prevents "grassy knolls"!

[mashman]

Oooooooo, my fave is the conspiracy that the vast majority of the population literally buy into. Everything is ok, keep creating business, keep working, keep paying taxes, we need more jobs, just keep it going coz it's bad for the economy otherwise and nothing else will work. (https://www.overshootday.org/)

Somewhat ironically, we have also destroyed the economy pursuing business in such a way. As a friend of mine points out, how can you call what we have an Economy when it doesn't implement the "2. careful management of available resources"? The conspiracy that everything is ok, despite the very opposite being true.

As such, ya'll are Conspiracy Theorists. Maybe you should do some more research :killingme :crybaby: :killingme

[mashman]

You mean capitalism?

Well it does kill an estimated 18 million people each year via Structural Violence.

[Katman]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tk5u5OPlaEo" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But hey, what would John Brennan know?

[Banditbandit]

For me, Marx's projection of societal change (and I'll take your interpretation of it - there's a few areas that I disagree with - see below) is foundationally wrong because it made several assumptions about Humans as a species.

And just like in maths - if your initial calculation is wrong, then any additional equations that use that erroneous result will also be wrong (often in orders of Magnitude from the correct answer)

Exactly ....




This is probably the part of Marx where I give him most credit - which capitalism and industrialization at the time was causing massive changes and there were a LOT of issues.

But even here he makes a fundamental mistake: He doesn't take into account competence or human Ability. His system does account that some of those who 'rule' - do so because they are good at it, that they were able to make wise decisions.

In Marx's Utopia (he never used the word - but it does fit) there are no rulers. His mistake is that once you have gone through the historically necessary stages and reached Communism, the rulers of this state will never give up their power and allow the final stage to occur. History shows it has never happened.

I disagree that they are good at it. History shows the majority are complete fuck ups.




Again Marx is wrong here - It's spoiled little rich kids at university who are the ardent Marxists ;)

Not completely true. A large number of ardent Marxists are not university -educated - and the real working class ones look down n those who are. Marx has a role for the intellectuals - it is NOT as the leaders.




What Marx failed to account for here is two-fold: Legislation (aka workers rights) and that something happened as a result of Industrialization and Capitalism - The quality of life for the Working Class started to get better.

Workers rights became an issue after Marx wrote Das Capital. Yes - you are right. There are two ways to go to oppose the oppressors - revolution and negotiation (I Use negotiation i it's wider sense here - and include putting pressure on the Government). New Zealand and many other countries went down the negotiation path- to the benefit of the workers. This is what occurred in most industrialized societies. The revolutions happened in non-industrialized societies ... these were not the revolutions that Marx predicted.

It is also important to note that workers rights came to the fore largely after the Russian revolutions - an event that scared the hell out of the capitalist overlords. You only have to look back at the history of the Labour Party in New Zealand (which was originally socialist). Formed in 1916, by the trade unions) it became active and effective in the next two decades as the workers realized their position in society and their power. This is what Marx predicted - but instead of revolution, the workers used Democracy to effect change. There were also battles with police, running fights in the streets - but not actual revolution.


This is perhaps the biggest failing of Marx - he saw it as a pure power dynamic - it's more symbiotic. This is not to say that there is not a difference between the influence that a Billionaire can muster and the influence that someone on the street can muster - however, History has shown that the best companies are the ones that not only make good decisions and have good leadership, but also incentivize their works (through salary or other means) to work hard.

When the company wins, the workers also win. When the Workers win, the Company Wins.

Yes - the capitalist owners worked out that happy workers work hard - are more productive - and therefore the capitalists make more money.

But that is not a universal - and there is still a school of thought that allows capitalists to abuse workers and try to keep them suppressed. We can still see that in the resistance to workers' strikes - it's a bad thing. The statement 'it is a bad thing is a way of suppressing the workers by undermining their support'.



So, I've got to first nitpick these series of statements (I wouldn't be me otherwise...)

It's not nitpicking - it's good discussion.


You say that the workers would rise up, revolt and setup a socialist state

Be careful - Marx says that - not me. History has proven him wrong. Gramsci gives us a good explanation of why it happened the way it did.



I'd argue that this is exactly what happened - People tried something new


I don't entirely agree (note the word 'entirely') the intellectuals tried something new - they tried a dictatorship (not new) with left aspirations (new) .. but a Dictatorship is NEVER left ..


now, you'll counter nitpick that you said that people will try socialism and this then changes into Communism - What is the agent of change if not the people trying for something?

I see what you mean - the central point of Marx is that it is not people who try something new - it is the working class - the united group. The people who tried something new were not he working class - they were the intellectuals - and thus they screwed it up

They screwed up because they did not have the support of the majority of the people. (Remember, the working class, the proletariat would be the biggest group - the majority)

A Marxian revolution is a wide revolution with mass support which the revolutionaries have never achieved - they have never realised that the historic moment for revolution had not arisen, so they were forced to impose their will on the people - a position Marx would have opposed. Their revolutions were doomed to fail - doomed to become dictatorships because they never saw that the moment was wrong.


I know what your meaning is, but functionally it doesn't happen like that - First there is a societal change (shift in attitudes, better argumentation etc.) which then escalates to the point where governmental and legislative changes occur - this is the point where there is a conscious choice (both in the zeitgeist of the people and in the leadership of the country) to enact legal change to TRY something better.

Yes - Marx was writing in a time where societal change as you describe it, was NOT happening. Marx was part of the ground that caused the social change - but the changes were not as he expected. He was wrong. But at the time the capitalists promoted active and violent resistance to social change. Plenty examples int eh past of union organizers being killed - legally and illegally. There was active and violent resistance to social change.


Then you've got Marx's idea that this is a natural progression of Society - I think he is foundationally wrong on this point - which is why every time it was attempted, it was through the use of Force.

Maybe. Marx certainly saw the violent resistance to social change, and thought a violent response was the natural way it would occur. He certainly promoted violent revolution as the first stage.

There have been plenty of times when the use of force has achieved its objectives - The Magna Carta, WWII (opposing Hitler and the nazis) WWII, the fight against ISIS, the overthrow of South Africa's apartheid Government ... I would suggest, was certainly a virtuous reason and had moral authority.


Even Marx indicates that the working class need to rise up and Revolt, which is where my critique was more aimed at, Marx effectively mandates the use of force - that it is right for the workers to rise up against the 'evil' capitalists - once you give people a virtuous reason AND moral authority to commit violence - that's when we see rivers of blood and anguish.

At the time he was writing Marx certainly saw a violent reaction as the only response to the violent resistance of the capitalists ... You have to remember he was writing more than 100 years ago - history has shown us that it does not have to happen that way ....

Also, with the above examples, I think you are selectively applying virtue and moral authority. There can be virtuous reasons for violence - and therefore moral authority for violence.


Whilst it may not have been Marx's intention - his permitting of an entire class of people to use violence against those they self-identify as oppressing them leads exactly to the 'Communist utopia' I sarcastically refer to.


Hmm .. I still think the violent response is justified - it depends on the context. There is certainly no need for a violent response in New Zealand at this historical time. However, a violent response to the violent oppression of the people is always justified.




He was wrong because of his underlying a priori assumptions about humans and human nature.

Yes - major issue.


It's why Communism had to be tried, at the barrel of a gun. It's also why it fails. Whether or not you see it as a stepping stone to the an AnCom type existence to me is largely irrelevant - at every step of Marx proposed progression, it fails.

Communism had to be tried -as you put it - at the barrel of a gun BECAUSE the revolutionary vanguard - the intellectuals - did not have the support of the people - and they tried to force the people into Communism at gunpoint - that is why it failed. People cannot be forced into ANY system at gunpoint - human nature,as you referred to.

Communism had to be tried at the point of a gun because the idiot revolutionary vanguard (the intellectuals) failed to notice that the working class was no behind them (in all cases it was a peasant revolution, not a working class revolution), did not support them, was not ready for revolution - and therefore it was not the historically appropriate time for revolution.

It also failed in Russia, for example, because the state - the intellectuals - took away all property rights.

Under the feudal system the people could survive - just - and were pissed off at the rulers. The communist rulers took away everything - it all belonged to the state. The people passively resisted this - it gave them no reason to work. Secondly, the centralized economic system (set up by the intellectuals) fell over as it was unable to supply basic needs to people - because it was still the people running the system - they had no reason to be efficient and make the system work - so the system had passive resistance built into it. This is human nature.

The workers on the collective farms watched the state take away all that they produced - and replaced it with nothing. So a collective farm growing wheat could not trade for goods they needed - they relied on the state mechanisms, incomplete and inefficient - to supply their needs. The system could not do that. It was a system doomed to failure.

Human nature again ...


I suspect, that this has something to do with the protestant interpretation of the Bible - something along the lines that the individual has an element of divinity that should not be tampered with.

The Protestant Work Ethic (full name - I'm amused when people talk about a work ethic - not realizing it is a religious idea.) It is a person's religious duty to work hard ... Catholicism never had it. John Wesley is the best known proponent of this idea - The Methodist Church - the method to get to heaven is to work hard. Of course Wesley influenced Protestantism wider than the Methodist Churches ..


I also suspect (at least with the Catholic countries) that if you have a working mass who venerate the Pope (who is a Man) as some form of divine figure, it's not an entire leap to replace a Man with another Man as the target of the veneration (the Cult of Personality for a Dictator).

Maybe - what about the revolutions in non-Christian countries.


I think it was Hitchens who made this point - "I'd argue that North Korea is the most religious country on earth, only their deity is their Dear Leader"

Interesting concept - the Divinity of Mao ...




I think his critique of 19th Century Capitalism has some merits when taken in Historical context. The rest is resentment masquerading as compassion - which interestingly enough describes the current crop of Marxists....

Yes - revolutions have always been promoted by the sons and daughters of the ruling classes (they were the ones who could afford the time to go to university and become intellectuals) who are not getting to the top fast enough to suit them ..

The critique of capitalism is still relevant - if you read Marx's description of later period capitalism (remember he wrote over 100 years ago) he is describing our contemporary societies. It's uncanny how right his descriptions are.

There is still a dynamic tension between the workers and the rulers - and exploitation. Unemployment, homelessness, poverty are all the results of the accumulation of wealth in the capitalist hands.

Marx's prediction of economic cycles of boom and bust and war are still with us - the results of capitalism - still true. High unemployment is predicted by Marx.

The demands to stop worker strikes, and the fear of strikes, is part of the system of oppression - this point of view is promoted by the capitalist because it is "bad for the economy" - but if the economy is not working for us then what good is it? The economy needs to work for all the people of New Zealand - currently the economy is providing the capitalists the opportunity to accumulate wealth - at the expense of the workers ..

Enough - I am sure you will come back at me.

Please remember, I am not a socialist or a communist ... I think Marx was wrong - for some of the reasons you state, and for other reasons as well.

One of them is education. The workers became educated - which made a fundamental change.

Education is necessary in a capitalist society - the workers need to be able to read - basic instruction manuals, etc (primary school) The middle classes need a higher level of education (high school) and the ruling class get higher again (universities). Universities were set up to serve the needs of the ruling classes - not the needs of the general population. It remains so today - look at the ease the rich get into universities and the barriers put int eh way of the working classes.

But education had unintended consequences - as the workers became educated they began to see how to change the system through democracy rather than violence. Remember, Marx was writing before the wider spread of education and universal franchise - in fact women only got the vote in the 1893 - well after Marx. I think education was one of the major reasons the industrialized countries did not revolt. Many communists would disagree and say ti was the propaganda system - which taught people to think what the capitalist system wants them to think.

It's hard to disagree with that theory - but the reality shows something a little different - the education system does not universally teach people what to think - too many resist it so it is not as effective as the communists think it is.



Also remember that communism in the modern world is not all Marx - it was perverted by Stalin and others ..

[Banditbandit]

Shit - that's long ... sorry .. I understand if people don't want to read it ..

[Grumph]

Shit - that's long ... sorry .. I understand if people don't want to read it ..

Good. How do I call in a drone strike on your multi-quote button ?

[TheDemonLord]

I'm going to preface this with there is lots I'm not going to quote (mainly cause we agree) - it's not to take out of context.



I disagree that they are good at it. History shows the majority are complete fuck ups.

I think to an extent this shows how complex and difficult the task is - If you have something that is incredibly difficult and only 10% of people are capable of doing it and even they can achieve success 10% of the time - it's not that those 10% are incompetent. Then in the question of ruling - who would you rather lord over you (yes, I know you've got anarchistic leanings) - Someone who can't achieve the requirements at any point in time or someone who can only achieve it 10% of the time.

I should caveat that I'm referring to leaders who earnt their positions, not those that inherited it.


Not completely true. A large number of ardent Marxists are not university -educated - and the real working class ones look down n those who are. Marx has a role for the intellectuals - it is NOT as the leaders.

Most of the Marxists I've seen are ex-university. Granted I don't spend a whole lot of time with them or with the working class. I'm also not sure if you are drawing a distinction between Working Class who have left-leanings (the stereotypical Labour supporter) vs someone who has read Marx and understands him.


Workers rights became an issue after Marx wrote Das Capital. Yes - you are right. There are two ways to go to oppose the oppressors - revolution and negotiation (I Use negotiation i it's wider sense here - and include putting pressure on the Government). New Zealand and many other countries went down the negotiation path- to the benefit of the workers. This is what occurred in most industrialized societies. The revolutions happened in non-industrialized societies ... these were not the revolutions that Marx predicted.

It is also important to note that workers rights came to the fore largely after the Russian revolutions - an event that scared the hell out of the capitalist overlords. You only have to look back at the history of the Labour Party in New Zealand (which was originally socialist). Formed in 1916, by the trade unions) it became active and effective in the next two decades as the workers realized their position in society and their power. This is what Marx predicted - but instead of revolution, the workers used Democracy to effect change. There were also battles with police, running fights in the streets - but not actual revolution.

I'm not sure I entirely agree - Child Labour laws (in the UK at least) were 1833 and 1842 - Das Kapital was much later, I'd consider this the start of Workers Rights. I should concede though that Marx was an opponent of Child labour and it's likely he was influential within the social circles that eventually generated the change.

I'm not saying that poltical revolution wasn't a factor in the legal change - but I from my PoV of History, there was a trend of improvement that IMO traces it's lineage back as far as the enlightenment.

In fact, I'd even go so far to say that the Abolitionist movement could really be consider the first Workers Rights movement - and that definitely predated Marx.


But that is not a universal - and there is still a school of thought that allows capitalists to abuse workers and try to keep them suppressed. We can still see that in the resistance to workers' strikes - it's a bad thing. The statement 'it is a bad thing is a way of suppressing the workers by undermining their support'.

I agree with your link, but when I think of striking workers, there are a few common elements that spring to mind:

1: They are often universal services
2: They are often Government regulated (either because it's provided by the Govt or that the Govt has set restrictions)
3: They are often inefficient
4: Taking all of the above into account - they are services that have to be provided at a price point where they can be consumed and that they are services that are believed to be good for society. Because they can't charge adequately for true cost of providing the service (as this would price the service out of reach of those who use it) they are constantly under financial pressure, which results in low wages.



I don't entirely agree (note the word 'entirely') the intellectuals tried something new - they tried a dictatorship (not new) with left aspirations (new) .. but a Dictatorship is NEVER left ..

There's been a few far-right dictators, but all of the times a Far-left doctrine was implemented - it was via a Dictratorship.

I don't think I can agree with the hand waive that a Dictatorship is never Left. I posit that there is something intrinsic within the doctrine that requires Dictatorship - this isn't aimed at you, but I think this is causal due to the Lefts notions of inclusivity and general reluctance to set borders/boundaries - Which means you might have a group of 100 Marxists - and let's assume that 99 of them are driven by genuine desire and compassion. 1 of them is driven by absolute resentment and jealousy. The 99 are reluctant to exclude that 1 person, through an excess of Compassion. If that 1 person is eloquent and speaks the words that the 99 want to hear - they end up with that 1 person as their leader. I don't think I can let that statement slide.


I see what you mean - the central point of Marx is that it is not people who try something new - it is the working class - the united group. The people who tried something new were not he working class - they were the intellectuals - and thus they screwed it up

This speaks to the whole 'group identity' component of Marxism that I don't like - Such a happening would require an exceptionally tight alignment of ideals, across an entire spectrum of people - that's simply unrealistic.


They screwed up because they did not have the support of the majority of the people. (Remember, the working class, the proletariat would be the biggest group - the majority)

I think it's deeper than that - even with the support of everyone (via favour or via force) I posit it would be doomed to fail.


A Marxian revolution is a wide revolution with mass support which the revolutionaries have never achieved - they have never realised that the historic moment for revolution had not arisen, so they were forced to impose their will on the people - a position Marx would have opposed. Their revolutions were doomed to fail - doomed to become dictatorships because they never saw that the moment was wrong.

I'm not sure Marx would have opposed it, I think he would have believed he was doing the righteous and necessary thing for the greater good - Maybe he would have seen the light before it was too late, but I suspect the realisation would be too late, he would have been the Old Guard that Stalin executed.


Yes - Marx was writing in a time where societal change as you describe it, was NOT happening. Marx was part of the ground that caused the social change - but the changes were not as he expected. He was wrong. But at the time the capitalists promoted active and violent resistance to social change. Plenty examples int eh past of union organizers being killed - legally and illegally. There was active and violent resistance to social change.

It's certainly hard to gain a true historical perspective when reading Marx - but as above, I think the seeds of change were much older and stem back to Enlightenment values and changes in attitude - probably even as far back as the discover of the scientific method as a means of testing an idea reliably, which IMO set a groundwork of methodology that had a ripple effect into other areas.




Maybe. Marx certainly saw the violent resistance to social change, and thought a violent response was the natural way it would occur. He certainly promoted violent revolution as the first stage.

There have been plenty of times when the use of force has achieved its objectives - The Magna Carta, WWII (opposing Hitler and the nazis) WWII, the fight against ISIS, the overthrow of South Africa's apartheid Government ... I would suggest, was certainly a virtuous reason and had moral authority.

At the time he was writing Marx certainly saw a violent reaction as the only response to the violent resistance of the capitalists ... You have to remember he was writing more than 100 years ago - history has shown us that it does not have to happen that way ....

Also, with the above examples, I think you are selectively applying virtue and moral authority. There can be virtuous reasons for violence - and therefore moral authority for violence.

I'm clumping these together cause it's a meaty issue: When is Violence acceptable? For social and Political change? We call that either Terrorism or Freedom Fighting. I've espoused on numerous occasions (much to Katmans chagrin) that I believe there is a time when Violence is not only necessary but mandated.

How do we know when that is? Well, in the case of Marx - it's certainly not when it stems from Jealousy and Resentment. This is perhaps the big failure. I think I could expand that to say that Violence for Selfish means is never the answer. But even then - you could rip me to shreds on that Philosophical point and on who gets to be the arbiter of such a standard. This is where I've really enjoyed JBPs commentary on God as an Ideal (as opposed to a supernatural being) - perhaps the bracelet WWJD has some merit - we know from the Bible that Jesus was happy to put foot to ass against the money lenders in the temple - and perhaps that is the standard - that Violence when you expect to loose everything for yourself and expect to gain nothing for yourself is the time when it is right.

the TL;DR version is I don't know when that is - but I'm fairly convinced I know when it isn't.



Hmm .. I still think the violent response is justified - it depends on the context. There is certainly no need for a violent response in New Zealand at this historical time. However, a violent response to the violent oppression of the people is always justified.

And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.



Communism had to be tried

Truncating - I agree it's good to try, once maybe twice and at a stretch, a third time. There are still people who insist Communism (or various sleight-of-hand variants of it) can work.

Although there's a quote by Nietzsche I think - where he predicts the outcome of Communism - that it would be a total Failure.



The Protestant Work Ethic (full name - I'm amused when people talk about a work ethic - not realizing it is a religious idea.) It is a person's religious duty to work hard ... Catholicism never had it. John Wesley is the best known proponent of this idea - The Methodist Church - the method to get to heaven is to work hard. Of course Wesley influenced Protestantism wider than the Methodist Churches ..

Maybe - what about the revolutions in non-Christian countries.

As I said, I'm not sure I think in the Asian countries the practice of Ancestor worship (so venerating a Human who is percieved as an Elder) might have something to do with it. Japan (for all it's evils in the mid-point of the 20th century) had the code of Bushido - which I think was definitely causal in their ability to bounce back after WW2, I think there is some link between a personal code of work and honor that acts as a shield against Communist revolution. I think it might be because such a code tend to place a premium on accepting your cross to bear and not to become resentful


Interesting concept - the Divinity of Mao ...

There's certainly a lot of fun to be had in that one - especially when a Christian Apologist tries to have a go at Atheists and you play that card.


Yes - revolutions have always been promoted by the sons and daughters of the ruling classes (they were the ones who could afford the time to go to university and become intellectuals) who are not getting to the top fast enough to suit them ..

And to me - that should be a clue that something is rotten at the core of the Theory.


The critique of capitalism is still relevant - if you read Marx's description of later period capitalism (remember he wrote over 100 years ago) he is describing our contemporary societies. It's uncanny how right his descriptions are.

To Quote MegaDave: If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line. But it'd better work this time.

Capitalism has it's faults (and lord knows, there are enough of them to write a post 10 times longer than this) but for all of them, it currently provides the most freedom and the most satisfaction to the most people.


There is still a dynamic tension between the workers and the rulers - and exploitation. Unemployment, homelessness, poverty are all the results of the accumulation of wealth in the capitalist hands.

Some of those aren't helped by capitalism, but some of them are also not helped by individual choices.


Marx's prediction of economic cycles of boom and bust and war are still with us - the results of capitalism - still true. High unemployment is predicted by Marx.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but Marx predicted much higher levels of Unemployment - his analysis of Cycles was spot on


The demands to stop worker strikes, and the fear of strikes, is part of the system of oppression - this point of view is promoted by the capitalist because it is "bad for the economy" - but if the economy is not working for us then what good is it? The economy needs to work for all the people of New Zealand - currently the economy is providing the capitalists the opportunity to accumulate wealth - at the expense of the workers ..

See above for my critique on worker strikes - but for the other half - those that have accumulated wealth have earned it (I'm sure you and I have different opinions here -but go with my definition for the moment) - how would you see that Wealth redistributed? We have a Tax system and those in the top 20% pay about 80% of the Tax take. In NZ it's something like at $55k a year salary you break even for Tax (ie you are paying as much into the system as you are consuming on average from the system). To reference JBP again - he makes reference to a book called "The great Leveller" as to which strategy was most effective at stopping disparate accumalation of Wealth - The conclusion was that it isn't right or left wing politics: It's War, Famine, Plague or Natural Disaster. The only way in history to get 'equality' is to reset everyone to Zero.

So whilst I hear your concern - None of the solutions we have tried worked - and it's not like this is problem unique to Western Capitalist culture - Christians Tithed, Muslims and Jews have something similar - other cultures have ceremonies whereby excess are distributed to the poor to try and alleviate the disparity.


Enough - I am sure you will come back at me.

Would I? Moir? Are you sure?


Education is necessary in a capitalist society - the workers need to be able to read - basic instruction manuals, etc (primary school) The middle classes need a higher level of education (high school) and the ruling class get higher again (universities). Universities were set up to serve the needs of the ruling classes - not the needs of the general population. It remains so today - look at the ease the rich get into universities and the barriers put int eh way of the working classes.

I don't think that can be laid at the feet of just the Rich, I think there are Genetic reasons (IQ inheritability), there are temperamental reasons (Successful people often know HOW to be successful and so pass that on).

I'm also not sure what Barriers you are referring to? Do you mean Student Loans? Do you mean Entrance Exams? Could you elaborate?


But education had unintended consequences - as the workers became educated they began to see how to change the system through democracy rather than violence. Remember, Marx was writing before the wider spread of education and universal franchise - in fact women only got the vote in the 1893 - well after Marx. I think education was one of the major reasons the industrialized countries did not revolt. Many communists would disagree and say ti was the propaganda system - which taught people to think what the capitalist system wants them to think.

The great irony being that Teaching is an overwhelming left-wing dominated profession. But apart from that - yes, I do believe that universal education has been key to many good things.


Also remember that communism in the modern world is not all Marx - it was perverted by Stalin and others ..

I agree it's not all Marx, but my abridged reasoning is thus:

Every implementation of Marxist inspired system has degenerated, this tells me that even within Marx, there is something very wrong.

[TheDemonLord]

Shit - that's long

that's what She said...

[pritch]

Y'all got there from chemtrails in just six pages?

When I first saw the thread I recalled that there was already a chemtrail discussion (if I may use that word loosely) hereabout.

[Banditbandit]

Good. How do I call in a drone strike on your multi-quote button ?


Look Look - see the violence inherent in the system - I' being oppressed.

[TheDemonLord]

Y'all got there from chemtrails in just six pages?

When I first saw the thread I recalled that there was already a chemtrail discussion (if I may use that word loosely) hereabout.

Meh - that was boring, Bandit on Marx is interesting.

[TheDemonLord]

Look Look - see the violence inherent in the system - I' being oppressed.

Would Rep but must....

[Banditbandit]

I'm going to preface this with there is lots I'm not going to quote (mainly cause we agree) - it's not to take out of context.





Oh gawd - it's Friday afternoon and my brain is dead.

I don't know if I can be bothered defending Marx right now - I'm only into his structural sociology - I certain can't defend his political solutions ..

I'll take the weekend to find my brain again - and maybe get back to you ..

But I think I have made my original point - Marx said his solution was historic necessity - and therefore, to "try communism" was to immediately fail ..

Yes - Marx was wrong.

[Viking01]

Post #87

BB / DL,
An Interesting discussion. Thanks.

One question to DL. You mention that dictatorships have always implemented
a left wing ideology. Can you give me an example or three to illustrate ?

Cheers,
Viking

[TheDemonLord]

Post #87

BB / DL,
An Interesting discussion. Thanks.

One question to DL. You mention that dictatorships have always implemented
a left wing ideology. Can you give me an example or three to illustrate ?

Cheers,
Viking

Not quite what I said - I said Far-Left Ideology always ends in Dictatorship:

Chairman Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, The Kims etc.

There's been a few Far-right Dictators too, but there doesn't seem to be the same correlation between a Far-right political belief and dictatorship, that there appears to be with the Far-Left. Although in saying that, I'd say it's inline with Horseshoe theory to say that at a certain distance away from the political centre, a Dictatorship become inevitable.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh gawd - it's Friday afternoon and my brain is dead.

I don't know if I can be bothered defending Marx right now - I'm only into his structural sociology - I certain can't defend his political solutions ..

I'll take the weekend to find my brain again - and maybe get back to you ..

But I think I have made my original point - Marx said his solution was historic necessity - and therefore, to "try communism" was to immediately fail ..

Yes - Marx was wrong.

But but but, I was just getting warmed up!

[Viking01]

Not quite what I said - I said Far-Left Ideology always ends in Dictatorship:

Chairman Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, The Kims etc.

There's been a few Far-right Dictators too, but there doesn't seem to be the same correlation between a Far-right political belief and dictatorship, that there appears to be with the Far-Left. Although in saying that, I'd say it's inline with Horseshoe theory to say that at a certain distance away from the political centre, a Dictatorship become inevitable.

Sorry, I mis-quoted you. Correction acknowledged.

Thanks for the additional comments as well.

Cheers

[husaberg]

Not quite what I said - I said Far-Left Ideology always ends in Dictatorship:

Chairman Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, The Kims etc.

There's been a few Far-right Dictators too, but there doesn't seem to be the same correlation between a Far-right political belief and dictatorship, that there appears to be with the Far-Left. Although in saying that, I'd say it's inline with Horseshoe theory to say that at a certain distance away from the political centre, a Dictatorship become inevitable.

I cant say I really agree there with the left wing vs right wing dictatorships being any more or less prevalent or less likely to occur and be a result of ideology
If any wing leader is allowed to assume absolute power they get corrupted just the same.

[Oakie]

Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise.

Actually ice crystals. Water vapour exits the jet engine and turns to ice crystals due to the extreme cold up there. Essentially it is a high level cloud which is why they hang about a bit.

[Viking01]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/426249-karl-marx-capital-labor/

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/423921-putin-economy-russia-capitalism/

[Grumph]

Actually ice crystals. Water vapour exits the jet engine and turns to ice crystals due to the extreme cold up there. Essentially it is a high level cloud which is why they hang about a bit.

Waaay too simplistic. Where are the required twenty paragraphs of footnotes ?

Not saying you're wrong - just stunned someone here can sum it up in a paragraph.....

[Katman]

Actually ice crystals. Water vapour exits the jet engine and turns to ice crystals due to the extreme cold up there. Essentially it is a high level cloud which is why they hang about a bit.

Do you accept that there is such a thing as geo-engineering going on?

[TheDemonLord]

I cant say I really agree there with the left wing vs right wing dictatorships being any more or less prevalent or less likely to occur and be a result of ideology
If any wing leader is allowed to assume absolute power they get corrupted just the same.

I was thinking on this very thing - and I think I can put forward an explanation as to why in the historical record - we see that Extreme left wing always produces a Dictator and the Extreme right only sometimes does.

I talked earlier about the Left not wanting to exclude people or to draw borders around thing (this is a temperamental trait of people who identify as Left) whereas the Right are all about having borders between things (again a temperamental thing) - and it's this that I think means that the Left are more susceptible to Dictators - the group is unwilling to expel a rotten apple, in the same way that the Right wing is generally more happy to do.

However, that doesn't address the opposite - then I thought on one of the most right-wing organizations - the Military. And this is my conjecture - in the Military, you have Ranks. In theory - an advance in Rank is made on the basis of Competence, decided by a group of superiors. Right up until you get to the top brass - so, who leads ultimately? The person who is determined by their peers as the most competent to lead.

This is what I think (somewhat) protects a far-right viewpoint from Dictatorship - that the person who leads is put their by a consensus of their Peers AND that right-wing types are happy to expel someone who falls outside of where they happen to draw the boundary.

[Oakie]

Do you accept that there is such a thing as geo-engineering going on?

If we are talking about 'climate engineering' which is the specific meaning, I accept the theory, I accept that it is possible and that it was seriously explored. I accept that it is still being looked at in relation to mitigating greenhouse gasses and global warming.

I do not accept what the conspiracy people tell us that geo-engineering is being undertaken in secret for nefarious purposes e.g. putting toxic chemicals in the atmoshpere, creating an atmospheric super-weapon, making people sick to the benefit of the drugs companies etc.

[Graystone]

Do you accept that there is such a thing as geo-engineering going on?

Dam!

http://business-ethics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/EarthTalkDams.jpg

You've got us there :laugh:

[Katman]

If we are talking about 'climate engineering' which is the specific meaning, I accept the theory, I accept that it is possible and that it was seriously explored. I accept that it is still being looked at in relation to mitigating greenhouse gasses and global warming.

It is far more than 'being looked at'.

It has been openly admitted to.

Therefore, you can't know for certain what those trails in the sky might contain.

[Viking01]

I was thinking on this very thing - and I think I can put forward an explanation as to why in the historical record - we see that Extreme left wing always produces a Dictator and the Extreme right only sometimes does.



Just to advance the discussion, how about you assemble a short list of countries (or instances)
where you think a right wing dictatorship existed or currently exist ? Just for point of comparison.

Cheers

[sugilite]

Actually ice crystals. Water vapour exits the jet engine and turns to ice crystals due to the extreme cold up there. Essentially it is a high level cloud which is why they hang about a bit.
And then get over 20 km's wide?

[TheDemonLord]

Just to advance the discussion, how about you assemble a short list of countries (or instances)
where you think a right wing dictatorship existed or currently exist ? Just for point of comparison.

Cheers

Off the top of my Head:

Mussilini, Franco, Hitler*, Pinochet, Oliveira Salazar, Peron, I'll also include the Brazillian Junta and I'll include Duvalier**

There's quite a few listed that existed around the time of WW2, which I'm not including as whilst technically 'dictators' - it was due to a state of emergency ( such as Vichy France).

*Hitler is interesting since the name Nazi means National Socialist - and he certainly implemented a number of policies that were Socialist in Nature.

**For him, I'm not sure exactly what his policies were, but according to the US, they considered him to be opposed to Communism (so left him alone) so I'll include him here

For the left:

Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, The Kim Dynasty, Ceaușescu, Milošević, Hoxha, Ortega, Chavez and Maduro - You've also got all the Arab Socialists - Assad, Hussein, Gaddafi, Berdimuhammedow - and then the African ones: Sékou Touré, Eduardo dos Santos, Mugabe etc.

Now, for clarity - some of those had Socialist or Communist leanings secondary to other ideological systems - but I've only included those whose affiliations were explicitly socialist/communist. I've also tried to include only those that held power for a decent amount of time (more than 5 years - ie one election cycle).

[Graystone]

And then get over 20 km's wide?

Inadvertant cloud seeding.

The other side to the question, is just how much evil stuff would a plane have to be dropping for it to disperse into a cloud 20km wide? The tanks would be immense!

[MarkH]

Inadvertant cloud seeding.

The other side to the question, is just how much evil stuff would a plane have to be dropping for it to disperse into a cloud 20km wide? The tanks would be immense!

And what would it cost the airline in extra fuel alone?

[Laava]

And then get over 20 km's wide?

So what is it that they are spraying. Be specific.

[george formby]

20kms wide. How do you measure a cloud?

[Graystone]

20kms wide. How do you measure a cloud?

From one side of its shadow to the other?

[Oakie]

Inadvertant cloud seeding.

The other side to the question, is just how much evil stuff would a plane have to be dropping for it to disperse into a cloud 20km wide? The tanks would be immense!

And that pretty much is the nail in the coffin as far as doing it in secret is concerned. How do you get enough stuff secretly into commercial jets without anyone noticing and blowing the whistle? Bit like the moon landing. People say it didn't happen but 49 years later no one with even a passing involvement has come forward

[Graystone]

And that pretty much is the nail in the coffin as far as doing it in secret is concerned. How do you get enough stuff secretly into commercial jets without anyone noticing and blowing the whistle? Bit like the moon landing. People say it didn't happen but 49 years later no one with even a passing involvement has come forward

That's just cos they don't want Buzz Aldrin to punch them in the face though.

[Laava]

That's just cos they don't want Buzz Aldrin to punch them in the face though.

Lol, good point! He was being called a coward at that time as well by the journo, who interestingly, didn't have the balls to fight back...

[pritch]

*Hitler is interesting since the name Nazi means National Socialist - and he certainly implemented a number of policies that were Socialist in Nature

Nah. The alt-right shitheads quote the “socialist” in National Socialist as proof Hitler was a socialist. Total bollocks. The name included both of those words so as to appeal to the widest possible range of voters. Basically it was a con.

[oldrider]

Nah. Basically it was a con. True and there is so much of that about - any different today? :no:

[ellipsis]

...shouldn't the web law of entering AH and the Nasty Party automatically kill a thread...Godwin's?...anyway a TDL, a tit, or worse may have inadvertently cum on his hand again...oh woe...this thread was so original and enthralling...you fuckin wanker demonlard...

[TheDemonLord]

...shouldn't the web law of entering AH and the Nasty Party automatically kill a thread...Godwin's?...anyway a TDL, a tit, or worse may have inadvertently cum on his hand again...oh woe...this thread was so original and enthralling...you fuckin wanker demonlard...

You should know that there are certain exceptions to Godwins law - which is why it doesn't apply here.

Maybe if you spent less time fantasizing about my ejaculatory habits and more time not being a fuckwit, you'd know that.

[TheDemonLord]

Nah. The alt-right shitheads quote the “socialist” in National Socialist as proof Hitler was a socialist. Total bollocks. The name included both of those words so as to appeal to the widest possible range of voters. Basically it was a con.

The argument about Nazi politics existed well before the Alt-Right (and yes, they are shitheads).

There's a bit of research (yet to be finished) where I think they were going to take a number of major Policies that were enacted, genericise them, and then get a number of political analysts to rate them as either Right or Left wing.

Should be interesting to read the results.

[TheDemonLord]

And that pretty much is the nail in the coffin as far as doing it in secret is concerned. How do you get enough stuff secretly into commercial jets without anyone noticing and blowing the whistle? Bit like the moon landing. People say it didn't happen but 49 years later no one with even a passing involvement has come forward

Relephant:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905

[husaberg]

...shouldn't the web law of entering AH and the Nasty Party automatically kill a thread...Godwin's?...anyway a TDL, a tit, or worse may have inadvertently cum on his hand again...oh woe...this thread was so original and enthralling...you fuckin wanker demonlard...


You should know that there are certain exceptions to Godwins law - which is why it doesn't apply.

Maybe if you spent less time fantasizing about my ejaculatory habits and more time not being a fuckwit, you'd know that.
Come on you to.......;)
Dictators are dictators left or right wing makes no odds they kill or imprison anyone that is a threat to their power.
Lots of stupid people go on and on about how popular Hitler, Stalin, Assad, Gaddafi, Hussein, Mao, Marcos, Pinochea, Kim iljong, Mogaube were with their people,
Funny thing is in their respective regimes anyone who says anything that is not flattering about them tends to disappear or die.
If they were really genuinely popular they would have had real elections every few years.

[Graystone]

Come on you to.......;)
Dictators are dictators left or right wing makes no odds they kill or imprison anyone that is a threat to their power.
Lots of stupid people go on and on about how popular Hitler, Stalin, Assad, Gaddafi, Hussein, Mao, Marcos, Pinochea, Kim iljong, Mogaube were with their people,
Funny thing is in their respective regimes anyone who says anything that is not flattering about them tends to disappear or die.
If they were really genuinely popular they would have had real elections every few years.

Indeed, appealing to the left is just a way dictators worm their way into power, the lefty masses are more easily bought.

[ellipsis]

If they were really genuinely popular they would have had more than a few real erections every few years.

...sounds just like th'demonlard...knows his shit does that dicktater...sorry, dick...

[TheDemonLord]

Indeed, appealing to the left is just a way dictators worm their way into power, the lefty masses are more easily bought.

Why do you think that is?

Since we have differing viewpoints on Politics, what's your take?

[Graystone]

Why do you think that is?

Since we have differing viewpoints on Politics, what's your take?

Cos they are less concerned with control and work/reward balance and more concerned with outcomes; and an outcome is more easily sold.

[Oakie]

Waaay too simplistic. Where are the required twenty paragraphs of footnotes ?

Not saying you're wrong - just stunned someone here can sum it up in a paragraph.....

Sorry about that. I'd already used most of my word allowance for the day somewhere else.

[oldrider]

Oh there you go - it is the jawbone of an ass! :lol:

https://twitter.com/jamesperloff/status/995275332512026625/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F

[husaberg]

Indeed, appealing to the left is just a way dictators worm their way into power, the lefty masses are more easily bought.

Dont its agree because the masses tend to be poor and there is more of them.
if you make a scapegoat out of a minority, be it religious, race, merchant, upper-class or nobles its easy to get the majority of others to follow. To do this you must make the majority believe the minority are the cause of all the majority peoples woes.
Once you have established power you just control the propaganda to control the people.
If anyone dares to speak out, well, because it is a dictatorship any doubters are easily silenced.

As for Demon suggestion that the Nazis were left wing please....
The Nazi party were Fascists just like Mussolini and Franco.
One common definition of the term Fascist focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations (anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism)

[sugilite]

So what is it that they are spraying. Be specific.
How the hell would I or anyone else on the ground know?

[sugilite]

Inadvertant cloud seeding.

The other side to the question, is just how much evil stuff would a plane have to be dropping for it to disperse into a cloud 20km wide? The tanks would be immense!
Yes, it is a real mystery, as is why the plane turns around and comes back without landing - something is different about the whole scenario, not exactly standard aircraft behavior, and "contrails".

[george formby]

Yes, it is a real mystery, as is why the plane turns around and comes back without landing - something is different about the whole scenario, not exactly standard aircraft behavior, and "contrails".

Could be a flat earth research flight?

[Laava]

How the hell would I or anyone else on the ground know?

If you don't have the foggiest (scuse the pun) then why are you calling it chemtrails?

[husaberg]

Yes, it is a real mystery, as is why the plane turns around and comes back without landing - something is different about the whole scenario, not exactly standard aircraft behavior, and "contrails".
How do you know its the same aircraft or that it is coming back around? I am also puzzled how can you identify aircraft from 40000ft.

[Katman]

I am also puzzled how can you identify aircraft from 400000ft.

I doubt anyone could identify an aircraft from 120 kms away.

[carbonhed]

The contrails increase in size when the atmospheric conditions at the altitude the plane is flying are suitable for cloud formation. The aircraft just kicks it off.

I think there are websites where you can see all the flights going on around you. If they were up to nefarious activities why would they do handbrake turns where goobers could see it happening? Maybe just to fuck with them?

[husaberg]

I doubt anyone could identify an aircraft from 120 kms away.

or 40000 ft either.

[Katman]

or 40000 ft either.

Well to be fair, he didn't 'identify' it - other than to call it an aircraft.

So unless you're trying to suggest it's a UFO, your post is rather pointless.

[TheDemonLord]

Cos they are less concerned with control and work/reward balance and more concerned with outcomes; and an outcome is more easily sold.

Okay, now I'm really interested.

Because on the basis of that statement, you could infer that it would be fair to call the Left: Naive.

But I don't think that's the case overall.

However, since that's your opinion - do you consider that to be a problem for the left? do you consider the flip-side to be a virtue of the right? I've not seen someone espouse that particular train of thought, and it's got a lot of very interesting implications.

[TheDemonLord]

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ed/a1/8f/eda18f03aa0b0ead58fa7e1bff776bde--kool-target.jpg

Oh Dear. Contrails from an Aircraft, predating any theories about geo-engineering and from aircraft using standard Piston engines (so not Turboprops or turbine engines).

Well, that should be the nail in that particular coffin*


























*to anyone with half a brain - which rules out the Kiwibiker Konspiracy Krew.

[Graystone]

Okay, now I'm really interested.

Because on the basis of that statement, you could infer that it would be fair to call the Left: Naive.

But I don't think that's the case overall.

However, since that's your opinion - do you consider that to be a problem for the left? do you consider the flip-side to be a virtue of the right? I've not seen someone espouse that particular train of thought, and it's got a lot of very interesting implications.

Oh fuck off with your inferencing and other bullshittery.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh fuck off with your inferencing and other bullshittery.

Come now - you said it, I'm interested in it. Do you wish to retract? That comment raises some interesting questions, if you're unhappy with those questions - why is that? If you are happy with those questions - why the hostility?

[husaberg]

Well to be fair, he didn't 'identify' it - other than to call it an aircraft.

So unless you're trying to suggest it's a UFO, your post is rather pointless.



And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?

If you say he didn't identify it as the same single individual plane, how did he know the same single individual plane turned arround and flew back then (without landing)

[Graystone]

Come now - you said it, I'm interested in it. Do you wish to retract? That comment raises some interesting questions, if you're unhappy with those questions - why is that? If you are happy with those questions - why the hostility?

I said nothing about their naivety, the hostility is because I have poor tolerance for idiots who find rational discussion far too 'taxing' to take any lessons from.

[TheDemonLord]

I said nothing about their naivety,

Given the subject matter, you kinda did. You said their focus on Outcomes means they are more likely to fall victim to a Dictator.

I should make clear - I don't think that's it, but I do think that's an interesting view. I've not heard that sentiment before and I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on that matter.


the hostility is because I have poor tolerance for idiots who find rational discussion far too 'taxing' to take any lessons from.

That sounds like a touch of projection, possibly with a side of Raw Nerve.

[Graystone]

Given the subject matter, you kinda did. You said their focus on Outcomes means they are more likely to fall victim to a Dictator.

I should make clear - I don't think that's it, but I do think that's an interesting view. I've not heard that sentiment before and I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on that matter.



That sounds like a touch of projection, possibly with a side of Raw Nerve.

It was in reference to your inability to take on board the basics of asset tax and depreciation despite it being clearly and indisputably explained.

[sugilite]

Could be a flat earth research flight?

Hilarious - do you have a theory?

[sugilite]

If you say he didn't identify it as the same single individual plane, how did he know the same single individual plane turned arround and flew back then (without landing)



I watched the plane go by turn around and come back - it was easy to see it doing that with the trail it was leaving behind. I saw it do that the 5 mornings out of the 7 that I watched it all going on for.

[sugilite]

How do you know its the same aircraft or that it is coming back around? I am also puzzled how can you identify aircraft from 40000ft.
Because it is leaving a trail it is easy to track eh.

[sugilite]

If you don't have the foggiest (scuse the pun) then why are you calling it chemtrails?

Because it is the term being most often used in the description of the phenomena.

[sugilite]

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ed/a1/8f/eda18f03aa0b0ead58fa7e1bff776bde--kool-target.jpg

Oh Dear. Contrails from an Aircraft, predating any theories about geo-engineering and from aircraft using standard Piston engines (so not Turboprops or turbine engines).

Well, that should be the nail in that particular coffin*

*to anyone with half a brain - which rules out the Kiwibiker Konspiracy Krew.
The difference to my half brain between then and now - is that the contrails did not hang around all day and spread across the entire sky. Sure, I may have not noticed when I was a kid, but I was fascinated - obsessed even with them and I did observe them at great detail and I can honestly not remember contrails acting then as they do now.

[Laava]

Because it is the term being most often used in the description of the phenomena.

Fair enough, but they are called contrails, chemtrails is a conspiracy theory term.

[Graystone]

The difference to my half brain between then and now - is that the contrails did not hang around all day and spread across the entire sky. Sure, I may have not noticed when I was a kid, but I was fascinated - obsessed even with them and I did observe them at great detail and I can honestly not remember contrails acting then as they do now.

Both engines and the climate have changed significantly since then. What hasn't changed is the laws of physics, how much bad stuff has to be lifted to form a chemtrail 20km wide?

[sugilite]

Both engines and the climate have changed significantly since then. What hasn't changed is the laws of physics, how much bad stuff has to be lifted to form a chemtrail 20km wide?

Yep, I can accept that, and the thought occurred to me the planes could also be flying a lot higher than previously and as carbon head pointed out they could also be just kicking off the cloud seeding - even though the oddly rippled clouds do look different from non seeded ones.
So just my question remains about who is paying for these expensive flights for the mystery plane that is not carrying freight or passengers and just happens to be the one that seems to kick of the cloud seeding? I honestly are not expecting an answer on Kiwibiker or anywhere else for that matter - even if the mystery financial party could be found it, I'm sure the answer would hidden behind the good old "commercially sensitive" tag.

[Katman]

Fair enough, but they are called contrails, chemtrails is a conspiracy theory term.

You've really not looked into the subject of geo-engineering at all, have you?

[Katman]

What hasn't changed is the laws of physics, how much bad stuff has to be lifted to form a chemtrail 20km wide?

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/compressed-air-storage-volume-d_843.html

[TheDemonLord]

It was in reference to your inability to take on board the basics of asset tax and depreciation despite it being clearly and indisputably explained.

What you explained, was what you wanted it to be.

Not what is actually is.

When you continued to redefine words and meanings and ignoring the meanings that were explicitly stated in the sources you provided I gave up. That's not a Debate, that's your mental gymnastics.

[TheDemonLord]

The difference to my half brain between then and now - is that the contrails did not hang around all day and spread across the entire sky. Sure, I may have not noticed when I was a kid, but I was fascinated - obsessed even with them and I did observe them at great detail and I can honestly not remember contrails acting then as they do now.

So, your entire subscription to this theory (putting aside the technical difficulties, the problem with secrecy, the issue with indiscriminate coverage) is predicated on what you may not have remembered from when you were young?

What about this picture:

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/05/52/83/055283059e6e6abc9227f3aac788e0f7--battle-of-britain-s.jpg

The planes have long since departed - and you can various trails - some look quite thin and 'fresh' - others are slowly spreading out, and on the left - those look positively cloud-like.

And then you have the other issue - we know that Jet Fuel, like all Fossil fuels is hydrocarbon based. Combustion of such a fuel has the byproducts of mainly Carbon Dioxide and Water. We know that water, in the upper atmosphere can be suspended - either as tiny droplets or ice crystals and hang about all day - we call these clouds.

Depending on the pressure at an Altitude and a host of other factors deteremines whether no contrails will be produced, a short contrail will be produced, or one that hangs around all day will be produced.

[oldrider]

Only apologies for accidental transgressions? - whats the connection? https://twitter.com/Ian56789/status/995777423462555651/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F :shutup:

[sugilite]

Demonlord - you have an absolute black belt in putting words in peoples mouths -. I have posed no theory whatsoever in this thread merely questions.
None of the trails I see in your photo are anywhere near as wide as what I have seen - just for your info. Had you bothered to read my earlier post agreeing with what had been said in regards to modern fuels, and conditions and to the possibility of planes triggering cloud seeding, maybe you may not have shared your pithy views - or was that exactly your point? Shining a light on your towering intellect?


So, your entire subscription to this theory (putting aside the technical difficulties, the problem with secrecy, the issue with indiscriminate coverage) is predicated on what you may not have remembered from when you were young?

What about this picture:

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/05/52/83/055283059e6e6abc9227f3aac788e0f7--battle-of-britain-s.jpg

The planes have long since departed - and you can various trails - some look quite thin and 'fresh' - others are slowly spreading out, and on the left - those look positively cloud-like.

And then you have the other issue - we know that Jet Fuel, like all Fossil fuels is hydrocarbon based. Combustion of such a fuel has the byproducts of mainly Carbon Dioxide and Water. We know that water, in the upper atmosphere can be suspended - either as tiny droplets or ice crystals and hang about all day - we call these clouds.

Depending on the pressure at an Altitude and a host of other factors deteremines whether no contrails will be produced, a short contrail will be produced, or one that hangs around all day will be produced.

[Katman]

- or was that exactly your point? Shining a light on your towering intellect?

I've yet to see any proof of it.

[carbonhed]

None of the trails I see in your photo are anywhere near as wide as what I have seen - just for your info.

When you said that you saw them on the West Coast, was that NZ or USA?

If they're just turning around and buggering off back to where they came from... military training flight? There's a fucking hilarious talk on youtube about a training flight of the blackbird... see below.

When I worked at the Met Office back in the seventies there was a section in the back of the cloud atlas on contrails and how they could seed cirrus cloud formation. Back then they were worried about "global dimming" and the change in albedo of the planet... probably global cooling.... :rolleyes:


https://youtu.be/Lg73GKm7GgI

[TheDemonLord]

None of the trails I see in your photo are anywhere near as wide as what I have seen - just for your info.

Right - So, that leaves 2 options (leaving aside for the moment that we don't know the time before and after in either what you've seen or in the 2 photos):

1: Chemtrails
2: Something else

Option 1 requires at a minimum an entire support infrastructure, a large number of people who are all sworn to absolute secrecy, an objective and one that doesn't cause adverse effects to those who partake in the chemtrailing.

Just on those merits alone - it's extremely unlikely

So, let's consider Option 2:

The service ceiling for WW2 era aircraft is about 30,000 ft - typical altitudes were lower and Piston engines don't consume fuel at the same rate as Jets. My point being that we have extremely similar behaviour, predating any hypothetical theories about Geo-Engineering.

We know that modern Jet Airliners typically operate between 30-45,000 ft. We know that of the various cloud types Cirrus clouds (which most closely resemble the Trails) typically exist above 20,000 ft (which happens to slot nicely into our 2 other data points).

All those factors combined mean, absent any other evidence, that option 2 is Infinitely more probably.


Had you bothered to read my earlier post agreeing with what had been said in regards to modern fuels, and conditions and to the possibility of planes triggering cloud seeding, maybe you may not have shared your pithy views - or was that exactly your point? Shining a light on your towering intellect?

Okay - so you ask a question - Fine. Are you satisfied with the answer? Because your statement about your memories as a Child suggest you have nagging doubts.

I'm cool with having an element of Doubt - hell the entirety of science is simply our current best predictive model on the world around us, that is ready to be supplanted when a better, more accurate model comes along.

So let me ask a question in return: Do you think that an organization would spend the millions (probably more like Billions) to fly planes around the world, to either influence the Weather or to spray some substance into the upper atmosphere. The follow up question is - what would be the point? People tend not to spend money and resources unless there is some form of Reward or pay-off.

[Katman]

So let me ask a question in return: Do you think that an organization would spend the millions (probably more like Billions) to fly planes around the world, to either influence the Weather or to spray some substance into the upper atmosphere. The follow up question is - what would be the point? People tend not to spend money and resources unless there is some form of Reward or pay-off.

Well John Brennan seems to consider a programme costing $10 billion per year as 'relatively inexpensive'.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html

[sugilite]

When you said that you saw them on the West Coast, was that NZ or USA?


NZ, I have seen trails here in arkansas, but not the exact same looking ones I was seeing on the West Coast of The south Island. From where I lived I could see from Westport-ish, to the Heaphy track and a bit beyond.

[carbonhed]

NZ, I have seen trails here in arkansas, but not the exact same looking ones I was seeing on the West Coast of The south Island. From where I lived I could see from Westport-ish, to the Heaphy track and a bit beyond.

Never met anyone from Arkansas before... do you have a banjo and a hankering for prescription opiates? :msn-wink:

[Banditbandit]

NZ, I have seen trails here in arkansas,


http://cdn.onlyinyourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/898de7b8d79f24e9179fd598d914a0d16c6c897e198939ef18 fc4c77b20b3efe-1-700x488.jpg

[Graystone]

What you explained, was what you wanted it to be.

Not what is actually is.

When you continued to redefine words and meanings and ignoring the meanings that were explicitly stated in the sources you provided I gave up. That's not a Debate, that's your mental gymnastics.

Now that, is projection. Do us all a favour and fuck off until you lose the self delusions, you're as bad as conspiracy theorists in this regard.

[sugilite]

Okay - so you ask a question - Fine. Are you satisfied with the answer? Because your statement about your memories as a Child suggest you have nagging doubts.
While I accept it can be all that you say, I have nagging doubts because just that one plane was leaving that signature, and it was the only one that came back again. I saw other planes leaving just little contrails just minutes later, ones that disappeared 60 seconds later, but no point comparing as different altitudes blah blah.




So let me ask a question in return: Do you think that an organization would spend the millions (probably more like Billions) to fly planes around the world, to either influence the Weather or to spray some substance into the upper atmosphere. The follow up question is - what would be the point? People tend not to spend money and resources unless there is some form of Reward or pay-off.

Would an organization spend a ton of cash for nefarious means? Yes, absolutely yes.
What would be the point?
One word - resources. A heck of a lot of wars are about resources. Even a fair few started on the pretext of religion in my opinion, were really about acquisition of resources.

Looking at World history, time and time again, new and previously unknown technology has been used to annihilate people that are holding resources others want.

Yes, for sure there is the extreme tribes of conspiracists that are down the bottom of the garden with their tin foil hats on. However, to my way of thinking, the people that consider themselves educated, and have what appears to be near blind faith that big pharma, big chemical companies, shadowy lobby groups steering governments all over the World etc, would never do anything as dastardly as fuck over everybody in the worst possible way except themselves - should also be down the bottom of their gardens - only with titanium hats on, because everybody knows that titanium is much higher tech and advanced than that puny tinfoil eh.

In principle, I like science, and in it's purest form is a great source of truth, facts and surety of how things work - very comforting. However, with the way the World appears to still work, lobby groups and big corps fund so many science studies, and transparency is actively avoided. It is extremely murky at best to clearly define which science has been untainted by corruption at high levels, levels scientists themselves will likely be completely oblivious to.

Evil is very much still alive and kicking. So I have a few questions for you Demonlord.
Where is it that you get this faith that humanity has changed to the point where powerful people and organizations now only have humanities best interests at heart?
Where is it that you think powerful evil people have gone? I'm talking about people that run organizations that have demonstrably in the past funded both sides of a world war, people who think nothing of exterminating millions of souls and the very same people that will now be looking at fast dwindling World resources likely thinking that as they are the ones with the power and ability, their final solution is justified in carrying out at any cost? Do you think such people are no longer around?

[Graystone]

Yep, I can accept that, and the thought occurred to me the planes could also be flying a lot higher than previously and as carbon head pointed out they could also be just kicking off the cloud seeding - even though the oddly rippled clouds do look different from non seeded ones.
So just my question remains about who is paying for these expensive flights for the mystery plane that is not carrying freight or passengers and just happens to be the one that seems to kick of the cloud seeding? I honestly are not expecting an answer on Kiwibiker or anywhere else for that matter - even if the mystery financial party could be found it, I'm sure the answer would hidden behind the good old "commercially sensitive" tag.

Surveying?

[husaberg]

I watched the plane go by turn around and come back - it was easy to see it doing that with the trail it was leaving behind. I saw it do that the 5 mornings out of the 7 that I watched it all going on for.

So you could you tell it was the same plane? Also how can you tell that plane/s were not changing direction after takeoff or simply going into holding paterns over a airport.

[pritch]

When you said that you saw them on the West Coast, was that NZ or USA?



Sorry, gotta ask. Who TF would be seeding clouds on the west coast of NZ. The residents have probably got webbed feet from their exceedingly generous rainfall.

[TheDemonLord]

Now that, is projection. Do us all a favour and fuck off until you lose the self delusions, you're as bad as conspiracy theorists in this regard.

There's that Nerve again.

An no, no projection - but do tell us why NZ isn't using a Fractional Reserve system again - Based on the sayso of someone with Zero economics qualifications again (Bryan Gould)... That one was hilarious. Especially when Don Brash (Former Governor of the Reserve Bank) correctly described the NZ banking system in the article you posted:


The banking system does create money. When Bank A lends money to one of its customers, the customer may use those funds to buy something from somebody who banks with Bank B. Bank B then finds itself with an additional deposit, a part of which it can lend out to its customers (keeping some of the additional deposit as a liquidity reserve). So an initial loan may end up considerably increasing the total lending by the banking system.

Or when you deliberately misinterpreted Profit AS Capital to mean Profit FROM Capital, in order to shoe-horn it into your world view.

[TheDemonLord]

Well John Brennan seems to consider a programme costing $10 billion per year as 'relatively inexpensive'.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2016-speeches-testimony/director-brennan-speaks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html

Indeed - and reading that article he outlines what the benefits of such a programme could be: a reversal of Global Warming. And he quickly addresses some of the potential problems of such a potential programme.

If you want to take his speech as writ - would you be happy with a reduction in Global Warming?

[TheDemonLord]

While I accept it can be all that you say, I have nagging doubts because just that one plane was leaving that signature, and it was the only one that came back again. I saw other planes leaving just little contrails just minutes later, ones that disappeared 60 seconds later, but no point comparing as different altitudes blah blah.

And that, is my issue - there are some known variables that easily and readily explains that situation, before resorting to the more exotic.


Would an organization spend a ton of cash for nefarious means? Yes, absolutely yes.
What would be the point?
One word - resources. A heck of a lot of wars are about resources. Even a fair few started on the pretext of religion in my opinion, were really about acquisition of resources.

First part - sure - not going to argue in principle, but what resources are you referring to? Take the link that Katman posted for example - $10 Billion, reduce Global Warming - if we take the theoretical and assume it to be ready - that sounds like a bargain to me. Is the stated goal of a reduction in Global Warming a resource, possibly could be argued. Is it nefarious? Depends.


Looking at World history, time and time again, new and previously unknown technology has been used to annihilate people that are holding resources others want.

I'll concede the principle of your point - that advances in Tech usually involve advances in Weaponary - but I think you're overstepping the mark slightly - the history of 'super-weapons' isn't as cataclysmic as you make it out to be (with a few notable exceptions).


Yes, for sure there is the extreme tribes of conspiracists that are down the bottom of the garden with their tin foil hats on. However, to my way of thinking, the people that consider themselves educated, and have what appears to be near blind faith that big pharma, big chemical companies, shadowy lobby groups steering governments all over the World etc, would never do anything as dastardly as fuck over everybody in the worst possible way except themselves - should also be down the bottom of their gardens - only with titanium hats on, because everybody knows that titanium is much higher tech and advanced than that puny tinfoil eh.

Do Big companies sometimes act innapropriately - Sure.
Do Lobby governments have an undue influence on political parties - Also, sure.
Do we have examples of when something untoward has happened - Absolutely.

So you may be thinking I agree with you and in part, I do. But that's half the story. Let's take this statement: "Would never do anything as dastardly as fuck over everybody in the worst possible way except themselves" - This cuts to the heart of the matter - without everybody else, such an action is pointless.

I've got all the money and no-one to lord it over (pun intended) - it rather defeats the purpose. In nearly every expose of corporate misdeeds - it's always been a limited number of people that have been fucked over (not justifying it, but want to make the point) - Fucking everyone over is unproductive and unprofitable, whereas sometimes fucking a percentage of people over HAS been productive and profitable in the short-term

which leads to my second point here - we know that companies are occasionally rather Naughty because invariably they get Exposed - the link I posted earlier about the relationship between time, number of people and the probability of something being kept secret is extremely relevant here - Nothing stays secret. When things are uncovered, if they meet the required burdens of proof - then from there a series of events is set in motion.


In principle, I like science, and in it's purest form is a great source of truth, facts and surety of how things work - very comforting. However, with the way the World appears to still work, lobby groups and big corps fund so many science studies, and transparency is actively avoided. It is extremely murky at best to clearly define which science has been untainted by corruption at high levels, levels scientists themselves will likely be completely oblivious to.

Sure, but then you're left with a predicament - Either you throw all of it, because you can't trust it even though most will be accurate, or you have to retract such a blanket statement and assess each bit of research on it's own merits.


Evil is very much still alive and kicking. So I have a few questions for you Demonlord.
Where is it that you get this faith that humanity has changed to the point where powerful people and organizations now only have humanities best interests at heart?

Come now - you complimented me on being a Black Belt on putting words in people's mouths, and then you try the above? Tsk Tsk.

No - I don't have that faith. What I do have faith in, is self-interest - Powerful people and organizations want to stay in that position. In order to do so, fucking everyone over can work, but it is ALWAYS a short-term strategy.

A more robust longer-term strategy is not to fuck everyone over, lest those people in turn, fuck you over (as has been the case on numerous occasions), I've outlined about that above. Consider a game - you could win by killing the enemy Team, the problem is - you'd not be able to play the game again. Not being able to play again means that you loose.


Where is it that you think powerful evil people have gone? I'm talking about people that run organizations that have demonstrably in the past funded both sides of a world war, people who think nothing of exterminating millions of souls and the very same people that will now be looking at fast dwindling World resources likely thinking that as they are the ones with the power and ability, their final solution is justified in carrying out at any cost? Do you think such people are no longer around?

I think you are stretching quite a bit in certain areas. Evil people are the same place they have always been. In terms of being Powerful - I'm assuming you're alluding to the Corporate Psychopath - with that statement - the thing is, they don't do as well as you'd think: "destroy shareholder value, tending to have poor future returns on equity." - this reinforces the theme of my main point - it's not a viable long term solution - and that mechanism is what tends to deal with and depose such people rather nicely.

[Graystone]

Or when you deliberately misinterpreted Profit AS Capital to mean Profit FROM Capital, in order to shoe-horn it into your world view.

Sounds like you want to pick this up again, you bowed out last time so here's a refresher of the last post...


Did you just try an argument from authority with a high school class? No source for the term you tried to use, no working definition, yup, it's clear you are just making shit up.

We're talking about fixed assets, depreciation is one option to change the book value; just changing it like you suggest is not an option, that's just not even close to how accounting works.

No, but it's a link supporting one's own viewpoint, something you have yet to provide, despite you being the one who made the claim. It describes many things, FRB is just one of those.

There's no risk of not being rewarded.

Figured you wouldn't last much longer once even Katman started showing you up. Thanks for playing though.

Shall we continue on in the correct place (https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/54686-Pointless-drivel-posts/page1265)?

[Katman]

If you want to take his speech as writ - would you be happy with a reduction in Global Warming?

Do you actually think the CIA are renowned for their honesty and transparency? Or for being forthcoming with information?

When the CIA admit to anything, I'm more inclined to ask "ok, so how much aren't they admitting to?"

[Katman]

If you want to take his speech as writ - would you be happy with a reduction in Global Warming?

And what if it eventually transpires that stratospheric aerosol injection causes more problems than it solves?

[TheDemonLord]

Sounds like you want to pick this up again, you bowed out last time so here's a refresher of the last post...

Shall we continue on in the correct place (https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/54686-Pointless-drivel-posts/page1265)?

You were the one to make reference to it, I responded.

As I said - I bowed out because you were misinterpreting the very information you yourself posted, in order to fit your view - and I gave you 2 instances. At that point, I couldn't be bothered, if you refuse to understand the sources that you cite (when it's been pointed out) - there can be no further discussion.

[Woodman]

And what if it eventually transpires that stratospheric aerosol injection causes more problems than it solves?

What if the chemtrails were for the greater good and are a deliberate attempt to solve the biggest global issue there is?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-sperm/sperm-count-falling-sharply-in-developed-world-researchers-say-idUSKBN1AA28K

[TheDemonLord]

Do you want to pick it up or not? I understood what I cited, hence my willingness to continue the discussion, you got proven wrong, then failed to have the intellect to admit it and learn, hence your unwillingness to continue the discussion. Thus my subsequent labeling you as a fool who jumps to conclusions and delusions, so is not one worth taking the time to have an off-topic discussion with at all.

Thanks for playing, now do us a favor and fuck off.

I made my intentions clear. So much for your 'understanding'...

When you can understand why we have a FRBS in NZ, I'll consider taking you up on the offer, till then, Myself and Don Brash will have something to agree on.

And you'll have to try harder than that - my Kiwibiker fanclub have been trying for years to get me to Fuck off, hasn't worked yet.

[Graystone]

I made my intentions clear.

That you have :facepalm:

[Laava]

What if the chemtrails were for the greater good and are a deliberate attempt to solve the biggest global issue there is?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-sperm/sperm-count-falling-sharply-in-developed-world-researchers-say-idUSKBN1AA28K

Eew, no wonder the rain taste salty on the west coast!

[Laava]

You've really not looked into the subject of geo-engineering at all, have you?

They were fresh out of tin hats when I was at uni...

[sugilite]

So you could you tell it was the same plane? Also how can you tell that plane/s were not changing direction after takeoff or simply going into holding patterns over a airport.
I could not tell for sure if it was the same plane, but it was within the same 15 minute time frame each morning I saw it. I did not live anywhere near an airport. It left it's trail from one horizon to dam near the other until coming around in a big circle and disappearing into the horizon from whence it came. As mentioned in another post I had a splendid view of a very large stretch of coastline, so the distances involved were very significant.

[sugilite]

And that, is my issue - there are some known variables that easily and readily explains that situation, before resorting to the more exotic.
Are you saying that "Some known variables" excludes other possibilities? This seems to go against your scientific methodologies.



First part - sure - not going to argue in principle, but what resources are you referring to? Take the link that Katman posted for example - $10 Billion, reduce Global Warming - if we take the theoretical and assume it to be ready - that sounds like a bargain to me. Is the stated goal of a reduction in Global Warming a resource, possibly could be argued. Is it nefarious? Depends.
Ahh, this is not my first KB rodeo lol I'm not going to supply a shopping list of resources for you to pick apart with things I cannot possibly quantify, refute or rebuke without putting in considerable time I simply do not have in order to satisfy some dude on the internet. Whayt I will say is resources become more or less valuable as circumstances dictate such as technology, weather and or other conditions - so lets just go with a blanket "All Resources". Conquering armies tend to take all.




I'll concede the principle of your point - that advances in Tech usually involve advances in Weaponary - but I think you're overstepping the mark slightly - the history of 'super-weapons' isn't as cataclysmic as you make it out to be (with a few notable exceptions).
Nice work sport, you turn my line of "time and time again, new and previously unknown technology has been used to annihilate people that are holding resources others want" into a altogether more sensationalist and sexy "history of 'super-weapons' isn't as cataclysmic as you make it out to be". Even minor steps in tech have resulted in 100's and 1000's of deaths. Go and explain to a theoretical sole surviving mother of a wiped out by firearms North American Indian village that she is overstating the deaths all around her by using the term "annihilation"? People that minimize and marginalize human suffering disappoint me.


Do Big companies sometimes act innapropriately - Sure.
Do Lobby governments have an undue influence on political parties - Also, sure.
Do we have examples of when something untoward has happened - Absolutely.

So you may be thinking I agree with you and in part, I do. But that's half the story. Let's take this statement: "Would never do anything as dastardly as fuck over everybody in the worst possible way except themselves" - This cuts to the heart of the matter - without everybody else, such an action is pointless.

I've got all the money and no-one to lord it over (pun intended) - it rather defeats the purpose. In nearly every expose of corporate misdeeds - it's always been a limited number of people that have been fucked over (not justifying it, but want to make the point) - Fucking everyone over is unproductive and unprofitable, whereas sometimes fucking a percentage of people over HAS been productive and profitable in the short-term

which leads to my second point here - we know that companies are occasionally rather Naughty because invariably they get Exposed - the link I posted earlier about the relationship between time, number of people and the probability of something being kept secret is extremely relevant here - Nothing stays secret. When things are uncovered, if they meet the required burdens of proof - then from there a series of events is set in motion.
Sure I agree with everything you are saying in principle, don't kill all your customers. I'm thinking a bit bigger than that. What I'm seeing is the World cannot possibly sustain the fast growing population at the current rate and wasteful resource hungry way of life. Do you seriously think the people at the top of the totem pole are not looking for some kind of total solution to this problem? And that solution can only mean a serious reduction of life on the planet - do you think such people will send memos out of their plans, or will they stay out of site out of mind while anybody that might stumble onto their plans will be instantly discredited all over the internet as a conspiracy theorist? Talk about a perfect cover to work from.



Sure, but then you're left with a predicament - Either you throw all of it, because you can't trust it even though most will be accurate, or you have to retract such a blanket statement and assess each bit of research on it's own merits.
Sure, it is all any of us can do living in a world where transparency is just a dream or a notion. No disagreement from me there. You simply have no choice but to do your research and hope you get it right.




Come now - you complimented me on being a Black Belt on putting words in people's mouths, and then you try the above? Tsk Tsk.

No - I don't have that faith. What I do have faith in, is self-interest - Powerful people and organizations want to stay in that position. In order to do so, fucking everyone over can work, but it is ALWAYS a short-term strategy.

A more robust longer-term strategy is not to fuck everyone over, lest those people in turn, fuck you over (as has been the case on numerous occasions), I've outlined about that above. Consider a game - you could win by killing the enemy Team, the problem is - you'd not be able to play the game again. Not being able to play again means that you loose.
I assumed you had that faith because I have only ever seen you discredit peoples theories with great zest and gusto. And, like I said, I'm thinking beyond Corporate greed and thinking what will these powerful people focus be on with dwindling resources and over population.




I think you are stretching quite a bit in certain areas. Evil people are the same place they have always been. In terms of being Powerful - I'm assuming you're alluding to the Corporate Psychopath - with that statement - the thing is, they don't do as well as you'd think: "destroy shareholder value, tending to have poor future returns on equity." - this reinforces the theme of my main point - it's not a viable long term solution - and that mechanism is what tends to deal with and depose such people rather nicely.
As mentioned above, Long term solution will be focused on reducing over population by any method deemed effective, rather than adding another zero to their bank accounts. These peoples self interest will be moving from wealth to self preservation for them and their kind.

[sugilite]

Never met anyone from Arkansas before... do you have a banjo and a hankering for prescription opiates? :msn-wink:
I'm just here for a few months. supporting my partner as she sorts her mothers late estate out, so would not choose to live exactly here as such as it is a baron rural area.
Banjo is on order, though none sighted as yet, maybe will end up being the only one in the street that actually has one.
Did listen to one conversation between two farmers at the local walmart - took me 20 seconds before registering yes they were speaking english - of a sort. And a full minute to understand a single sentence, well I think I did.
Opiate users, hell yes seen plenty of them - walking gaunt skeletal people.
Cliche moments, waiting at another Walmart in Springfield, Missouri for my partner to arrive after parking the car - I could of sworn I'd walked into a live freak show. People wearing see through clothing that really should not be, others that looked like they fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. Others looked like they had just come down from the hills to grab a woman to procreate with (My partner says there really are parts around here like that). By the time my good looking partner walked in, I swear things went into slow motion, a fan started up pushing wind through her long hair and a radiant golden glow surrounded her lol

[R650R]

MH370 they trotting our another new lie to support the fairy tale.....

It was bad enough that it supposedly was unseen by military radars in high tension area off its flight path....
Now they saying he zig zagged the border flying towards a major city and that didn’t trigger alarm bells!!!!!!

[Katman]

A bit of background info on geo-engineering - for those who still think it only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/03/geoengineering-a-short-history/

[husaberg]

I could not tell for sure if it was the same plane, but it was within the same 15 minute time frame each morning I saw it. I did not live anywhere near an airport. It left it's trail from one horizon to dam near the other until coming around in a big circle and disappearing into the horizon from whence it came. As mentioned in another post I had a splendid view of a very large stretch of coastline, so the distances involved were very significant.


okay how big a circle did this aircraft take to turn? because you would require a rather splendid view indeed to see a plane traveling at 40000 ft and 700km/h perform a 180 degree turn
Also where was the nearest airport or Airbase.

[sugilite]

okay how big a circle did this aircraft take to turn? because you would require a rather slendid view indeed to see a plane traveling at 40000 ft and 700km/h perform a 180 degree turn
Also where was the nearest airport or Airbase.
Did you miss the part where I told you it had a large contrail behind it - helps one see exactly where that plane has gone? Seriously, I've stated that exact thing in like three posts now. You are either inattentive or are trolling me.
You know, I did not get up there to measure the turning radius.
How do you know it was at an altitude of 40,000 ft and it was traveling at 700 kmh?
I'm "guessing" the nearest airport is Westport, no idea if that plane could land there or not.

[husaberg]

Did you miss the part where I told you it had a large contrail behind it - helps one see exactly where that plane has gone? Seriously, I've stated that exact thing in like three posts now. You are either inattentive or are trolling me.
You know, I did not get up there to measure the turning radius.
How do you know it was at an altitude of 40,000 ft and it was traveling at 700 kmh?
I'm "guessing" the nearest airport is Westport, no idea if that plane could land there or not.

I am not trolling you i are trying to sort out what you can actually substaniate you have seen, from what you believe you may have seen.
Conspiracy theorists tend to link information together to suit their beliefs.
You need to explain exactly where it is you seen these occurences. Date, location, year.
I assumed you were talking about the West Coast of America from your location. there are Westports in numerious locations arround the world.
I asked you the turning radius because you said you seen it turn arround.
You dont need to measure the turning radius but be aware it would be more than your view of the sky if it was a high flying comercial jet.
I only ask this as you claim to have been able to see the contrails of the plane undertaking this maneouvre.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you saying that "Some known variables" excludes other possibilities? This seems to go against your scientific methodologies.

More of Occams razor: If someone comes home late at night staggering and smelling of Alcohol - what's the likely explanation:

Alien Abduction.
They went on a Bender.

Is a vast international conspiracy, that has operated with complete secrecy for far longer than any similar sized conspiracies have been able to operate for a possibility? It's a possibility in the Mathematical sense, but when compared to other much more likely explanations....


Ahh, this is not my first KB rodeo lol I'm not going to supply a shopping list of resources for you to pick apart with things I cannot possibly quantify, refute or rebuke without putting in considerable time I simply do not have in order to satisfy some dude on the internet. Whayt I will say is resources become more or less valuable as circumstances dictate such as technology, weather and or other conditions - so lets just go with a blanket "All Resources". Conquering armies tend to take all.

Okay fair enough - I think your below comments give enough clarity to what you mean. I wasn't sure which resource per se you would gain from some form of aerial spraying practice.


Nice work sport, you turn my line of "time and time again, new and previously unknown technology has been used to annihilate people that are holding resources others want" into a altogether more sensationalist and sexy "history of 'super-weapons' isn't as cataclysmic as you make it out to be". Even minor steps in tech have resulted in 100's and 1000's of deaths. Go and explain to a theoretical sole surviving mother of a wiped out by firearms North American Indian village that she is overstating the deaths all around her by using the term "annihilation"? People that minimize and marginalize human suffering disappoint me.

The issue I have here is, that North American Village you refer to - Prior to the introduction of Firearms, did they never engage in Tribal Warfare? Considering most Native American tribes have various rules around combat, including a system equivalent to Medals (from memory - one gets to wear certain totems for various acts in battle - such as ferocity or being able to touch an enemy combatant without harming them) - Do you think that if that sole survivng Mother - that her tribe had gotten the weapons first, they wouldn't have done the exact same thing?

This is not to marginalize the suffering, but to take a realistic view of History - Tribal conflict is something that all Humans do and have done, hell, even Chimpanzees do it - at least for the most part in the west, we've managed to civilize it down to friendly contest on the sporting field, rather than the Murder, rape and pillage of old.

In regards to the use of the word annihilation - at the level of the Tribe - sure, Annihilation is the right word - when talking about Humanity as a whole (which is more along the lines of this discussion) then no, Annihilation isn't the right word.

But back to my original point - consider the case of Gate Pa - The British Army with all the latest and greatest weaponary from Europe AND a numerical advantage got beaten back by Rawiri Puhirake and his tribe Ngāi Te Rangi. Unknown technology/Superior Technology can be and is effective - my point was that Cunning and Strategy has had more consistent and successful results.


Sure I agree with everything you are saying in principle, don't kill all your customers. I'm thinking a bit bigger than that. What I'm seeing is the World cannot possibly sustain the fast growing population at the current rate and wasteful resource hungry way of life. Do you seriously think the people at the top of the totem pole are not looking for some kind of total solution to this problem? And that solution can only mean a serious reduction of life on the planet - do you think such people will send memos out of their plans, or will they stay out of site out of mind while anybody that might stumble onto their plans will be instantly discredited all over the internet as a conspiracy theorist? Talk about a perfect cover to work from.

I disagree on your premise - the trend seems to be, as people get educated, as medicine advances and as Women get both legal rights and reproductive rights, the birth rates tend to plateau out. Most western countries are starting to achieve an Equilibrium (with the average being around 2.2 children - which means we are replacing what we loose) - the 3rd world is making progress here - but that is where the majority of births are happening.

Second part - The issue is that people have been making conspiracys since way back when, the Majority tend to be based on wild conjecture, distrust of authority and a number of personality traits. I agree it does provide the perfect cover - and there have been a few instances were things widely dismissed as conspiracy were later vindicated as true - but these tend to be a fraction of what is trotted out as Conspiracy.


I assumed you had that faith because I have only ever seen you discredit peoples theories with great zest and gusto.

I like to argue and it beats doing actual work at work.


As mentioned above, Long term solution will be focused on reducing over population by any method deemed effective, rather than adding another zero to their bank accounts. These peoples self interest will be moving from wealth to self preservation for them and their kind.

Maybe. It's a possibility, but any such solution runs a very large risk of back-firing on those people. to Quote Tyrion Lannister - I don't trust them, I trust their self-interest.

[Katman]

You dont need to measure the turning radius but be aware it would be more than your view of the sky if it was a high flying comercial jet.
I only ask this as you claim to have been able to see the contrails of the plane undertaking this maneouvre.

Are you seriously suggesting that a commercial jet flying at 40,000 feet in a perfectly clear sky couldn't carry out a 180 degree turn in the area visible to the eye from the ground?

[sugilite]

I am not trolling you i are trying to sort out what you can actually substaniate you have seen, from what you believe you may have seen.
Conspiracy theorists tend to link information together to suit their beliefs.
You need to explain exactly where it is you seen these occurences. Date, location, year.
I assumed you were talking about the West Coast of America from your location. there are Westports in numerious locations arround the world.
I asked you the turning radius because you said you seen it turn arround.
You dont need to measure the turning radius but be aware it would be more than your view of the sky if it was a high flying comercial jet.
I only ask this as you claim to have been able to see the contrails of the plane undertaking this maneouvre.

I did explain West Coast of New Zealand in another post. I explained very clearly and simply what I saw, you just have not read it properly or chosen to disregard what I said deliberately as some sort of juvenile game.

Substantiate what I have seen? I do not need to explain dates and times, especially to someone who clearly has serious comprehension issues. And moreover, what is the point? You going to go around the airports and ask the pilots for their past flight plans and fuel samples?

You are just trying to complicate things unnecessarily, even stating things I never said like the plane flying at 40,000 foot and travel speed. Do you feel the need to make things up that I never said in order to make me look like a loony - so your post makes you look like you are some sort of factual genius? Is that what you really need to do to make what is basically a pointless point?

You are clearly being a prick, for being a pricks sake.

[Katman]

You are just trying to complicate things unnecessarily, even stating things I never said like the plane flying at 40,000 foot

I'm assuming that he's using that height reference since that's roughly where the stratosphere starts.


You are clearly being a prick, for being a pricks sake.

I think you're on to something there.

[sugilite]

More of Occams razor: If someone comes home late at night staggering and smelling of Alcohol - what's the likely explanation:

Alien Abduction.
They went on a Bender.

Is a vast international conspiracy, that has operated with complete secrecy for far longer than any similar sized conspiracies have been able to operate for a possibility? It's a possibility in the Mathematical sense, but when compared to other much more likely explanations....
Mostly irrelevant in relation to anything I said.




Okay fair enough - I think your below comments give enough clarity to what you mean. I wasn't sure which resource per se you would gain from some form of aerial spraying practice.
Who knows and will ever know if they are spraying chemicals. I would imagine a manufactured virus and let jetliners do the rest would have to be easier than chem trails. The only point of chem trails I could possibly think of would be to have a "A" substance, and a later "B" substance trigger later, if they wanted to target specific demographics with different effects. I really wouldn't care to think to much on it.




The issue I have here is, that North American Village you refer to - Prior to the introduction of Firearms, did they never engage in Tribal Warfare? Considering most Native American tribes have various rules around combat, including a system equivalent to Medals (from memory - one gets to wear certain totems for various acts in battle - such as ferocity or being able to touch an enemy combatant without harming them) - Do you think that if that sole survivng Mother - that her tribe had gotten the weapons first, they wouldn't have done the exact same thing?

This is not to marginalize the suffering, but to take a realistic view of History - Tribal conflict is something that all Humans do and have done, hell, even Chimpanzees do it - at least for the most part in the west, we've managed to civilize it down to friendly contest on the sporting field, rather than the Murder, rape and pillage of old.

In regards to the use of the word annihilation - at the level of the Tribe - sure, Annihilation is the right word - when talking about Humanity as a whole (which is more along the lines of this discussion) then no, Annihilation isn't the right word.

But back to my original point - consider the case of Gate Pa - The British Army with all the latest and greatest weaponary from Europe AND a numerical advantage got beaten back by Rawiri Puhirake and his tribe Ngāi Te Rangi. Unknown technology/Superior Technology can be and is effective - my point was that Cunning and Strategy has had more consistent and successful results.
OK, so you built up a whole story to super embellish mine. This is your standard mode of modus operandi while getting into this style of discussion on KB. You embellish things other people have said greatly, go off on a tangent in an attempt to hide the fact that you really don't have anything to offer on what was actually said. Stripped down to the basics - I said superior technology has been used on a constant basis to exterminate other human beings - end of.


I disagree on your premise - the trend seems to be, as people get educated, as medicine advances and as Women get both legal rights and reproductive rights, the birth rates tend to plateau out. Most western countries are starting to achieve an Equilibrium (with the average being around 2.2 children - which means we are replacing what we loose) - the 3rd world is making progress here - but that is where the majority of births are happening.
Annnnd you are doing it again. the Earth has finite resources. Year 2000 World Population = 6,082,966,429. Year 2017 = 7,550,262,101. Who gives a hoot where the births are happening or not happening. Another irrelevant tangent.


Second part - The issue is that people have been making conspiracys since way back when, the Majority tend to be based on wild conjecture, distrust of authority and a number of personality traits. I agree it does provide the perfect cover - and there have been a few instances were things widely dismissed as conspiracy were later vindicated as true - but these tend to be a fraction of what is trotted out as Conspiracy.

Sure, ok However, it would not surprise me if the ones that are up to no good start a shit ton of the easily debunked ones themselves to set the stage of generalized disbelief lol


I like to argue and it beats doing actual work at work.
But is your smoke and mirrors show with the constant embellishment/corruption of other peoples quotes and so on constitute argument or weakness of character?



Maybe. It's a possibility, but any such solution runs a very large risk of back-firing on those people. to Quote Tyrion Lannister - I don't trust them, I trust their self-interest.
Guess you missed the part where upon I pointed out that with Worldwide resources dwindling quickly will shift self interest from wealth to perceived survival huh?

[TheDemonLord]

Are you seriously suggesting that a commercial jet flying at 40,000 feet in a perfectly clear sky couldn't carry out a 180 degree turn in the area visible to the eye from the ground?

^^^ Absolutely correct.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/8012/what-does-it-take-to-turn-a-747-around-180-degrees

At a cruising altitude, and at a cruising speed and assuming a reasonable bank angle - Someone has posted the formulae and with it has calculated a 15 Nautical mile wide turning angle - which is about 28 Km.

[TheDemonLord]

OK, so you built up a whole story to super embellish mine. This is your standard mode of modus operandi while getting into this style of discussion on KB. You embellish things other people have said greatly, go off on a tangent in an attempt to hide the fact that you really don't have anything to offer on what was actually said. Stripped down to the basics - I said superior technology has been used on a constant basis to exterminate other human beings - end of.

My counter was that Humans are the constant that Exterminate other Humans. Technology is neither a guarantee nor causal.


Annnnd you are doing it again. the Earth has finite resources. Year 2000 World Population = 6,082,966,429. Year 2017 = 7,550,262,101. Who gives a hoot where the births are happening or not happening. Another irrelevant tangent.

If only the ratio of Births to Deaths was relevant to the World Population...

But snide point scoring aside - this is an area that has several differing viewpoints - one is yours - that Humans will continue unabated (the Humans are a virus theory). I disagree with that premise: https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Updated-World-Population-Growth-Rate-Annual-1950-2100.png The rate of growth has been decreasing since the 1960s. I think the evidence points to Humanity achieving some form of equilibrium at some point.

I should concede however, that this is a very contentious issue - with a good deal of evidence on both sides - most of the sources I've looked at estimate that humanity will level out at around 10-15 billion.


Sure, ok However, it would not surprise me if the ones that are up to no good start a shit ton of the easily debunked ones themselves to set the stage of generalized disbelief lol

Good idea, Except enough of the population has to believe the 'easily debunked' ones in order to get enough circulation amongst common people, if they are so easy to debunk - why/how do they spread? There's been a few bits of research done on the types of people that subscribe to Conspiracy theory - they have several traits in common. Based on that, I think it's a reasonable response to claim that such a type of person would create or subscribe to a Conspiracy, regardless if there was an external force directing it for their own nefarious means.


But is your smoke and mirrors show with the constant embellishment/corruption of other peoples quotes and so on constitute argument or weakness of character?

Some of it's artistic flair, some of it's reductio ad absurdum, some of it is attacking what I consider to be the foundational premises that support a viewpoint.

And some of it, is people claiming that, cause they don't like what my rebuttal means for their chosen viewpoint...

If you don't like my argument style, then all you have to do is stop playing.


Guess you missed the part where upon I pointed out that with Worldwide resources dwindling quickly will shift self interest from wealth to perceived survival huh?

I didn't, With the exception of resources sent into space (which represents such a tiny fraction, it's irrelevant) we exist in a closed loop system: The water I drink at my desk now, I'll piss out in an hour, which will go into a treatment plant, then be flushed out to sea, it evaporates up to the sky, falls down as rain, fills the reservoir then goes into my Tap.

Self-interest will drive more efficient and effective methods of reclamation and recycling - things such as the Ocean Cleanup project (which from memory will not only clean the ocean, but do so in a manner that the materials can be recycled and done so at a profit).

And since I mentioned space - I've got bets on colonization of Mars as a solution, long before Corporate Genocide.

[sugilite]

Some of it's artistic flair, some of it's reductio ad absurdum, some of it is attacking what I consider to be the foundational premises that support a viewpoint.

And some of it, is people claiming that, cause they don't like what my rebuttal means for their chosen viewpoint...

If you don't like my argument style, then all you have to do is stop playing.


Whew, I must admit when I see you multi, multi, multi quotes, I feel a bit overwhelmed, but I only find this one quote above having me feel the need to reply.
I guess art appreciation, nay definition is in the eye of the beholder. So I'm running what you said above against what I have been saying and your responses. Particularly where you embellish my words, and add your own words to them distorting them along the way.
Doing the above to form a rebuttal on points I have not made is not to my mind art, or productively adding to a discussion. It is in effect commenting on your own writing. It is hard to respect that line of thinking and action.

[husaberg]

Are you seriously suggesting that a commercial jet flying at 40,000 feet in a perfectly clear sky couldn't carry out a 180 degree turn in the area visible to the eye from the ground?
On the West Coast of the South island a commercial passenger jet flying at normal speeds would certainly struggle too yes. I never said couldn't
But As the West coast of the south island is a very narrow sliver of land backed by mountains. it would certainly suggest sugerlite either lives up a mountain or has extraordinary vision.

[Graystone]

Whew, I must admit when I see you multi, multi, multi quotes, I feel a bit overwhelmed, but I only find this one quote above having me feel the need to reply.
I guess art appreciation, nay definition is in the eye of the beholder. So I'm running what you said above against what I have been saying and your responses. Particularly where you embellish my words, and add your own words to them distorting them along the way.
Doing the above to form a rebuttal on points I have not made is not to my mind art, or productively adding to a discussion. It is in effect commenting on your own writing. It is hard to respect that line of thinking and action.

There is a site, ratemypoo.com, I believe there is an apt comparison there somewhere; multiquotes being like a smattering of corn perhaps...

[husaberg]

I did not think much about chem trails until I got to the West Coast. Every fine day it seemed a few appeared. I noticed some stayed around literally all day long, getting wider and wider, until it was kilometers wide, that sure is a lot of vapor I found myself thinking. So I started watching closer, and I saw planes go by leaving the trail that I just described, yet ones going by a very short time later where the trails disappeared in seconds. I know, I know, different altitudes blah blah.
I used to get up a bit late as I often worked late at night, and there they would be. So I got up really early for a week and watched for where and when these things turned up. And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?


And then get over 20 km's wide?


Yes, it is a real mystery, as is why the plane turns around and comes back without landing - something is different about the whole scenario, not exactly standard aircraft behavior, and "contrails".


I watched the plane go by turn around and come back - it was easy to see it doing that with the trail it was leaving behind. I saw it do that the 5 mornings out of the 7 that I watched it all going on for.


Yep, I can accept that, and the thought occurred to me the planes could also be flying a lot higher than previously and as carbon head pointed out they could also be just kicking off the cloud seeding - even though the oddly rippled clouds do look different from non seeded ones.
So just my question remains about who is paying for these expensive flights for the mystery plane that is not carrying freight or passengers and just happens to be the one that seems to kick of the cloud seeding? I honestly are not expecting an answer on Kiwibiker or anywhere else for that matter - even if the mystery financial party could be found it, I'm sure the answer would hidden behind the good old "commercially sensitive" tag.


I could not tell for sure if it was the same plane, but it was within the same 15 minute time frame each morning I saw it. I did not live anywhere near an airport. It left it's trail from one horizon to dam near the other until coming around in a big circle and disappearing into the horizon from whence it came. As mentioned in another post I had a splendid view of a very large stretch of coastline, so the distances involved were very significant.


I did explain West Coast of New Zealand in another post. I explained very clearly and simply what I saw, you just have not read it properly or chosen to disregard what I said deliberately as some sort of juvenile game.

Substantiate what I have seen? I do not need to explain dates and times, especially to someone who clearly has serious comprehension issues. And moreover, what is the point? You going to go around the airports and ask the pilots for their past flight plans and fuel samples?

You are just trying to complicate things unnecessarily, even stating things I never said like the plane flying at 40,000 foot and travel speed. Do you feel the need to make things up that I never said in order to make me look like a loony - so your post makes you look like you are some sort of factual genius? Is that what you really need to do to make what is basically a pointless point?

You are clearly being a prick, for being a pricks sake.

Lets see you said your saw something you were not sure about yet you then called it a chemtrail
When i and others asked for detail you get all defensive about it.
I missed your post where you indicated West Coast South Island.
You gave some details such as you believed the vaporous trail was 20KM wide yet thus far refuse to give any indications on dates etc.
You even went as far as to say the plane/s was clearly not carrying passengers or freight. But i see no reason how you could logically establish this.
You said you could see all the way from Westport to Karamea (heaphy Track)
If you gave details it would be pretty easy to establish what planes were using that flight path as commercial planes operate in flight corridors.
From what you have said or your visibility it would appear you were living somewhere near Granity, is this correct?
I am not arguing that you believe you saw a single plane, Its just you interpretation of these events appears a little open for debate.
I would say what you seen was the scheduled early morning Queenstown to Auckland flight it flys higher than most out West early in the morning,overlapping with another flight likely a departing out of Welington. or another north island airport.
Wellington would overlap as they would be at significant different altitudes as they would still be climbing. Westport being just about the exact same latitude as Wellington fits in with what you might think was a u turn of a single craft.

The other posibility which it appears you appear to have not considered was it was a RNZAF P3 Orion patrolling and protecting the NZ economic zone which if it was summer ,was highly probable as thats peak Tuna season.they tend to loiter and do multiple passes along the coast.

[george formby]

Interesting debate on lots of things.

The population control contributions are worth a quick thought. Why would chemicals be sprayed over western countries which have population stagnation or even decrease? It's the folk with bugger all food and no telly pumping the kids out. From a business point of view, you would not try to shrink your biggest markets.

If it's to do with climate, I doubt some benefactor has taken it upon themselves to save the world without declaring it over the last couple of decades. If they have, it ain't working.

Another quick thought, the threat of chemical attack from the air has been known since WWI. I'm pretty sure that the security controls established for commercial aircraft since then consider the possibility of such a scenario. Any large scale attempt to achieve this would have rung alarm bells, shirley? Ok, maybe tens of thousands of people are being payed off to stay schtum.

Hot on the heels of the last quickie. How would said chemicals be dispensed? Boeing, Airbus and the like do not build crop dusters. Military aircraft which have been used have had to be obviously modified.
With fuel costs and economy being the biggest issue airlines face, I doubt they would be happy having strange additives in their jet fuel.

I've thunk enough. Yeah, na.

[Berries]

I blame the Chinese.

[ellipsis]

I blame the Chinese.


...number 16 with fried rice?...don't blame you man...

[Graystone]

Also, what up with this shit?

"You have been No reason was specified. for the following reason:
Never

Date the ban will be lifted: [ARG:3 UNDEFINED]"

Sounds like some sort of conspiracy to me... I should cry freedom and let slip the hogs and boar.

[mashman]

Interesting debate on lots of things.

The population control contributions are worth a quick thought. Why would chemicals be sprayed over western countries which have population stagnation or even decrease? It's the folk with bugger all food and no telly pumping the kids out. From a business point of view, you would not try to shrink your biggest markets.

If it's to do with climate, I doubt some benefactor has taken it upon themselves to save the world without declaring it over the last couple of decades. If they have, it ain't working.

Another quick thought, the threat of chemical attack from the air has been known since WWI. I'm pretty sure that the security controls established for commercial aircraft since then consider the possibility of such a scenario. Any large scale attempt to achieve this would have rung alarm bells, shirley? Ok, maybe tens of thousands of people are being payed off to stay schtum.

Hot on the heels of the last quickie. How would said chemicals be dispensed? Boeing, Airbus and the like do not build crop dusters. Military aircraft which have been used have had to be obviously modified.
With fuel costs and economy being the biggest issue airlines face, I doubt they would be happy having strange additives in their jet fuel.

I've thunk enough. Yeah, na.

It's only an issue if there isn't enough to go around. There is. In fact it is reported that 20% of the population consume 80% of that which is produced. As such you could wipe out that 80% and barely make a dent in the issues that require us to spray shit in the atmoshpere to tidy up the fuckups going on and eminating from belows overproduction. But by all means let's ignore that and pretend that we know what they're doing and why :wari: ... I missed wari banana.

On the flipside, I know a few chaps that are unhappy with the last 2 years yields of veges :shifty:

[mashman]

I blame the Chinese.

What's going on over there is nothing more than won-ton destruction.

[admenk]

I blame the Chinese.

I like Chinese :whistle:
They only come up to your knees

[Oakie]

I like Chinese :whistle:
They only come up to your knees

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DqvweTYTI0

[neels]

To ask the obvious question............if said chemtrails are hanging in the sky for several hours, then there are a couple of issues;

With the difference in wind directions, particularly at 2000-10000ft, it's a pretty hit and miss operation dispensing from aircraft at high altitudes.

If it's hanging in the sky for several hours after being 'dispensed', then a better delivery method needs to be devised, as it's obviously not making it's way to the ground which would severely limit it's usefulness in controlling the filthy masses below.

You'd be surprised how large some of the loops are between practice approaches when training pilots, at jet speeds it's not very far from christchurch to wellington.

[eldog]

Would it not just be easier to create some chemical Fluoride for instance and add that to the water supply. No one would know.:corn:

much easier to do than aerial spraying- anyone remember the controversial aerial spraying for that moth over Auckland a couple of years ago? By the way how’s that going?:whocares:

for the poster that was worried about people who had no tv. Once they have been enlightened(westernised) they will become our next largest market.

[sugilite]

Lets see you said your saw something you were not sure about yet you then called it a chemtrail
When i and others asked for detail you get all defensive about it.
I explained earlier why I called it a chemtrail. It has become a fairly mainstream term in the media etc.



I missed your post where you indicated West Coast South Island.
You gave some details such as you believed the vaporous trail was 20KM wide yet thus far refuse to give any indications on dates etc.
You even went as far as to say the plane/s was clearly not carrying passengers or freight. But i see no reason how you could logically establish this.
Again, what does dates have to do with it. Early April 2017 if you absolutely must know. I see no real relevance in the dates. I was simply curious and watched every morning for a week. I did not think I had a NEED to record dates for one Husaberg on KB. As I have stated again, and again (it really is very simple) I saw a plane come towards, past then further in a distance turn around and come back all the while leaving a contrail. All obviously without landing to drop off freight or passengers, unless they are just pushing the freight out of the doors from a great height, and the passengers are jumping out with chutes and deploying them once below the level of the ranges? Seriously - with a plane following the above scenario, it is very logical that it is very unlikely to be carrying freight and or passengers.



You said you could see all the way from Westport to Karamea (heaphy Track)
If you gave details it would be pretty easy to establish what planes were using that flight path as commercial planes operate in flight corridors.
From what you have said or your visibility it would appear you were living somewhere near Granity, is this correct?
You are in the ball park, but not really. However I do not think you could see Karamea/Heaphy track from Granity. I was closer to the mountains above Karamea.


I am not arguing that you believe you saw a single plane, Its just you interpretation of these events appears a little open for debate.
I would say what you seen was the scheduled early morning Queenstown to Auckland flight it flys higher than most out West early in the morning,overlapping with another flight likely a departing out of Welington. or another north island airport.
Wellington would overlap as they would be at significant different altitudes as they would still be climbing. Westport being just about the exact same latitude as Wellington fits in with what you might think was a u turn of a single craft.
Ummm, how many times do I need to repeat this, a single aircraft turning around (so 180 degrees so you can better understand) and the politically correct term contrail followed it the entire way. How the hell could your scenario of another intersecting plane even work with that pesky extremely easy to track contrail following said single aircraft. Grasping at straws seems an understatement when applied to the logic in your hypothesis of intersecting flights when I have time and time again repeated the contrails followed the plane through it's turn.


The other posibility which it appears you appear to have not considered was it was a RNZAF P3 Orion patrolling and protecting the NZ economic zone which if it was summer ,was highly probable as thats peak Tuna season.they tend to loiter and do multiple passes along the coast.
The plane was smaller than an Orion, and on it's southward bound travels it was more over land, not the coast.

I'm now thinking you are not as much a troll, rather as an inattentive keyboard warrior who gives scant regard to what it is people are really saying, then bang out on those poor keys absolute drivel all the while thinking you are quite the intellect. What I said is really so completely simple. I can only conclude that at best - your faith in your skim reading is completely misplaced, or at worst you are deliberately being an obtuse argumentative sod for the sake of it.

[Honest Andy]

Far out, fifteen pages... and it's still on topic???
Come on you guys!!!

I want to hear more about the terrorist nematodes

We had a bumper crop of tomatoes this year, but the corn didn't do any good. So I can't make my own diesel this year. Aaaaand I'm pretty sure I saw a BP sponsored hang-glider over my house in December soooooo....

Google Earth has got a lot to answer for

And why are delorto manuals all in Italian????

And don't get me started on council libraries! That's a real can of catapillars

[Katman]

Ummm, how many times do I need to repeat this,

Lots.

So he can multi-quote you - lots.

[TheDemonLord]

Whew, I must admit when I see you multi, multi, multi quotes, I feel a bit overwhelmed, but I only find this one quote above having me feel the need to reply.

I personally prefer them - since each comment can be responded to and each rebuttal is clear as to which statement it is in response to.


I guess art appreciation, nay definition is in the eye of the beholder. So I'm running what you said above against what I have been saying and your responses. Particularly where you embellish my words, and add your own words to them distorting them along the way.

It's interesting you focus on that one statement, ignoring the others - If you are wanting to make an accusation that I'm strawmanning you (fair enough, I don't think so, but whatevs) - then I get to in turn make the counter-accusation that you're taking a single statement out of context.


Doing the above to form a rebuttal on points I have not made is not to my mind art, or productively adding to a discussion. It is in effect commenting on your own writing. It is hard to respect that line of thinking and action.

Simply stating that I'm embellishing - with no additional clarification or no demonstration of what or why is also not productively adding to a discussion either.

If I were to TL;DR your views - you've got a suspicion of those 'in power', you subscribe to the over-population theory, you believe that there may be plans/tests/tech that has or is being trialed for some form of population control, you believe you've witnessed flight patterns and contrail patterns that the most likely explanation is the afor-mentioned and that you believe this is being done by those 'in power' in order to provide a strategy/defence/mechanism to maintain their power should the World turn to shit.

So tell me - have I embellished your views above? If so, exactly what aspect have I embellished?

[Katman]

If I were to TL;DR your views - you've got a suspicion of those 'in power', you subscribe to the over-population theory, you believe that there may be plans/tests/tech that has or is being trialed for some form of population control, you believe you've witnessed flight patterns and contrail patterns that the most likely explanation is the afor-mentioned and that you believe this is being done by those 'in power' in order to provide a strategy/defence/mechanism to maintain their power should the World turn to shit.

Would it be fair to say that you have completely discounted any possibility of there being any nefarious agenda in the pursuit of geo-engineering practices?

Even in the face of quotes such as "The nation which first learns to plot the paths of air masses accurately and learns to control the time and place of precipitation will dominate the globe" - as stated by General George C Kenney back in the 1940s when he was the Commander of US Strategic Air Command?

[sugilite]

It's interesting you focus on that one statement, ignoring the others - If you are wanting to make an accusation that I'm strawmanning you (fair enough, I don't think so, but whatevs) - then I get to in turn make the counter-accusation that you're taking a single statement out of context.

Plural - read it again.


Simply stating that I'm embellishing - with no additional clarification or no demonstration of what or why is also not productively adding to a discussion either.

You know exactly when you are embellishing - it is your conscious decision to do so. Complete waste of my time to point them out. Wasting peoples time appears to be your tactic to get rid of/troll someone in my opinion.


If I were to TL;DR your views - you've got a suspicion of those 'in power', you subscribe to the over-population theory, you believe that there may be plans/tests/tech that has or is being trialed for some form of population control.
Sure


you believe you've witnessed flight patterns and contrail patterns that the most likely explanation is the afor-mentioned and that you believe this is being done by those 'in power' in order to provide a strategy/defence/mechanism to maintain their power should the World turn to shit.
False, I never stated I believe World powers are using that as a mechanism. I originally stated that I found it odd for the long lasting ever widening contrails, but now subscribe to it could be a change in circumstances since I was a child causing it. I have stated it seems a very impractical way of using it as said mechanism. However, I'm still very puzzled that the one plane out of the ones I watched was causing pre-mentioned condition was turning around - not landing and heading back almost daily for the observed week, and conversationally quite a few other times while out for a early morning pee that unfortunately for husaberg I did not date stamp. However, I am getting really. really tired of repeating the same thing over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, again.[/QUOTE]


So tell me - have I embellished your views above? If so, exactly what aspect have I embellished?
Yes - though you dialed it back, I have never stated that I believe that the trails I saw is "being done by those 'in power' in order to provide a strategy/defense/mechanism to maintain their power should the World turn to shit." Just curious as to what it could be about, I do still find it very odd and expensive repeated behavior.

What I have found interesting with the kiwibiker thing is how some people can be so different a person online on KB than what they are in real life so to speak. When I met you after coming out from near half an hour away in an attempt to help you when your bike had broken down in Dannevirke and you had posted a SOS on KB - I found you to be quite a good chap, one I was happy to help where possible. Your online personality? I could quite cheerfully ride by you on the side of the road and leave you to it. Which is something I have never actually done before, no matter what type of motorcycle they are riding.

[TheDemonLord]

You know exactly when you are embellishing - it is your conscious decision to do so. Complete waste of my time to point them out. Wasting peoples time appears to be your tactic to get rid of/troll someone in my opinion.

Demonstrably false - There's plenty of ways I could waste peoples time - if that was my goal, then surely I'd do so in a manner that maximizes the time wasted by others, whilst minimizing the effort I put in.

If it was to Troll people - again, there's better and more effective ways to Troll.

I've said I like to argue, and these days - that's the main reason I come here.


False, I never stated I believe World powers are using that as a mechanism. I originally stated that I found it odd for the long lasting ever widening contrails, but now subscribe to it could be a change in circumstances since I was a child causing it. I have stated it seems a very impractical way of using it as said mechanism. However, I'm still very puzzled that the one plane out of the ones I watched was causing pre-mentioned condition was turning around - not landing and heading back almost daily for the observed week, and conversationally quite a few other times while out for a early morning pee that unfortunately for husaberg I did not date stamp. However, I am getting really. really tired of repeating the same thing over, and over, and over, over, and over, and over, again.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.


Yes - though you dialed it back, I have never stated that I believe that the trails I saw is "being done by those 'in power' in order to provide a strategy/defense/mechanism to maintain their power should the World turn to shit." Just curious as to what it could be about, I do still find it very odd and expensive repeated behavior.

Well, forgive me then - but you did raise it as a reason. I'm going to address the meat of the above 2 paragraphs in this response:

You've seen something that is Odd, yet may have a perfectly valid and rational explanation. You've conjectured (so not believed) a possibility that is not only far-fetched, but requires a large number of a priori positions (several of which I disagree with) and requires a degree of assumption of guilt upon various parties.

From my perspective - those last parts are worthy of rebuke and ridicule for seriously contemplating and then not rejecting (based on the current level of evidence to support them). I'm also not a big fan of the line of reasoning that has a resentful element against people who have achieved wealth and status, as I believe this to be a major social problem.


What I have found interesting with the kiwibiker thing is how some people can be so different a person online on KB than what they are in real life so to speak. When I met you after coming out from near half an hour away in an attempt to help you when your bike had broken down in Dannevirke and you had posted a SOS on KB - I found you to be quite a good chap, one I was happy to help where possible. Your online personality? I could quite cheerfully ride by you on the side of the road and leave you to it. Which is something I have never actually done before, no matter what type of motorcycle they are riding.

I did wonder when that was going to come up. Put it this way - I mainly these days come here to argue. Because I happen to enjoy it. Arguing necessitates several requirements: a Contrary position, a willingness to engage and rebuff forthrightly and a certain amount of determination.

If I only saw one aspect of your personality and judged accordingly - do you think it's possible I would say the same about you?

Furthermore - I've often maintained that I don't take the things I argue about online too seriously - to the point that if I was ever in a Pub and Katman walked in - I'd have a beverage with him (I don't think he'd say the same about me - but nvm) - perhaps you shouldn't take the internet too seriously either.

[Katman]

to the point that if I was ever in a Pub and Katman walked in - I'd have a beverage with him (I don't think he'd say the same about me - but nvm) -

I'm a little bit more fussy about who I drink with.

[T.W.R]

I've said I like to argue, and these days - that's the main reason I come here.

:facepalm: That's a fucking cassinarism if ever there was one :oi-grr:

Pathetic existence via purposeful antagonism :wacko: that sort of mentality is the reason this place is dwindling :yes:

[oldrider]

Canada: A Nation Crashing with NO SURVIVORS - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGvlg0-RM5A :corn:

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CGvlg0-RM5A" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[pritch]

MH370 they trotting our another new lie to support the fairy tale.....


I'm not sure that can be called new. Another board I watch mostly involves people who lived in Malaysia for years and the suicide/murder thing was one of the first possibilities mentioned. At the time I thought that was a bit hasty, but as further information has come to light about the fiight, it must be considered a possibility.

Y'all may be familiar with the expression "running amok". Amok is a Malay word and it referred to the occasional situation whereby a villager took his parang (machete) and started hacking anybody he could get at until the villager was himself cut down. The thought was that the Malay pilot had found a more high tech method of amok. The argument was advanced that "it was in his genes".

Seemed odd at the time and we'll probably never know, but it is starting to look as if that may be the case.

[husaberg]

The plane was smaller than an Orion, and on it's southward bound travels it was more over land, not the coast.

I'm now thinking you are not as much a troll, rather as an inattentive keyboard warrior who gives scant regard to what it is people are really saying, then bang out on those poor keys absolute drivel all the while thinking you are quite the intellect. What I said is really so completely simple. I can only conclude that at best - your faith in your skim reading is completely misplaced, or at worst you are deliberately being an obtuse argumentative sod for the sake of it.


You say i m talking absolute drivel when you claim to have seen a plane doing something you didn't understand, that you claimed would be most likely only be up to nefarious means.
Now that you have given, your location, trajectory of the flight and size of plane would it surprise you that Sounds air leaves Westport and flys north along the Coast to about Karamea in order to gain altitude and save fuel by doing it slowly, before it turns and flys to Wellington 5 times a week...........it departs Westport at 645 am. What do you think would be logical conclusion of what you seen. To a resonable person.
Is it still most likely to be Top secret Cloud seeding?

[Katman]

Now that you have given your location trajectory and size of plane would it surprise you that Sounds air leaves Westport and flys north along the Coast to about Karamea inorder to gain altitude a save fuel by doing it slowly before it turns and flys to Wellington 5 times a week

If the plane takes off from Westport and flies North to Karamea, is it really likely to make a 180 degree turn to head for Wellington?

[Katman]

And is it really likely to be leaving a contrail behind it while it's climbing?

[pritch]

I see vapour trails any day weather conditions permit. Horizon to horizon, highly unlikely it's anything exciting, we are just situated under a normal flight path.

[sugilite]

You say i m talking absolute drivel when you claim to have seen a plane doing something you didn't understand, that you claimed would be most likely only be up to nefarious means.
Now that you have given, your location, trajectory of the flight and size of plane would it surprise you that Sounds air leaves Westport and flys north along the Coast to about Karamea in order to gain altitude and save fuel by doing it slowly, before it turns and flys to Wellington 5 times a week...........it departs Westport at 645 am. What do you think would be logical conclusion of what you seen. To a resonable person.
Is it still most likely to be Top secret Cloud seeding?

You seem to have a real difficulty grasping what a turn of 180 degrees represents. If you do understand, then what you are claiming is that this plane saves fuel by heading one direction turning around 180 degrees and flying back from whence it came?

I'm pretty sure I did not say that the plane was doing top secret cloud seeding. What I said was so painfully simple. In fact here is my original post below. Hmm do I claim it is up to nefarious means? No. Do I ever claim in any of my posts that it is some top secret cloud seeding? Again, No.


I did not think much about chem trails until I got to the West Coast. Every fine day it seemed a few appeared. I noticed some stayed around literally all day long, getting wider and wider, until it was kilometers wide, that sure is a lot of vapor I found myself thinking. So I started watching closer, and I saw planes go by leaving the trail that I just described, yet ones going by a very short time later where the trails disappeared in seconds. I know, I know, different altitudes blah blah.
I used to get up a bit late as I often worked late at night, and there they would be. So I got up really early for a week and watched for where and when these things turned up. And what I saw was quite curious, a lone plane really early each fine morning of that week would go by leaving one of the trails that would take up to 10 hours or longer to grow ever wider. The puzzling thing, it would turn around, without landing and just head back from the direction it came - all the while leaving a trail. Naturally I have no idea what the hell the trail is, vapor or otherwise. But I sure as fuck wonder who is paying to have a plane got on a morning tiki tour clearly not delivering any freight and or passengers to a destination. An aircraft is not cheap to run - so WTF?

Subsequently, the trail has been explained to me in such a way as it sounds quite plausible, a fact I have since acknowledged in many subsequent posts. The 180 degree turn and heading back in the same direction as it came does not match up with your lame saving fuel hypothesis, though not as lame as your two separate planes hypothesis - when I had clearly stated the plane I saw was leaving a trail the whole time right from my first post.

Now that we have ascertained that you take and change what people say, to make them look loonier than what they actually may be - in order to make yourself look like the sound body of reason. I say this is very weak methodology of debate. At least demonlord who does similar wraps it up in a nice pretty bouquet and is fairly clever with it. Your attempts in comparison, are inarticulate, clumsy and well - just a plain embarrassment upon yourself.

[sugilite]

You've seen something that is Odd, yet may have a perfectly valid and rational explanation. You've conjectured (so not believed) a possibility that is not only far-fetched, but requires a large number of a priori positions (several of which I disagree with) and requires a degree of assumption of guilt upon various parties.
From my perspective - those last parts are worthy of rebuke and ridicule for seriously contemplating and then not rejecting (based on the current level of evidence to support them). I'm also not a big fan of the line of reasoning that has a resentful element against people who have achieved wealth and status, as I believe this to be a major social problem.
What posts of mine did you get all that from please? The resentment of wealth element, the conjectures, my priori positions of several you disagree with and where I placed the assumption of guilt? (No out of context quotes either please)


Furthermore - I've often maintained that I don't take the things I argue about online too seriously - to the point that if I was ever in a Pub and Katman walked in - I'd have a beverage with him (I don't think he'd say the same about me - but nvm) - perhaps you shouldn't take the internet too seriously either.
OK, fair enough, we have established I'm not a fan of your style of twisting what people say, or even stating positions they have simply never registered. So I have learned my lesson and as suggested will not take things to seriously, especially things you say. ;)

[oldrider]

Gaza prison? https://twitter.com/AntiMedia/status/996798520748261377/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.henrymakow.com%2F :whocares:

[T.W.R]

You seem to have a real difficulty grasping what a turn of 180 degrees represents. If you do understand, then what you are claiming is that this plane saves fuel by heading one direction turning around 180 degrees and flying back from whence it came?


Don't mention that the Sounds Air plane that does the Westport - Wellington run is a single engine, 9 seater puddle jumping Cessna :rolleyes: not much bigger than your average crop duster and quarter the size of an Orion :lol:

[husaberg]

I'm pretty sure I did not say that the plane was doing top secret cloud seeding. What I said was so painfully simple. In fact here is my original post below. Hmm do I claim it is up to nefarious means? No. Do I ever claim in any of my posts that it is some top secret cloud seeding? Again, No.

No but you alluded to that it could in your opinion be up to no good.

Yes, it is a real mystery, as is why the plane turns around and comes back without landing - something is different about the whole scenario, not exactly standard aircraft behavior, and "contrails".


So just my question remains about who is paying for these expensive flights for the mystery plane that is not carrying freight or passengers and just happens to be the one that seems to kick of the cloud seeding? I honestly are not expecting an answer on Kiwibiker or anywhere else for that matter - even if the mystery financial party could be found it, I'm sure the answer would hidden behind the good old "commercially sensitive" tag.


While I accept it can be all that you say, I have nagging doubts because just that one plane was leaving that signature, and it was the only one that came back again. I saw other planes leaving just little contrails just minutes later, ones that disappeared 60 seconds later, but no point comparing as different altitudes blah blah.
Would an organization spend a ton of cash for nefarious means? Yes, absolutely yes.
What would be the point?
One word - resources. A heck of a lot of wars are about resources. Even a fair few started on the pretext of religion in my opinion, were really about acquisition of resources.
Looking at World history, time and time again, new and previously unknown technology has been used to annihilate people that are holding resources others want.
Yes, for sure there is the extreme tribes of conspiracists that are down the bottom of the garden with their tin foil hats on. However, to my way of thinking, the people that consider themselves educated, and have what appears to be near blind faith that big pharma, big chemical companies, shadowy lobby groups steering governments all over the World etc, would never do anything as dastardly as fuck over everybody in the worst possible way except themselves
It is extremely murky at best to clearly define which science has been untainted by corruption at high levels, levels scientists themselves will likely be completely oblivious to.

Evil is very much still alive and kicking.



Don't mention that the Sounds Air plane that does the Westport - Wellington run is a single engine, 9 seater puddle jumping Cessna :rolleyes: not much bigger than your average crop duster and quarter the size of an Orion :lol:

He mentioned smaller than a Orion, Actually a Cessna 208 Caravan as used by sounds air is half the wingsapan and one third the length of a P3 Orion

I explained earlier why I called it a chemtrail. It has become a fairly mainstream term in the media etc.
The plane was smaller than an Orion, and on it's southward bound travels it was more over land, not the coast.


You seem to have a real difficulty grasping what a turn of 180 degrees represents. If you do understand, then what you are claiming is that this plane saves fuel by heading one direction turning around 180 degrees and flying back from whence it came?

Have a look at the latitude of Karamea and then the orientation of both airports.
Westport airport is parallel to the Tasman Sea shore.
The planes dont take off and try and immediately try and climb over the rather steep steep Paphaua mountain range that is just a few kms from the town so they climb out at sea or parallel to the coast, Depending on th ewind direction, Wellingtons requires a approach from cook straight which although it seems counter intuitive requires an approach that is actually south of Karamea. Commercial planes try and climb as shallow as posible they also try and take the route that suits the prevailing winds and takes advantage of breaks in terrain.
there is a break in the range just south of Karamea bluffs which will be out of the view of anyone in Karamea that allows a direct flight path to wellington on the correct orientation for wellington airport.
I have presented a series of logical explanations for what you have said you have seen based on what you divulged at the time.
You on the other hand have been extremely defensive, yet you so easy could have contacted the CAA or Westport airport and said i are curious about some plane/s i have seen can you shed some light on whats going on. Yet you didn't do so.

[sugilite]

N
Have a look at the latitude of Karamea and then the orientation of both airports.
Westport airport is parallel to the Tasman Sea shore.
The planes dont take off and try and immediately try and climb over the rather steep steep Paphaua mountain range that is just a few kms from the town so they climb out at sea or parallel to the coast, Depending on th ewind direction, Wellingtons requires a approach from cook straight which although it seems counter intuitive requires an approach that is actually south of Karamea. Commercial planes try and climb as shallow as posible they also try and take the route that suits the prevailing winds and takes advantage of breaks in terrain.
there is a break in the range just south of Karamea bluffs which will be out of the view of anyone in Karamea that allows a direct flight path to wellington on the correct orientation for wellington airport.
I have presented a series of logical explanations for what you have said you have seen based on what you divulged at the time.
You on the other hand have been extremely defensive, yet you so easy could have contacted the CAA or Westport airport and said i are curious about some plane/s i have seen can you shed some light on whats going on. Yet you didn't do so.
ARRRGGG! 180 degrees, 180 degrees, 180 degrees! Not 90, not 45 - 180 degrees turn!
BTW, it did not lose any altitude as it flew towards and most likely past westport. I had a very good view from good altitude in case you were wondering. But enough is enough. I lived above Karamea, so I know where wellington and westport are in relation to it - so no just no to your suggestion. AND 180 degrees turn FFS.

[sugilite]

The planes dont take off and try and immediately try and climb over the rather steep steep Paphaua mountain range that is just a few kms from the town so they climb out at sea or parallel to the coast, Depending on th ewind direction, Wellingtons requires a approach from cook straight which although it seems counter intuitive requires an approach that is actually south of Karamea.
Please find graphical representation of your idea of what a 180 degree turn looks like.....

http://andys-kawasaki-zxr-zx7r-tribute-site.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/nz-map3.jpg

[T.W.R]

He mentioned smaller than a Orion, Actually a Cessna 208 Caravan as used by sounds air is half the wingsapan and one third the length of a P3 Orion.

Still a lot smaller plane if you really want to check the full specs of both aircraft ;)
Another thing you haven't considered is the flight altitude of such a small town domestic puddle jumper and the restrictions associated with the so-called transition zone around Wellington airport both of these aspects are a long way short of the height required to produce a contrail/chemtrail :rolleyes:

Here's a couple of pics for you to get your head around

1) Qantas Flight heading into ChCh taken roughly the time this thread started (just for shits & giggles)
2) A Photo I took a few years back of something? a fucking long way up far above the average 35,000ft (camera maxed out both optical & digital zoom)
3) Air New Zealand flight heading to Queenstown (taken a few hours ago, camera at 12x optical & 48x digital zoom)

[TheDemonLord]

What posts of mine did you get all that from please? The resentment of wealth element, the conjectures, my priori positions of several you disagree with and where I placed the assumption of guilt? (No out of context quotes either please)

Sure - I said:

"If I were to TL;DR your views - you've got a suspicion of those 'in power', you subscribe to the over-population theory, you believe that there may be plans/tests/tech that has or is being trialed for some form of population control,"

You agreed with that statement, yes?

From where does the Suspicion of those 'in power' come from? Note - there's a difference between healthy skepticism and suspicion. From your other comments:


I'm thinking a bit bigger than that. What I'm seeing is the World cannot possibly sustain the fast growing population at the current rate and wasteful resource hungry way of life. Do you seriously think the people at the top of the totem pole are not looking for some kind of total solution to this problem? And that solution can only mean a serious reduction of life on the planet

From that - I see a degree of resentment against those who you see at the top of the totem pole - you don't seem to treat them with any benefit of doubt or with a degree of civility. You state your position that according to your world view, the only alternative is a serious reduction of life - that's an a priori position I don't agree with and I don't agree with that particular theory it's in relation to (especially with what seems to happen in regards to Birth/Death rates, after womens rights, eduction etc.).

As far as assumption of Guilt - you're effectively suggesting that those people in power are researching genocide.

That's my take on your statements, just as your take on mine is that I'm twisting yours. It's possible we are talking passed each other - but in your opening remarks, you were pretty condemnatory against those you perceive as in power.


OK, fair enough, we have established I'm not a fan of your style of twisting what people say, or even stating positions they have simply never registered. So I have learned my lesson and as suggested will not take things to seriously, especially things you say. ;)

heh. That made me laff.

[TheDemonLord]

Would it be fair to say that you have completely discounted any possibility of there being any nefarious agenda in the pursuit of geo-engineering practices?

Even in the face of quotes such as "The nation which first learns to plot the paths of air masses accurately and learns to control the time and place of precipitation will dominate the globe" - as stated by General George C Kenney back in the 1940s when he was the Commander of US Strategic Air Command?

Of the type of agenda that is often theorized, Based on the evidence thus far - yes I completely discount it.

To entertain it - first you'd have to give a definitive reason for doing it AND provide some form of proof for that reason. You've given 2 speeches, one about reducing Global Warming, another about global conquest - So which reason would be THE reason?

Then you'd have to demonstrate evidence that it was actually being done (ie specially modded planes, flights that carry no passengers, supposed civillian flights taking off from military bases) - the trails themselves aren't evidence

You'd also need to provide some form of whistle blower (like Edward Snowden for example)

In terms of hypothetical ideas - sure, it's possible. In regards to that speech - The Military will often explore strange or abstract ideas, if they think they might have a tactical advantage. Your General is spitballing, he's not wrong - if in a conflict you could stop rain from a country for an extended period of time or you could generate rain in a specific region (to bog down an advancing force in mud, or cause flash floods) - then yes, absolutely - you would dominate the globe. In fact, this very idea has even made it's way into Pop-Culture via Red Alert 2 (an RTS game) - but there is a difference between discussing an idea or potential strategy, to implementing it.

[TheDemonLord]

Still a lot smaller plane if you really want to check the full specs of both aircraft ;)
Another thing you haven't considered is the flight altitude of such a small town domestic puddle jumper and the restrictions associated with the so-called transition zone around Wellington airport both of these aspects are a long way short of the height required to produce a contrail/chemtrail :rolleyes:

Here's a couple of pics for you to get your head around

1) Qantas Flight heading into ChCh taken roughly the time this thread started (just for shits & giggles)
2) A Photo I took a few years back of something? a fucking long way up far above the average 35,000ft (camera maxed out both optical & digital zoom)
3) Air New Zealand flight heading to Queenstown (taken a few hours ago, camera at 12x optical & 48x digital zoom)

1: A380? - not sure if it's wearing Emirates or Qantas livery?
2: NFI
3: 777?

[Katman]

In terms of hypothetical ideas - sure, it's possible. In regards to that speech - The Military will often explore strange or abstract ideas, if they think they might have a tactical advantage. Your General is spitballing, he's not wrong - if in a conflict you could stop rain from a country for an extended period of time or you could generate rain in a specific region (to bog down an advancing force in mud, or cause flash floods) - then yes, absolutely - you would dominate the globe. In fact, this very idea has even made it's way into Pop-Culture via Red Alert 2 (an RTS game) - but there is a difference between discussing an idea or potential strategy, to implementing it.

Well they were discussing it back in the 1940s.

Who knows how far they've advanced their ideas over the last 70 years.

[Katman]

yes I completely discount it.


In terms of hypothetical ideas - sure, it's possible.

You should try making up your mind.

Or do you just like to hedge your bets?

[T.W.R]

1: A380? - not sure if it's wearing Emirates or Qantas livery?
2: NFI
3: 777?

Yeah the 1st one is an A380 but most likely Qantas as the Emirates planes come in a lot lower :yes:, the 3rd pic it'd be a 787
The 2nd pic is a fuckin mystery and as said what ever it was was a bloody long way up.....a lot further up than any normal flights and here I get to see pretty much everything heading north & south and heading into ChCh when there's a northerly blowing.
Get to see a lot of interesting things down here as it's big sky country ;) even had a bunch of Helicopters fly over a couple weeks back nigh on midnight :blink:

[husaberg]

Still a lot smaller plane if you really want to check the full specs of both aircraft ;)
Another thing you haven't considered is the flight altitude of such a small town domestic puddle jumper and the restrictions associated with the so-called transition zone around Wellington airport both of these aspects are a long way short of the height required to produce a contrail/chemtrail :rolleyes:

Here's a couple of pics for you to get your head around

1) Qantas Flight heading into ChCh taken roughly the time this thread started (just for shits & giggles)
2) A Photo I took a few years back of something? a fucking long way up far above the average 35,000ft (camera maxed out both optical & digital zoom)
3) Air New Zealand flight heading to Queenstown (taken a few hours ago, camera at 12x optical & 48x digital zoom)

I have checked the specs, that where i got them from.

Orion
99 ft wingspan and 116 ft long

Cesna 208 caravan
37ft long and 52ft wingspan

1/2 wingspan and 1/3 as long
Remember Sugarlite described it as being much smaller than a P3.

None of any of the talk was about Wellingtons contrails or conditions
Only a mystery planes trajectory which he found suspicious leaving what Sugarlight described as suspicious contrails.

I have a photo on my other computer somewhere of a Vertical contrail, i will see if i can dig it out.
The plane was not in vertical flight it just left the turned vertical contrail on account of the atmospheric conditions

[husaberg]

Please find graphical representation of your idea of what a 180 degree turn looks like.....


That is your idea of what i described.
When i can be arsed i will draw what i actually described.
336800
Before you ask, its called a spirial climb very common and very efficient

[sugilite]

That is your idea of what i described.
When i can be arsed i will draw what i actually described.
Bet it will not be a 180 degree turn I have been describing all along.

[sugilite]

I have checked the specs, that where i got them from.


1/2 wingspan and 1/3 as long
Remember Sugarlite described it as being much smaller than a P3.

Nope, I just said smaller - Not "much" smaller.

The plane was smaller than an Orion, and on it's southward bound travels it was more over land, not the coast.
It sounded like a jet, not a prop. My best "stab" is about 2/3 to 3/4 size of a P3

[husaberg]

Nope, I just said smaller - Not "much" smaller.

It sounded like a jet, not a prop. My best "stab" is about 2/3 to 3/4 size of a P3
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/03/24/mh370_3587308b_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpJliwavx4coWFCaEk Esb3kvxIt-lGGWCWqwLa_RXJU8.jpg?imwidth=450 (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj6r6qnkozbAhXCp5QKHRoqA74QjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F201 8%2F01%2F07%2Fus-company-resumes-search-missing-flight-mh370%2F&psig=AOvVaw1uKXalrcJZFQDTD2RaUggp&ust=1526625752321139)
Did it look like this?

[T.W.R]

None of any of the talk was about Wellingtons contrails or conditions
Only a mystery planes trajectory which he found suspicious leaving what Sugarlight described as suspicious contrails.

I have a photo on my other computer somewhere of a Vertical contrail, i will see if i can dig it out.
The plane was not in vertical flight it just left the turned vertical contrail on account of the atmospheric conditions


:facepalm: you brought up the mention of Wellington and Sounds Air flights :msn-wink: what you've obviously overlooked is the alititude of which these flights are conducted at. That in itself isn't conducive to produce a contrail.

Vertical draft is the term you're looking for <_< hot air causes updraft cold air causes downdraft

Old boy Cooper must have really got the district rocking :niceone: