Dubstepforum.com

DRTY wrote:Isn't there a MUCH more fucking efficient way of killing everyone than flying 747s about spaffing out tiny amounts of metal into the atmosphere?

Like mass injecting mercury into babies, fluoridating the water supply, getting people to rub aluminum into their lymph nodes, and living in houses soaked in formaldehyde?

Just going to leave this here...

nowaysj wrote:

DRTY wrote:Isn't there a MUCH more fucking efficient way of killing everyone than flying 747s about spaffing out tiny amounts of metal into the atmosphere?

Like mass injecting mercury into babies, fluoridating the water supply, getting people to rub aluminum into their lymph nodes, and living in houses soaked in formaldehyde?

Crosby wrote:
Just going to leave this here...

that was on point.

clifford_- wrote:

Crosby wrote:
Just going to leave this here...

that was on point.

almost brought tears to my eyes... so true. thanks for this mr. crosby

it wasnt me, thank crosby.
although it does apply to the links you posted, just as much as the "conspiracy theorys"

if i see more evidence for a conspiracy theory, than against it, im going to be inclined to believe it based on what i have seen. of course, going back to cited sources is a given.

clifford_- wrote: although it does apply to the links you posted, just as much as the "conspiracy theorys"

i disagree, since you may notice that most of my sources (such as this one, which includes research from the legendary Owen Toon) were peer-reviewed, scientific papers. so i took all the work out of "whats your source" for you

knell wrote:

clifford_- wrote: although it does apply to the links you posted, just as much as the "conspiracy theorys"

notice that most of my sources (such as this one, which includes research from the legendary Owen Toon) were peer-reviewed, scientific papers. so i took all the work out of "whats your source" for you

but i dont want to just take your word for that now, do i?
i should be finding THEIR sources also, and looking at the experiments that led up to their conclusions...



if i just believed you, i would be as bad as everyone else!

clifford_- wrote: but i dont want to just take your word for that now, do i?
i should be finding THEIR sources also, and looking at the experiments that led up to their conclusions...

you missed the point entirely. they are the source. all of their data, their numbers, their findings, their measurements, etc. are included in that link. their source is that source. it's all there for you to read, and it's not like you have to be a scientist to understand it. there's no more clicking you have to do. that was the whole point of the video crosby posted. it's peer reviewed and standardized. science wins.

Crosby wrote:
Just going to leave this here...

He keeps emphasizing WORDS usually at the end of each SENTENCE or maybe HALF way THROUGH

yea i get that, im saying i wouldnt trust YOU!
i should be looking at the experiments they have done with the same critical eye as their peers.

clifford_- wrote:yea i get that, im saying i wouldnt trust YOU!
i should be looking at the experiments they have done with the same critical eye as their peers.

and i applaud you for that! if everyone accepted everything i said, i would go crazy. i'm just here to try and point you in the right direction to find out the truth. i'm no scientist, but if i cite something, it's for good reason.

i took the video's approach with the theorists (which is why i enjoyed it so much), i tracked down their sources until i'd end up in some paper on a NAS meeting written in 1992 that vaguely references an idea to maybe use Al/Ba aerosols as a possible effort for mitigating global warming, and it's heralded as a "smoking gun"

so i also gave them the benefit of citing my sources directly, so if they had any problem with it, they dont need to search anymore

knell

Ruinously statue-like splendor

so once science gets involved, hackman goes into cryptic mode. duly noted.

you'll need a few peer reviewed papers and some failed experiments to get your head around that ^^

science is flawed
alchemy ftw

you should really read this knell, you might actually learn something important

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cosmic-Trigger- ... 1561840033

already read it when parson recommended it, thanks tho

genuinely interested to know your thoughts? cos based on your posts in this thread, you really didn't get it

raboonthebaboon wrote:you'll need a few peer reviewed papers and some failed experiments to get your head around that ^^

science is flawed
alchemy ftw

Alchemy is actually pretty cool. Although its pretty much also apparently more like Religion and Science mixed all into one. My roommate is giving me some papers to read about it (all peer reviewed n shit too. Take that, video at the top of the page!)

kidshuffle wrote:Alchemy is actually pretty cool.

kidshuffle wrote:Although its pretty much also apparently more like Religion and Science mixed all into one.

strongly disagree, religion doesn't come into it at all

religion does borrow a lot from alchemy though, take a look at all the alchemical imagery etc in the vatican for example