Whats this over Norway?

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Adze

Native
Oct 9, 2009
1,874
0
Cumbria
www.adamhughes.net
Had my name wrote on it mate. You said this

Only as example, as it was you who discovered the deletion from Wikipedia and announced it to us, was it not?

Having now read the link you provided to the text of the bill, the bill ackowledges nothing other than a name which some conspiracy websites claim are mind altering chemicals, while other conspiracy websites claim other chemicals and uses.

AT NO POINT does the text of the bill which you have linked to detail the precise technology to which it refers in the use of the word chemtrail.

Ergo it proves or confirms nothing.

Getting back on tack... the lights over Norway? It was a missile.
 

sapper1

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Feb 3, 2008
2,572
1
swansea
Tell me Adam,What colour was this missile ?You sound so positive you must have seen it,or are you just believeing what someone else told you therby spouting hearsay.
 

gregorach

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Sep 15, 2005
3,723
28
50
Edinburgh
Yeah, yeah, the usual ploy - spin out ridiculous volumes of nonsense until your debating opponent gives up in despair, then claim victory. It's called the "Gish Gallop". Besides, what's the point of trying to argue with someone who will cite a source, then completely ignore the fact that said source specifically refutes their argument? Or with someone who will only recognise sources that agree with them, while asserting that all the sources which disagree with them are part of the conspiracy? Or even someone who will recognise only those parts of a source which they (erroneously) think supports their argument, whilst dismissing those parts of the same source which disagree? I might as well try and have a fist fight with the fog outside...

Enjoy your victory while you can boys. Reality always bats last.
 

HillBill

Bushcrafter through and through
Oct 1, 2008
8,141
88
W. Yorkshire
Sumer version
Nibiru came very close to Tiamat, a planet several times larger than earth, and one of its many moon struck Tiamat, cleaving the planet in two. The Sumerians explained on their clay tablets, Tiamat’s rubble formed the asteroid belt and many comets. Its other half, now called Earth, was catapulted into its new (present) position. The moon was captured from Niburu. Many other consequences of the collision, including the origin of the iron core and the collision’s effect on the orbits of other planets are explained.

Science version
"Our thinking of the early solar system as a plodding and predictable place [has given] way to the notion of planet-size objects careening into one another in wild, stochastic ways," writes Robin Canup, a fledgling planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado.

With this shift in thinking, even the old guard has rediscovered its enthusiasm. "It's fair to say the giant-impact theory has more truth in it than any other theory," says Melosh.

http://m.discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/featmoon


and

"Everything in the giant impact model is hot, hot, hot," he said. "It's incompatible with what we see in the geologic record. Earth is cool enough at that time to have ocean water on its surface."

Malcuit's computer modeling studies, which he has worked on since the 1980s, show that it is possible for Earth's gravitational pull to capture the moon.

At first, the moon's orbits would have been highly elliptical, swinging close to Earth and then far away about eight times a year.

The gravitational pull from each pass would have stretched the planet 18 to 20 kilometers (11.2 to 12.4 miles) near the equator, churning the hot mantle and crust. Rocks closer to the poles, like those found today in Australia, would have been spared. The upper layers of the newly-captured moon would have melted from gravitational friction, until the satellite's orbit stabilized about 3 billion years ago.
 
Last edited:

HillBill

Bushcrafter through and through
Oct 1, 2008
8,141
88
W. Yorkshire
I could respond in kind regarding the putative holographic projector you were obviously in the vicinity of. Were you even in Norway?

No mate. dont have to be, throw particles in to the atmosphere let the wind carry them to wherever they need to be. They will be spread enough and stay high enough if you work it out. The wind BTW was between East and north north east on those days here too. Check if you do not believe me.
 

HillBill

Bushcrafter through and through
Oct 1, 2008
8,141
88
W. Yorkshire
Only as example, as it was you who discovered the deletion from Wikipedia and announced it to us, was it not?

Having now read the link you provided to the text of the bill, the bill ackowledges nothing other than a name which some conspiracy websites claim are mind altering chemicals, while other conspiracy websites claim other chemicals and uses.

AT NO POINT does the text of the bill which you have linked to detail the precise technology to which it refers in the use of the word chemtrail.

Ergo it proves or confirms nothing.

Getting back on tack... the lights over Norway? It was a missile.

Research chemtrails. Simples
 

HillBill

Bushcrafter through and through
Oct 1, 2008
8,141
88
W. Yorkshire
Besides, what's the point of trying to argue with someone who will cite a source, then completely ignore the fact that said source specifically refutes their argument? Or with someone who will only recognise sources that agree with them, .

Same applies to you mate, weather you like it or not.
 

sapper1

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Feb 3, 2008
2,572
1
swansea
Why is it always the same crew who lose the plot and resort to tantrums when they see they are on a loser?
 

HillBill

Bushcrafter through and through
Oct 1, 2008
8,141
88
W. Yorkshire
Yes. It's a radically unconventional interpretation of Sumerian mythology though...

Is it? No it aint. trust me. they have no mythology You see the sumarian texts are VERY different from anything following as they are the originals of everything since.

You see the sumarians have 2 storys. One is the story of the gods which is the solar system and always was, The word Gods has never existed outside the english language did you know that? They were the celestial bodies to the sumarians GODS is an abbrieviation of the planets true natures, as i understand it, it means
Gravitational Orbit Derivative Systems G O D S
The sumer story of the celestial bodies tells of what happened in space.

The story of the KINGS is about the pre historic kings, Gilgamesh etc

Every civ since then has intertwined the two to make the gods out to be people.

What were the Roman gods called? Mars neptune, saturn etc..... yet they have human charachteristics.
 

sapper1

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Feb 3, 2008
2,572
1
swansea
I don't do tantrums mate ,I read and make my own mind up.If someone says something I don't agree with then I don't search the web to prove them wrong and make them out to be talking rubbish without backing my posts up with something more substantial than you have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE