links in body.
I saw a post yesterday about chemtrails and everybody poopooed the thought of secret civilian chemical testing by the US government.
Unfortunately, the Church committee, the 1975 senate committee that outed the US intelligence agencies and US military for their human rights abuses against US civilians and military personnel, received direct testimony from those agencies conducting the experiments that various branches of the US government, without notification or consent, absolutely and admittedly conducted live civilian experiments with harmful chemical and biological agents and weapons via sea, land and air, beginning at the very latest in the early 1940s and continuing for at least 30 testing years, supposedly ending in the late 1970s after the experiments were exposed by the 1975 Senate committee chaired by Frank Church.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
while chemical and biological agents were dropped by air hundreds of times(chemtrails) onto unaware US civilian populations, chemical and biological weapons and toxins were also sprayed over dozens of US cities without notification or consent via Operation sea spray and related operations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray
these abuses are settled US history.
No, this is why you keep changing your tune. A few posts ago you were talking about “biological attacks!”. Now it’s “biological experiments!” after I pointed out that you were wrong. What ever happened to radiological? You haven’t mentioned that one in awhile after including it in your earlier message, have you? Weak, op. Very weak.
you trying to twist the words of the 1976 Senate committee hearing isn’t going to work, it’s a 50-year-old completely verified set of proof provided by the US government and the scientists who conducted these experiments.
chemtrails were real and the US government tested biological weapons on people, as noted in the post and the verified sources.
your confusion over the evidence is completely immaterial.
My issue is your words not matching the committee’s words. Your words are the problem, and your words are what you need to defend. This careful pivot to “but the committee!!!” isn’t fooling anyone op. Defend your words. Where did the committee discuss radiological? Did I miss it somewhere perhaps?
my words are accurate and sourced.
your confusion, feigned or otherwise, is your own problem.
you missed many things. or are pretending to anyway, in an effort to find a leg to stand on.
you aren’t going to be able to fabricate any valid rejection against the abundance of verified historical evidence, but imagine away.
I don’t have to imagine jack shit. When I challenge you to say where you got even one single line about “radiological” and you just say “it is accurate and sourced” instead of saying where exactly we can find it, you do my work for me.
It’s not hard to go “Senate subcommittee report, page xyz, go look.” Would be a lot better than “trust me bro, accurate and sourced, it’s somewhere in there I promise.”
These niche tech communities like Lemmy are not exactly full of stupid people, we know how arguments and citations work. You’ve still got a chance here to prove me wrong, you know. Just need to put the work in, assuming you’re not some random, lazy troll. Just gotta copy/paste one single piece that confirms radiological something and say where you got it, that simple.
“I don’t have to imagine…”
you don’t have to, and yet you insist that your fabrications make a lick of difference in face of the abundant documented evidence of chemtrails and weapons testing.
your imagination has no bearing on the evidence.
i see now, you’ve conflated outside unethical radiological tests with the Church committee evidence here about biological and chemical testing. no worries.
as far as I remember, the Church committee doesn’t call Vanderbilt to the hearing.
No, I’m referring to when you said
in the original main body of your post. By the way, we can all see the edit marker from you editing it 22 minutes ago. My first reply to you remains unedited, though, it’s exactly how I originally wrote it, where I directly quoted you three times.
Trying to pull a ghost edit on us betrays you as malicious, though. You’re not just wrong, you’re actively trying to do harm. Otherwise you could just admit you made a mistake like a normal person can.
Regardless, now that your credibility is shattered by your own actions, my work here is done. Toodles~! It’s been fun, I do miss rhetorically fencing with trolls sometimes.
no worries. I understand why you’re pretending to be confused.
I have removed the word “radiological” for you.
you made zero progress on disproving chemtrails, the biological weapon experiments and the 1976 Senate hearing, but that is all objective historical fact verified by the US government.
you never had a chance.
Hey now, I wasn’t trying to disprove chemtrails, or anything else you listed, that’s not how proof works. Nothing can be proven to be impossible or not exist, that’s illogical. I was pointing out you mixing together facts with lies to manipulate.
Now you say you removed radiological, but it’s too late. I had to call you out, first, and the timestamps show it. Because you tried being sneaky first. Just like a sneaky liar. I would far rather be honestly confused than a dishonest manipulator.