Chemtrail Debunkery©
Hucksters, Plants, Spin, and Disinfo

 [ Top Navbar Text ]
 [ A la Carte ] i  [ Health ] i  [ Chemtrails ] i  [ Refresh! ] i  [ How to Navigate ] i  [ Locate on Site Map ] i  [ Newest Stuff on Page ] i  [ Have your own Break Frames button ]  [ Get Free of Frames! ] i
[Home] [Health] [Chem] [Debunk] [?] [Map] [New] [Lose 'Em
An examination of claims that chemtrail researchers are unscientific hucksters, and documenting the unsavory spin, discouragement, disinformation and harassment tactics of their detractors (pings, disappearances, home invasions, smear campaigns)

See first the Chemtrails, à la Carte pages on:
Sedona's Big Picture,    Illness,    Patterns,    Photos,    Substance,    Orbs  Purpose

Comments & Essays on Chemtrail Debunkery on This Page:
Great Circle
Gaining a Toehold Upon Evidence
Me, Myself and Evidence
Planting Images
Fiber Apologists?
Do Me Drawers
Rentokil, Initial
Take Back the Science
Noise Makers   &   Odd Noises
The Steven T. Jones Article
See also the A la Carte site:   Boycott Majestic!
Powered by the Google Search Enginei.lacarte WWW

.Debunking's a BAD Thing?. Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=969904#post969904

I think of the meaning shift as something similar to what homosexual men did when they co-opted the 'queer' epithet. In this case, though, it involves a self-congratulatory term that another group uses when it defines itself as insulters. -- '04-Jun-11thGo to top of this page

Great Circle Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://p211.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=7824.topic

The article, Basic geography doesn't deter conspiracy theorists: It's the great circle route, not government mind control by Paul Miller, is accompanied by two graphic images. The first image is captioned as follows: More than six miles above downtown Carmel a Korean Airlines 747 on its way to LAX left behind four brilliant contrails on a late May afternoon. Should we all be alarmed? The photo shows about three inches of normal looking contrails taken with a zoom lense, magnified to the extent that the plane itself measures almost 1.5 inches, with the four engines clearly visible. The plane has an eerie ghost-like appearance.

The second image, called "Los Angeles to Asia air routes", is a computer generated line drawing of Monterey county, with points labeled for Santa Cruz and Carmel. It depicts twelve approximately equi-distant parallel lines. The key explains that these lines represent the following:

1. Beijing, 8 flights per week
2. Harbin, China, 6 flights per week
3. Seoul, 52 flights per week
4. Shanghai, 20 flights per week
5. Canton, 10 flights per week
6. HongKong, 84 flights per week
7. Taipei, 80 flights per week
8. Osaka, 22 flights per week
9. Tokyo, 114 flights per week
10. Kuala Lumpur, 10 flights per week
11. Singapore, 28 flights per week
12. Manila, 48 flights per week

The caption for this image is as follows:
Great circle routes between Los Angeles and 12 cities in Asia cross Monterey County. Because the planes fly so high - more than six miles up - their contrails can be seen over large areas. With more than 400 flights every week, the vapor trails set conspiracy theorists atwitter --- '04-Jun-6thGo to top of this page

Gaining a Toehold Upon the Evidence Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=157749#post157749

I do think of altitude as a most significant element in convincing folks that we may have a problem, since contrails apparently cannot be generated at the altitudes at which some of these trails seem (backup copy) to have been observed. A way to estimate altitude from the ground would be quite a valuable tool. I've tried to come up with a way to do this, but reading my thoughts about that half a year later I find that I'm not yet able to understand what I said. In particular, I can't figure how the night scope comes in. So, good luck to anybody else trying to understand me.

Ideally, every piece of positive evidence would help to box doubters in until eventually, there could be no respectable denial. Unfortunately, there are very powerful psychological motivations to want to disbelieve that any operations such as the ones that we have hypothesized could actually be happening. Thus, the evidence will have to be logically air tight before most will be willing to even examine it. 

Meanwhile, we'll have to deal with doubters who, as they should, and as we should, will actually be trying to find every possible way explain away our baby steps toward the truth. As annoying as they are (and believe me, I know they can be), they may eventually perform a valuable service as the only people who will even read what we have to say. Some of them are definitely evil, but most are honest truth seekers, just as you and I are.

However, they're jumping in too early. We're not yet at the point of presenting any findings to criticize, for the most part. We're still in the wild idea brainstorming stage.  They mistake our uncritical provisional acceptance of brainstorm ideas as our having a fundamentally unscientific bent. Thus, they make themselves as unwelcome as the nay-sayer at a corporate idea farm.

I've tried to make an honest effort at examining my own relationship with the evidence (backup copy) for chemtrails (whatever this phenomenon may turn out to be). I have to admit that it feels to me as though we are fire fighters that haven't yet discovered any tools, such as water, for dealing with our problem. So, work in this field can be emotionally exhausting and discouraging, even without the cracks from the peanut gallery.

I reject the suggestion that I (at least) have been susceptible to chemtrail belief because of a deep seated need to fit in, here. As far as I am aware I was one of the first (backup copy) people to post about chemtrails on a former incarnation of this forum. I had not encountered earlier threads on the topic, and still have not seen them. It was my first post after introducing myself. I posted despite the fact that it was kooky, and the last thing I wanted was to appear kooky, since I was hypersensitive to the stigma of Y2K-kookhood. If anything, I was less inclined to discuss chemtrails among Y2K folks, because of not wanting to draw unfavorable attention to the type of people that discuss the potential of Y2K problems.

I had no particular reason to think that people here would be any more or less receptive to discussing the topic. There was, in fact, considerable immediate (backup copy) resistance to even allowing the issue to be discussed at all, since many believed that it was off topic. I found myself in the position of arguing as the newest poster with long time posters about what was or should be on topic. Even five months later I was one of only few to argue the relevance (backup copy) of the topic. I found myself having to continue to defend (backup copy) the issue as being appropriate, even after the rollover! If I was falling for the issue of chemtrails to fit in here, it certainly didnt feel that way.

I disagree that people who are convinced of something must be able to (or even willing to try to) dream up how someone could prove to them that it is not true, or be branded "unscientific people," or "true believers." (backup copy)  It might, instead, be a sign that they merely don't see such an effort as likely to yield valuable results, at their current juncture. Just as I would eventually try to raise doubts about any evidence that favors chemtrail hypotheses, so would I also try to raise doubts about any that disfavored them. To settle matters one way or another would require an airtight logic. If I knew what that argument were I would state it. Not knowing does not evidence dementia. 

Consider this parallel. I'm convinced that there is another prime number beyond whichever is the most recently discovered one. I cannot now prove that there is one. It's going to take a heck of a lot of work to prove it, and I'm willing to contribute to that effort in some small way, by donating the use of my CPU. It's not necessary for me to specify what evidence could convince me that we have already identified the entire universe of prime numbers. Refusal to even try to do that should not brand me as a religious "next prime number" nutcase. My unwillingness to try to convince you that there is such a number is not good proof of the weakness of my position.

I accept the existence of the next prime number provisionally. My opinion is not faith based, in that I'm not dedicated to remaining convinced, despite any and all evidence that might be presented to the contrary. I may not even know a sound argument against the existence of a next prime number if it bit me in the ass. I may be unwilling to try to read a proof by some other forum member because it has too many Greek symbols in it. That would not make me a math moron or a "more prime numbers" zealot. It would also not make my opinion unfalsifiable. 

It is also not necessarily true that it is always impossible to "prove a negative," despite the fact that this is a popular saying. I could, for example, prove that there are no mountain lions in my computer room adequately enough to convince almost all of you.

I am convinced that I have seen low flying planes on a hot, dry California fall day emitting numerous billowing parallel lines, in teams as well as in multiple passes by the same plane. The material was long lasting and slowly expanding, and I am convinced that these planes were neither emitting mere contrails, nor crop dusting. I would love for anybody to prove that right OR wrong, but aside from the pictures I took and my verbal account I can not yet tell how either could be done. --- '02-Feb-2ndGo to top of this post

Me, Myself and Evidence Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at:Have you been here before? Refresh Your Cache! ...especially if you're not seeing expected updates http://pub57.ezboard.com/ftbz3lfrm1.showMessage?topicID=1121.topic
bigwavedave asks: ...has evidence surfaced about which i'm unaware?

This is a little tricky to respond to, not knowing of what you are, and are not, already aware, but I'll give it a shot. Please, forgive me if I mention something you've already considered. I don't have time to trace back through chemtrail threads to see on which of them you may have participated. So, I'm also talking to brand spanking newcomers to the issue.

I certainly don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. In fact, let me just say right off the bat that all of the smartest people I know (except for Clifford Carnicom) are either unaware of chemtrails, or have dismissed the idea out of hand. That's not to say that I know Mr. Carnicom personally, because I don't. I only feel as though I do from reading his work, following his reasoning, and listening to him talk on various radio shows.

I also don't mean to suggest that other chemtrail watchers, such as myself, are " not the smartest people" (i.e. dumb), but that I feel I have only a vague acquaintance with their online handles, with not enough familiarity with any one person's opinions or reasoning ability. It's hard for me to remember which theories and opinions relate to which participants. Without naming names, some of them, to me, are shall we say, consistently over the top.

I do not follow all (or even most) of the chemtrail related issues that have been raised to date. I also fall asleep at the keyboard reading some (most?) of the meteorological, chemistry & physics background. There is an element of information overload, for me, anyway. So, I don't examine every last piece of available evidence. I suppose that admission might prompt some to say about me something along the lines of what Mark Twain said of religious people in general: "Ah, yes, well, they believe what they believe, but they don't really believe all that." (paraphrase)

How arrogant does one have to be to set theirself up as wiser than all of the intelligent people that are alive today? Well, all I can say to that is... "It's a gift!" I admit that I do rely more than most upon my intuition, but that is not to say that I'm a slouch in the research department. I also have a knack for knowing when folks are lying and it has served me well.

I do not drop everything to focus upon Chemtrails. Why? I don't know. Clearly I should if things are anywhere near as bad as they look. Perhaps it's a paralysis of analysis. Maybe I'm just plain lazy. It could be that I'm waiting for my inspiration. Meanwhile, I think I'm contributing in the best way I know how by sharing my thoughts and putting my "Dancr" reputation on the line, which may not sound like much to you, but it is much to me. I'm not yet prepared to make up bumper stickers to hand out, considering that I would not yet put one on my own car.

Perhaps I have a supreme case of egotism to think that I'm able to express my opinions in such a way as to influence others to give the issue some attention. I'll admit, I've rarely received any positive feedback for my writing on this or any other topic at any time in my life... not even the kind of backhanded compliments that Flint gets. 

I can only hope that by letting it all hang out, that I can convince some few people out there that one doesn't have to be a complete lunatic to consider the possibility that there might be something unusual going on above our heads. This is not to say that others who are speaking on this issue are lunatics. I really have no way of knowing that, since they rarely reveal more than this one narrow slice of their lives.

It's hard for me to hear words like "gullible" that get thrown around the chemtrail neighborhood, since that is so far from my self image that I simply cannot relate. For as long as I've thought about such things, I've been a full-blown hard-core skeptic on nearly every topic that has come within ear shot: religion, medicine, insurance, law enforcement, education, patriarchy, parenting, politics, you name it. The thought of accepting some idea just because it's "there" I find completely revolting.

Now, some wisenheimer may pipe up at this point and suggest that if I'm trying to seem normal I'm not doing a very good job of it. There's probably not a person in the world that agrees with me even vaguely on all of the areas that I just mentioned. My impression, actually, is that most people probably disagree with me on all counts. In fact, I'm lucky with most people if I can detect even one area of agreement in any of these issues that are important to me.

Unfortunately, the way most people operate is that once they know one thing about someone that they think is kooky, anything else they may say is automatically suspect. I guess this would be why most people hold their cards pretty close to their chests, and why we can live with someone for years without knowing how they think in any of these areas.

I am determined, if I accomplish nothing else of value in my life, to be "genuine." In other words, I seek to represent only myself, and not to serve as an agent for others. I hope for not much more than for people who knew me to say "If she said a thing is so, then that is what she truly thought."  As a psych major who has done quite a bit of introspection I don't perceive myself to be disregarding evidence in the service of some deep seated unmet emotional need, unless it would be my need for a good challenge.

But... you don't have to depend on what I say, when it comes to chemtrails. There's some objective evidence. Here are the points that I find most convincing at this time. Sorry, I do not have links for them all.

bullet The planes that make long lasting trails that billow, drip and eventually expand into cirrus are not commercial flights. (Thermit)

bullet USA Today reporter Traci Watson reports that she did not write the extremely uncomplimentary article which appeared in that newspaper under her byline.

bullet There are patents relating to some of the hypothesized objectives, most notably the 
Maxygen Patent

bullet There are executive orders in place that allow this kind of activity to take place in the name of research.

bullet Examination of our skin with an appropriate black light uncovers disturbing blotches and marks which definitely were not a part of the 1960's black light poster era experience. --- '01-Jul-18thGo to top of this post

Odd Noises Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared  on a thread that has expired

Yes. This is hard to admit. I hear the noises that make it seem as though somebody is in the house. One time I had my phone in hand and having already dialed 9-1- I was poised with my finger over the "1" button waiting to see if I would hear more. We occasionally get raccoons and wild turkeys on our roof at all times of day and night, making an amazingly loud noise, but that never scares me at all. This is qualitatively different. I have also heard low voices in recent weeks.

Lately (during the last year or so) my son and I have heard thumping that could be like that described in the initiating post of this thread. We've described it, several months ago, to our handiman, who thinks it sounds like a water heater going bad. However, we have a new water heater as of just a couple of years ago.

I've wondered if the thumping might be the wind blowing against another outside closet door, right next to the one that holds our furnace and water heater. But the times when we've heard the noise (always well into the middle of the night) haven't been especially windy.  (Oh, lovely, it thumped four times just as I was about to click send. Hah! No kidding!)

I'm reminded of a similar sound I occasionally heard as a frosh in college, living on the fourth floor of an enormous five-story building. I thought that the kids in the room above mine, or one of their neighbors were playing with marbles up there or something. It sounded like nothing so much as that someone was standing on a chair and dropping a big marble that would bounce three or four times and then roll. And then they'd drop another, and another, for hours. Except they apparently weren't doing that. We decided that it was the sound of the building settling. Then again there could have been some girls upstairs laughing their asses off (as quietly as possible).

In my current house I'm noticing signs of this building settling which are ten or so cracks in various places that have appeared in recent days, and months. It kind of makes me want to move. [Edited '02-Sep-10th to update:] The day after writing this we discovered a leak in the water line leading to an ice maker in our wetbar. We shut it off and haven't heard anything odd since then. All tolled we figure it did about $30,000 of damage to our hardwood floors and underlying structure. Slow leaks are not covered under standard household insurance, naturally. --- '01-May 30thGo to top of this page

Conspiracy Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://pub65.ezboard.com/ftimebomb200017873frm1.showMessage?topicID=1175.topic#dancr

It is not necessary for a huge army of civilians to be "in" on the grand scheme of things, but only for each person to mindlessly do their small part and to wish to not draw disfavorable attention upon their self. Don't we all know plenty of people like that? --- '01-May-22ndGo to top of this post

Planting Images Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This essay appeared at: http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=3654.topic

joemichigan says:   The techniques to inject CTs slowly into the minds of the public through ads, movies, and who knows how else have worked very well. Most people I have tried to wake up still are in denial. To those (anyone else smell the CIA) who were involved with the movie ANTZ for example, you really did a fine job. Direct yet subtle. Considering this movie is a cartoon, the inclusion of chemtrails is so obviously intentional.

One day last weekend I visited Cannery Row, and came across a new Ansel Adams shop. Apparently, somebody has decided that in addition to their storefronts at Yosemite, San Francisco, and the nearby Lodge at Pebble Beach, they needed another outlet on the Monterey Peninsula. This store opened less than six months ago.

Prominently displayed (centered in the high security area) is a $6,000 black & white "original" entitled Rails and Jet Trails, which features a sky with several curved and criss-crossing trails which are echo'd in some railroad tracks which appear to be on the outskirts of a rail yard.

Considering that this store deals exclusively in photography, I wondered aloud what claim this particular photograph had to be called an "original" as compared to all of the other photographs on display in the shop. The shop clerk provided the enlightening answer that it was because this was an original photograph. Call me clueless.

Of course, we don't know how long those particular trails persisted, but it was at least long enough for the planes to finish the job and disappear over the horizon. We cannot ask the Mr. Adams about that, since he died in 1984. I do note, though that in all of his thousands of photographs of western landscapes which I have seen, I have never taken note of any that include expanding trails such as the ones I have shot myself.

As far as the shopkeeper is aware, the Rails and Jet Trails image has not appeared in any of the collections which have been published to date. I asked because I don't recall having seen it anywhere before, after having thumbed through most (all?) of the collections at the other three shops mentioned above.

My brief internet search on various combinations of "Ansel Adams" and "Rails and Jet Trails" comes up empty for this image. The paranoid in me has to wonder if he even took this picture. I suppose there would be a way for someone who knows more about Ansel Adams and photography than I do to investigate that question. --- '00-Nov-6thGo to top of this page

Fiber Apologists? Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://pub8.ezboard.com/fchemtrailschemtrails.showMessage?topicID=1361.topic#dancr

Sentinal, an oral medication for pets designed to combat heartworm and fleas warns that the spray-on pesticide solution (the competition) leaves pesticide residue all over the home. Video shows a cute little dog, like Frasier's Eddie hopping up and leaving various places around the home, such as the end of a couch and an uncovered pillow on a human's bed. He leaves behind a fluorescent green "spot" which represents invisible pesticide. --- '00-Jun-12thGo to top of this page

Do Me Drawers Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This essay appears at: http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdonchemtrails.showMessage?topicID=8.topic#dancr3

Costavike tells of: 99.99% of the rest of society who do not believe there is a sinister plot behind contrails. Wow! I mean... that you can be so precise! Is it just me or did you seem to ignore the fact that I had just finished saying that most of those who are "aware" of chemtrails dont seem to think theyre part of some evil plot?

Costavike asks:  Did you say virtually the exact same thing about Y2k and those who didn't "GI"? [i.e. that it is deniers who are acting upon faith]

Youve just made the logical error of attempting to claim that a statement is discredited merely for having been made by someone who is thought to have once made an error. Besides being illogical, this is a dishonorable tactic on your part. Your suggestion that I said this would be highly believable by anyone who knows me, since it is the type of thing that I might have said. You dont come right out and say "You said ___," which would call for you to document it, but instead "Did you say ___?" which would probably force me to have to admit "I might have." That, of course, would probably be interpreted as "She said it but just wont admit it." Im going to turn the tables, though.

No. I didnt say it. I didnt even come close. The only hint of this thought is when something like that is implied in this joke that I made up and posted on another forum. I can say with confidence that I did not say what youre asking about because I searched through all of my Y2K related writings for the strings "determined," "despite," "evidence," "produce," "contrary," "GI," and "get it."

None of the hits turned up anything along these lines. For the record, I actually made no generalizations about people who didnt "get it," or DGIs, except that all of the DGIs Id talked to believed that the media had covered the Y2K story ad nauseum. If I were going to have made such a statement it would have been here: Y2K Fear as a Religion? (backup copy).

For good measure, I also had my human being read through everything from beginning to end with this question in mind (i.e. I looked, without aid of my search function, for similar meaning, not necessarily expressed in the same words). Still, no joy. If you should care to prove me wrong, my complete Y2K related writings somewhat randomly filed under one of six categories. These are: Stakes, Odds, Spin, Courage, Preps, or Next World. Perhaps you can find something in there thats wrong that I actually said. Thus, your error could be cut back to only the logical fallacy of claiming that if a idea is supported by anybody who ever made an error, then it is discredited.

But, for now, Ill throw you a bone. If I had thought to make such a statement (i.e. that Y2K deniers are operating upon faith), I would have made it. In fact, I still believe that, like the pants of teens showing their do-me drawers, the entire world economy is held up by little more than the faith of the participants. With sufficient provocation it will tumble down to around our feet. And when it does, somebodys gonna get royally screwed (or at least have a mess on their hands). Meanwhile, the economy stays up, to the amazement of some onlookers, such as me.

As for taking my best shot at stumping the trails con-guy, Im sure hes far too busy trashing Wm Thomas to bother with the likes of lil ol me. However, as was true for Y2K, my statements about chemtrails are an open book and hes welcome to comment on them. If what he says is funny enough, Im sure Ill hear about it. However, Im not in the practice of starting off-topic threads, here. I only participate on them when I think I have something worthwhile to contribute. I doubt that I would consider his opinion to be worthwhile. Hes hardly worth a link on my own page, but I put it there anyway because it was the best alternative POV that I have found so far. (Sad for the CT debunky team, I know.) --- '00-Jun-6thGo to top of this post

"Believing in" Chemtrails Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This essay appears at: http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdonchemtrails.showMessage?topicID=8.topic#dancr2

Costavike says: So very typical. As somebody once said- belief in "chemtrails" requires starting with the assumption that something bad MUST be going on, and then working backwards to find a conspiracy based cause. I ask you, is there even *one* "chemtrailer" among you on this thread who is not guilty of this error in critical thinking?

The Deyos' article, as quoted in the thread originating post, offers what they perceive to be the top two most popular explanations, both benign reasons: innoculations and weather mod. These two explanations are so popular that most people are not even aware of the "depopulation" explanation which they mention but refuse to dwell upon, because it is too heavy.

The contributions to this thread are people offering additional reasons that have been hypothesized (whether we believe them or not). The benign reasons were fully laid out in the Deyo essay, and are believed by most of those who acknowledge that there is something unusual going on. We are willing to consider other possible benign explanations. What are they? They're not so easy to cough up (so to speak) are they? It is not necessary to be entirely convinced that "something bad MUST be going on" to be merely willing to consider alternative explanations.

Being willing to acknowledge that there is something unusual going on above us does not require a leap of faith before one can "believe in" chemtrails. On the contrary, it is chemtrail deniers who are acting on faith or pocketbook. If it is mere faith, they are determined that there cannot be anything unusual going on in any of the numerous places across the country and the world where chemtrails are being reported, despite any and all evidence that might be produced to the contrary. --- '00-Jun-3rdGo to top of this post

Rentokil, Initial Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage?topicID=4212.topic#dancr3

Wow, wow, wow, wow, wow! Looks like hit men, or at least ones that could easily find a way to really mess up your life. I notice they didnt want to carry whatever corporate image theyre trying to project into their catering division. Smart choice. Obviously theyre aware of how this name might be perceived. They probably get a big chuckle over that. (Im reminded of the trouble that Chevrolet had marketing their Nova in Latin America.) Wouldnt Mel Gibsons character in Conspiracy Theory have a field day with this?

Regarding surveillence, this thread needs a link to ones about using "dust" as a communications network. --- '00-May-12thGo to top of this post

Bumbling Through Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This comment posted on unknown thread

Fish Speaker says:  I just don't want the legitimate sightings and reports to be drowned out by hysterical speculations and stories made up by people who want their 15 minutes of fame.

Elegent side swipe. ::: Dancr tips hat :::

In case it weren't obvious, my lamenting about missing my 15 minutes of fame was a joke. The point was that science is a process, and a way of living. If enough people practice it, eventually somebody stumbles onto the truth. I'm willing to describe my own stumblings in the hopes that somebody else can avoid the same pitfalls, take the ball and run with it. It was a way to encourage others to go for the glory.

I knew at the time of that writing that somebody would come back and say that it just shows I don't have the foggiest idea what I'm doing. I can handle that because I have a long history of experience with bumbling through.

Yes, I suppose I could leave all questions of "fact" to the proper authorities, such as such as Bill "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton, but then, that just wouldn't be me.

"Hysterical speculations and made up stories..." That's almost politically correct language for nutcase theories and lies. Why do I think we're getting closer to the truth? --- unknown dateGo to top of this post

Take Back the Science! Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdonchemtrails.showMessage?topicID=17.topic#dancr

Chemtrail debunkers seem determined to disbelieve in even the possibility that these trails could be anything other than normal condensation trails that cannot hurt anyone, despite whatever evidence might be produced to the contrary. Either they must be not presenting their true beliefs or they have entered into the realm of faith.

Fish Speaker speculates that the increased frequency of the wider trails could be due to any of a variety of normal phenomena, such as increased traffic, global warming, depletion of ozone, increased pollution, improvements in jet engines... But, if these were the whole explanation, wouldnt the change in the character of the trails have been a gradual shift over the past fifty or so years that weve had jets, and during which the industrialization of the Northern Hemisphere has been most marked? Instead, what were witnessing is a sudden appearance of the new-fangled trails.

Costavike says:  It's a shame your explanation will go unheeded by those who *prefer* to believe there is something sinister going on.

This is an attempt to discredit reports of chemtrail sightings and other related evidence by making it seem as though there is some reason to distrust the objectivity of those who do the reporting. Of course, nobody would "prefer" to believe that there is something sinister going on. But refusing to believe that there is the slimmest possibility that anyone would ever do something that ends up hurting us will not protect us against such actions if those people do exist. There may be some few of us who do believe that there is something sinister, but most of those interested in this issue are merely willing to consider the possibility that there is at least something strange going on, whether sinister or not. 

Costavike says theres not a shred of "chemtrail" evidence. This is frustrating because there are so many convincing photographs available to be viewed on the web. He links to a chemtrail debunker site showing pictures of probable simple condensation trails, claiming theyre not unusual. Most chemtrail observers would agree those are not the curious variety that were concerned about. We have to wonder how Costavike could devote so much time to these chemtrail threads, and still have never seen one.

There are sightings by independent observers all across the country. The connection between heavy spraying and overbooked emergency rooms is quite consistent. It is reasonable to ask whether these tens of millions of deathly ill people were just being silly and only needed to have some sense slapped into them. But what about the fact that most of them never noticed (backup copy) the suspicious trails that had been independently documented as laid down just before everybody got sick?

Fish Speaker says  All I can say is that if anyone is spraying , it sure isn't affecting me. <wink> Well, some ten million other people dialed 1-800-IgotFlu. Granted, this is field observation, and not experimentation on the part of the concerned observers, but our process of investigating this phenomenon is still science.

It is not necessary to have used esoteric chemical analysis equipment, telescopes and microscopes for observations to qualify as respectable data. We are able to make meaningful statements about our experience while relying directly upon our abilities to describe what we see, hear or dont hear, what we smell and taste, how long things take, and what we feel (including our symptoms of physical illness). The experiences of our senses are only subjective, until we find that other people all across the country are corroborating our experiences.

That said, we are also measuring things, and using equipment to extend our powers of observation. Personally, Ive used a telescope, microscope, zoom and wide-angle camera lenses, and a black light. My next project is to examine a micro-filament under both a black-light and a microscope. I should be able to do this, because Ive got one of those non-electric microscopes that capture ambient light and feed it through a curved tube of quartz. Ive recently painted all my walls and replaced all my floor coverings (for unrelated reasons), and will be interested to see if the quantity of micro-filaments increases over time.

I may also shell out for a digital video camera, as soon as I find some spare cash. Hopefully, somebody else will beat me to it. I have to put my paranoid hat on to say that I wont do this without giving considerable thought to how brave I will need to be. Reportedly some people have gotten extra dosages for being outspoken or for questioning too intently. Personally, Id be proud to sacrifice myself for such a worthwhile cause. However, I do also have to consider my son.

     Collecting photographic evidence is no easy trick. Even my wide-angle lens does not begin to capture the vastness of an horizon to horizon I-Max view, but only a very narrow wedge of sky (perhaps six in a row needed). My own few photographs do not begin to capture the vastness of the scale of these spraying projects. I assume the new digital video cameras will not approach the better analog cameras in quality of image, nor in the size of the wedge of sky they can claim. 

Also, it is necessary to observe for an hour or more to get the full impact of what is happening. One cannot simply point a camera to some static point in the sky and let it roll or take periodic still shots for a time-series. The trails move across the sky as they are pushed by the wind, and within a few minutes they will be out of frame. We need to enlist an I-Max photographer.

It is difficult to capture the wide-angle effect showing the overall final result of spraying, together with the zoom photographic evidence showing the nature of the plane doing the deed. Patching it together with the origin and destination of the planes is also no easy trick from our handicapped positions on the ground. A few reports of attempts to do this have told of how the planes scattered when researchers ventured into their airspace. One chase pilot had some kind of unexplained accident on a clear day. We may eventually manage to get some ground relay teamwork network going. These things take time to set up, for people who still have to put food on the table. Science is a slow, painstaking process of discovery.

Apparently, there are a few samples which have been analyzed by professional laboratories to identify their chemical and biological qualities. I dont have the details of this information at my fingertips at this moment. However, they are readily available by listening to either of the two Will Thomas interviews on Coast to Coast which are mentioned on my Chemtrails, à la Carte page.

There exist various government documents unambiguously anticipating the potential need for this kind of project. This, in itself, does not prove that such spraying is going on, but, together with the observations of our own senses and equipment, it does corroborate what we are experiencing. It may help in convincing some that refuse to even consider that the government could be involved. It might also help in deflecting the attempts of detractors, such as Costavike, to paint concerned citizens as emotionally defective. Why would the government bother to legitimize the spraying? So government employees would cooperate and citizens would Donationshave a harder time bringing these projects to a halt and holding anyone accountable.

Those who claim that chemtrail researchers are unscientific or irrational do not have a very good grip upon the meaning of these terms. Science does not consist of what schools teach in a typical "science" class. Generally, what such classes teach are various examples of scientific discoveries organized into fields of inquiry or organized chronologically as a history of science. Students may go through the motions of replicating some scientific discoveries that other people have already made.

What schools dont generally teach is a habit of questioning why things are they way they are. They dont encourage kids to cook up as many possible reasons as they can, but only to cough up the generally accepted "correct" reasons. One of Our Longer EssaysThis is the opposite of science!!!

Science is living in the world of the unknown. Its buying a black light and taking it into the shower stall... noticing the previously invisible filaments and how alive they act. Its observing how they sometimes seem to be avoiding my finger as though they were magnetically repelled, and other times seem to jump over and almost purposefully attach themselves to my skin. Its being alarmed about how I have to tug to break them loose again... wondering what the $%&# they are!

Science is not discouraging speculation and lecturing people ad nauseum about the known properties of harmless water vapor. --- '00-May-5thGo to top of this post

Noise Makers Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002OhB#dancr

That said... there are entirely too many chemtrails threads that add nothing to our knowledge of them. As I mentioned when this question came up a month or more ago, the threads tend to be started by unknown handles, who apparently have not taken note of the vast amount of information that is out there already. Many posts are of the "they're spraying me now" variety, describing the same information about the expanding trails that do not dissipate. Is there some way to help these starter threads to be nipped and replanted into an appropriate already existing thread?

Also, I've recently noticed an annoying trend, by two posters in particular, to post their borderline longish essays onto several of the threads. That's spamming. Ceemeister, in particular, today, posted the same 400 plus word essay to ten different chemtrail threads. That's really uncool. --- '00-Jan-24thGo to top of this post

The Steven T. Jones Article Permalink: URL of this post will appear in your browser's location box

This Comment Appeared at: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001wfe#dancr

Making Sense Out of Paranoia:  In an Ever-Changing, Politically Treacherous World, Conspiracy Theories Offer the Best Answers for Some, by Steven T. Jones
The above article was sent to me by my mom, who lives in San Luis Obispo County which is served by New Times, the free newspaper where this story appeared. My mom had visited here over Thanksgiving and was treated to my own speculations about Chemtrails, after I pointed out some not too great chemtrails which I spotted just before she left on Friday. She was completely unconvinced, and I assume this article wouldnt help to change her mind in any way about that.

Heres what I have to say to "talk back" to this article:

What sociopolitical conditions have caused those theories to be embraced with such fervor, and what makes such elaborate belief structures seem quite reasonable?

Perhaps too many people are becoming aware of this countrys long history of treating its citizens as lab animals in incidents such as the Tuskeegee "Experiment." Maybe we dont necessarily believe that somebody on the inside will speak up when they witness an injustice, after we view tapes of the Rodney King beatings that came to light well after the incident. Could it be that some of us are learning to rely on our own senses, rather than allowing "authorities" to define what we perceive? OK. To Mr. Jones credit, he went on to answer this question using just such examples as these.

Her descriptions transform the clouds into living enemies as they stretch out over the sky, reach out and grab one another, stack top of each other, crawl in over the horizon, descend upon us, making us ill.

It would be interesting to hear what she actually said.

"I think it would be highly unlikely that someone would disperse a chemical at 10,000 feet with the intention of it reaching the ground," Allen said.

Yet such evidence does little to crack an intensely held set of beliefs.

Well... Its gotta come down some time!

...Thomas admits he has not established a direct link between chemical contrails and outbreaks of disease, only an anecdotal one. Which begs the question: Are people seeing and feeling what their belief systems would have them see and feel?

How do we explain the Salinas local TV news report of the hospitals being full with a mysterious illness and that the San Jose hospitals were experiencing similar overcrowding? They did not tie the incidents to spraying, but chemtrail watchers complained at certain internet sites that there had been some recent heavy spray days. In my own case, my son got extremely ill on those same days, and we never even heard of chemtrails until weeks later.

...those who believe come mostly from dissatisfied groups looking for power and for answers to life's complicated problems.

... like Y2K?

"Conspiracy theory is a skeptical, paranoid, obsessive practice of scanning for signs and sifting through bits of evidence for the missing link," Stewart writes.

That sounds like what we do, here.

...potential cause and explanation behind those who promote conspiracy theories: deliberate self-interest.

I, for one, am not making any money by offering my opinions on this or any other topic. Im not saying that to do so is wrong, only that those who insinuate that I have some ulterior motive for expressing myself about this are wrong about that. 

Steven T. Jones actually died in 1998 during a freak plane crash in clear weather east of Creston. We said at the time that he had taken a job in Monterey. A few months later we started to get articles, allegedly by him. 

I dont know quite what to make of this. Did the New Times investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of their reporter? Why did they say that he had taken a job in Monterey? When did they find out that he had died? Was it perhaps a different Steven T. Jones who died or who is writing these articles? Is anybody being paid for this article? Is this just an amusing way to end a conspiracy article?

It turns out the "About" page for this newspaper lists Steven T. Jones as one of two staff writers. I wrote to him at sjones@newtimesslo.com to invite him to visit this page to view any commentary that may appear [t]here about his article. --- '99-Dec-7thGo to top of this post

For a Completely Different POV [pov?]

The ChemTrail Hoax (U. S. Air Force),    ChemTrails.org (Fake. Michael McDonnough? Electronic Arts?),    Conspiracy theorists read between lines in the sky (Traci Watson, USA Today, broken link),    Conspiracy theories find menace in contrails (Traci Watson, USA Today),    The New Urban Legend: Contrails Spreat Toxins (Traci Watson, USA Today),    Contrail Analysis I (Ian Goddard),    Contrail Links,    Contrail Slideshow & Contrails or 'Trails-CON? (Jay Reynolds),    Debate Intensifies (Dana Davis, Ashville Tribune, broken link),    Fears Thrive on Internet (New Mexicans for Science and Reason),    Mysterious Contrails (Fake. Majestic game page.),    Plane Truth (Fortean Bureau of Investigation),    Scientific Studies (Michael Theroux),    Resource Notes on Jet Contrails and Associated Items,    Scientific Studies Regarding Aircraft Contrails and Cloud Formation (Jay Reynolds),    Trail of Conspiracy (Robin Brunet, Vancouver Courrier),

See also, the main page at Chemtrails, à la Carte

Powered by the Google Search Enginei.lacarte WWW
About Health, à la Carte
 [ Bottom Navbar Text ]
 [ About Site ] i  [ Webminder ] i  [ Track this Page! ] i  [ Best of *A la Carte* ] i  [ Linking to Us ] i
[About] [Author] [Track] [Stars] [Link]

Want to bookmark,
tell friends, print?