1. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions (continued)

    What has been happening that maintains this hoax?

    The chemmies have been generally passive about directly proving their claims.
    None of the evidence that they have presented has been found to in any way prove that what they claim are spraying is anything other than ordinary contrails.

    Their main activities have included:
    -‘research’ consisting of rehashing stuff long ago debunked
    - proselytizing for new converts to their beliefs
    - contacting government officials seeking answers which don’t exist
    - contacting media seeking coverage to gain more converts
    - attempting to explain what they see using every logical fallacy imaginable
    - taking photographs of contrails

    A significant development has been the advent of pro hoax as well as skeptical activity using YouTube
    videos over the past several years. This has been very effective for presentation of both sides of the issue.
    A recently released DVD video called “What In The World Are They Spraying” was produced by Michael J. Murphy and G. Edward Griffin which has been extensively promoted in media and by screenings in several cities. It cites already debunked samples and contains many other factual errors, but has captured many new converts to the chemtrails belief.

    What chemmies haven’t done is to gain knowledge in the fields of aviation or atmospheric science.
    It is interesting to note that over the nearly 15 years that the issue has been active, thousands of pilots have been licensed and related PhD. degrees issued, yet most chemmies remain as ignorant as ever and have failed to develop a general body of real knowledge accepted by the majority. They have also failed to correct each other when bogus information is presented as fact thus perpetuating ignorance and folly to the extent that newcomers repeat long discredited ideas.

    Significantly, yet not unexpectedly, the chemmies have not yet organized a systematic survey of air traffic over the areas where they live. While encouraging others to merely “look up and believe!”, they have failed to inspire their members to actively identify the aircraft which in actuality are often only six miles away. This mystery of unidentified aircraft perpetuates the unknown that began the hoax in the first place. (continued)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions (continued)

    What can be done to hasten the end of this hoax?

    There is probably no way to completely end the hoax. There will always remain a cadre of people who are unable to change their mind, some due to personal intractability or peer pressure, some mentally unable to comprehend the technical matters, and some who stand to lose face and experience cognitive dissonance if they changed. There will always be some amount of new converts.

    Over time, many of these will always drop out due to finally understanding, boredom or discouragement.
    Those of us who have done our best to provide some education have helped thousands of people escape the hoax, and prevented at least as many from becoming indoctrinated at the outset. I know this first hand from communications I have received from many people.

    There are skeptical individuals and groups who are willing to confront and debate the issue with chemmies. This takes place on message boards, through websites and blogs, and commentary displayed whenever news articles are published. At the present time, the blog website operated by Mick West, contrailscience.com is currently the best example, with regularly updated articles, commentary with visitor feedback, debate, a YouTube page and forums all linked together. This provides resources for all, and has greatly advanced the issue towards reality. Mick West is to be commended for his effort, perseverance, and acumen in creating this mega-debunkatorium for the second decade of the hoax.

    Firstly, one must ask if anything should be done to hasten the end of the hoax, since it would not be eradicated for some, at least. At the present, skeptical work is being done as mentioned above. The status quo is that new converts come in and old believers go out, one could assume that the same will continue, barring unforeseen circumstances.

    What of such circumstances, what could potentially occur that could change things? The past has shown that there have been several instances of people threatening violent acts against aircraft they see, despite having no clear knowledge of what they may be doing. I know that I have personally reported such threats to the FBI. I cannot rule out the possibility that someone might eventually make such a tragic move.

    There is the possibility that a major figure in the hoax could turn away and become a vocal critic. Unfortunately, even though major figures have left in the past, they have done so quietly, probably because they retained some doubt about the reality that they had been wrong. If such a case were to occur, it would be a very good chance to show others the way, and to reduce the stigma and peer pressure such individuals face.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions (continued)

    So, to summarize the most relevant points I have made:

    The claims center on mysterious unidentified aircraft making lines in a seemingly coordinated manner, resulting in fearful speculation that something bad is happening. Those who believe this have jumped to many conclusions which they have tried to match with what is being seen, even if the conclusions are not logically and factually based. They have sought to mainly spread their belief system to others or to demand that government officials explain what they are seeing. The thing they actually see, the airplanes making the lines, remain to them a mystery.

    The mystery generates two things, interest and fear of the unknown. The main promoters offer conclusions which instill even more fear, while government and debunkers offer negative conclusions which are polar opposites from what the promoters are saying. Time is a factor, newcomers who have not developed a firm belief can easier accept a different view. Another factor is that the believer community feels that they are the repository of special, even secret, information that few are aware of.

    They demonstrate this by proselytizing others and building websites showing pictures of trails.
    The believers are faced with a choice, either stick with what they have been led to believe, or accept a negative offered and admit they are wrong. To accept the negative, they lose both fear and interest, plus admit they were wrong. To stick with their belief, they continue to believe they are right and lose neither interest nor fear. It is natural to want to be correct, people feel hurt when proven wrong. This choice is powerfully attractive, especially when the peer pressure of a supporting group exists and preexisting beliefs align with the chemtrail belief, e.g., Environmentalism, anti-New World Order. The mystery and fear remain intact, and mutually reinforce themselves within the believer.

    Therefore, how can we convince a believer to accept by themselves a negative conclusion? The method I suggest is to use the two main facets that are driving their belief system, the mystery and interest which already exists.
    Chemtrail believers already see trails in the sky, they already take pictures of them, and they show interest in a mystery. Can these actions be guided towards positive activity in the context of actually solving the mystery?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions (continued)

    At the outset, the mystery depends on sightings of unknown planes, hundreds or thousands of them. It has been recently demonstrated that using telescopes, extremely high resolution photographs can be taken which can show even the identification numbers of commercial and military aircraft. There needs to be no more mystery about the identity of these airplanes.

    Hobbyists, notably in Europe, have demonstrated this as you can see here:
    http://www.luchtzak.be/forums/viewforum.php?f=25

    Here is an example of how to do it:
    http://www.skystef.be/contrail.htm

    Here is an example of the equipment:
    http://www.skystef.be/scope-setup.htm

    As you can see here, sufficient resolution is available to see the aircraft identification numbers:
    http://www.skystef.be/contrail4.htm

    This page shows US Air Force jets up to 38,000 ft in which the tail numbers are visible:
    http://www.skystef.be/contrail/unite...-air-force.htm

    Once a person is actually able to identify the planes to know the owner and the unique flight and tail number, reality is inescapable. They will see that the vast majority of planes they thought were spraying are simply ordinary commercial flights. They will become familiar with what was formerly a mystery. Should they see some military flights, they should also be able to compare them with what ordinary flights are doing.

    How could it be possible to convince them to do this? According to them, they are seeking proof and answers. I have often asked believers for examples of what sort of proof they would show for chemtrails if they were given the chance. By far, the average individual tells me they can show proof of what they can see with their own eyes, what they have photographed, what is the reality, they look up and see! With these sorts of photos, rather than just showing the lines in the sky, they can actually show the planes themselves, it would beat the little dots at the head of the trails they already have shown.

    As before, the person will then be privy to the same sort of “special” information, it will already be in photographic form and can be easily uploaded for others to examine and emulate. This time, however, they have real photos of real planes, real numbers, reality that they have always needed, not silly speculation and illogical conclusions. They will also learn a great deal about aviation, and they will learn it for themselves, not simply accepting what someone else tells them.

    How can this idea be spread far and wide to begin the process of bringing reality to the chemmies?

    By using the media that is available, websites, message boards, YouTube videos, by calling in to talk shows, all these can be used. What is needed is a concise description of how to successfully take these photos the easiest way, step-by-step, in writing, in images, and in video. It might be necessary to contact some chemmies directly, by email, and let them know.

    Please consider what I have written, make some comments and suggestions, and let me know what you think.
    Jay Reynolds
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I’ve been thinking about this for some time, and am basing this post on 14 years experience following the chemtrails hoax. I offer a synopsis of what has happened, who is involved, why it persists, and how it might end.

    What is being claimed?

    The claims center on the following:
    - unidentified aircraft are seen making contrail lines at high altitude.
    - if these lines do not dissipate they are not ordinary contrails
    - if they spread out, they are not ordinary contrails
    - if they appear to form a pattern in the sky, this represents a coordinated activity
    - the purpose of the chemtrails is hotly debated and remains uncertain
    - such covert activity cannot be a ‘good thing’ and probably represents something bad
    - as a result of the activity there is a probability of adverse health or environmental effects

    Who are we dealing with?

    The ones driving the hoax, with a few exceptions, have generally concentrated the efforts of their followers on the most passive activities listed below, especially proselytizing, which has had good results because there is definitely a “sucker born every minute.” I would place Michael J. Murphy and William Thomas, among many others, in this category.

    Notable exceptions include Rosalind Peterson and Clifford Carnicom. Peterson with her environmental sampling and Carnicom with his wacky pseudoscientific experiments, while both misguided, are at least engaging in pursuits showing a degree of independent thought and action. Despite having these attributes, these two individuals are not honest, and withhold and parse information which would be to the detriment of their hypotheses.
    There are some who are involved strictly for profit. To maintain a hoax like this for profit is probably the lowest thing a person could do, and they should be ashamed.

    Then there are the covertly anonymous people. Some are believers like A.C Griffith who, along with others started the barium gambit and issued “Chemtrails Over America Project Report #1 & 2”. Some are simply evil-minded hoaxers who fabricate fake stories like David Stewart, creator of the ‘Deep Shield’ hoax.

    There is a small class of people who know that what people see are ordinary contrails, yet tolerate and even encourage the false belief because they believe ordinary contrails to be harmful to the atmosphere or aesthetically wrong in some way. Some of these are former believers, some never were, yet this class cynically does nothing about the hoax and sees believers as tools to advance their agenda. They are wrong of course, since a hoax discredits their agenda.

    Lastly are the chemmies of the common garden variety. They are generally inactive followers who rarely engage in anything worthwhile, yet make up the bulk of believers. Some are simply misled or arrogantly remain ignorant, some are incapable of understanding the technical details involved. (continued)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Thanks Jay, that's a great overview of the situation.

    I think that persuading people to take detailed photos of the planes is a good idea, and is actually something that has been suggested more informally from time to time over on Contrail Science. Like in the recent interaction with Peter:

    http://contrailscience.com/contrails-dark-lines-chemtrails/#comment-59512

    One thing I've been trying to do on CS is to make it similar in utility to a "FAQ", so that the most common points raised can quickly be addressed with a single link to a fairly simple and easy to understand article.

    Your own site, of course, was a great help with this, especially regarding the histroy of the subject. But over time a lot of your links went stale. There were other sites, but they often presented the information in a hard-to-read manner, like chickiedeb, or were an information dump overload, like Jazzroc (sorry Jazzy!).

    I think simplicity is key here. Wherever possible any point raised by a chemtrailer needs to be address as simply as possible: Aluminum found in soil? Solid is naturally 8% aluminum. Done. Contrails did not persist before? Yes they did, here's some photos and books. Done. Kuchinich tried to ban chemtrails? Nope, he did not write the bill, it was a bunch of UFO enthusiasts. Done.
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think we need to encourage them to take close up shots of the plane, and then wider angle shots of the trail it leaves (probably with a different camera), with the plane in shot, and then shots at 5 minute intervals to see how it persists.

    The problem with just about ALL "chemtrail" photos now is that they just show either a close-up of a plane leaving a contrail (so you can't tell if it is persistent), or they show a wide angle of a spreading trail (so you can't see the plane that left it).

    By getting the sequence of shots, they would think they would be able to demonstrate that something odd is going on - but in reality they will just see identifiable planes leaving exhaust contrails, and no "nozzles".
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think the problem might be finding someone who is a chemtrail believer, and also owns a telescope with a camera. Such a person would have to be a strong beliver, and motivated enough to try to prove their belief. But as soon as they start using the telescope, then their belief will fade away, and their general "well, they must be doing something", with be directed elsewhere (9/11, fluoride, etc).

    So the net result might be quite small - we are not going to get all of them to buy a telescope - heck, some of them sustain their beliefs on cell-phone photos. Still, if we can get one person to take some shots, and publish them, then that could be a very useful demonstration.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I was thinking of buying a telescope myself. Also for looking at planets, etc, but obviously I could hook up my camera and point it at some planes.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's a video of a plane shot with a telescope and an iPhone. It suffers from the problem of not having a wide shot, or later shots. So all it shows is the initial contrail. Unfortunately, for some people this is actually more "proof" of contrails.

     
  11. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Here is an interesting concept using telescopic still photos edited together into video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c21oRGZWTAI

    There are a few telescopic videos on Youtube, but resolution is not so good on the ones I've seen.
     
  12. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Mick,
    Let's discus the subject here and whoever wants to can bring in things they find related to the photography idea.
    Once a sufficient selection of information is gathered, perhaps you would consider blogging about it in a Do-it-yourself format.

    I googed and didn't get much except that some chemmies have thought about it, but haven't perfected it like Skystef.
    It is likely that someone with more photography expertise could bring in even better ideas.

    Just checked and there is some software that helps tracking:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9oc0ytVmvQ

    Google "chemtrails" "telescope":
    http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c7c40ca34444791f
     
  13. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    The real idea is to get a close enough shot to get a tail number. I actually hope that a 'big shot' will then start claiming that XYZ company on XYZ date commanded by XYZ pilot on airway XYZ at FLXYZ headed to XYZ airport has been spraying. If that happens, it is something REAL that can be dealt with, not the silly guessing games they have been doing for 14 years.

    Maybe it's my long experience with it and the several years general hiatus I took has bored me to death with the next set of stupid 'breakthroughs' they keep coming up with. Time for some reality, I say.

    I do see what you mean about a lone believer having a change of heart then silently slinking away.
    That is basically what Thermit(Mark Steadman) of chemtrailcentral did after he used Flight Explorer, even though I challenged him at the time to not leave everyone with just an assmption that the planes he couldn't identify were military jets, I told him to start telescopic photos to identify them, but he left the hoax soon after that.

    If only they would all do that...............

    I've thought about doing it as a "challenge" to the chem-orgs and major promoters.
    How could they refuse the "Holy Grail", an identifiable 'chem-plane'?
     
  14. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    In the fuel, eh?
    Get a sample at the end of the runway......
     
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Any candidates?

    Then what if they just shift over to "it's in the fuel"? It's like whack-a-theory.
     
  16. jimbo

    jimbo Guest

  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Jimbo's suggestion illustrates another of the difficulties of debunking. He presents a UK Government publication with Geoengineering in the title that discusses possible future regulation of Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Radiation Management. For Jimbo the very fact that this report exists seems to "prove" (or at least strongly suggest) that chemtrails are a reality, the the government is secretly already doing geoengineering, and not telling us about it, and poisoning us in the process.

    Yet the entire document quite clearly indicates that there is NO geoengineering going in now.

    But if you point this out, then we get the retort "well, you can't trust the government", even though the original point they were trying to make was based on the report being accurate.

    So, from a meta-debunking perspective, is there anything else I should do other than point out that these reports only discuss future geoengineering? Is it even worth bothering with? I had started an article on this topic, maybe I should gather all the exampled in one place, with a brief note about each one, and a general discussion about how every single document presented clearly states that no geoengineering is going on.
     
  18. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Another thought, I just saw an on-off persistent contrail, and I guess if "it's in the fuel", then they wouldn't be able
    to "shut it off and on", would they?
     
  19. Jay_Reynolds

    Jay_Reynolds Guest

    This fellow Ken Bradley seems to be on the right track. He's been able to use Flight Explorer since March and has some fairly good photography to identify the planes over Vegas as commercial:
    http://floridagulfskywatch.blogspot.com/2011/03/chemtrails-over-las-vegas.html

    Here is his method:
    http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/documentingplanes.html

    He has some questions which logically asks about on/off trails, yet he concludes that a seperate system makes 'chemtrails', and asks some questions about tubing which he doesn't understand:
    http://floridagulfskywatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/chemtrails-over-las-vegas-nov-5-2010.html

    here is his photo database:
    http://www.pbase.com/lasvegasskywatch/profile

    I see that the umbrella group geoengineering watch plans a lawsuit this spring:
    I think that if they actually would file suit against a commercail carrier, they would be dragged into actually presenting their 'evidence' and have to withstand scrutiny.

    geoengineering watch tracks back to:
    http://www.charityblossom.org/nonpr...mery-creek-ca-96065-mauro-oliveira-954648687/
    This org is headed by a fellow named Mauro Oliveira, who was able to muster a crowd of 12 in CA:
    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/smattering-of-activists-protest.html
     
  20. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

  21. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Looks like he did, hopefully he will begin to understand that a commercial airliner simply can't have unknown stuff installed. I'm sure these planes fly all over and are seen by multiple mechanics, by the pilots themselves, etc.
     
  22. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Further thoughts

    In the final analysis, the absolute proof that chemtrails exist as most chemmies claim would be to discover an airplane with spraying apparatus actually in use, and document the facts surrounding he discovery in detail.

    What has been offered as evidence so far are speculations, inferences, and false conclusions, for example:

    1. Persistent trails in the sky(false conclusion that persistent trails are not possible with ordinary contrails)
    2. Proposals for geoengineering(speculation that the trails are an implementation)
    3. Chemical/biological testing by releases in the past (false conclusion that past proves present)
    4. Air/water/ground samples showing XYZ(inference that XYZ came from said trails)

    I could go on, but the main idea is that all of these are skirting the real proof and none of them address the absolute proof needed. None of them even get close to the ACTUAL airplane which they see making the trails.

    The idea of flying behind the putative "sprayer" is quite good, however difficult or costly, but one could not then complete the job of documenting the spraying apparatus. There is, in actuality, no real need to ply the skies hither and yon searching for a will-o-the-wisp.

    The old adage that "What goes up must come down" remains true. IF there were a 'sprayplane' that REALLY EXISTS, the chemmies will have to catch it on the ground to inspect it. The only way to even BEGIN to do that is to POSITIVELY IDENTIFY it.

    The most practical way of doing so is by remote sensng, by telescopically observing and photographically documenting the unique tail number of the plane.

    Period.

    That is my proposal, and I am prepared to debate the subject in the interest of discovering any faults with it.
    Please continue...........
     
  23. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    I will split the cost of a telescope.
    I live in Los Angeles.
    I have a new Nikon D7000 DSLR., and 2 decent point-and-shoot cameras/video for the wide shots and other documentation.

    I'm prepared to lay-out $600-$700 to not only get some great photos, but document the entire process....inviting any level-headed chemtrail believer(s) who thinks these trails come from gov't unmarked/drone tanker jets....or who think there are added-on spray-nozzles where the plume is coming from elsewhere besides the engines.
    Also to be proven or dis-proven, would be the proposition that the same plane or set of planes are circling back and forth to create persistent "grids".

    I think renting a telescope for a weekend or two, would not allow us to gain enough practice to acquire acceptable shots, nor the needed opportunities, as persistent contrail conditions need to be right, and that may vary weekend-to-weekend, or day-today, here in Southern California.
    Purchasing one (used perhaps?) will allow the necessary learning-curve time needed, to guarantee quality shots when "the iron is hot" .

    I think the best location is either in the nearby high desert (Barstow?), or near the coast.
    I have about 3 friends/co-workers that truly believe in "chemtrails"....but I'm open to any serious interested candidates.

    When this project is completed...the telescope can be "bought-out" by either party, or sold on eBay, etc.
     
  24. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Guest

    They say they want to really know!
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    If I might make a suggestion, you could go direct to this group of prominent chemtrail activists and see if they would be interested. All the best:)
    Jay
    http://www.meetup.com/environment-391/
     
  26. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    I cannot buy the telescope for a few weeks....just got the estimate for a tooth root-canal. That comes first.
    But still let me know if you come across any killer Tscope deals...maybe I can wing a purchase if the price is right, even if it is "used".
    BTW, I noticed on these refraction scopes, that mirror temperature is of concern. I should have no problem kludging the interior with a temperature balancing fan, if need be. I can even build a temp equalization circuit (balanced bridge) if need be. (my former life as an electronics nerd.)
    Any of these might be sweet....
    http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Dobsonian-Telescopes/Build-A-Scope-Dobsonians/pc/1/c/12/31.uts

    BTW Jay....you do great work and research keep it up...
     
  27. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Also....slightly off topic...does NASA use photo-tracking technology, for example when video-recording of a missile launch ?
    They must have some system of photo-tracking an object 6-12 miles up ?

    I know Hollywood recording cameras have a sonar-based system to automatically adjust focus when the obvious main players are in front of the camera...
    I's seen it me-self..
     
  28. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    check out this company:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/optictracker
     
  29. I don't need any further proof

    My wife and I just recently started seeing strange crisscrossing of chemtrails in the sky. We looked it up online to see many websites concerning this. I still did not know what to believe until last week, as I was walking home from work under a perfectly clear blue sky. Within half an hour we saw 8 jets leaving chemtrails crisscrossing each other and clouding the sky over. In one case, two jets were flying in tandem. This would NEVER be done by commercial air flights.

    In about two hours the clouds they left behind dissipated and three more jets came through to repeat the process.

    There are only two airports near us large enough to even fly out jets this size. One is two hours away and another is 1.5 hours away. Both are two small to have 8 jets flying in the skies, in the same general direction, at the same time.

    I have personally flown in perhaps as many as 500 passenger airliners. I have flown over both oceans, the Atlantic at least 6 times. I have flown north as far as the Yukon and south as far as Belize. I have never seen this many jets in the air, anywhere - not at the airport, not in the skies around the plane I was flying on, not flying in tandem, and not leaving trails a few hundred miles long which turn into clouds before your eyes.

    Believe what you want. I believe what I have seen.
     
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Sounds like it was just unusual weather that day, where nearly every plane was leaving a trail. Normally only a few planes leave trails.

    Jets do sometimes seem to be flying in tandem, but usually it's one 1000 feet (or more) above the other.
     
  31. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Here's a youtube video of two commercial planes flying close, leaving good contrails too. I'm sure from six miles below they looked like they wee flying in tandem.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ItoBBEbEI

    If witness to it would simpy use flightaware she/he could see exactly what planes fly over her area. She could also just ask a currently flying commercial pilot. I doubt she'll find one that believes in the chemtrails, none ever have.......
     
  32. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    I really like this idea. Maybe Jay, Ross, MikeC and some of the regulars over at CS could get on board to create something as close to exhaustive as possible. As a graphic designer I'd certainly love to contribute to this.
     
  33. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    A flashback from the past

    Taking you back now to April, 1999, during the first flurry of chemtrail hype. Take note of the sort of statements which are made here by William Thomas, and ask yourself if what he claimed has actually ever been shown.

    Another article from William Thomas in 2000:
     
  34. Janet D

    Janet D New Member

    I recently signed up on metabunk a few days ago, and just clicked on this subject ten minutes ago. Janet Detwiler here, and I'll be back after I digest the material above. This could take some time! I had to take a break from the world of CT's for a while, so I have some catching up to do. Dang...this site is GREAT. I should've ended my vacation from CT's sooner ~ Janet D
     
  35. tryblinking

    tryblinking Member

    Ah, Janet.
    I've always admired your honesty when discussing your past relationship with the chemtrails hoax. I just hope your story can help free others from being consumed by their paranoia.

    Glad to see another CS regular on MB :)
     
  36. Janet D

    Janet D New Member

    Thanks, tryblinking. I've appreciated your contributions on this subject also, as well as everyone else I "met" on the contrail science site. I'm just now getting acquainted with the metabunk site, and trying to catch up on what's been going on while I was taking a break from this subject. Apparently, many of you have been very busy! I posted something here yesterday re: my "discovery" of an article on aircrap, and then noticed a good number of my fellow chemtrail debunkers were already on it and posting comments (I am Martian Kat on chemtrail hoax sites). I am very encouraged to see so much work being done by so many here, and now back to my catch-up reading.
     
  37. Janet D

    Janet D New Member

    Hi Jay, Janet Detwiler here, recovering 9/11 & chemtrail CT. I took a break from this and other CT subjects for a while and just signed up on metabunk recently. Good to "see" you again, and I'm very impressed with everything I've read so far.

    I think you've got this nicely covered, I agree with your categorization of certain people, and I'll be back in day or two with some of my thoughts.

    But speaking of suckers, I sure was one. I watched a Rosalind Peterson video when I was first exploring the chemtrail CT, and I'll be darned if I didn't fall for what she said. I was in the perfect mind-set to fall for it (2007), and it's because she was educated, appeared not to have an ax to grind (but of course she does, I just hadn't checked her credentials yet), and because she's a little-old lady. I'm serious, that's what I thought. A little-old lady wouldn't lie about something like that...would she? Wow.

    Carnicom ~ A lot of chemtrail CT's recommended I check him out (none suggested I Google "contrails", BTW), so I watched a lot of his video's and read his "work". It was actually an email exchange I had with Carnicom (several months after I'd started buying into the chemtrail CT) that started to make me question the CT in the first place. He claimed to have performed a scientific analysis on the contents of his air filter, supposedly had the dust evaluated at a reputable lab, and of course the results were alarming. Oh, and bogus, of course. I asked him to post the actual test results online, politely at first, because of course I thought publishing something like that would help the cause. He was evasive at first, and then he just got belligerent and cut me from one of his pages. Of course I started to wonder after that exchange, so thanks Clifford C., you rotten fella.

    I believe this (and other) conspiracy theory does harm to some people. I'm one of those people. When you actually believe those contrails in the sky are something ominous, it affects everything in your life. I think the people who spread this garbage, especially the ones who know it's garbage, are some real "bad guys".
     
  38. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Carnicom read my rules very carefully, especialy rule numero uno:
    http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/scarehow.html

    So he did this in email. He must be getting lonely, because for
    quite a few years he hermited. I, too demanded that he show
    some evidence of what he claimed. I thinkhe is on an ego trip,
    and he seems to love whacky home science projects with shampoo
    and a microscope. Make believe scientist, and then he gets invited
    to speak and creates the 'Carnicom Institute' and has seminars, etc.
    Another former believer I spoke with last week who used to know him
    but hasn't heard anything for years got a great big laugh about the 'Institute'!
     
  39. Janet D

    Janet D New Member

    Ha ha ha...yup. I just looked Clifford up again to refresh my memory. He's pleading poverty (again) and needs money and volunteers to continue "the Institutes work". Tempting...volunteering, but I'm just not a good enough actor to get away with it.

    Cliff has a Facebook page (just a little over 100 "friends") but he's got it set so that only his friends can see what he's up to. I'm curious, but I just can't bring myself to send him a friends request ~ https://www.facebook.com/people/Clifford-Carnicom/100001263008468
     
  40. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    Let me try :)

    Planes naturally emmit aerosol particles which will aggravate new cloud formations. Scientific papers already details how plane-traffic create more clouds and change the climate on earth. No need for fancy ideas about massive chemical spraying from special tubes when it's already happening from regular jet engines.

    There, should stick with most people worth their salt :) I'm pretty open-minded, but the chemtrail crows are getting irritating ;)