1. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I guess our grass cutting poster doesn't understand cloud seeding.

    The link Mick posted to the company, gave me this link

    http://www.weathermodification.com/projects.php

    EVERY one of the weather modification projects listed was CLOUD seeding
     
  2. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Why is simple focus on a single point so hard to understand? It's a such a common 'debate' position, but it seems to miss the point completely.
    [...]

    Something being similar to but not actually the thing claimed doesn't make the thing claimed correct or lend any weight to your position.
    'See I was almost right, close enough'. No, you're still wrong.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  3. HappyMonday

    HappyMonday Moderator

    It's called 'trolling' these days.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    My favorite similar but not the same is pineapples and pinecones. Similar names, both grow on plants, even a similar shape, and parts of both are quite tasty. But they are different
     
  5. RolandD

    RolandD Active Member

    @TheBrain, please check out http://contrailscience.com/ for all the reasons contrails are not chemtrails. If you find something there that you question, then search to see if there is a thread that pertains to it. If not, start your own thread.
     
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Harold Saive has scanned the manual, and yet continues to suggest it's somehow more sinister than a chemistry textbook:

    http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/03...t-published-by-the-air-force-academy-in-1990/


    https://www.metabunk.org/files/chemtrails-chemistry-manual-usaf-academy-1999.pdf
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  7. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    Wow. It´s going round everywhere:

    temp.
     
  8. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    Hey, if this gets spread, then from now on we can point people to page 22 for a short primer on scientific methodology ...
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    Critical comments are being removed; two of mine and comments of at least one other person.

    Here is a screen grab of a couple more, saved here in case they too are removed by Harold the Honest.

    ChemtrailsManyual.
     
  10. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Just like a encysted bacterium, these things sometimes come back to life long after they should have been dead and buried.

    To really understand the psychology that would drive Harold Saive and Dane Wigington to cry out to all the world "LOOK WHAT WE FOUND !!!", you have to realize that since they really have no substance to work with it makes even the most insignificant and irrelevant stuff a real occasion. Even before they understood what the book says, and since neither of them have taken a college level chemistry course and likely never will, they may never understand the pathetic irony surrounding what they are doing.

    In example, the same book was trotted out in 2009 with the same fanfare:

    The thread went on for ten pages. No one ever actually went to the library to get the book, because they had enough time to ask themselves why the book was openly accessible in public libraries, even overseas. They finally realized it was just a college chemistry book, and gave up.

    In a few months, this book will encyst again to be resurrected again if a few years.

    The real origin of the word chemtrails. The word was coined by "Val Valerian" in April 1999. See the bottom of this webpage:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20000815234743/http://www.trufax.org/research3/contrails.html
     
  11. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    This is the part that I find really bewildering:



    Saive seems to understand and acknowledge that origin and meaning of the term as used by USAFA has no relation to how the term has been used by believers in the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory. It appears to be a simple case of two independent coinings of the same term (unless one of the early chemtrails conspiracists claims to have gotten the term from that book). But "regardless" of that fact, he's trying to act like it's significant. This is clearly a case of rhetoric over substance.
     
  12. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    CTers are always linking things together that are not connected.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    And there's always a new one coming on board who thinks he's found something no one else has. That's the whole CT thing: knowing stuff no one else does.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I guess that some of the attraction is 'knowing' something that others don't. Sort of a way of feeling superior to others.

    Being raised in Dallas, I was in the 6th when Kennedy was shot. I have grown up with conspiracy theories. I went to movies in the theater where Oswald as captured. When I went to college I rode the bus that Oswald took to and from the Depository that day, it went right by the hose where he lived and right by the Depository.

    Are there things that are 'covered up'. Yep, but they are things that don't really matter, like it was said that the rumor that some classes shouted for joy when Kennedy's death was announced was not so. It was, it happened in the room next to mine, a 7th grade class. Was it important, heck no, Dallas was already the 'City that killed Kennedy'. It didn't more bad press, because of a bunch of silly children.
     
  15. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Tonight at a board meeting for one of my clubs, a man in his 70s announced that his nephew told him about these FEMA camps the government is building all over the country. I couldn't help but blurt out oh my goodness that is bullshit come on it's ridiculous. He said no there are ALL THESE WEBSITES where you can see all the camps they're building! And You Tube videos! And why are they buying all those billions of hollow point bullets, it's not for target practice, ha ha ha wink wink.

    You could see that he thought he had discovered a secret previously unknown to man and was going to tell us all about it. When I tried to tell him it wasn't true, he just said, "well I'm not debating here, but it really makes you THINK", and glared at me with his arms crossed all night. I was just shocked that this guy had probably told his whole office about this and they were probably telling their friends. . . . I realized how most people who do not browse around the net don't know these things and swallow them whole. I think it's quite scary.
     
  16. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    It is, there at least 3 folks trying to keep the Bayou Corne FB clear of the nonsense and rumors. The big one is that the methane will explode with the power of a Nuke and take out several states. I guess the folks that think that, don't realize that the streetcars were running in the undamaged areas of Hiroshima, less than a week after the bomb was dropped.
     
  17. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    It's humorous how the people who are the most gullible are the ones who think everyone else is a sheep.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Shir Panjshir

    Shir Panjshir New Member

    OMG it doesn't actually say "to serve men" it says "how to serve men' ...it's a cook book !!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Dan Page

    Dan Page Active Member

    So, on twitter I'm asking what chemicals can cause both drought, CA, and flooding, TX, and they tell me to go and read the "Chemtrails Manual". So I download it and read it and as you say, it has nothing to do with airplanes, flight, chemtrails, or even contrails. It just blows my mind that these people are so entrenched in their beliefs, they will not budge. So I point out politely (I think) that it is just a first year chemistry text and has nothing to do with "chemtrails" as they believe. I'll tell ya, my patience is really being tested here, but I will refrain from calling them names as I know that would be counter productive. It's kind of hilarious that they think of this as the "smoking gun" so to speak. Oh well, pressing on.
     
  20. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Ask them for a quote of the relevant passages in the "manual".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. janinaS

    janinaS New Member

    Isnt it interesting that in any other field the first time a term / word is used the credit is given there, but here it is like NO NO NO, like ants running around trying to debunk a fact.
    CHEMTRAILS is on the front page, first time it was used, and airforce academy, but that is all irrelvant.....

    The USA military didnt pick that word for a joke..... they plant seeds long before they do anything....

    Dont know what this site is for, but they definetly havent debunked that the USA Military was the first to use the word 'chemtrails' - seems no one even read the whole 202 pages???? weird LOL
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It was explained in the first post. It's a chemistry manual, and it's a wordplay on the "Contrails" handbook.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  23. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

  24. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    The point is that the late 1990's coinage is "a phrase or familiar word used in a new sense".
    See under "neologism(nɪˈɒləˌdʒɪzəm) or neology"
     
  25. Inti

    Inti Active Member

    I would suggest that you should not just "pass by" but stay and read the many convincing debunking on Metabunk and its predecessor Contrails Science. The difference between these sites and the sealed-off world of chemtrail blogs and FB pages is first, that the discussion here is based on the consideration of actual evidence, and second, unlike most of those chemtrail sites, people like yourself and me are positively encouraged to question the proposed explanations.

    I first visited MB when I encountered the chemtrail meme a couple of years ago. I compared the rationality and openness of Dane and company with that of Metabunk. The difference was obvious.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1