Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering

Certainly I think rampant Govt secrecy and carelessness with citizen safety since, say, WW2 is a major factor in the rise in conspiracy thinking - I won't try to count the number of times people have said "MKULTRA therefore chemtrails" or similar associations.

This Scientific American Article "Why people believe conspiracy theories" remains a good primer on the topic IMO.
The rational mind does sometime ask what is the need for such secrecy? Me thinks sometimes those making the policies are just as paranoid as the ones calling everything a conspiracy . . . I rationalize it as a wartime mentality of those leaders in control out of WWII and immediately going headlong into the Cold War and now into worldwide terror footing . . . there was never a decompression . . . we have been at war since WWII began and have not stopped . . .
 
I have a hypothesis that there is a strong association between marijuana use and belief in conspiracy theories. I noticed that in the Facebook profiles of attendees of the Mt. Shasta event. I'm not sure how to test this. I had a long conversation with a guy who said he had been opened up to new realities after smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. I had been having a conversation with his wife or girlfriend about factual issues, when he switched it to philosophical issues. I never did get from him what facts led him to believe.
 
I have a hypothesis that there is a strong association between marijuana use and belief in conspiracy theories. I noticed that in the Facebook profiles of attendees of the Mt. Shasta event. I'm not sure how to test this. I had a long conversation with a guy who said he had been opened up to new realities after smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. I had been having a conversation with his wife or girlfriend about factual issues, when he switched it to philosophical issues. I never did get from him what facts led him to believe.

I'd tread lightly there. Some people are rather sensitive about being characterized as something they are not. They will take it personally even if you are quite clear you are just talking about a fraction of the people, and not necessarily them.
 
I think a pothead would be more likely to say "hey dude. if ice can only form above 30,000 feet then why is there snow on Mt. Shasta, eh?"
 
I have a hypothesis that there is a strong association between marijuana use and belief in conspiracy theories. I noticed that in the Facebook profiles of attendees of the Mt. Shasta event. I'm not sure how to test this. I had a long conversation with a guy who said he had been opened up to new realities after smoking or otherwise ingesting marijuana. I had been having a conversation with his wife or girlfriend about factual issues, when he switched it to philosophical issues. I never did get from him what facts led him to believe.

I know a lot of people who have smoked a lot of pot who are not conspiracy theoriests.
 
I don't think I'll go to the LA one, unless invited. Some of them seemed rather hostile, and I think my presence there only served to reinforce my "shill" status in their minds. I did talk to one young woman and I thought I was getting through with the science, however she then said she thought I was "gaslighting" her. I was flabbergasted.

Basically it was super suspicious that I seemed to be making sense, because she knew what I was saying was wrong, but it seemed right, so I must have been using some mind-control technique.

The people who attend these marches are true believers. While I would be very happy to have a frank discussion with them, unfortunately the feeling is not mutual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Gaslighting is a form of mental abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity.
Content from External Source

Yep. Experienced that with the 'Planet X' people too. If you make a point they can't really deny or ask a question that exposes the fallacy of their beliefs, they think you have somehow tricked them.
 
Yep. Experienced that with the 'Planet X' people too. If you make a point they can't really deny or ask a question that exposes the fallacy of their beliefs, they think you have somehow tricked them.
You probably have. It's called reductio ad absurdum. A very powerful dis-proof technique used in Euclidean geometry. Sometimes it feels like Magic! And you have tricked them.
 
Yep. Experienced that with the 'Planet X' people too. If you make a point they can't really deny or ask a question that exposes the fallacy of their beliefs, they think you have somehow tricked them.

Speaking of debating techniques, I always let these people present whatever evidence they possess first and then I simply respond with the corresponding answers, and fill out with relevant details if necessary. Keeping it short and simple is the key really, because these people often lack attention skills and will mostly feel comfortable with very superficial explanations. Deep complex arguments are confusing and scary. But if you let them lead the conversation, you're not only showing good intentions by being a listener (which is still very important) but the topic will be defined by the believer to begin with and you'll both avoid confusion. It also becomes quite obvious to both people in the discussion when inconsistency arise, it does so because you know what the believer thinks, and the believer knows what he or she have said, so there will be no turning back once a bad argument have been exposed.

But it's interesting what you, Mick and Ross points out that instead of accepting being wrong, there might be attempts by the believer to convince him or herself that he or she has been tricked somehow instead of simply accepting being wrong, which suggests overconfidence in personal reasoning skills.

Think of it as the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who in reality lacks intelligence will think of themselves as better than they actually are. And to gain intelligence and intellect you need to be a sound sceptic, not just sceptical to external information, but apply self-criticism as a way of improving and refining your own reasoning and knowledge. The problem with conspiracy ideas is they affect very deep emotional aspects of the believer, and the fight against alleged conspiracy becomes a huge ego boost for them. Because, to be honest, from my personal observation believers in unrealistic conspiracy theories are almost always uneducated misfits, who lack social status and competence. So even if you expose their bad reasoning quite clearly for them, they might be incapable of accepting being wrong because it would mean a too large blow to the ego. So what you find instead is various psychological defence mechanisms that jumps into place.
 
Yep. Experienced that with the 'Planet X' people too. If you make a point they can't really deny or ask a question that exposes the fallacy of their beliefs, they think you have somehow tricked them.
I have had a similar experience with Ancient Alien believers. Even though my arguments are in simple english when I show the fallacy in one of their beliefs I'm accused of having said something different and when I point to my postings to show my actual statements I'm called a liar. Not about the facts but about my claim to have presented the facts in the first place.

I think this is in English - I'm not thinking clearly at the moment.
 
The problem with conspiracy ideas is they affect very deep emotional aspects of the believer, and the fight against alleged conspiracy becomes a huge ego boost for them. Because, to be honest, from my personal observation believers in unrealistic conspiracy theories are almost always uneducated misfits, who lack social status and competence. So even if you expose their bad reasoning quite clearly for them, they might be incapable of accepting being wrong because it would mean a too large blow to the ego. So what you find instead is various psychological defence mechanisms that jumps into place.

That is, in my experience, the prime mover and perpetuator of the whole thing.
 
Speaking of debating techniques, I always let these people present whatever evidence they possess first and then I simply respond with the corresponding answers, and fill out with relevant details if necessary. Keeping it short and simple is the key really, because these people often lack attention skills and will mostly feel comfortable with very superficial explanations. Deep complex arguments are confusing and scary. But if you let them lead the conversation, you're not only showing good intentions by being a listener (which is still very important) but the topic will be defined by the believer to begin with and you'll both avoid confusion. It also becomes quite obvious to both people in the discussion when inconsistency arise, it does so because you know what the believer thinks, and the believer knows what he or she have said, so there will be no turning back once a bad argument have been exposed.

But it's interesting what you, Mick and Ross points out that instead of accepting being wrong, there might be attempts by the believer to convince him or herself that he or she has been tricked somehow instead of simply accepting being wrong, which suggests overconfidence in personal reasoning skills.

Think of it as the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who in reality lacks intelligence will think of themselves as better than they actually are. And to gain intelligence and intellect you need to be a sound sceptic, not just sceptical to external information, but apply self-criticism as a way of improving and refining your own reasoning and knowledge. The problem with conspiracy ideas is they affect very deep emotional aspects of the believer, and the fight against alleged conspiracy becomes a huge ego boost for them. Because, to be honest, from my personal observation believers in unrealistic conspiracy theories are almost always uneducated misfits, who lack social status and competence. So even if you expose their bad reasoning quite clearly for them, they might be incapable of accepting being wrong because it would mean a too large blow to the ego. So what you find instead is various psychological defence mechanisms that jumps into place.
I think you have over generalized your observations . . . Conspiracy theorists of "unrealistic" conspiracies are not necessarily misfits or lack social standing . . . they do hold many times a deep emotional attachment to their beliefs . . . I will agree with that observation . . . my experience is many people harbor unconventional beliefs and don't share them except in rare situations like in a bar after several stiff drinks . . . LoL!!!
 
I think you have over generalized your observations . . . Conspiracy theorists of "unrealistic" conspiracies are not necessarily misfits or lack social standing . . . they do hold many times a deep emotional attachment to their beliefs . . . I will agree with that observation . . . my experience is many people harbor unconventional beliefs and don't share them except in rare situations like in a bar after several stiff drinks . . . LoL!!!

You might be right, but I cannot account for people who don't share their beliefs publicly. And from my mere six or so years I've been an active sceptic, most of the people I've encountered who do express their beliefs openly are people who also seem to fill their social void with that sense of being a hero that activism against alleged conspiracies gives you. It gives them confidence, it gives them social interaction, it gives them purpose and a community to identify with. And to admit committing errors will not only lessen this sense of belonging and purpose, but it will also tell them they where stupid enough to accept bunk and associate with other people who fell for the same thing. It is painful to accept such things, but it's also the reason why facts and data don't sway these people much. The conviction is emotional. It's basically like trying to reason with religious persons.

But you might be right about my over generalization George B, perhaps there are many who realize the social stigma associated with out-there ideas and are much more discreet compared to the loud zealous individuals who take pride in being "against the establishment".
 
You might be right, but I cannot account for people who don't share their beliefs publicly. And from my mere six or so years I've been an active sceptic, most of the people I've encountered who do express their beliefs openly are people who also seem to fill their social void with that sense of being a hero that activism against alleged conspiracies gives you. It gives them confidence, it gives them social interaction, it gives them purpose and a community to identify with. And to admit committing errors will not only lessen this sense of belonging and purpose, but it will also tell them they where stupid enough to accept bunk and associate with other people who fell for the same thing. It is painful to accept such things, but it's also the reason why facts and data don't sway these people much. The conviction is emotional. It's basically like trying to reason with religious persons.

But you might be right about my over generalization George B, perhaps there are many who realize the social stigma associated with out-there ideas and are much more discreet compared to the loud zealous individuals who take pride in being "against the establishment".
I do agree that many conspiracy zealots' behaviors are comparable to religious beliefs . . . at some point both religious beliefs and conspiracy beliefs require faith, emotion and many times leaps in logic to sustain their inertia . . . the depth of belief often depends upon the believers' support group whether a church group or internet Forum. Without reinforcement from like minded individuals the height of belief begins to wain . . . and the hold begins to slip . . . belief often requires booster shots . . . LoL!!!o_O
 
I often find the last retort to a "debate" from a chemtrail believer is they have belief/faith it's happening, which I obviously cannot counter.

On a side note, has any of them discovered (among the studies and patents etc) the expected mortality rate? ie, So many say this spraying is killing us but it hasn't seemed to have significantly cullled any of them yet and it's supposedly been going on how long?
 
The Los Angles (Santa Monica) march:
http://intellihub.com/los-angeles-a...obal-march-against-chemtrails-geoengineering/ (http://archive.is/9WGIs)

The writer here is still pushing a very simplisting and factually incorrect version of the theory:

For many years people have noticed persistent contrails coming from jets and lingering in the sky for hours. Science’s reasoning for what we are seeing is that these are simply contrails, or condensation trails of jet exhaust. The problem with this explanation, leading to what the mainstream media has termed as the “chemtrail conspiracy theory,” is that it does not agree with the actual science of flight and weather.

Contrails are very short, last only a few plane lengths behind the aircraft, and only occur at altitudes above 30,000 feet. They are composed of ice crystals that dissipate quickly behind the plane. Chemical trails can happen at much lower altitudes, and now with the Plane Finder App for smart phones, many lay people have been documenting persistent trails at lower altitudes.
Content from External Source
It's very unfortunate that the myth "ice crystals that dissipate quickly behind the plane", that I addressed six years ago in my very first chemtrails debunking post, is still going strong. It's bunk by assertion, plain and simple.

Maybe he is getting short of new material, but Dane Wigington is carrying that exact article on his site.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...-march-against-chemtrails-and-geoengineering/

Yet as far back as 2010, Dane knew the truth:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/contrails-chemtrails-and-artificial-clouds-official-report/
 
I'd tread lightly there. Some people are rather sensitive about being characterized as something they are not. They will take it personally even if you are quite clear you are just talking about a fraction of the people, and not necessarily them.
There is a theoretical basis for a link between drugs and chemtrails belief in chapter 6 of Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain." High levels of dopamine in the brain increase pattern recognition dramatically, leading to an increase in "type 1 errors," seeing a danger that doesn't really exist. Higher levels of dopamine have been found in people who believe weird things. Drugs tend to increase dopamine. However, the only drug that he reports on experimentally is LDopa, a pharmaceutical used for Parkinson's disease. There is also an area of the brain called the anterior singulate cortex, which functions as an error detection network. You might call it the brain's bullshit detector. Psychotics and conspiracy believers tend to have less activity in this area. However, he doesn't show any research correlating drug use with that part of the brain.
This wouldn't necessarily apply to all potheads. If 5% of nonusers are conspiracy theorists, and 25% of all potheads are conspiracy theorists, that would be a significant correlation.
 
It kinda looks like that, doesn't it? I was just updating the thread. There's another march upcoming. I posted the "Mark your calendars" in jest. Apparently I'm not very good at sarcasm :(

Original post modified

It was a comment on this:
 
Let them march and publicly protest. I don't think their image helps their cause......online protesting reaches way more people.
By "image" I don't mean the way they dress or look, but by their small numbers at rallies, which seems to indicate a lack of support.....and a fringe cause.
 
Let them march and publicly protest. I don't think their image helps their cause......online protesting reaches way more people.
By "image" I don't mean the way they dress or look, but by their small numbers at rallies, which seems to indicate a lack of support.....and a fringe cause.

Indeed. The marches I've seen in Santa Monica have been quite small (around 20 people. with 2 or 3 of them shouting), and people give them the same attention as they give the Hare Krishna marches (which are a similar size and loudness, but more mellow)

 
Back
Top