U
Unregistered
Guest
[Admin: this was originally posted under https://www.metabunk.org/threads/661-Debunked-Chemtrail-Plane-Interior-(Ballast-Barrels) and those would be the photos referred to here, I've moved it into its own thread here, as it raises much broader questions]
I think it's great to come to those kinds of photos with a critical eye. Obviously it's not a scientific approach for anyone to "doctor" photos for any cause. I'm sure that on both sides of the argument there are those who look for data to support their belief and they will interpret those data accordingly. It's the challenge of science. Can one actually be objective? Does one "take a side" on emotional impulse, or does one simply follow the data like a curious child?
While I'm mildly impressed with the debunk of the photos and I think it will only bring more clarity to the issue, it doesn't in any way debunk the entire chemtrail issue as a whole. So don't be too impressed with yourselves. You've got a ways to go, and far, far more data to analyze.
Just a few simple questions should cause careful reflection in every logical thinker:
1) If there really were a top-secret program to release aerosols into the atmosphere via jet airplanes, is there any way we would actually have photos of the interiors of such planes? Is it possible that personal cameras or other devices would be allowed anywhere near the facilities and equipment? [Based on what we know of other top-secret programs and facilities, this is highly improbable. You've seen security at the public airport -- what do you think it would like at a highly classified military research facility?]
2) How do environmental samples and readings play into this? Are thousands of researchers around the globe merely "doctoring" the results of their soil and water samples showing alarming levels of heavy metals? Have they all somehow got it wrong? Keep in mind that among these researchers are biologists, chemists, lab technologists, and many other experts.
3) How do the astute observations of experienced farmers play into this? Some farmers are reporting as much as 60% losses to their crop yields since they started observing what they call "spraying." Is this merely in their imaginations? Or are these farmers, who are very experienced with weather conditions, soil conditions, and so forth, observing the direct results of geo-engineering?
4) How does the openly stated goal of "owning the weather" play into this? The U.S. Air Force released a paper, "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025." This is not the only government document discussing weather [and food] as a weapon of war. Are we to suppose the biggest military machine on the planet is merely joking about "owning the weather"? Is there a precedent for their ambitions? [Hint: Vietnam -- Ben Livingston -- Operation Popeye]
5) How does the meteorological science play into this? Is it possible that the formation, appearance, and character of "normal" contrails has so radically and so suddenly changed? On the basis of pure observation -- WITHOUT INTERPRETATION -- why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into a haze? [Whereas contrails used to simply dissipate in a matter of seconds -- and some still do] How is this possible? [Neither "debunkers," nor "hoaxers" can yet sufficiently answer these questions! They have only opinion, backed by "data" that supports their belief!]
6) How does the recent marketplace activity of "weather trading" play into this? It is an established fact that on various futures and trading exchanges, "weather" is now bought and sold as a commodity! Who stands to benefit from insider trading in such activities? Does it stand to reason that some group *might* have a stake [on multiple fronts] in controlling the weather?
7) How does corporate behavior play into this? Take, for example, a corporation like Monsanto, repeatedly caught red-handed lying, cheating, and otherwise rigging the system for its own benefit. It is clear from careful investigation that the Biotech - Agra industry [Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, etc] has been "in bed" with the FDA for years -- surely there's a conflict of interest when the former VP for Monsanto is now head of the FDA? This "revolving door" between corporate giants and the government is well-documented. The point is this: Monsanto, for example, has done everything in its power to get GMO's into the food supply with virtually no human testing, no regulation, no public discourse. Furthermore, the link between GMO's and a whole carnival of diseases is clear, yet as usual, "profit" is more important than health and ecosystem vitality. Could the same kind of psychology apply to the recent obsession with "halting climate change" and "controlling the weather"?
These first few questions merely scratch the SURFACE of this issue; so please, don't pat yourselves on the back too much for discrediting a few lousily photo-shopped images. And please, rid yourselves of the pretentious labels your throw around, such as "hoaxers." The fact is, people researching this issue are sincere and concerned individuals for the most part, like most of you.
So instead of taking sides on emotional impulse, and instead of searching for data that confirm our perceptual worldview, let's all work together to be more like children, who are simply, open, innocent, and ultimately curious. They don't dismiss information out of hand, merely because it isn't in keeping with their worldview. They consider every possibility, no matter how outlandish it may seem, and they follow all ideas to their final conclusion. Obviously, as adults, our reasoning capacity is developed where the child's is not. But on the same hand, if we do not have the flexibility and innocence of a child, then we have also lost our ability to think critically and creatively -- we have fallen into the rigid trap of merely propping up our worldview.
We all have a ways to go, and there's FAR more to the story.
In addition the questions I posed, consider this article, which cites a number of sources for your convenience. And truly, CONSIDER It. Don't merely dismiss it out of hand because it's posted on a website that you've been pre-programmed to filter out on the basis of a reputation projected onto it by someone else. Consider the INFORMATION -- forget the propaganda.
I think it's great to come to those kinds of photos with a critical eye. Obviously it's not a scientific approach for anyone to "doctor" photos for any cause. I'm sure that on both sides of the argument there are those who look for data to support their belief and they will interpret those data accordingly. It's the challenge of science. Can one actually be objective? Does one "take a side" on emotional impulse, or does one simply follow the data like a curious child?
While I'm mildly impressed with the debunk of the photos and I think it will only bring more clarity to the issue, it doesn't in any way debunk the entire chemtrail issue as a whole. So don't be too impressed with yourselves. You've got a ways to go, and far, far more data to analyze.
Just a few simple questions should cause careful reflection in every logical thinker:
1) If there really were a top-secret program to release aerosols into the atmosphere via jet airplanes, is there any way we would actually have photos of the interiors of such planes? Is it possible that personal cameras or other devices would be allowed anywhere near the facilities and equipment? [Based on what we know of other top-secret programs and facilities, this is highly improbable. You've seen security at the public airport -- what do you think it would like at a highly classified military research facility?]
2) How do environmental samples and readings play into this? Are thousands of researchers around the globe merely "doctoring" the results of their soil and water samples showing alarming levels of heavy metals? Have they all somehow got it wrong? Keep in mind that among these researchers are biologists, chemists, lab technologists, and many other experts.
3) How do the astute observations of experienced farmers play into this? Some farmers are reporting as much as 60% losses to their crop yields since they started observing what they call "spraying." Is this merely in their imaginations? Or are these farmers, who are very experienced with weather conditions, soil conditions, and so forth, observing the direct results of geo-engineering?
4) How does the openly stated goal of "owning the weather" play into this? The U.S. Air Force released a paper, "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025." This is not the only government document discussing weather [and food] as a weapon of war. Are we to suppose the biggest military machine on the planet is merely joking about "owning the weather"? Is there a precedent for their ambitions? [Hint: Vietnam -- Ben Livingston -- Operation Popeye]
5) How does the meteorological science play into this? Is it possible that the formation, appearance, and character of "normal" contrails has so radically and so suddenly changed? On the basis of pure observation -- WITHOUT INTERPRETATION -- why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into a haze? [Whereas contrails used to simply dissipate in a matter of seconds -- and some still do] How is this possible? [Neither "debunkers," nor "hoaxers" can yet sufficiently answer these questions! They have only opinion, backed by "data" that supports their belief!]
6) How does the recent marketplace activity of "weather trading" play into this? It is an established fact that on various futures and trading exchanges, "weather" is now bought and sold as a commodity! Who stands to benefit from insider trading in such activities? Does it stand to reason that some group *might* have a stake [on multiple fronts] in controlling the weather?
7) How does corporate behavior play into this? Take, for example, a corporation like Monsanto, repeatedly caught red-handed lying, cheating, and otherwise rigging the system for its own benefit. It is clear from careful investigation that the Biotech - Agra industry [Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, etc] has been "in bed" with the FDA for years -- surely there's a conflict of interest when the former VP for Monsanto is now head of the FDA? This "revolving door" between corporate giants and the government is well-documented. The point is this: Monsanto, for example, has done everything in its power to get GMO's into the food supply with virtually no human testing, no regulation, no public discourse. Furthermore, the link between GMO's and a whole carnival of diseases is clear, yet as usual, "profit" is more important than health and ecosystem vitality. Could the same kind of psychology apply to the recent obsession with "halting climate change" and "controlling the weather"?
These first few questions merely scratch the SURFACE of this issue; so please, don't pat yourselves on the back too much for discrediting a few lousily photo-shopped images. And please, rid yourselves of the pretentious labels your throw around, such as "hoaxers." The fact is, people researching this issue are sincere and concerned individuals for the most part, like most of you.
So instead of taking sides on emotional impulse, and instead of searching for data that confirm our perceptual worldview, let's all work together to be more like children, who are simply, open, innocent, and ultimately curious. They don't dismiss information out of hand, merely because it isn't in keeping with their worldview. They consider every possibility, no matter how outlandish it may seem, and they follow all ideas to their final conclusion. Obviously, as adults, our reasoning capacity is developed where the child's is not. But on the same hand, if we do not have the flexibility and innocence of a child, then we have also lost our ability to think critically and creatively -- we have fallen into the rigid trap of merely propping up our worldview.
We all have a ways to go, and there's FAR more to the story.
In addition the questions I posed, consider this article, which cites a number of sources for your convenience. And truly, CONSIDER It. Don't merely dismiss it out of hand because it's posted on a website that you've been pre-programmed to filter out on the basis of a reputation projected onto it by someone else. Consider the INFORMATION -- forget the propaganda.
Last edited by a moderator: