Max and the WhistleBlower

The Referee

New Member
[Note from Mick West, owner of Metabunk.org:
The following post is NOT by a regular member of Metabunk, as far as I know it is just someone who signed up here simply to announce their hoax. I do not know who it is, and I do not condone or approve of their deception in any way. I am in favor of an honest dialog about verifiable facts. I do not think this hoax has helped that]



Hi Everyone,

This will be my last post here.

Let me state first up that the object of this exercise was not to humiliate Max Bliss. He is a decent man who believes in things beneath his intellect. The object always was to vivdly demonstrate the trait of conspiracy theory believers to wholeheartedly embrace that which confirms their beliefs and to reject that which denies them, no matter what the merits of the arguments are.

I am trying to teach "discernment."

But Jay Reynolds is right. It is time to end this.

Who I am is unimportant. I am not a pilot but I am related to two of them, who assisted by giving me the technical details needed to be plausible. One day you may see this in some academic literature as a case study.

I can demonstrate easily that I perpetrated this to the viewers here and to you Max. I left you clues which told you precisely what I was doing. You only had to look. The first three messages I sent you contained rather tortured syntax which should have alerted you. The second message is the shortest and will take you the least time to decode; the first letter of each sentence spells out "FAKED". Applying the same system to the other emails, including the fragment of the one posted on Metabunk yields similar messages. I did try to warn you.

Suffice to say that there was not an ounce of truth in anything I wrote. Every word of it was made up. I simply wrote and expanded a theme started by you, Max. I told you what you wanted to hear, even though as the experienced debunkers here pointed out, it was very far fetched. TMA has no place on aircraft. Its use would result in death and destruction on a grand scale. Aluminium Oxide weighs far too much, as others here have pointed out and there is no distribution network for the large amounts of it required.

There are no special ULD containers and there are no TMA tanks at airport fuel farms. Sorry Max, it was all made up.

And yes, I guess you didn't watch "Olympus has Fallen"?

Max, you are a decent guy. It had to be someone prominent and you took the bait too easily. In your communications to me you said you had heavyweight mainstream media ready to interview me. It is rather disturbing to me that the people you mentioned would even countenance the chemtrail hoax being true, and that is one reason why chemtrail believers need to be given a reason to maybe pause and reflect.

Not everything you read, no matter how attractive to your way of thinking it may be, is true.

You aren't saving the world. You are wasting you boundless energy and passion on a quixotic quest that will get you nowhere.

Max I will not release your replies to me unless I see some sort of backpedalling from you. The email you sent me yesterday reveals nothing but a hunger to expose "chemtrailing" to the world and I will release all of them if I sense some sort of rationalisation of your actions. I will include the dates so people will see what I am talking about, but I have no wish to humiliate you any further.

I reproduce the first three emails I sent below.

Signing off,

TheReferee/Hornblower

1. Max

The time has come to come clean. Hopefully what I write here will help end the world-wide atrocity that I have been a part of. I know that what I say will shock many, but seeing that you seem to be almost there with uncovering the truth, the sooner this is out in the open the better.

So you know, I am a management pilot with one of the low cost carriers that has figured in your videos; I am involved in the regulatory side of things, which is required because since just about everything we do in these spraying programs is illegal according to the CAA and JAA regulations, if a pilot becomes aware of what we are doing he or she will come to me first and I, supposedly, take it from there. Surprisingly very few of our pilots have become aware of the program, but your videos have alarmed the small group of managers I report to, and I fear the cat may soon be out of the bag.

At first I thought you had actually cracked it. From your latest videos you have accurately identified the method of getting the Al2O3 into the atmosphere, but not where it is stored. Right in the middle of most airliners, apart from the very short range ones, is the CWT or centre-wing fuel tank. As aircraft are fuelled, the tanks in the wings are always fuelled first to preserve what is know as favorable wing bending moments. Unless the aircraft is scheduled for a long-range flight, the centre wing tanks are empty and can be isolated if required by the use of shut-off and cross-feed valves.

Doing it this way allows us to accurately load the right amount of the material and avoid overloading the aircraft, which is a safety risk, particularly on takeoff. You are correct about the TMA. Other methods of delivery required too much in the way of pumps and switches, which meant too many people would notice what was going on. Under the guise of fitting an inerting system, which is automatic and has no cockpit controls, we can pressurize the CWT enough so that once a simple valve is actuated remotely, the TMA is drawn through the lines by the pressure differential and flows into the exhaust where it does its thing. And doing it this way has only one drawback, it limits "spray flights" by us and other airlines to shorter range flights but that is just a matter of scheduling and logistics.

Really the only people who need to be involved are the people who empty the honey-cart who must purge the TMA system after use; they are required to wear protective clothing for the honeycart job which also covers them for accidental exposure to TMA; and the refuellers who must configure the fuel system from a panel under the wing; have you ever wondered why most refuelling systems have two pipes attached to the wings?

Extraneous weight issues are handled by a small team of flight dispatchers, who exclusively handle the spraying flights. (mistake here) Some time before each flight they check the destination, alternate and departure airports, the planned loads and make sure that the prevailing winds will guarantee that the runways most likely to be used have a performance safety "pad" that will compensate for the extra weight that the pilots are unaware of; if there is any doubt then the TMA will not be loaded. Some other safety precautions include adjusting FMC stall margin values so the pilots do not climb too high for their REAL weight which could cause a high altitude stall. One of the ways we realised that was a problem was graphically illustrated back in 2009. Guess what I am talking about...

Under this program, I have personally been subjected to death threats should I ever reveal what is happening. Low level personnel are simply trained to do the job and have no real idea what is happening. Little do people realise that those doing what are considered menial jobs, refuelling and "waste disposal" are paid very handsomely for what they do, and their general ignorance means they don't ask any questions. I guess that is just as well because they are monitored 24/7.

By doing this I hope to end the fear and guilt I and others have been suffering. Long ago I was spun a tale about how this program was a beneficial thing for the world and I believed with all my heart. Eventually, after much soul searching.. I realised the evil in which I was such an integral part.

Hornblower

2.

Hello Max,

Following my last message and your publicising of it, I have been waiting to see is any attention is being turned towards myself. At the moment it appears not.
Keen as I am to get you the information you want, you must understand that compartmentalisation means that most of information I have can be identified as being in the possession of only a few people, so I must be very careful.
Eventually I think all will be known; I am sensing there is a lot of unease about using TMA and it wouldn't surprise me to see official acknowledgement of the program sooner rather than later to allow for safer and more efficient means of spraying.
Doing that would be great for people such as myself; but in the meantime I will do what I can to sanitise the information I have and get it to you.... expect something in the next day or so.

Hornblower

P.S. If you want to see why TMA has its problems, look up "Air China Naha" on youtube. Failure to properly purge the CWT tank on arrival.

3.

Hello Max

This message contains some graphics which if released, may expose my identity to those in the know. How that is handled by you is critical. I will let you know what you can share and what is for your eyes only. Secrecy is still essential at the moment.

My well being depends on it.

Earlier I told you about the unease regarding the use of TMA. Some of the reasons are obvious. Some not so. At the core of the problems is the cost of producing it in worthwhile quantities. Google some of the companies that sell it for an idea about how much just one spray flight must cost the taxpayer.

Europe is a problem because the vast majority of flights flown in the Eurozone are made by smaller aircraft such as the ones my company fly. Intercontinental flights are done by larger jets which can carry aluminium oxide in raw form. I will also explain how that is done in this message.

So.... as management, by law, we are not allowed to dictate to our captains how much fuel they carry on any particular flight. As professionals they know that fuel is expensive and they generally do not over-order but we must devise methods to ensure they do not order so much fuel for a particular flight as to require the capacity of the CWT.

Control of this factor is done by using scheduling and logistics as explained earlier, and by what is called the minimum equipment list, or MEL's. On every aircraft, this is a list of defects that can be legally carried on a flight. Nowadays, all aircraft have a lot of redundancy built in to all their systems to allow for this. The MEL list allows aircraft to fly and then be repaired in scheduled downtime.

Here is a photo of the MEL we use to allow the aircraft to fly, but prohibit using the CWT.

deleted.


Earlier I told you how the CWT needs to be isolated so the TMA can be loaded. Reading this MEL you can see that even if one of these valves isn't working then the CWT cannot be used. Every flight that we use to spray carries this MEL. Any suspicion by pilots that we carry this MEL too often is allayed by making sure that no captain is rostered for a spray flight more than once a month. Rostering is tightly controlled by management. Every operator of the aircraft we fly has this MEL list so you may release this information.

Now to the larger aircraft. One of the problems with the smaller aircraft is that their cargo compartments are only designed to load passenger baggage and a small amount of parcels via hand and a belt loader. Consequently there is no extra room in them for tanks/pumps etc required for really large scale spraying. Having this restriction means going down the TMA route, with all its attendant problems.

Extra negative factors include hiding the weight of aluminium oxide from pilots on the smaller aircraft. "Meth", as it is known by the few of us intimately involved, weighs less than the equivalent amount of fuel, so there is no real problem there. The extra weight is hidden by the methods explained earlier. Really large scale spraying however requires a bigger solution. Among the other problems of TMA is that aluminium oxide is only one of the byproducts created when it combusts, so burning a kilo of it creates much less than a kilo of AL2O3.

Intercontinental sized aircraft are the answer to these problems. Like their smaller cousins, they can also carry TMA using the same systems. Some, like the earlier domestic version of the 767 do not have a CWT, but most do.

High capacity aircraft like the A380, 747, A340, 777, A330 and the ER versions of the 767 all have two things that make them ideal for large scale spraying. One is a large volume CWT and the other is two large capacity cargo compartments where aluminium oxide, mixed into a slurry with methanol can be loaded inside specially converted ULD containers.

When a spray flight is scheduled, a calculation is made by specially trained flight dispatchers as to the availability of payload weight that can be used for spraying. Early in the process, it it determined if both aluminium oxide and TMA can be used, just TMA for longer flights or no availability generally for the ULH (ultra long haul) flights.

At all times the weight limitations of the aircraft must be observed. Safety is paramount; the risks of TMA notwithstanding. You can see a loading message below. I cannot allow you to publicly disclose this because it is proprietary, and may endanger a sympathetic contact I have in another company.

deleted

Some of this is a bit arcane but bear with me. In line 8 you can see a value called the Zero Fuel Weight. This is the key to making sure pilots do not know they are carrying spray material and still keeping the aircraft safe. The ZFW is the weight of the entire aircraft, including passengers and freight, minus the fuel. On the right of the actual value is the regulatory maximum that this value can be, on this particular aircraft type it is 175000 kgs.

For this particular flight, a spray flight, you can see that the ZFW was almost at the maximum value. On this particular day, the weight of the freight carried, the total traffic load in line 6, which the pilot has no means to physically check, was altered to reflect the weight of the passengers and cargo PLUS the spray material, whatever it was that was used.

One major advantage of this is that it is foolproof. Landing with spray material still on board, say in the event the remotely operated release valve failed, could mean big trouble if that weight was not accounted for. You can see that if the material sprays correctly, the aircraft will actually be much lighter for landing than the pilot realises, but that actually means it is safer. On the other hand if the valve failed (rare but it has happened) the weight of the material is accounted for in the pilots landing distance calculations and the risk of a landing over-run is negated.

Under this system, the critical speeds that are calculated for a safe take-off are also inherently correct.

Now to look how it is done in practice. All large aircraft are refuelled from a single point, usually by convention, under the left wing. In the following photos you can see the twin hoses that are used, and if you look very carefully at the CF6 engine in the background and the foreground in the second , you will see the same spray nozzles that are present on the 737 engines.

deleted

I took these photos myself at a large European airport, they are not proprietary so you may distribute them. Visually, the spray pipes are small but they have high capacity pumps inside the pylon (inside the white access panel on the pylon) which forces out large quantities of material in a small amount of time if required. Energy is diverted from the exhaust gas stream to power these pumps.... they are simple, foolproof, operate continuously when the engine is running and require no cockpit control.

Going with this system means that flexibility is maintained. Using TMA for longer range flights can be done using the second hose. Lines carrying TMA are part of just about all airports. Located only at the left hand wing, to keep the operation as simple as possible, they are pressurised to reduce the chance of air getting into them with the inevitable results. In the case of non TMA flights, the second hose is just there for show and is not being actually used.

But in the case of aluminium oxide, the weight and bulk of the material means that this method cannot be used. Loading aluminium is done by the modified ULD container method. Even this method however has its safety considerations which must be followed.

Cargo loading is critical and must take into account the weight and balance restrictions that all aircraft have. Real problems can be caused by mis-loading as the aluminium oxide slurry is very heavy. Every flight, even non spraying flights, must have containers loaded in correct sequences to avoid balance errors. Duty load dispatchers aren't required to know what is in the containers, just what each one weighs in order to get the sequence correct. ULDs that are modified for spray purposes are always loaded first at either cargo door(locations pictured below). Loading them this way is essential because they have pipe arrangements which hook into the onboard spray system, and the heaviest containers must go as close as possible to the C of G as you can see from this proprietary diagram... (not to be released.)

deleted


One can see that CPT 2 and 3 have the heaviest allowable weights, 20 and 15 tonnes respectively which is fortunate because they are the areas that must be used by the modified ULD containers. ULD use is ubiquitous and the modified ones can be found at holding areas at airports around the world if one knows what one is looking for. Suffice to say, if you are looking for evidence about how ULDs can be modified, check out "envirotainer" and imagine how simple it would be to do the required modifications.

Using the ADSB system, the inflight position of the aircraft is always known by spray controllers. New ATC procedures mean that the position of spray aircraft are always broadcast to satellite receivers that sites such as FlightRadar24 do not have access to. Spraying can therefore be targeted very accurately and efficiently.

Knowing all this is a heavy burden I now wish to pass on to others. Every day has become a trial for me. Please us this information wisely. Trust is important..for the reasons we both know so well. I cannot meet you till this is out in the open, hopefully these disclosures will be the tipping point for you. Can you disseminate this as widely as possible, without the info that must remain confidential? All I long for is an end to this guilt.

Leaving it with you now, in hope..





Horatio Hornblower >




to Max
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cross refererencing with the other thread on the subject:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-anonymous-chemtrails-airline-insider-speaks-out.2132/

It will be interesting to see how this is taken. I've always advised against doing something like this, as it's sometimes hard to put the genie back in the bottle. And there's a big risk that it might just make people angry. I hope that people take it as it was intended - an illustration of the dangers of believing too quickly and unquestioningly.
 
Last edited:
Hi Everyone,
This will be my last post here.

I hope that you post a second time, if...

One day you may see this in some academic literature as a case study.

... this happens.

You did an Experiment with Max Bliss and (indirectly) with the Members of this Forum, so we should get the result of this experiment. When you´re ready with it, please post your results here!

Just for the records, the Story is also cross-referending with another thread on Metabunk.
After you send the first email, Max Bliss reacts and he´s got responses from this Forum. The discussion after the first eMail starts here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-debates-chemtrails.1648/#post-54518

And you, Mr "The Referee / Hornblower", seems to had reading our discussion too, You´re using the argues from the Metabunk-Members in your last eMail to give Mr. Bliss a warning. You wrote in your third eMail:

Among the other problems of TMA is that aluminium oxide is only one of the byproducts created when TMA combusts, so burning a kilo of it creates much less than a kilo of AL2O3.
Content from External Source
I think, nobody ever before camed to the idea to make a Mass-Calculation for spraying TMA into the atmosphere to bring Aluminium-Oxid in there. You have found this here and used this information. Maybe to give Max a hint.

Please inform us, if you are using this "case-study" for your paper.



It will be interesting to see how this is taken. I've always advised against doing something like this, as it's sometimes hard to put the genie back in the bottle. And there's a big risk that it might just make people angry. I hope that people take it as it was intended - an illustration of the dangers of believing too quickly and unquestioningly.

From my side of view. This strategy is o.k.: If they are enougth hints that the information is a hoax. Like on April-fools-day. "The Referee" gaved some hints, but i think they where not clear enoth for an conspirancy-minded men like Mr. Bliss.

To code a "secret message" into the first letters of an Email is not obviosly enogth to mark a hoax, from my side of view. The hint he given in the second eMail about the crash in China should be enougth to starts some research about TMA, but Mr. Bliss didn´t make it.

(sorry for my bad english - but this is another important point. Sceptical People are knowing where they are strong and where they are not. Believers try to show all to be expert in evreything. I´m just writing, when I´ve proved something and be shure to be rigth)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the coded message was mainly to allow the hoaxer to confirm that from its inception it was intended to be a hoax, in case Max tried to say that Hornblower wasn't the original sender, etc. It was a devious device well hidden but in plain enough sight when explained, which could not have happened by accident.

My friend David Emery wrote this many years ago. I found it again immediately by googling "how to spot an email hoax".

Note Emery's first two points of advice and you will see that Max bit the bait far too quickly by ignoring the obvious tell-tale signs he should have noticed:

David Emery said:
1. Note whether the text you've received was actually written by the person who sent it. Did anyone sign their name to it? If not, be skeptical.
2. Look for the telltale phrase, 'Forward this to everyone you know!' The more urgent the plea, the more suspect the message.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/cs/nethoaxes/ht/emailhoax.htm

A con pits a clever person against another who is to some degree blinded by a need for something. In money cons it is pure greed, in other types of cons there must be some sort of perceived benefit to be gained by the target. Max probably saw himself as a hero, and there was the element of flattery in there when the hoaxer used Max's own personal bias for his insistence that commercial planes MUST be spraying to make persistent contrails. I recall Max repeating Harold Saive's idea about trimethylaluminum in his debate with a chemistry student several weeks ago.

The hoaxer used that, along with the main ingredient for a successful con, confidence.
By showing Max some detailed albeit flawed information, and a few made-up documents and photos, he seemed to easily instill enough confidence in Max to overcome suspicion and establish trust.

About a year ago I offered G. Edward Griffin the chance to run any of his ideas through here as a sort of peer review. I told him he might benefit by having people throw heavy stones against his ideas. True to form, he has not taken up my offer. Jim Lee has, but got offended when we did what he asked. Max could have used us, but his need for prestige and confirmation bias was in the end the way he got played.
 
I fear this will make Max and by extension (at least some) chemtrailers even more entrenched. A lot of them already think they are being tagerted with disinformation. Making their fears real does not help.

Also, I fully expect there to be some blowback to metabunk from this. It is already considered a "disinfo site" frequented by "trolls". This really does not help.

On another note: If it you are writing the academic paper yourself, please PM me. I would very much like to talk.
 
Last edited:
If this is correct it will only ever get in academic literature as a case study on pitiful ethics. No good will come from this and ridicule is a tried and tested method used in psychology not to change someones way of thinking.
 
Dave, it also really adds little to academic knowledge. There is enough literature out there on conspiracy thinking, and much of the literature notes its circular nature and selective criticism.
 
The code is pretty cool. Harder to brush it off as the whistleblower getting scared and retracting their statements. It's pretty funny reading the emails on blogs knowing the code is in there.

I expect the fallout from this will be pretty entertaining but I doubt it'll change much.
 
Cross refererencing with the other thread on the subject:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/max-bliss-anonymous-chemtrails-airline-insider-speaks-out.2132/

It will be interesting to see how this is taken. I've always advised against doing something like this, as it's sometimes hard to put the genie back in the bottle. And there's a big risk that it might just make people angry. I hope that people take it as it was intended - an illustration of the dangers of believing too quickly and unquestioningly.


I'm also reluctant because it's almost too convincing (for Max) which he could easily counter if he was a quarter of a politician. If I play "chemtrailist advocate" I could envisage Max on a day when he's not stoned as responding:

"I don't follow this path of inquiry because I DO understand how they are conducting these toxic spraying missions, I am following this path because I DON'T know how it is done. Yes, I took this whistleblower (I should have recognised the whimsical "hornblower" title) on face value and considered the information carefully before dissemination of those parts which were approved. The joke has been on me. Really funny, wasn't it? But after reflection I ask those of you who seek the truth, is this not the biggest example of trolling against our cause that we have ever witnessed? We suffer the shills, trolls, disinformation agents every second of every day and THIS is the greatest height they can rise to: an act of extreme trollage admitted by themselves?? I think we have all learned something about the depths they need to sink to in order to try and throw us off track. It's almost laughable. Anyway, casting off that disturbing but insightful episode, I hope you all have your marches organised for 25 August and look forward to feedback on their success in opening the eyes of the sheeples!!"

or some such thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it really a good idea to put words into their mouths? I mean, even if there was some truth to it, it reeks of strawman. We don't like to be pidgeonholed, I would bet noone does. These kinds of assumptions about other people may be inevitable, but I always like both try to keep them in check and try not to voice them publicly, as they might be construed as disregard, insults or denigration. It's, IMHO, always better to assume not to know what the other is thinking. It makes for a more open, honest and mature debate.
 
Max is fixated on undulatus clouds. He's deleted each of my two or three attempts to explain the wind shear that produces them. He doesn't want to hear real verifiable scientific facts, yet he blindly latches on to obvious BS if it is what he wants to hear. You get what you deserve. I hope he learns the intended lesson.
 
If this is correct it will only ever get in academic literature as a case study on pitiful ethics. No good will come from this and ridicule is a tried and tested method used in psychology not to change someones way of thinking.

Even if ridicule is not intended.

That's why I have the line "Do not suggest they get an education, or take some classes" in the politeness policy. It's just really hard to convince someone of something if they think you are belittling them in any way at all. You have to be really careful. I don't think that care was taken here. While it does of course illustrate problems with thinking, it is inevitably going to be perceived as mocking and underhand, even if it is carefully explained that no mockery was intended. If you've already lied to them, then why are they going to believe your explanation of the lie?
 
Even if ridicule is not intended.

That's why I have the line "Do not suggest they get an education, or take some classes" in the politeness policy. It's just really hard to convince someone of something if they think you are belittling them in any way at all. You have to be really careful. I don't think that care was taken here. While it does of course illustrate problems with thinking, it is inevitably going to be perceived as mocking and underhand, even if it is carefully explained that no mockery was intended. If you've already lied to them, then why are they going to believe your explanation of the lie?

We only have the hoaxers word for the lack of mockery, although I suggest "You are so gullible" in the code is evidence for some mockery as well as the public admission. Some FB comments are extremely cruel at the moment and I wonder how anyone could be naive enough to think that would not be the end result.

For me I feel the debunking was enough as it stood as it raised more questions than it answered (although I did laugh at the Olympus has Fallen reference), and the admission is going to entrench the main players now. This has made things personal now and I can see them closing ranks and although we are all shills anyway it has not done Metabunk any favours.
 
I fear this will make Max and by extension (at least some) chemtrailers even more entrenched. A lot of them already think they are being tagerted with disinformation. Making their fears real does not help.

Also, I fully expect there to be some blowback to metabunk from this. It is already considered a "disinfo site" frequented by "trolls". This really does not help.

On another note: If it you are writing the academic paper yourself, please PM me. I would very much like to talk.

My experience of over a decade in dealing with the "Planet X" believers is that no matter what you do, they will interpret it as confirmation of their beliefs. Speaking out against their claims = they are right because you are paid to work against them. Silence about their claims = they are right because you can't prove them wrong. Their steadfast belief in conspiracy trumps everything else.
 
Several times when I was trying to explain to folks that the New Madrid fault does not go into the Gulf, I told them this " Don't take my word for it, go to your local college or university and talk to one of the geology professors there." It is a version of 'take a class' but worded in a more polite way.
 
Several times when I was trying to explain to folks that the New Madrid fault does not go into the Gulf, I told them this " Don't take my word for it, go to your local college or university and talk to one of the geology professors there." It is a version of 'take a class' but worded in a more polite way.

The percentage of them who will actually DO that, as opposed to those who just accept what they see on internet conspiracy sites, is vanishingly small.
 
Max has invested himself heavily in this and contacted the CAA with his proof

Unfortunately they might have a special bin for people making anonymous email claims without a shred of substance.
Or, the tax-paying public's scarce money will be squandered making a polite yet negative response which Max never expected would be useful in any way
because he brought nothing to the table but thin air.

Those two videos are chest thumpers for his follower's consumption, he got what he wanted out of them.
 
Is he not yet aware of the hoaxer admitting it was a hoax?
Search max bliss on Twitter. Plenty of people tweeting links and talking about "the beginning of the end" - by which they mean they think this is the evidence that will finally convince the masses, I'd be surprised if the news this is a hoax reaches many of them

This is another hoax that will end up used as evidence to convince people new to chemtrails who can't be bothered to research the validity of the claims
 
Last edited:
Max seems Blissfully unaware that his sky has fallen. As we watch the slow motion trainwreck, he is still busily uploading his reports to the authorities of the hoax material.
 
I suspect that this 'whistleblower' stuff will be added to the steaming pile and thought of as true, regardless.
 
I have a sense that this story might also become a good example of how quick proponents of the "chemtrail" narrative are to jump to conclusion without actually verifying or even understand what is actually being said.

I've seen similar situations in the past where believers truly doesn't understand the material they are dealing with, yet make wild conclusions about it.

I say good job Hornblower for exposing these people for what they are - [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:
But is it a helpful example? Will it change anything? Or will it just make them angry, and more entrenched?
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/

It's hard to tell at this point obviously. I've been debating the chemtrail community for many years now, even have had opportunities to (sort of) debate people like Scott Stevens, Roxy Lopez and Harold Saive. And the only reason the discussions only reached a "sort of" discussion was because of these persons themselves. I apologize if anything in my previous comment appeared to be impolite or condescending, my statement was based solely on my experience interacting with said people. Many of these individuals approached me head on online with the usual rhetoric such as "wake up", "sheeple" ect, they wanted to prove me wrong. But I actually believe in politeness as well, there is nothing more effective than polite factual debunking. And when these people realized that I was actually pretty well informed on the subject and gifted with great patience as well, they started to turn away from any factual discussion, questioning my motives, giving vague answers such as "google it". All interaction with these people resulted in a ban, except for Roxy Lopez who threatened me with a ban but I pulled out of her group before she decided to do it.

Again, my apologies. I'm not trying to be condescending to anyone, but these said people are in fact uninformed and they become afraid because of it. My point is that such mindset is obviously something that will affect how one will interpret elaborate hoaxes such as this one. I do think people like Max, Lopez or Saive will interpret it as nothing but a direct proof that there are "forces" out there attempting to discredit their struggle. Not least from Metabunk. But I do believe this example can be used to convince those who are not deeply into the mindset that "anti-chemtrail celebrities" such as Stevens, Lopez, Saive and Bliss don't really spend too much effort verifying things as long as it appears to support the conspiracy narrative.

So yeah, in my mind this is a double-edged sword depending on who you present the example to.

[edited grammar]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a sense that this story might also become a good example of how quick proponents of the "chemtrail" narrative are to jump to conclusion without actually verifying or even understand what is actually being said.

I've seen similar situations in the past where believers truly doesn't understand the material they are dealing with, yet make wild conclusions about it.

I say good job Hornblower for exposing these people for what they are - [...]

It's a fantastic example of that, but we have seen other such examples over the years and tried to point out the obvious ramifications only to have it be ignored or re-interpreted in a way which seems truly nonsensicle. I have become a little discouraged about any reasoning or example getting through to the 'true believers'. They ALWAYS seem to be able to find a way to 'spin' things so that they can avoid having their beliefs undermined.
 
Back
Top