1. Flynn

    Flynn Member

  2. Flynn

    Flynn Member

    It makes sense given what is being believed. Someone new to the chat site wrote on the welcome thread in the last couple of days how disturbing the chemtrail belief really was for their psychological well-being. It has to be disturbing to the psyche if one believe that it is really taking place. (For me, even without 'the science' the whole theory falls apart on 'human nature' grounds).

    I've had as much said about the 'belief' in CO2 AGW. Not sure why the difference (in a 'human nature' sense).
     
  3. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Part III is yet to be written. I have plenty of material collected over 15+ years to write a book someday, and more happens the longer I wait!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    Yes, I read that Jay

    And thank you for your time and effort in investigating/exposing this claptrap
     
  5. Flynn

    Flynn Member

    Strongly urge you to write that book.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    kalam-cosmologicl-argument-refuted-15-638.
     
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member


    I thought that perhaps this was a famous quote. But I Googled it, and this site is the only place it comes up. Stated perfectly! I agree whole-heartedly. I'm not sure if it necessarily applies to CTs, because I think there is something much more complex going on in their minds when they encounter information that doesn't fit with their world view. But I do see it in the business world - people are encountered with information that proves their position wrong and they twist that information or the situation around to try to make it look like they were in the right all along. I lose trust in people like that and if it's in my power to stop working with them, I will.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Critical Thinker

    Critical Thinker Senior Member

    Actually it is a paraphrase of a quote by Marvin Williams: "There is no better test of a man's integrity than his behavior when he is wrong."

    aa7e5c068c008f3240e7111b01394bdd.


    Googling it was a good start, within the image results of that search you would have found the original quote and its attribution.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I think the paraphrase is better because it includes the idea of having realized or been shown that on is wrong, not just being wrong.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Dan Page

    Dan Page Active Member

    Chemtrails, I know they don't exist because as a Flight Service Specialist for 27 years I've had the training and experience in weather and aviation to know how contrails form and sometimes under the right conditions, persist and even spread out to form cirrus cloud. Over the last month or so I have been posting in the Twitter realm, trying to show by various means that the above is true and chemtrails do not exist. Well as you might imagine, I've been met with some pretty nasty language, everything from troll to shill, to brain dead, paid government disinformation agent, been told that I'm banned, to shut the f up, and on and on. It seems the more I try to convince them of the real truth, they become more entrenched in their belief that it's deadly chemicals, geo-engineering or whatever else they can dream up. They will absolutely will not even entertain the possibility that they may be wrong. I've posted satellite pics of current water vapour maps that can show where contrails are likely to form, and even more important, where they are NOT likely to form, and have circled these areas. I've also posted maps of USA showing all the planes currently in the air to give some idea of how many planes cross our skies, and also hi level aeronautical charts showing all the intersecting airways over a busy airport, which explains the "crosshatch" pattern commonly shown to "prove" that "they" are trying to kill us with multiple chemtrails.
    But, I'm not giving up, even if I only get through to a few, then I feel that I've done something positive. It just pains me to read the fear that is being spread by this nonsense.
    If anyone is interested in following my tweets, my twitter handle is @dannodotcomm
    Regards,
    Dan Page
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    I think that for being effective in discussions it is very important to adopt a 'politeness strategy' similar to the one imposed here. There are things like sarcasm or ridicule which will achieve the opposite of the intended effect and are therefore to be avoided.
    This will require an amount of emotional distance - which is advisable anyway because any success you may achieve will rarely be obvious. Not expecting visible results spares you the frustration ...

    If you want, follow Mick West's tweets for a while. You can also see how he is handling explanations within the restraints of Twitter.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  12. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Strangely enough, expecting them to react like rational adults is what gets me into trouble. It can be extremely frustrating when you show someone something which should open their eyes to the fallacy of the chemtrail hoax and they just twist and contort in unbelievable ways to avoid enlightenment, all the time spewing nasty insults at you, but becoming deeply indignant if you make the mildest sarcastic comment. :rolleyes: They are bound and determined to maintain the beliefs they have adopted. It seems they have SO much invested in them, on a personal level, that it would destroy them on some deep level to let go of their world view.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Dan Page

    Dan Page Active Member

    There has got to be some chemtrail believers that are on the fence about whether or not it is true, and perhaps they can at least see that there are dissenting opinions and hopefully come around to the truth, or at least have more questions for the likes of Dane Wigington. So I will keep plugging along, and try to be as polite and respectful as I can, even though it is hard sometimes. And yes I've been following Micks tweets for the past month.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They can be quite repetitive, as people tend to have the same misconceptions year after year. But it's interesting trying to get through to people in different ways.
     
  15. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    I feel your frustration mate, not just over chemtrails but a lot of fave CT subjects as well; 9-11, false flags, nwo etc. I have come to realise that a lot are beyond help, they are so wrapped in their beliefs that the is very little that will get through. But what keeps me going is the thought that others who are curious about various CT concepts and reading up on the subject may read something posted in places like this and not fall down the rabbit hole in the first place.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  16. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    interestingly this phenomena was known quite a while ago

    Cardinal Wosley (1470 - 1530) is supposed to have remarked regarding Henry V111

    "Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Are you sure this is regarding beliefs? This was the guy with six wives and who knows how many mistresses... :)
     
  18. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    lol, good point
     
  19. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Just as the main promoters use the term "planting a seed" when they propagandize folks into the chemtrails belief so does what we are doing. I have seen many thousands of chemtrail believers over the years. Don't think for a minute that they all hold on to it for long. The vast majority respond the way you have described but over time most lose interest after a while. Near the turn of the century the most popular forum had thousands of members. Few of them remain. The main Facebook groups have over 20,000 members but most of the posters are new the older ones have moved on. Have faith in the majority finally getting it, because they do, even after strong protestations.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Most probably don't want to admit they're former gullibility, and many probably just drop the belief and don't look back.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  21. Dan Page

    Dan Page Active Member

    There seems to be a new idea evolving with the chemmies, at least one (chase truth) on Twitter who is saying that any aircraft that produces a trail of ANY length, is spewing poison. And a woman has posted a video showing 6 jets in the sky, 5 with very short contrails, and 1 with no contrail and she is saying that 5 are spewing poison, while the one is ok. And the sky is otherwise clear blue. I find it difficult to even address these beliefs, how many things that are just wrong with their "theory".
    So, as I've said previously, I'll just keep plugging along, maintaining a polite attitude while trying to show them where there is fault with their thinking (gently).
    Screenshot_2015-10-21-01-00-34. Screenshot_2015-10-21-01-00-59.
     
  22. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    it is interesting if that is what is happening, i.e. to convert ever more believers the claims by CTers need to be ever more bizarre to reel them in.

    The "no planers" are a good example, along with fact that healthy scepticism about the government morphs into the "Sandy Hook HOAX" theories

    Hopefully people on the margins do eventually silently slide away, even if simply to move to an agnostic position
     
  23. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    This person has clearly swallowed the "high-bypass jet engines cannot make contrails" idea, originated by Russ Tanner and Jack Baran. I have had this repeated to me as "fact" countless times.

    As Russ Tanner claims here:

    upload_2015-10-21_13-14-44.

    It's such a ludicrous claim, but there seems to be no shortage of people ready to take it on trust and spread it as gospel.



    The subject is discussed here:

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-h...make-contrails-actually-they-make-more.t3187/
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    The chemtrail lore continually evolves to fit whatever someone is "looking at". No trails: they're invisible. Blue sky: it's metallic blue and full of chemicals. And on and on.
     
  25. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I haven't noticed the too high to be seen from the ground nonsense before. SO a trail would be too high to see from the ground at about 40,000ft and yet at the right times we can see satellites in Geostationary orbit. or meteors burning up in the atmosphere? hmmmmmm
     
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    This started with Russ Tanner, some time ago. Not sure when this was written, but at least a year or two ago.


    http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859









    Then he went to claiming that NO visible trails still equals "chemtrails".



    http://globalskywatch.com/stories/m...l-information/plumes-change.html#.VieaZNKrQ1J
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  27. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    They still claim Indigo Skyfold is real.

    indi.PNG
     
  28. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    So lets have a re-cap here.

    Long persistent trail = chemical spraying
    Short non-persistent trail = chemical spraying
    No trails at all = chemical spraying
    Cloudy and overcast skies = proof of spraying
    Clear blue skies = proof of spraying

    They certainly have all bases covered then
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Also:

    • Don't remember sky being like this = proof of geoengineering
    • Old photos of sky being like this = proof of geoengineering in old photos
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  30. Marin B

    Marin B Active Member

    This is all so frustrating for me, as one who has to endure regular discussions with a family member who believes in all of this (thanks to daily reading of Geoengineeringwatch). Suddenly sunsets that are pink are abnormal -- they should be a golden color. Beautiful fluffy cumulus clouds, such as the ones we had here in San Francisco the other day, are not normal because they have a certain darkness indicating that they have been seeded. :confused:
     
  31. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Right...proof geoengineering was going on loooong before they thought.
     
  32. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I think this can describe many debunkers. Many are beyond help I so far they will never change their view.

    I find the whole psychological aspect of debunking just as interesting as belief especially when the drivers are the same. Much on Facebook is just a slanging match but it must feed some psychological or emotional need.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    yup, John Constable captured these 'un-natural' clouds over Sailsbury in 1831
    f9419e0b4352108c7f3a0cc6487157af.

    JWM Turner painted this 'chemical' pink sunset in 1840
    f3f7fd08b9dddf919e16da63f6379d0d.

    And Thomas Gainsborough painted these 'heavily seeded' clouds in about 1765
    e4cd018f6174c037dadbe45cf090114a.

    All of which begs the question, if the Wright Brothers didn't get off the ground til 1903, How the hell were they spraying back then?
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Funny Funny x 2
  34. Dan Page

    Dan Page Active Member

    The hard core believers are not going to be swayed, but there is a chance that someone new to this may question the "theory" if others are also questioning. So that is what my course of action will be for the next while. Ask how, why, what, where, when? Why no-one is talking about filling tanks in airplanes with chemicals other than fuel. Or if it's in the fuel then how can the engines run with those contaminants in it? I have asked some of these questions and for the most part, no answers have been forthcoming, short of one who said it's not in the fuel and supplied a picture of the tanks in the airplane used for pre-certification tests. Told him that and he hasn't yet come back with anything logical. Just going to keep on trying, got strong headwinds, so may have to increase the power a notch.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    just make sure you don't leave any contrails!!!!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  36. skephu

    skephu Senior Member

    This type of questioning is considered undesirable and is strongly discouraged in chemtrail groups. I tried that a few times myself, but as soon as I asked a question like e.g. what causes the gap between the engine and the trail, I was quickly identified as a troll whose goal is to raise doubts and thereby weaken the movement, and I was immediately banned. The people in the chemtrail groups are already selected; anyone who asked questions has already been banned, so you won't find people interested in discussing questions.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  37. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    They resort to claiming that people are threatened with losing their jobs or the catch-all "compartmentalization".
     
  38. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    Seriously Whitebeard, don't you know ANYTHING?

    It's painfully OBVIOUS that none of those scenes REALLY looked like that, but that those artists were shills for the overlords who painted this stuff in order to get people USED to seeing these kind of things ready for when they DID learn to fly and have a spraying ability. Much like they do inserting thus stuff into Hollywood films and stuff.

    You'll notice there are no actual photos from that time period showing what the sky REALLY looked like back then.


    I rest my case :p
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    maybe ? a better tactic @Dan Page et al can try, if they are so motivated, is to not post on the chemtrail pages but go to the "shares" and if permissions allow post questions on thier profile links.. this would also act as a deterant for their friends who might see the post and start thinking "chemtrails?, oh no!".
     
    • Like Like x 2
  40. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    you laugh, but I was involved in a thread regarding the pentagon attack on 911, and a "skeptic" thought he had a killer point when he said "where is all the mobile phone footage" - lol
     
    • Funny Funny x 5