Alex Jones Video: Government Weather Manipulation Exposed

JDubyah

Member
What Alex is doing here is asking his viewers, or the public, to Google the items he has printed out and splayed across his desk in impressive fashion. He's asking this because he knows that the first sites users will find when Googling those terms will be CT-based web sites that offer a quick, biased summary of all that information, tying it all into the Geoengineering conspiracy web. Searchers will likely not find the source material, and if they do, will likely not be bothered to read through all the technicalities and instead look for a quick summary - ie, the CT sites.

I think Alex and others both know that the flood of CT 'info' on the web now is what comes up first in search engines, and he and others have made an effort to proliferate that info through the Web so that that any casual Googler will see the CT-based interpretations of things like Geoengineering, 'con/chemtrails', and so on as the popular and 'true' explanation.

But really, despite the appearance what comes up in Google Search results, it's only the small but vocal CT minority making internet noise on these subjects, while the rest of the world is either unaware, or of the opinion that the CT take on it all is just that.. a theory in conspiracy, not fact. The people who are actually involved in the Geoengineering studies/research/whatever are just doing so silently and aren't making a stink over it, so no one sees the source material highlighted on the web.

It's like being outside a door to a conference room, and hearing a couple of voices inside shouting about how this dastardly practice by the PTB should stop immediately. Without opening the door, you might think that's what the conference is about. If you do open the door, you find a few hundred scientists inside listening to theory and proposals and studies on what could be done in the future in regards to Geoengineering, and security escorting the one or two loud protesters out for disrupting the conference.

Alex and others are either the ones yelling inside, or asking you to listen at the door. They don't want or expect people to sit down at the conference and listen rationally. If anything, when being dragged off by security, they'll shout about coming to attend their own conference to hear the 'truth'.
 
Last edited:

JRBids

Senior Member.
No-one here has any PROOF that allowing governments or privately funded foundations to modify the weather or the climate is good. It is simply thrown out as something that is happening as if to imply it is OK. AJ's position is that it is not OK. There is legitimate grounding in this position, i.e. we don't know what the heck we are doing, and the globe got along really well without us messing with the sky. So let's not allow government and corporations modify it under a cloak of secrecy.

So are you saying that hypothetically geoengineering the climate with planes would be a bad idea? Cause it's not happening now.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
except @Efftup a few posts up, who at least broadly referenced geo-engineering with that picture, but who still implies that it is normal and harmless,
I would you like you to show me EXACTLY where I said ANYTHING that actually implies that.

All I did was show a load of PROPOSED Geo-engineering strategies and point out that Alex Jones ONLY mentions Spraying from Aircraft which is EXACTLY why people have mentioned it loads on this thread. It is not an obsession, it is totally relevant to the thread. The ONLY other things Jones mentions are radio towers which are NOT on the list of proposed options on the picture.

I never said it was normal, or harmless, or EVEN HAPPENING.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
So are you saying that hypothetically geoengineering the climate with planes would be a bad idea? Cause it's not happening now.
Proof? AJ, who to his credit said the NSA was recording everybody when "it was not happening" is saying it is. That is the root of the issue, or "conspiracy", at debate.

On a balance of probabilities, seeing a bunch of givernment documents discussing doing it lends credibility to the notion that it is being done, rather than the notion that it isn't.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Proof? AJ, who to his credit said the NSA was recording everybody when "it was not happening" is saying it is. That is the root of the issue, or "conspiracy", at debate.

On a balance of probabilities, seeing a bunch of givernment documents discussing doing it lends credibility to the notion that it is being done, rather than the notion that it isn't.

There's no EVIDENCE that it is. It's possible it's being done in a way that leaves no evidence. But you could say that about anything.

The pile of documents he presents is not evidence. Quantity is not quality. All that is is the results of a bunch of google searches for words like "aerosol" and "geoengineering". If you actually read them, you'd see they don't indicate that geoengineering is happening.

And "you can't prove it isn't so", is not a valid argument.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
There's no EVIDENCE that it is. It's possible it's being done in a way that leaves no evidence. But you could say that about anything.

The pile of documents he presents is not evidence. Quantity is not quality. All that is is the results of a bunch of google searches for words like "aerosol" and "geoengineering". If you actually read them, you'd see they don't indicate that geoengineering is happening.

And "you can't prove it isn't so", is not a valid argument.
No, there is no clear evidence. But on a balance of probabilities, it is being done or planned by government.

Just saying "it's not happening now" carries no weight whatsoever. Nor does an appeal to authority unfortunately, because of our authorities being so discredited by their own lies and subsequent admissions. We are now down to the "theory" being discussed, namely whether there is a "conspiracy" to commit acts of geo-engineering without first asking the people living under the skies being engineered for their permission....and there are an awful lot of planning related documents here which really do beg the question.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
No, there is no clear evidence. But on a balance of probabilities, it is being done or planned by government.

Just saying "it's not happening now" carries no weight whatsoever. Nor does an appeal to authority unfortunately, because of our authorities being so discredited by their own lies and subsequent admissions. We are now down to the "theory" being discussed, namely whether there is a "conspiracy" to commit acts of geo-engineering without first asking the people living under the skies being engineered for their permission....and there are an awful lot of planning related documents here which really do beg the question.
Personally, I took "it's not happening now" to be shorthand for
"there's not a single damned shred of credible evidence that it's happening now!" (but that's just me)

Your "balance of probabilities" is definitely not grounded in fact...though you obviously have every right to believe in it.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
No, there is no clear evidence. But on a balance of probabilities, it is being done or planned by government.
What makes it probable then? You've just admitted no clear evidence which means...no clear evidence, therefore the probability of it is actually on the lower scale.

Just saying "it's not happening now" carries no weight whatsoever.
As opposed to "it's happening now, I have proof, just don't want to show everyone"? The burden of proof is with the side that is telling us the contrary of what is currently accepted as the truth.

and there are an awful lot of planning related documents here which really do beg the question.

It's already been explained in several posts above that these "planning related documents" are not actually indicators that these things are happening right now. None of them openly state a proven method of operation or measured long term effects as a result of experimentation, covertly or otherwise.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
No, there is no clear evidence. But on a balance of probabilities, it is being done or planned by government.

You are suggesting, here, that some "government" (I will presume, correct me if I'm wrong) you infer the United States government is actively engaged in some sort of "covert" weather-manipulation scheme?

There is a MAJOR problem with this concept: You see, we live on a HUGE planet....and the USA is not the only country....in fact, even though this nation (the USA) wields a bit of a "large stick" when it comes to political and other sorts of 'manipulations', we encompass only a tiny, tiny portion of all the land area on this planet.

Is this making sense? Let me be more clear: There are (unsubstantiated) reports of "airborne geo-engineering" that come from ALL over the planet. New Zealand, Australia, Canada...and places in Europe. And ALSO in former USSR territories!

NOW...know that the United States simply cannot unilaterally and with no consequence fly over all of these other nations' territory willy-nilly!!

So....either there is a HUGE multi-national "conspiracy" that has been kept "secret" for two decades? OR??? (fill in the blank).

Savvy?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Proof? AJ, who to his credit said the NSA was recording everybody when "it was not happening" is saying it is. That is the root of the issue, or "conspiracy", at debate.

On a balance of probabilities, seeing a bunch of givernment documents discussing doing it lends credibility to the notion that it is being done, rather than the notion that it isn't.

You are the second poster here today who does not seem to understand who the burden of proof is on.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
No, there is no clear evidence. But on a balance of probabilities, it is being done or planned by government.

Just saying "it's not happening now" carries no weight whatsoever. Nor does an appeal to authority unfortunately, because of our authorities being so discredited by their own lies and subsequent admissions. We are now down to the "theory" being discussed, namely whether there is a "conspiracy" to commit acts of geo-engineering without first asking the people living under the skies being engineered for their permission....and there are an awful lot of planning related documents here which really do beg the question.

Why don't you just say "nothing you say will convince me otherwise or even make me consider that you are right and I am wrong"?
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
Why don't you just say "nothing you say will convince me otherwise or even make me consider that you are right and I am wrong"?

No-one here has any meaningful comment on the littany of government planning documents related to geo-engineering. While it is difficult to prove it is happening, it is pretty darn easy to prove that it is being planned. If I walked into someone's house and discovered an intricate plan by them to kill their spouse, I would tell the spouse even though I had no evidence that the spouse had yet been murdered. That's kinda the point :p

You are the second poster here today who does not seem to understand who the burden of proof is on.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the people here to acknowledge the geo-engineering programs for what they are. Thank goodness that AJ is exposing them. For instance, here is another government document describing plans to engage in geo-engineering in great detail:

Engineering the Climate: Research Needs And Strategies For International Coordination - Committee on Science and Technology - House of Representatives.

By the second page, the report is already acknowledging "more controversial proposals such as ocean fertilization and atmospheric aerosol injection".

Yet all of the "debunkers" here are content either to say "Science!" or "Doesn't exist" despite reams of congressional reports and government funded studies to the direct contrary.

For those who won't bother to read any links before saying "NO PROOF", here are the contributing government departments to the non-existent "proposed" geo-engineering program linked here:
  1. The National Science Foundation,
  2. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
  3. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
  4. The US Department of Energy,
  5. The Environmental Protection Agency,
  6. The US Department of Agriculture,
  7. The US Forest Service,
  8. The Office of Science and Technology,
  9. The US Global Change Research Program,
  10. The US Group on Earth Observations,
  11. The National Academy of Public Administration, and most creepily;
  12. The US Department of Defense.
Documents like the one deserve the coverage that AJ affords them. Shame on the mainstream media for not covering it. They represent a red flag that authoritarian, secretive trendies are running amok with our tax dollars, parading unproven theories masked as sound "science", in an ongoing effort to turn the globe into their personal petri dish. This is worthy of real concern and hardy opposition. Because believe it or not, trendy "science" like this is indeed highly controversial! Again props to AJ for pointing out that it does indeed exist.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
No....I take it back...not a "fantasy"....the CONCEPT is under discussion.

What is a "fantasy" is the idea of "Implementation".....AIN'T happening!!!!!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
it is pretty darn easy to prove that it is being planned.

Just pure speculation. Sure there's lots of documents discussing possible future geoengineering. But there's also lots of documents about tsunami evacuation plans for the West Coast of the US. That does not mean the government is planning a tsunami.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
The burden of proof is on the people here to acknowledge the geo-engineering programs for what they are.

Which is what, exactly?

Do you feel people here should acknowledge that they exist as concepts or even plans, or that they exist as operating programs? One of those has been acknowledged and the other likely will not be, due to lack of evidence.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
No-one here has any meaningful comment on the littany of government planning documents related to geo-engineering. While it is difficult to prove it is happening, it is pretty darn easy to prove that it is being planned. If I walked into someone's house and discovered an intricate plan by them to kill their spouse, I would tell the spouse even though I had no evidence that the spouse had yet been murdered. That's kinda the point :p

There are proposals (key word - proposed) and studies linked to climate engineering, for the purpose of (according to your link) "counteracting and mitigating anthropogenic climate change". In fact if you actually read further through the link that you placed in your post it also goes on to talk about recommendations for comprehensive risk assessments to weigh up benefits vs dangers and further study to ensure proper understanding. It further suggests monitoring by the EPA "to safeguard the impact on human health and the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, soils and biodiversity". Hardly sounds like a nefarious, secret government undertaking, despite what AJ is pushing (In fact, being publicly available on Google as a published report pretty much makes it the antithesis of covert).

These documents don't point to any existing program of ongoing climate/weather manipulation.

If you actually go back to the AJ video in the first post, he actually states at about 30 seconds in that: "since the early 90's, major western governments have been secretly adding to jet fuel a whole host of radioactive isotopes.... to manipulate the weather on this planet".

SO he is not trying to warn of the possibilities of what may occur if the government is to go ahead, he is actually stating, as if it were a fact that, this has been occurring covertly for over two decades and that it's to our detriment. But as stated, he has nothing to show this as true.

Wrong. The burden of proof is on the people here to acknowledge the geo-engineering programs for what they are.

Burden of proof = you are making an assertion/claim, therefore you need something to back it up.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
Which is what, exactly?
"What" the plans are is the trendies' self-proposed solution to global warming...An attempt to block the sun, which ironically the same trendies argue has nothing to do with "global warming" or the absence thereof in the first place. The "global warming" is supposed to rest entirely on CO2 somehow. That the globe hasn't warmed in over a quarter century despite the CO2 increases does nothing to deter the trendies from planning to block out the sun.
Do you feel people here should acknowledge that they exist as concepts or even plans, or that they exist as operating programs?
That is the "conspiracy" and the actioning of the obvious and extensive plans can not be proven or disproven at current. Thus this being a "theory" at present.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What" the plans are is the trendies' self-proposed solution

Trendies? Please don't use your own private language here. The idea is clear communicatin. The vast majority of readers will not known what you mean by "trendies", so please use a better word.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That is the "conspiracy" and the actioning of the obvious and extensive plans can not be proven or disproven at current. Thus this being a "theory" at present.

So it's a conspiracy theory? Supposition about some grand plan, based on speculation?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I can't follow anything you are saying, Libertarian. You are avoiding answering questions. And I was right, you do not know who the burden of proof lies with.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
So it's a conspiracy theory? Supposition about some grand plan, based on speculation?
I think the plan is quite stupid actually, but yes, of course the notion of "chemtrailing" is a conspiracy theory. A theory born out as plausible and made so persistent by the fact that the same people accused of doing it keep writing plans to do it and hiding them in plain site. It seems the mainstream media are complicit in assisting with the "hiding" part, as none of them cover these ridiculous plans. If they did the tax dollars spent on them might evaporate, which would be a very good thing from the looks of it. Authoritarians who think what they are doing is "science...for the greater good" are the most dangerous kind.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
I can't follow anything you are saying, Libertarian. You are avoiding answering questions. And I was right, you do not know who the burden of proof lies with.
This is the problem with government hiding so much fraudulent activity under the auspices of "National Security" and such. Who is to say that the above plan isn't actively in use by the Dept of Defence, who is a listed contributor? No-one knows where a quarter of their budget goes.

You can all claim that you "see no evidence", but neither does a man with a blindfold on. You didn't see evidence of NSA recording everyone's phone calls until Snowden, but that didn't mean it wasn't actively happening prior. It was a "conspiracy theory". The high number of public documents pointing to this crap happening lends more credibility to it being the case than a government blindfold lends to the notion that they are not actively acting on their public plans.

I know you guys put a lot of credit in classified operations not existing because you can't read about them. But other people place credit in whistleblowers etc.

You act like you are better than them, but, but you are not. It's like the chess club vs the soccer team. The chess club might think they are superior to the soccer team, but the soccer team doesn't give a damn, and vice versa.

Just realize that your "evidence" based approach really falls down when you have such an opaque and secretive government. You have "evidence of absense of transparency and accountability." But none of you will do anything about that. You'll just repeatedly snub the guy ranting about it. Good for you. But that is why the Alexa score here is so low in comparison to Infowars. It isn't that you're better. It's that you are closed off to large portions of reality.

You spend all of your time looking in the rear view mirror and making fun of everyone wondering what is around the bend ahead of us.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I think the plan is quite stupid actually, but yes, of course the notion of "chemtrailing" is a conspiracy theory. A theory born out as plausible and made so persistent by the fact that the same people accused of doing it keep writing plans to do it and hiding them in plain site. It seems the mainstream media are complicit in assisting with the "hiding" part, as none of them cover these ridiculous plans. If they did the tax dollars spent on them might evaporate, which would be a very good thing from the looks of it. Authoritarians who think what they are doing is "science...for the greater good" are the most dangerous kind.
I admit to not being able to follow the "hiding in plain site" argument, most of the time.

So, "the tax dollars spent" to finance this seeming scientific impossibility...I suppose that they are
evident in local, state and federal budgets, in plain sight, yes? Surely we should protest those budgets.

Do you imagine that all government employees--including janitors and such--are in on the trick,
or just a few well-meaning authoritarians? And if it's only the latter, how do we know who to be mad at?
(Does Obama know? Barbara Boxer? Ron Paul? National Park Rangers? National Park T-shirt salespersons?)
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Who is to say that the above plan isn't actively in use by the Dept of Defence,
The actual logistics involved, the fact that no indication exists of any activity which would by neccesity need manpower and supplies, the lack of any measurable change.
You'll just repeatedly snub the guy ranting about it.
By actually looking closer at the evidence? That's snubbing?
It's that you are closed off to large portions of reality.
What reality is there to these scenarios that is not hypothetical?
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
The actual logistics involved, the fact that no indication exists of any activity which would by neccesity need manpower and supplies, the lack of any measurable change.
By actually looking closer at the evidence? That's snubbing?
Maybe the measurable global cooling over the past 18+ years is as a direct result of these programs :p

Re: looking closer at the evidence, it works really really well if the event is both in the past and not secret. Your approach doesn't work on theory re: current events. You just spin circles justifying absense of evidence as evidence of absense.

What reality is there to these scenarios that is not hypothetical?
Good question. You won't find the answer to that here though. Your "conspiracy theory" forum lacks depth of analysis.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
This is the problem with government hiding so much fraudulent activity under the auspices of "National Security" and such. Who is to say that the above plan isn't actively in use by the Dept of Defence, who is a listed contributor? No-one knows where a quarter of their budget goes.

You can all claim that you "see no evidence", but neither does a man with a blindfold on. You didn't see evidence of NSA recording everyone's phone calls until Snowden, but that didn't mean it wasn't actively happening prior. It was a "conspiracy theory". The high number of public documents pointing to this crap happening lends more credibility to it being the case than a government blindfold lends to the notion that they are not actively acting on their public plans.

I know you guys put a lot of credit in classified operations not existing because you can't read about them. But other people place credit in whistleblowers etc.

You act like you are better than them, but, but you are not. It's like the chess club vs the soccer team. The chess club might think they are superior to the soccer team, but the soccer team doesn't give a damn, and vice versa.

Just realize that your "evidence" based approach really falls down when you have such an opaque and secretive government. You have "evidence of absense of transparency and accountability." But none of you will do anything about that. You'll just repeatedly snub the guy ranting about it. Good for you. But that is why the Alexa score here is so low in comparison to Infowars. It isn't that you're better. It's that you are closed off to large portions of reality.

You spend all of your time looking in the rear view mirror and making fun of everyone wondering what is around the bend ahead of us.

So, Snowden sells the whole conspiracy after 8 years there, but until today, after 25 years of spraying, no one sold anything.

See a logic failure here?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
That is the "conspiracy" and the actioning of the obvious and extensive plans can not be proven or disproven at current. Thus this being a "theory" at present.

If it can't be proven, due to lack of evidence, then what is the point of this conversation? It's just empty speculation. It can't be disproven because of the impossibility of proving a negative, so that side of the equation is moot. That renders this entire exercise a complete waste of time.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
So, Snowden sells the whole conspiracy after 8 years there, but until today, after 25 years of spraying, no one sold anything.

See a logic failure here?
There was whistleblowers prior to Snowden that didn't get airtime. NSA snooping wasn't a surprise to AJ, for instance. It was 20 year old tertiary confirmation. Not saying that makes him right this time. He's wrong an awful lot. But I think he's into something here.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
If it can't be proven, due to lack of evidence, then what is the point of this conversation? It's just empty speculation. It can't be disproven because of the impossibility of proving a negative, so that side of the equation is moot. That renders this entire exercise a complete waste of time.
This is a forum named "theory". IE unproven. You guys aren't very good at plumbing these. If you can't mark them "debunked" you end up spinning circles instead of digging into them properly. Something about your otherwise excellent process fails. Oh well. There's always Infowars :)
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member.
I think the plan is quite stupid actually, but yes, of course the notion of "chemtrailing" is a conspiracy theory. A theory born out as plausible and made so persistent by the fact that the same people accused of doing it keep writing plans to do it and hiding them in plain site. It seems the mainstream media are complicit in assisting with the "hiding" part, as none of them cover these ridiculous plans. If they did the tax dollars spent on them might evaporate, which would be a very good thing from the looks of it. Authoritarians who think what they are doing is "science...for the greater good" are the most dangerous kind.

Lib... there's one thing I dont understand about your point of view.. and Im being absolutely sincere about this. IF this is a super secret plan to do... whatever the fuck they're doing.. with Chemtrails.. why in the name of the Great Spaghetti Monster would they hide it in plain site? Having worked in an intelligence Bn in Okinawa and talked to the counter-intel guys about what they do.... it doesnt work. Dont get me wrong, it works GREAT in movies and books and on TV.. cuz it makes for good story telling, but you dont hide anything in plain sight for the very fact that it IS in plain sight and can be found by -anyone-... Do you see what Im getting at?

If you're going to have a high level conspiracy in which every government on the planet (including everyone working FOR every one of those governments) is complicit in the cover up and execution of, whatever it is that chemtrails are supposed to be doing this week compared to last week.. you want to keep that as silent as possible, which LITERALLY means you dont hide things in plain sight.. AT ALL. Do you see what Im saying?

Let's take this to the next step. In order for ANY global conspiracy to work, everyone involved in said industry MUST be involved or you end up with leaks.. and I mean more than some crackpot claiming to be party to the conspiracy on Youtube. Legit and verifiable leaks.. with documentation that comes directly from the source.. non-redacted.. and not some lazy thrown together crap with a bunch of nonsensical official LOOKING letter head paperwork.

Look at chemtrails.. how many MILLIONS of people have to be involved? Everyone from the pilot, to every single person in every airline.. ALL of the guys out on the tarmac... across the planet? Literally MILLIONS of employees, most of which make barely better than minimum wage, actively poisoning their own families every time one of their aircraft lift off. Mothers murdering their babies with aluminum and barium and mind control microbugs, nano fibers etc.. etc.. etc..

Again, Im not knocking you for your views.. Im not.. Im very honestly trying to understand how you see what you see when you have people who DO work for those very same industries telling you flat out that what you think is happening ISNT happening. All of the pilots Ive ever known, whether they be military or commercial, put their families ahead of everything else.. they do what they do to provide for their families.. so their kids can go to school, get good jobs, have kids and grandkids of their own.. and this whole geo-engineering thing is totally counter productive to ALL of that. Im not JUST talking about Chemtrails here, Im talking about this whole global cabal.. the NWO, teh Illuminati.... ALL of them. The people.. the average every day people that have to be working for these massive black op style governments arent going to murder their families for a few bucks.

Again, in all honesty.. help me understand your perspective. Explain it to me, show me why what you're saying is true vs what everyone else is saying.. both here on teh site and the vast majority of the world. Im open minded, Im willing to listen.. explain it so that I can.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
There was whistleblowers prior to Snowden that didn't get airtime. NSA snooping wasn't a surprise to AJ, for instance. It was 20 year old tertiary confirmation. Not saying that makes him right this time. He's wrong an awful lot. But I think he's into something here.

Well, and still no whistleblowers for ongoing massive global geo-engineering stuff, and you just claimed that Snowden was not the first whistleblower for the NSA spying stuff.

Again, do you see a problem here?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This is a forum named "theory". IE unproven. You guys aren't very good at plumbing these. If you can't mark them "debunked" you end up spinning circles instead of digging into them properly. Something about your otherwise excellent process fails. Oh well. There's always Infowars :)

Theories aren't what gets debunked. Claims of evidence are. Have any?
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
You won't find the answer to that here though. Your "conspiracy theory" forum lacks depth of analysis.

Honestly, I don't think it's been analysed deeper anywhere else - just trawl through the forum and you'll find critical (also rational) analysis has been covered on most angles of this topic. As opposed to "some guy said it on infowars, therefore it MUST be true".

The high number of public documents pointing to this crap happening lends more credibility to it being the case than a government blindfold lends to the notion that they are not actively acting on their public plans.

Translates to "the fact there are so many documents about anything related to geo engineering means the government must be doing it now in secret". It still doesnt prove anything just because you think that's how it is. Can you show any proof that this is happening (NOT papers which talk about potential uses or theories)?

You guys aren't very good at plumbing these. If you can't mark them "debunked" you end up spinning circles instead of digging into them properly. Something about your otherwise excellent process fails.

I would say quite the opposite - it's usually someone regurgitating the same tired (debunked) theories and not listening to the explanations provided, before declaring that everyone on the forum is failing to see the obvious and can't explain it, despite not positing any evidence of their own.

There was whistleblowers prior to Snowden that didn't get airtime. NSA snooping wasn't a surprise to AJ, for instance. It was 20 year old tertiary confirmation. Not saying that makes him right this time. He's wrong an awful lot. But I think he's into something here.

And why does this keep popping up? Even AJ uses it as proof of...something "I got something (partially) correct once, therefore I must be credible". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day..
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
I'm only speaking for myself here, I dunno if other members of this site feel the same, but IF there was any hard, undisputable evidence that chemtrails were part of a massive international conspiracy to - meddle with the weather / control our minds / institute project blue beam / (insert this weeks reason here), I would be one of the first to be shouting it from the roof tops and protesting against it.

But as has been laid out here, in many threads, the evidence doesn't stack up. The science, the politics, the economics, the logistics... all point to the fact that any conspiracy on the claimed scale, or any scale is nigh on impossible to carry out in the first place let alone cover up.

And yes the scientific community may well be discussing the possibility of ways to control global warming and publishing articles about the discussion, but the very fact these articles are also saying that due to the same pressures of politics, economics, logistics etc, geo-engineering along the lines described would be nearly impossible to pull off even if there wasn't the added complication of a massive global cover up, goes to show that almost certainly not happening already.

And this is not me being closed minded, I am no fan of governments and politicians by a long shot, however I do believe that all evidence should be assessed before anyone is accused or condemned, and in the case for the whole chemtrail / geo-engineering affair, as with a lot of other conspiracies, the real hard evidence stacks up conclusively against there being any kind of mass spraying going on at all.
 
Last edited:

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
Actually, don't, or at least not here, you can try posting a new thread, or just continue in the one which was put in rambles for eventual lack of focus - https://www.metabunk.org/threads/globe-is-cooling-according-to-satellite-data.4360/
No, it was placed in rambles nearly immediately after posting. That's why I stopped posting. It was in protest for the censorship. But yes, over 50% of our most accurate error free tracking of global temperature has been a consistent downtrend.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
There was whistleblowers prior to Snowden that didn't get airtime. NSA snooping wasn't a surprise to AJ, for instance. It was 20 year old tertiary confirmation. Not saying that makes him right this time. He's wrong an awful lot. But I think he's into something here.
Your analogy with NSA snooping is totally bogus. For one, I don't recall anybody claiming that the government wasn't snooping on people. I remember back from when I first went on the internet (Usenet, circa 1995), people jokingly posting long strings of "key words" in their signature blocks that would get picked up by the fliters and presumably give more work to the "spooks". :) Everyone basically knew it was happening.

Was there "proof"? Not in as much as it was admitted, no, but there was plenty of circumstantial evidence. And snooping on phone calls and emails can be done inside a closed building where nobody is allowed in, which is where the more important part of the false analogy comes in:

How could a "secret" geoengineering programme be carried out without anyone noticing? It would require a vast fleet of planes, flying at altitudes that no commerical plane flies at. You don't think all of the millions of people watching the sky, both amateurs and professionals, might notice a hitherto unacknowledged fleet of planes cruising around the globe at 65,000 feet? Or notice the composition of the stratosphere being altered by chemicals being sprayed into it?

In a world where amateurs can track and photograph secret spy satellites, which are much smaller and further away than these supposed aircraft would be, why has nobody ever managed to photograph a geoengineering flight?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
JFDee Insight into Infowars, Alex Jones General Discussion 2
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
deirdre Debunked: Alex Jones claims kids '[walking around firehouse] with hands up' in Megan Kelly interview Sandy Hook 1
MichaelStox Joe Rogan on the Alex Jones Show (On 9-11-2001) General Discussion 0
Alhazred The Sane Alex Jones & the Navy Yard Shootings Conspiracy Theories 1
AluminumTheory Alex Jones' and his Moon Landing Conspiracy. Conspiracy Theories 18
Mick West Alex Jones vs. BeforeItsNews.com - conspiracy theorist infighting Conspiracy Theories 39
AluminumTheory 2013: The Year of Alex Jones Conspiracy Theories 140
Mick West Alex Jones BBC Sunday Politics Meltdown Conspiracy Theories 48
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
AluminumTheory Website traffic and radio audience of Alex Jones, Infowars, Prison Planet, etc. People Debunked 2
Clock Alex Jones- Debunked! People Debunked 239
SR1419 Debunked: Alex Jones People Debunked 135
Mick West Debunked: Secrets of Prometheus Film Leaked - Alex Jones Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Alex Jones, PJ Watson, Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack Contrails and Chemtrails 12
S Alex Jones new rant on GMOs People Debunked 10
J Paul Joseph Watson (writing for Alex Jones, “Infowars”) and Fukushima Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West Debunked: Foley's Sister Katie Foley vs Lanza's Friend Alex Israel [Not the Same Person] Conspiracy Theories 105
Jay Reynolds Alex Atamenko Canadian MP petition and new lawsuit fundraising Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
V GIMBAL Video: Simulating the ATFLIR Tracking and Gimbal Rotation UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 20
Rocky Gettysburg 'ghosts’ run across road [Windscreen smudge] General Discussion 4
D Falmouth "Shadow Creature" Video [Black Cat?] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 10
G Belarus demonstration video Current Events 2
M Fast moving object "intersecting clouds" in Hungarian YouTuber's video [Insect] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
U Looking for debunkings of the “Plandemic” video Coronavirus COVID-19 17
Jesse3959 Being seen from space - methods to demonstrate that sats are real and provide live video? Flat Earth 6
R Claim: Apollo 15-17 Live TV Feed - Antenna signal would be interrupted from all the violent shaking when Astronauts touch the buggy General Discussion 26
J Identifying the Mountains in JTolan's "Rocky Mountains" IR Video Flat Earth 31
Mick West Explained: RARE Video Footage of "Alien Space Craft" WATCHING ISS Astronaut! UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Wizard Mexican UFO Video? [Oil Rigs] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Original Flir1, Gimbal, and Go Fast UFO "Raw" Video Files UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 33
Mick West Simulating the Nimitz UFO video as a blurry plane UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 51
jarlrmai UFO video in Arizona from Reddit Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 22
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Mick West Old USAF "UFO" Video Mentioned By Chris Mellon Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 15
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
Ravi Utah Drone video of UFO [Probably an insect] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 126
Mick West Blowing out Candles with a Single Punch General Discussion 47
Mick West Some New-ish WTC7 Photos (and video?) Corner Damage 9/11 6
B Bob Lazar 1989 Video Analysis Method UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
Mick West NYT: GIMBAL Video of U.S. Navy Jet Encounter with Unknown Object UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 452
deirdre Debunked: Lights chasing each other carving holes in clouds (fake video, fallstreak holes) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
StarGazer SpaceX Falcon 9 Captures Video of its own Contrail from Space UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
T FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
Mick West Explained: Viral Video of 787 Leaving Thick Contrails with Forced Perspective Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Astro Debunked: Astronaut's Arm Fades During ISS Video Proving "Green Screening" Science and Pseudoscience 1
Trailblazer Jet Airways intercept video "UFO" (airliner, flight LH998 or LH66?) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top