1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's a new discovery channel show with a segment about chemtrails: America's Most Secret: Structures this weekend. 10/28 at 2pm or 10/31 at 5pm.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    My contribution is pretty short, basically just explaining that combustion creates water, and that makes clouds, and contrails are just clouds. I guess all my more detailed explanations did not fit the sensationalist format of the show.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

  3. hemi

    hemi Senior Member

    On YouTube already?

    • Like Like x 1
  4. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

    Cool. Thanks Hemi!

    Mick gets one minute from 2:29 - 3:20. The other 8 minutes of the 9 minute segment go to explain the conspiracy.

    I'm convinced! Those bastards are spraying me! :)

    I would like to know the answer to the question the narrator raised: Why some contrails persist while nearby ones do not.



    Mick, you could be on these shows all the time if you began wearing a cool cowboy hat or had interesting hair, or sported a zoot suit or something...

    [​IMG]
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  6. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    That was great!

    It's too bad the Discovery Channel has very little to do with education.
  7. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator Staff Member

    Oh, this was rich material. Although this seems like the more conspiracy oriented shows that should belong on - of all places - the History Channel or something like that.
  8. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Active Member

  9. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Michael J Murphy is an "Environmentalist" in the same way that Lance Armstrong is a chemist!
  10. Weinlock

    Weinlock Guest

    Damn. It's the same everywhere. I succeded to had my 'large' 6 TV minutes in a response to a show that spent 47 min. for chemtrail proponents convincing the public. I am really shocked the most famous chemtrail debunker was given less then a minute. Why don't they find intriguing enough that there are people spreading mental illness over the world?
    I just hope we'll obtain some attention before some рsycho get a rocket that reaches 10 000 m.
  11. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    If they gave Mick more than a minute they wouldn't have a show.
  12. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    I don't have the bandwidth here to see the show but thew screen time issue relates to the tendency of more recent tv networks like discovery to focus on drama, sensationalism and conflict rather than actual public dissemination of knowledge, particularly science which to many journalists is dry and boring..... which is why they went into journalism and theatrics in the first place!
    I remember reading somewhere a long while back that statistically media people and journalists as a subset of the population tend to have a lesser interest in science subjects than the general population.
    http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/eserv.php?pid=UQ:8064&dsID=science_journali.pdf

    The producers nowdays often come from drama backgrounds and training rather than the more traditional informative documentary tradition so the focus is on conflict and anything adversarial, a theatrical tradition rather than educational. That's why there are so many reality shows with folks racing against others, racing against time to build something,smashing things, people in a hurry such to make some idiotic item for a client... building things out of junk up against another team. us against them or them against them or against the clock almost never:"this is how things really are". Condensation physics isn't really something AGAINST something so is kinda boring (except to us).

    Chemtrail stories are TV candy because they have an adversarial big bad guys against all us little guys narrative.


    Calmly explaining atmospheric science and aviation contains almost no drama and so would be unlikely to make the cut unless it can be neatly juxtaposed with an opposing viewpoint to create tension/conflict/drama.


    Although it goes against the grain, singling out an opponent like Micheael J Murphy by name and explaining why they are wrong and we are right in almost every sound bite is most likely to get better or even equal screen time to the hoaxers.
    Making it more personal makes it a personal punch-up that folks might enjoy because the science itself aspects take a while to grasp. Engaging the audience emotionally makes the information content stick better.
    That is why witwats uses so much personal anecdote interview style and the suggestion of people under attack.
    While it is rational and dispassionate to say "aircraft regularly leave long persistent contrails... etc" it would create more screen "worthy" adversarial and dramatic content to say things like "fearmongers try to make others believe normal contrails only last a short time but that simply isn't true, they DO regularly last a long time and always have. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately trying to Hoax you."
    It becomes engaging to be told that someone is out to Hoax someone else for money, even if the science argument can be bewildering to some.

    Hijack their narrative and reveal the REAL one. Redirect the source of the drama. Aim the guns on a new target. That is something the producers can go for.



    To get good media you need to engage the emotions because the sort of audience who falls for the hoax fall for emotional reasons . They sure haven't fallen for it because of any rational science content.
    The sensationalists hoax story is "SOMEONE IS OUT TO GET US with trails in the sky " but of course the real story is that those who are trying to convince people of "chemtrails" are the real ones who ARE OUT TO TRY TO TRICK PEOPLE FOR MONEY.
    The real people out to harm and exploit the public are the hoaxers. Reveal that truth and be able to back it up with science and documentation or reasoned argument if necessary, but in a way the science ain't the real story folks are interested in.


    On a forum arguments can stand and people can read them patiently. On TV, drama rules and the editing decisions with a limited program duration are not based on what is more truthful but what is most dramatic.

    • Like Like x 8
  13. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Beat them at their own game.
  14. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    Yeah communicating science in the media is sometimes a difficult task, and media hate the uncertainty that scientists use as common language, may, probably, data seems to indicate, our best estimate.. etc
    And science popularisers like David Suzuki, Dr Kark Kruzelinski, etc often get criticised by scientists for dumbing things down or for the slightest inaccuracy.
    Standing up for reason probably needs a careful study of the different requirements of different media.
    It's so boring to hear a politician being interviewed in real life nowdays. They say the same thing over and over in slightly different ways. It's when you see the result on TV you realise that they stick on point and drive it hard. Contrail science is a big wide subject . Tricky
  15. tryblinking

    tryblinking Senior Member

    First Tsunamis aren't weather.
    But really? Case Orange and Owning The Weather? I'm surprised they didn't go the whole Gish Gallop and throw HR 2977 in there too!
    On the plus side they did mention ContrailScience by name :'D
  16. Danny55

    Danny55 Senior Member

    I noticed quite a few words cropping up repeatedly
    in the clip

    "If, possibly, could, maybe, might" etc etc, but no "is".

    And as for being one of "America's Most Secret Structures" why does it have a website if it is "most secret" ????
    http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
  17. brent_brent

    brent_brent New Member

    people are so crazy!
  18. tryblinking

    tryblinking Senior Member

    So, what is the forum concensus for those interested in eventually creating some form of cinematic or documentary rebuttal to the hoax?
    Is the best use of the evidence to focus primarily on the factual truth, at the possible cost of viewer interest, or to aim at the hoaxers with the evidence used to support the exposé?

    I guess most here would agree these don't have to be mutually exclusive.
  19. GregMc

    GregMc Senior Member

    That's a tricky one tryblinking. What is interesting is that for many folks who have for a while been swept up the hoax, once they understand the science and reality they often seem to drift off and go to other things.

    The real info has engaged their rational mind and satisfied it and so they move on to other things. But that leaves very few who are more emotionally engaged to do something about the fact they have been conned.
    Perhaps it's embarrassment that most (but not all) seem to slink away quietly once they realise they have been tricked and a bit too gullible or inattentive to detail.
    They don't hang around debunking. Only a few regular debunkers ever fell for the hoax. I think most of us never fell for it at all so there's not much of that "reformed smoker" aspect.

    So in general these folk have the experience of a being part of whole bunch of people believing in something and then quietly realising over time through facts that it is all nonsense and they were silly.
    They realise they were too gullible and so the experience probably feels like it was their own personal fault and something they'd rather not dwell on.

    Identifying the hoaxers and their machinations however takes the focus away from an individual's embarrassment of not understanding science and also becomes a much simpler message . Some bunch of @#$$% are trying to hoax the public with nonsense and here's a few examples of proof that what they say is wrong ..etc .
    That is more personally or emotionally motivating becomes is it more "us against them" that people seem to react most strongly to. That human quality is what the hoaxers exploit. So a two pronged rebuttal to their BS is possibly most effective. Have the science at hand but ALSO engage the emotions of the drama of a bunch of @#$$% trying to con a lot of people and make them live in constant fear and misery for personal financial gain.

    Having a believer realise the trails are just water makes them feel a bit stupid, but realising some despicable conmen like Murphy deliberately tried to scare and confuse them should make them angry and motivated to stop the hoax.
    Being convinced people are out to poison you with planes makes people angry and highly motivated to further spread a nonsense message.


    But if we can both give them the scientific facts AND the realisation that they were being deliberately conned then that anger and motivation might persist but in redirected form and help extinguish the nonsense.

    Do we want more angry people in the world? Well perhaps it's better than so many folks needlessly living in fear?
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    In The Debunking Handbook, they note that people don't like to give up ideas if they don't have something to replace them with.
    [​IMG]


    So simply explaining to someone why they are wrong is not enough, you also have to fill the gap. Now it may be that for some people this myth is such a huge part of their belief system that the gap that is left is very large. So you need more stuff to fill it with. The simple science might not be enough - they need something more interesting, more suited to their though processes.

    So yes, a discussion of how they have been conned might be the thing that fills the gap.

    HOWEVER, there's also the danger that you are seen to simply be attacking people. Whatever criticism of people is made, it needs to be as factual as possible, and to avoid simple statements of judgement. One can reveal someone as a charlatan, and still be polite about it.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  21. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Sometimes humor might help ease the pain, but it's not aways easy to do it right.
  22. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Hey Mick, I was looking through the comments on that YT video, and it turns out that you are now a billionaire!
    [​IMG]
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  23. Gunguy45

    Gunguy45 Senior Member

    I knew I liked Mick for some reason. Hey Mick...I've got this investment I'd like to discuss. It's an investment in my future...but it would make you feel good helping out wouldn't it? Lol
  24. Joe

    Joe Active Member

    Yea Mick give me a cool million then Ill believe they are just contrails :)
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    One wonders why I'm still on the Illuminati payroll :)

    I was one of the founders of Neversoft though.
  26. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Neversoft in 1998 - a mix of Bond and bogan!! :D

    800px-1998_Neversoft_960.jpg
  27. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    Yeah, I know... like any good debunker, I did a quick search to verify from reliable sources. :)
  28. Joe

    Joe Active Member

    Some of mine and my kids favorite games . Of course Id prefer Battlefield 3 now . Good job but your segment was quite short .
  29. Chew

    Chew Active Member

    Billionaire founder, eh? This must be another example of that vaunted conspiracy theorist fact-checking I keep hearing about.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  30. I have the impression the "gold rush" announcement is more close to the truth than most part of the broadcast.
  31. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    A friend of mine has written to Mythbusters to ask them to investigate chemtrails. Be interesting to see what they do.
  32. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    I remember "chemtrails" being mentioned in passing on Mythbusters. I think they were discussing conspiracy theories in general, if I remember correctly. I got the impression the guys found the subject too ridiculous to engage.
  33. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

    Hardly surprising really, there's a lot of stuff I come across that I just don't know where to start with.

Share This Page