Bias and ethics in Debunking. Presenting data that can be used by CTs.

David Fraser

Senior Member.
As I have mentioned a number of times in some threads I have become quite obsessed with chemtrails. I have learnt a great deal but more specifically I am interested in the whole aluminium scenario. I am lucky in that when bumming around universities I worked on a number of projects involving water quality/recycling and at the time aluminium came up (I did install a rainwater harvesting system into a food factory that produced potable water) it caught my eye. Since then I have been doing a mass of study. I only work a few hours a week after having a stroke and was studying prior and still have access to academic resources, just in case anyone wants to claim I am a paid shill or wants to employ me as a paid shill. However I have been gathering info on aluminium all with the goal of putting it on a webpage for anyone to access. This includes official documents and research papers and cross continent standards. A little like contrail science but really boring. Now I have found some really fascinating stuff (to me) like the amount of Al in breastmilk http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox201221.pdf and the whole food issue is interesting. I have even been looking at writing a paper ffs

But I will cut to the chase. I will not discuss the actual reports or data but would you be willing to openly publish stuff that could be interpreted in support of chemtrails (or any CT in general). I have reports that I have not been able to validate or to get the actual raw data or study enough to disclaim chemtrails, yet I feel disingenuous at the least about not including it. However if I do include it I will have to make a statement that this is the data make of what you will. At the end of the day I do go out of my way to avoid bias, but we do seem to be in a "us and them" scenario.

A good example is today someone posted the patent for Patent 7413145 82 http://www.google.com/patents/US834...n&sa=X&ei=wFalUdEd5uHKAYvcgTg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA I then pointed out it was 7413145 B2 http://www.google.com/patents/US7413145

Now the guy, quite rightfully, said at least it proved a dispersal system. I was going to argue that is was used out of patent but could not be arsed. But to get to my point. Are you happy publishing info that could be used to support a CT? Do you think it should be withheld or edited? All that I will put out have references that are openly available although probably for some it may mean a visit to a library
 
Greeting from sunny California, BiggerDave (is there a "LesserDave" about?), I just stumbled across this website and your post. I've been studying/observing CTs since 1998 and have become alarmed (not enough to disturb my sleep yet) by the aluminum showing up. One Sky Watch group in N. CA. http://www.chicoskywatch.org/ has done some testing of soil and water. The results should be alarming to many more people. I look forward to reading more of your data and studies and will happily forward them on to various other groups I'm in contact with. Feel free to post directly on my Facebook page, look for "TwoSticks" and it should pop up. Good luck to you.
 
Greeting from sunny California, BiggerDave (is there a "LesserDave" about?), I just stumbled across this website and your post. I've been studying/observing CTs since 1998 and have become alarmed (not enough to disturb my sleep yet) by the aluminum showing up. One Sky Watch group in N. CA. http://www.chicoskywatch.org/ has done some testing of soil and water. The results should be alarming to many more people. I look forward to reading more of your data and studies and will happily forward them on to various other groups I'm in contact with. Feel free to post directly on my Facebook page, look for "TwoSticks" and it should pop up. Good luck to you.

Do you have a particular test that alarms you? Many such test have been addressed here.

Examples:
http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/31...ounty-Florida-Test-Positive-for-Aluminum-quot
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/712-Factual-Errors-in-quot-Why-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot
 
Last edited:
But I will cut to the chase. I will not discuss the actual reports or data but would you be willing to openly publish stuff that could be interpreted in support of chemtrails (or any CT in general). I have reports that I have not been able to validate or to get the actual raw data or study enough to disclaim chemtrails, yet I feel disingenuous at the least about not including it. However if I do include it I will have to make a statement that this is the data make of what you will. At the end of the day I do go out of my way to avoid bias, but we do seem to be in a "us and them" scenario.

A good example is today someone posted the patent for Patent 7413145 82 http://www.google.com/patents/US834...n&sa=X&ei=wFalUdEd5uHKAYvcgTg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA I then pointed out it was 7413145 B2 http://www.google.com/patents/US7413145

Now the guy, quite rightfully, said at least it proved a dispersal system. I was going to argue that is was used out of patent but could not be arsed. But to get to my point. Are you happy publishing info that could be used to support a CT? Do you think it should be withheld or edited? All that I will put out have references that are openly available although probably for some it may mean a visit to a library

It depends on how relevant it is, and if it's really directly supporting the theory. . Why bring up a fire retardant spray system if all it is going to do is confuse people?

I'd not be comfortable witholding information though. It's a tricky line to walk. Being absolutely honest and open is going to be better than being overly careful with what you say.
 
It depends on how relevant it is, and if it's really directly supporting the theory. . Why bring up a fire retardant spray system if all it is going to do is confuse people?

I'd not be comfortable witholding information though. It's a tricky line to walk. Being absolutely honest and open is going to be better than being overly careful with what you say.

The page I am looking at is just a general page amount Al Mick. For example we have the argument of excess Al in the soil, I have geographic specific data that could back that up. However I know there is further research as the "theory" is due to erosion. There is a great deal I could put out but it open to interpretation, ie until a causal link is found. (I am not in a position to make a statement)

I did write a great deal after this but "How do you remove Bias??"
 
Back
Top