I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

Status
Not open for further replies.

firepilot

Senior Member.
Of course they do but NOAA is obviously aware of volcanoes and the rate of eruption . . . they still cannot explain the total increase in the aerosols and change in rate of global warming . . .

Well so you are finally at least admitting that there are natural sources for things like Sulfur Dioxide, debunking your original assertion. I am not quite even sure you know what it is you believe.

Interesting that Sulfur Dioxide is not even an aerosol, it is a gas. Are you alleging that planes full of sulfur dioxide gas are up there now?
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I like George's question #1, but all the chemtrail sites like to back up their stuff with press-releases, and none of them actually post the actual paper, because the paper doesn't suit their purpose.
Here it is, George. Study it and get back to me on this. If you think about it, it makes a world of difference.

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solomon-07-22-11.pdf

hint: Pay close attention to the top graph in figure 2, and consider the meanings of the words "persistently variable" in the title of the paper.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
Excccccellent. I do believe my Felix Legions have infiltrated remarkably well.
 

Attachments

  • Cat.jpg
    Cat.jpg
    54.6 KB · Views: 305

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What exactly do you think is going on George?

It seems to me a conclusion based on inference is only useful if all other possibilities have been eliminated.

Can you think of sources of atmospheric aerosol that do not involve a secret
geoengineering program? Have you eliminated all those other sources as reasons for the increase?

Correct . . That is the reason circumstantial evidence is used in the absence of direct evidence. . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
What exactly do you think is going on George?

Well so you are finally at least admitting that there are natural sources for things like Sulfur Dioxide, debunking your original assertion. I am not quite even sure you know what it is you believe.

Interesting that Sulfur Dioxide is not even an aerosol, it is a gas. Are you alleging that planes full of sulfur dioxide gas are up there now?

The article (NOAA) lumped together all sulfur compounds in their text explaining their graphics . . . I didn't distinguish nor identify any substance as either particulates, aerosols or gases. . . Nor have I given any details on how Aerosol Injection may occur or what tonnage would be required but I do have that information. . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I like George's question #1, but all the chemtrail sites like to back up their stuff with press-releases, and none of them actually post the actual paper, because the paper doesn't suit their purpose.
Here it is, George. Study it and get back to me on this. If you think about it, it makes a world of difference.

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solomon-07-22-11.pdf

hint: Pay close attention to the top graph in figure 2, and consider the meanings of the words "persistently variable" in the title of the paper.

1) My source was from NOAA not from a Chemtrail Info site . . .
2) I will review the entire article and analyze your comments . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It seems to me a conclusion based on inference is only useful if all other possibilities have been eliminated.

Can you think of sources of atmospheric aerosol that do not involve a secret geoengineering program? Have you eliminated all those other sources as reasons for the increase?

Are you referring to intentional aerosol injections or unintentional forms of aerosol injection? Anthropomorphic or natural?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I like George's question #1, but all the chemtrail sites like to back up their stuff with press-releases, and none of them actually post the actual paper, because the paper doesn't suit their purpose.
Here it is, George. Study it and get back to me on this. If you think about it, it makes a world of difference.

http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/solomon-07-22-11.pdf

hint: Pay close attention to the top graph in figure 2, and consider the meanings of the words "persistently variable" in the title of the paper.

"Recent measurements demonstrate that the
“background” stratospheric aerosol layer is persistently
variable rather than constant, even in the absence of
major volcanic eruptions.. . . " Seems to me this could indicate the possible manipulation of the aerosol loadings . . .
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
Are you referring to intentional aerosol injections orunintentional forms of aerosol injection? Anthropomorphic or natural?

Either, what does it matter?... Let's take it from the top.

We're dealing with your question number one.

You're saying there is an increase in aerosols.

You're insinuating this is evidence of a secret spraying program. A secret program for which, by your own admission, there is no direct evidence.

I'm asking if you've eliminated all other possible sources as explanations for the increased aerosols. IOW, how do you know the extra aerosols don't come from volcanoes or industry?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I am a robot cat advocate - I believe in a autofeline spy program!

these are some of the reasons I believe there is an autofeline program in place and or a robot cat Conspiracy . . .

Checklist

1. Is thereevidence of cats in my neighborhood which are unaccounted for by any source whatsoever . . . Yes
2. Is there evidence suggesting that something has changed the neighborhood? . . . Yes
3. Is there evidence of unaccounted budget and mechanisms to allocate, spend and manage projects without the public's knowledge or consent? . . . Yes
4. Are there unidentified cats that walk around which the public has no information about their mission,goals, path, attitude or purpose? . . . Yes
5. Do these unidentified cats sometime stare intently at me and other people? . . . Yes
6. Are there whistleblowers who have indicated that a covert surveillance program is ongoing?. . . Yes
7. Are there in existence technology to accomplish a program of developing robot available to accomplish such a mission? . . . Yes
8. Has there been sufficient time from the development of technology and motive for robot cats programs to see them fully tested, deployed, and operational? . . . Yes
9. Are there sufficient robot parts readily available to accomplish such a program? . . . Yes
10. Is there history of pre-existing or similar use of robots by the military?. . . Yes
11. Is there sufficient process and infrastructure to maintain secrecy and covertoperations? . . . Yes
12. Is there a history of operational research regarding the use of robots for surveillance . . .Yes
13. Are there Local, National, and Global motives toengage in an robot cat surveillance program? . . . Yes
14. Are the motives for such programs and the technology and procedures for their implementations being discussed in scientific and political organizations worldwide? . . . Yes
15. Are there national and international laws, regulations, treaties, andorganizations available ready to facilitate and not eliminate such surveillance programs? . . .Yes
16. Are there any monitoring programs where data isavailable to the public that eliminates the possibility of the existence ofsuch a surveillance program? . . . No
17. Is there any evidence other than official announcements from Governmental and Political sources that robot cats don't exist? . . . No
18. Is there a small yet vocal group of people who insist that such a program exists? . . . Yes, although admittedly we are smaller than chemtrailers.
19. Is there a history of unexplained substances which have been documented that have been discovered on my lawn? . . .Yes
20. Have the rates of small dead animals associated with cats continually risen in my yard? . . .Yes
21. Has there been asteady increase in the number of odd acting cats observed by people and reported as unusual to their memory? . . . Yes
22. Has the federal givernemt as well as similar organizations inthe UK invested significant budget and effort in soliciting the public's helpto identify and report certain animals? . . . Yes
23. Has any practical cat mitigation procedures or technology been invested in,deployed, installed or becomeoperational? . . . No
24. Have utilized implantable microchips in an effort to track the locations of real cats? . . . Yes
25. Has DARPA and other organizations presented significantresearch that robot animals could significanly alter future spy operations? . . .Yes
26. Are governments capable of initiating,implementing, maintaining, and coveringup programs which have been proven to be against the best interest to thehealth and welfare of their citizens? . . .Yes
27. Do you have any reason to believe some type of surveillance program using robot cats has not, is not, or will not beimplemented ?. . . No

I rest my case!!!!

Now how is your list any better than mine?

My checklist is based on scientifically based peer reviewed research articles, congressional testimony, treaties, history, GAO testimony, US law and US Supreme Court documentation, Wikipedia (easy reference), Geo-engineering symposia, IPCC documentation, just to name a few sources . . . I also used my experience and understanding from my 30 years as a member of the US Military and the US Government . . . as well as civilian corporate experience managing projects for the US government and military . . . I have also spent many, many hours of research and thought about the Chemtrail Conspiracy over the last two years . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Either, what does it matter?... Let's take it from the top.

We're dealing with your question number one.

You're saying there is an increase in aerosols.

You're insinuating this is evidence of a secret spraying program. A secret program for which, by your own admission, there is no direct evidence.

I'm asking if you've eliminated all other possible sources as explanations for the increased aerosols. IOW, how do you know the extra aerosols don't come from volcanoes or industry?

No . . . I have personally not eliminated all possible sources for the increase . . . however, the writers of the article made it clear that they did not have a satisfactory answer for the increase (though they have access to all the additional data I and you don't) . . . I would have to assume they are more of an expert on all traditional sources and explanations . . . into the question than I . . . however, my position still remains . . . they would not consider, under any circumstances, my suggested and IMO plausible alternative explanation . . .
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I see #'s1 & 2 have had a bit of a going over, so I'd like to ask about #6:
6. Are there whistleblowers who have indicated that aChemtrail program is ongoing?. . . Yes

Who, where, what did they say, and how did they back it up?

I am aware of a couple of anonymous possibilities - the "manager" & the "mechanic".

And also a couple of known people who have made claims - the Doctor who's name I forget who claimed that he was doctor to pilots who's "NSA buddies" said it happens, and also Mat Anderson, CEO of the now defunct Indigo Airlines and who wrote a letter to various papers a while back stating:

Every day across the US, Canada and many parts of Europe, high-altitude mission-specific tanker, civil and other aircraft are spraying hundreds of metric tons of polymerised and ionised sub-micron barium, thorium, uranium and aluminum, among other materials (including mercury and arsenic), under the ambiguity and abstraction of a benign UN public-private atmospheric and geo-engineering program directed at countering “global warming.”

And never backed it up with any actual evidence.

Are there any others?
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
No . . . I have personally not eliminated all possible sources for the increase . . .

Exactly.

So, if you have not eliminated all other possible sources as an explanation for the increase in aerosols, then insinuating that it's due to a secret spray program, for which you don't have any direct evidence exists, is what people like to call SPECULATION.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Exactly.

So, if you have not eliminated all other possible sources as an explanation for the increase in aerosols, then insinuating that it's due to a secret spray program, for which you don't have any direct evidence exists, is what people like to call SPECULATION.

The steps of the scientific method are to:
  • Ask a Question
  • Do Background Research
  • Construct a Hypothesis
  • Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
  • Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
  • Communicate Your Results
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

Seems to me two if not more of the steps mentioned above . . . Asking a question and constructing a hypothesis both include the use of speculation, inference and possibly non-validated data as well . . . listen the chemtrail conspiracy theorist are in the beginning of their formulation of the question, background and hypothesis stage . . . you are trying to judge them as though they are a sophisticated group of structured, funded and connected scientists . . . they are not and probably never will be . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I see #'s1 & 2 have had a bit of a going over, so I'd like to ask about #6:


Who, where, what did they say, and how did they back it up?

I am aware of a couple of anonymous possibilities - the "manager" & the "mechanic".

And also a couple of known people who have made claims - the Doctor who's name I forget who claimed that he was doctor to pilots who's "NSA buddies" said it happens, and also Mat Anderson, CEO of the now defunct Indigo Airlines and who wrote a letter to various papers a while back stating:



And never backed it up with any actual evidence.

Are there any others?

I can list several you have not mentioned; however, they would fail your test for acceptance . . . but you have to remember that the nature of whistleblowers is very much the same everywhere . . . if they had all the goods or someone felt they had the goods, documents, records, direct evidence they would be going to the authorities, run for their lives, or dead . . . "Deep Throat" who blew the cover on the Nixon scandal did not reveal himself for decades . . . and give enough info to substantiate who he was . . . and there is still controversy . . . if it had not been for the Nixon's own staff . . . there would not be enough evidence to have brought down his own administration . . . the conspiracy as to whether FDR knew of the Japanese attack before it happened has been debated and investigated in Congress from the 1950s until recently and still no conclusions . . .
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
Asking a question and constructing a hypothesis both include the use of speculation

But drawing a conclusion should be based on facts not speculation.

listen the chemtrail conspiracy theorist are in the beginning of their formulation of the question, background and hypothesis stage . . .

The chemtrail conspiracy theorists have been at this since the mid 1990's. How much time do they need to formulate a hypothesis?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But drawing a conclusion should be based on facts not speculation.

In the absence of direct evidence scientists use inference, observation, indirect evidence. . . i.e. Theory of Evolution, etc.


The chemtrail conspiracy theorists have been at this since the mid 1990's. How much time do they need to formulate a hypothesis?


If scientists had agencies with the information needed to properly formulate a hypothesis deliberately withholding evidence their job may have been delayed more than a couple of decades. . . . Not unlike the interference of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages . . .

"On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
My checklist is based on scientifically based peer reviewed research articles, congressional testimony, treaties, history, GAO testimony, US law and US Supreme Court documentation, Wikipedia (easy reference), Geo-engineering symposia, IPCC documentation, just to name a few sources . . .


Apart from the geoengineering symposia, and the IPCC, then so is my checklist. Subject specific - I'd add DARPA, and Boston Dynamics, so I'd say we are about even.

I also used my experience and understanding from my 30 years as a member of the US Military and the US Government . . . as well as civilian corporate experience managing projects for the US government and military . . . I have also spent many, many hours of research and thought about the Chemtrail Conspiracy over the last two years . . .

So the only difference between your list (contrails) and my list (robot spy cats) is that you are somehow more reputable that me?

Surely the list should stand alone?

In which case, what's the difference?
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
I really don't think they would fool another cat . . .

They do fool other cats admirably, but the intention is to fool Humans which is the whole point.
Here is the exact same robot cat with it's fur attached.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tR7W0M5k5tQ/TBNZvV-CODI/AAAAAAAABo4/Y_SYkWMo2Ko/s1600/babe.JPG
http://mimg.ugo.com/201003/38412/babe.jpg

In the earlier image taken from my own personal collection the fur had been removed for maintenance.

Mick's points are equally valid as yours .
In fact there is even more rock solid evidence for mechanical Dogs, having built numerous mechanical cats and dogs and other species myself.
There is far more verifiable evidence for artificial animals than there is for "chemtrails".
I happen to be a verifiable whistle blower regarding the NWO's stealthy infiltration of artificial animals and have collected video evidence using my own cameras.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNiEnYQIh50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsnXU_JsnsQ
I could tell you about my highly classified robotic animal commissions but then I'd have to kill you.
 

Pogopoint99

Senior Member.
If scientists had agencies with the information needed to properly formulate a hypothesis deliberately withholding evidence their job may have been delayed more than a couple of decades. . . .

what.

"On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible... An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out."

I'm glad you linked to wikipedia. Pay special attention to the highlighted part.

Regarding your first question, you have not presented any evidence, be it concrete, circumstantial or otherwise, that the increase in aerosols is due to a secret geoengineering spray program.

You have simply stated there is an increase in aerosols, and then you've insinuated it's coming from secret planes. That's not circumstantial evidence, that's called guessing. You are guessing the source of the aerosols. It's not even a very good guess because you have not discounted the more common and well documented sources of aerosols.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
My checklist is based on scientifically based peer reviewed research articles, congressional testimony, treaties, history, GAO testimony, US law and US Supreme Court documentation, Wikipedia (easy reference), Geo-engineering symposia, IPCC documentation, just to name a few sources . . . I also used my experience and understanding from my 30 years as a member of the US Military and the US Government . . . as well as civilian corporate experience managing projects for the US government and military . . . I have also spent many, many hours of research and thought about the Chemtrail Conspiracy over the last two years . . .

IPCC documentation??

"The IPCC is now damaged goods. Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/...pcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/


"Meanwhile the ties between environmental pressure groups and the development of the IPCC as the (fraudulent) standard-bearer for climate science were further revealed"
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/11/22/ipcc-propaganda-best-%E2%80%98science%E2%80%99-wwf%E2%80%99s-coke-money-can-buy


"Don't let the deeply untrustworthy IPCC decide the fate of the UK economy."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100088183/lord-turnbull-the-ipcc-is-useless/


[h=1]"IPCC 'considering sending mirrors to space to tackle climate change'"[/h]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ea...irrors-to-space-to-tackle-climate-change.html


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/astronomical_harmonics_testing.html

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/gross_errors_ipcc_ar4.html

NOAA and NASA
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/noaa_and_nasa_proclamations.html
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
I've been disruptive enough on this thread already.. Better not mention the huge fog making machines we work on for atmospheric SFX. That will just "cloud" the issue.

It's interesting though in that George's points and subsequent discussion reintroduce the subject of apophenia , the tendency to find patterns when none actually exist. Finding a pattern in events satisfies an internal urge to do so that gave our ancestors a survival advantage.
Many chemtrail believers seem to just "feel" something is wrong. A hunch, a vibe, a paranoia, the munchies, a suspicion. A need to read between the lines, join the dots. So like a legal prosecutor they seem take a position, come to a conclusion, then set about finding anything circumstantial to support that conclusion and sometimes ignore or try to dismiss contrary evidence.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I can list several you have not mentioned;

So why don't you??:confused:

I did forget the guy who "outed" Project Cloverleaf of course...

however, they would fail your test for acceptance . . .

Except I haven't listed any "test for acceptance"!!

but you have to remember that the nature of whistleblowers is very much the same everywhere . . . if they had all the goods or someone felt they had the goods, documents, records, direct evidence they would be going to the authorities, run for their lives, or dead . . .

Anything that lacks evidence can only ever be hearsay

There is whistleblower legislation all around the world now - and it is probably not too hard to upload it to Wikileaks, or do a dead drop to a known activist, or just post the images anonymously on some public forum such as "Above Top Secret"

"Deep Throat" who blew the cover on the Nixon scandal did not reveal himself for decades . . .

There was plenty of real evidence to prove the crime had happened and the link existed.

and give enough info to substantiate who he was . . . and there is still controversy . . . if it had not been for the Nixon's own staff . . . there would not be enough evidence to have brought down his own administration . . .

But the break-in did happen - the evidence for that was real.

And the link to Nixon WAS proved sufficiently for most people - it is not considered hearsay.

the conspiracy as to whether FDR knew of the Japanese attack before it happened has been debated and investigated in Congress from the 1950s until recently and still no conclusions . . .

Indeed - with no corroborating evidence all it remains is someone's hearsay and suspicions.

I have to say that I find your reasoning here very weak - you don't actually list hte several you say you can list, you assume that people will get killed, you use Watergate as an example despite the break-in being a proven crime, and FDR/Pearl Harbour link remains speculation and hearsay.

Which if these is it you think is either relevant or supportive to your case that there are whistleblowers??:confused:
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Apart from the geoengineering symposia, and the IPCC, then so is my checklist. Subject specific - I'd add DARPA, and Boston Dynamics, so I'd say we are about even.



So the only difference between your list (contrails) and my list (robot spy cats) is that you are somehow more reputable that me?

Surely the list should stand alone?

In which case, what's the difference?


Hmmmmm . . .do you believe that your experts on this forum have formed a concensus that robot cats are the new threat to the world. . . . In the microcosm of this segment of society you may be correct. . . I speak from and of a larger society. If you don't wish to communicate with or understand that broader society that is your option . . .whether you prefer it or not people who have weighed the evidence regarding conspiracies participate in you life continually. . . They sit on the juries that judge your legal fate. . . They vote in elections, they teach your children and possibly even you. . . my point being people who believe in the possibility of an intentional (aerosol, particulate, gas) injection program at altitude from aircraft are sane, responsible people who have weighed the collected universe of circumstantial evidence and find it adequate. . .

I offer you the opportunity to allow me to communicate the best case I can. . . Attempting to answer all questions asked as I go . . . or cut me off and lose the opportunity. . . .I am attempting to communicate . . . If that is inadequate or not worth your time I can not make that decision for any of you. . .

My polls on a conspiracy website strongly suggest at least 70% of the voters believe there is a Chemtrail type program in existence. . . I have many other insights from multiple polls. . . which give one some insight on why they believe so. . . I would like to compare and contrast with polls conducted on your forum if allowed. . . If these are unworthy goals please tell me now and I will leave you now and save myself much work and frustration ...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
They do fool other cats admirably, but the intention is to fool Humans which is the whole point.
Here is the exact same robot cat with it's fur attached.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tR7W0M5k5tQ/TBNZvV-CODI/AAAAAAAABo4/Y_SYkWMo2Ko/s1600/babe.JPG
http://mimg.ugo.com/201003/38412/babe.jpg

In the earlier image taken from my own personal collection the fur had been removed for maintenance.

Mick's points are equally valid as yours .




In fact there is even more rock solid evidence for mechanical Dogs, having built numerous mechanical cats and dogs and other species myself.
There is far more verifiable evidence for artificial animals than there is for "chemtrails".
I happen to be a verifiable whistle blower regarding the NWO's stealthy infiltration




of artificial animals and have collected video evidence using my own cameras.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNiEnYQIh50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsnXU_JsnsQ
I could tell you about my highly classified robotic animal commissions but then I'd have to kill you.

Your point is not lost on me . . . I do understand that to your world view direct evidence is required for scientific certainty and some standards should apply. . . However, I will submit that most of life is not that clear and certain. . . One uses faith, speculation, intuition everyday to function . . . Even the supposed concrete things you rely upon may well have faulty and invalid data used as the basis for
their acceptance. . . We all must question . . . Humans do the research and publish the conclusions. . . They fail, they sometimes cheat, they are swayed by authority, money and greed, etc. . . A very powerful influence is consensus . . . If you go with the flow, no problem, if you buck consensus in any discipline you are ridiculed. . . I am bucking your consensus. . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You don't speak for a larger society. You speak for a subset of the conspiracy community.

You've hear the disclaimer "not a scientific survey". Your polls suggest that 70% of people on Godlike Productions who took your chemtrail survey believe in chemtrails. That's not larger society. That's a very small self-selecting group of individuals with a high propensity for believing conspiracy theories.

My robot cat theory has exactly as much evidence as your chemtrail theory. The only difference is that less people have heard of it. I'm sure I could easily convince several people in the gang-stalking community. And Ted Gundersun was very supportive of the gang-stalking community, and Ted Gundersun is a former FBI chief. Case closed?

Your list of evidence is simply a list of things that you have picked that (for you) don't rule out the possibility of chemtrails. They don't actually indicate any validity, any more than my matching list for robot cats. Like the cat evidence, it all has perfect reasonable alternative explanations.

So all we are left with is that you believe in chemtrails because a bunch of other conspiracy theorists also believe in chemtrails, and you expect others to believe it because you do, and you claim you were in the military and the government.

So why should we go down your list? Why don't you go down my list?

It's because it's not evidence.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
what.



I'm glad you linked to wikipedia. Pay special attention to the highlighted part.

Regarding your first question, you have not presented any evidence, be it concrete, circumstantial or otherwise, that the increase in aerosols is due to a secret geoengineering spray program.

You have simply stated there is an increase in aerosols, and then you've insinuated it's coming from secret planes. That's not circumstantial evidence, that's called guessing. You are guessing the source of the aerosols. It's not even a very good guess because you have not discounted the more common and well documented sources of aerosols.

First to answer the "what". . . If an intentional injection program exists it is being hidden from the public including the data needed for a normal investigation. . . This has not been the case for most scientific investigations. . . It can then be deduced the time needed to investigate and complete the normal process would be extended in effort and time. . .
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
"My polls on a conspiracy website strongly suggest at least 70% of the voters believe there is a Chemtrail type program in existence."

Hmm, last I heard scientific issues are best investigated using techniques other than that pioneered on "Family Feud".

Perhaps you could poll your studio audience on whether on not they think water vapor, the gas phase of water, is visible or invisible.
You could poll them whether they think piston engine aircraft can produce contrails or just jet engines.
You could poll them about in which major conflict , and on which side were helicopters first used to spot submarines and perform airlifts of crashed aircraft.
You could poll them on the the total mass of water released in jet exhaust compared to the original amount of fuel burnt.
You could poll them on whether they think a sonic boom is made as result of the moment an aircraft breaks the sound barrier or whether it generates a sonic boom continuously as long as it flies supersonic.
The results of such polling is not likely to reveal the correct answers. It really only tells you the level of aviation knowledge of those polled.
The actual correct answers are determined by means OTHER than conducting a poll.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I happen to be a verifiable whistle blower regarding the NWO's stealthy infiltration of artificial animals and have collected video evidence using my own cameras.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNiEnYQIh50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsnXU_JsnsQ

And I'd just like to point out that those incredibly realistic robot sheep were filmed in 1993. NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO.

Imagine the technology the military has now. Robot spy cats are very much a possibility.

You see how this works?
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
" NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO."

If only I was in a position to reveal just how much further we have come in that time, and how total our infiltra...... oops.. mum's the word.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
You don't speak for a larger society. You speak for a subset of the conspiracy community.

You've hear the disclaimer "not a scientific survey". Your polls suggest that 70% of people on Godlike Productions who took your chemtrail survey believe in chemtrails. That's not larger society. That's a very small self-selecting group of individuals with a high propensity for believing conspiracy theories.

My robot cat theory has exactly as much evidence as your chemtrail theory. The only difference is that less people have heard of it. I'm sure I could easily convince several people in the gang-stalking community. And Ted Gundersun was very supportive of the gang-stalking community, and Ted Gundersun is a former FBI chief. Case closed?

Your list of evidence is simply a list of things that you have picked that (for you) don't rule out the
possibility of chemtrails. They don't actually indicate any validity, any more than my matching list for robot cats. Like the cat evidence, it all has perfect reasonable alternative explanations.

So all we are left with is that you believe in chemtrails because a bunch of other conspiracy theorists also believe in chemtrails, and you expect others to believe it

because you do, and you claim you were in the military and the government.

So why should we go down your list? Why don't you go down my list?

It's because it's not evidence.


So your conclusion is that people who believe in conspiracies whether CHEMTRAILs are not, are too small a segment of society to be entertained. . . I never said the polls were scientific. . . I never said that any conspiracy forum was the broader society, my intent was to imply they are a part of a broader society . . . In Fact, they (chemtrail advocates) are a major basis and motivation for the existence
of this forum. . . Are they not?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So your conclusion is that people who believe in conspiracies whether CHEMTRAILs are not, are too small a segment of society to be entertained. . . I never said the polls were scientific. . . I never said that any conspiracy forum was the broader society, my intent was to imply they are a part of a broader society . . . In Fact, they (chemtrail advocates) are a major basis and motivation for the existence
of this forum. . . Are they not?

Of course they are. But that does not add validity to their argument. (That's a bit of a paradox in debunking - if you debunk something, then some theorists will always take that as meaning it's real, otherwise why would someone debunk it?).

I'm saying that people believing in something does not make it true. They raise points (like: "contrails fade away in seconds"). Those points have been answered (like: "no they don't. they last for hours depending on the weather"). They keep raising more points, which are also answered. Does that make them right?

Millions of people believe in all kinds of weird things. This does not lend validity to those things. Actual evidence does. You have as much evidence as for robot cats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top