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

[George B]

2-letter words can represent thousands of ideas.
2 thousand ideas can be held in within 2 words.
....in each instance.....neither is enough.

I like that. . . .good thoughts. . .Life is more than a collection of scientific verifiable facts and data. . . It is complex and beyond explanation many rimes. . . .as is human behavior. . . .

 

[Leifer]

I guess if convincing me to abandon my position was your mission and goal . . . you have failed. . . Very good analysis. . .

No one has made you abandon your position. You are free to believe what you will.
Hopefully you will take into consideration the other ideas presented...that's all.

 

[Leifer]

In return, I'm sure you would hope the ideas you expressed....would be taken into consideration by me and others.
It's an equal exchange of ideas.

 

[Leifer]

...if you list the facts, minus the suspicions, you will see why others feel the way they do.

You can't blame them for their beliefs in fact-checking, and their dis-belief in suspicion....can you ?

 

[George B]

No one has made you abandon your position. You are free to believe what you will.
Hopefully you will take into consideration the other ideas presented...that's all.

The fact is I have. . . I never ignore information. . . I weigh it in balance with my position. . . The one thing I will take from the discussion so far is the passion with which debunkers pursue their empiricism. . . While they would seem required to separate emotion from science . . . it is not possible . . . The very thing they accuse us conspiracy advocates of . . .letting our beliefs and feelings dominate our emotions, our behavior, our beliefs . . They are also guilty. . .

 

[George B]

In return, I'm sure you would hope the ideas you expressed....would be taken into consideration by me and others.
It's an equal exchange of ideas.

I agree completely. . . .

 

[George B]

...if you list the facts, minus the suspicions, you will see why others feel the way they do.

You can't blame them for their beliefs in fact-checking, and their dis-belief in suspicion....can you ?

If suspensions are based on provable historical analogous projects and institutional behavior, published hard scientific speculation, a history of proposals advocating aerosol injection by some of the most respected scientists in the last 100
years on a timeline adequate for testing, deployment and operations. . . The existence of crisis or near crisis threats to humanity. . . .global warming, solar maximum, etc. . . .I think there is room for consideration. . . .

 

[firepilot]

The fact is I have. . . I never ignore information. . . I weigh it in balance with my position. . . The one thing I will take from the discussion so far is the passion with which debunkers pursue their empiricism. . . While they would seem required to separate emotion from science . . . it is not possible . . . The very thing they accuse us conspiracy advocates of . . .letting our beliefs and feelings dominate our emotions, our behavior, our beliefs . . They are also guilty. . .

Actually in a way, you did ignore information. You never revisited any of your beliefs, when facts were given to you, and when your misconceptions were refuted.
If you are clinging to it exactly as you were before, even when facts proved much of your speculation and manipulation to be wrong, you continued on just like nothing happened.

When your NOAA article was not as had told it was about, and in fact it was not about mysterious aerosols, you just moved on pretty fast to the next speculation.
When Jay posted a link showing no increase in aerosols, again, not much of an acknowledgment at all, and you went right onto something else.

When multiple links showed that Open Skies is not some covert program where countries can secretly overfly as much as they wanted with whatever they want, again you just kept insisting it could be true, even though you had no evidence for that.

You accuse us of being dogmatic for not accepting your speculations. But it is you that is being dogmatic, for not accepting evidence and facts.

And yes, of course you can separate emotion from science. All science is, is just facts and knowledge that we know to be true. These facts can be proven and verified. You can separate emotion from mathematics too.

If science supported your conspiracy, you would be trotting it out. You tried to with that NOAA article, that had a markedly different conclusion than what you stated it did. And when that was shown, then it was not as important to you anymore.

 

[Leifer]

If suspensions are based on provable historical analogous projects and institutional behavior.....

(you meant to spell "suspicions" ??)

You must understand, that by that analogy.....
-Germany is still killing prisoners,
-the Khmer Rouge is still in power
-and we are still bombing Japan with nukes.

Now I'm sure you know that is not true.
So past behavior is not a guarantee nor proof that the act is still happening.

 

[George B]

Actually in a way, you did ignore information. You never revisited any of your beliefs, when facts were given to you, and when your misconceptions were refuted.
If you are clinging to it exactly as you were before, even when facts proved much of your speculation and manipulation to be wrong, you continued on just like nothing happened.

When your NOAA article was not as had told it was about, and in fact it was not about mysterious aerosols, you just

moved on pretty fast to the next speculation.
When Jay posted a link showing no increase in aerosols, again, not much of an acknowledgment at all, and you went right onto something else.

When multiple links showed that Open Skies is not some covert program where countries can secretly overfly as much as they wanted with whatever they want, again you just kept insisting it could be true, even though you had no evidence for

that.

You accuse us of being dogmatic for not accepting your speculations. But it is you that is being dogmatic, for not accepting evidence and facts.

And yes, of course you can separate emotion from science. All science is, is just facts and knowledge that we know to be true. These facts can be proven and verified. You can separate emotion from mathematics too.

If science supported your conspiracy, you would be trotting it out. You tried to with that NOAA article, that had a markedly different conclusion than what you stated it did. And when that was shown, then it was not as important to you anymore.

I think if you review my posts you will only find mainstream and scientific sources except for the one Video on the Aurora Aircraft. . . If I didn't consider science as a source to consider why would I do that. . . ? . . . What you want is for me to say I think your evidence disproves the existence of a aerosol injection program. . . I cannot say that. . . I don't think at this time, the NOAA article refutes such a program, it may indicate a smaller program or a very balanced program designed to follow the natural aerosol trends to mask its existence . . . Also, geo-engineering may simply not be the primary objective of aerosol injection. . . . The sky treaty likewise was only a thought . . IMO it gives plausible justification for an unusual airframe to be seen in US airspace by the public . . . It is not necessary for it to allow hundreds or dozens of flights to serve that purpose. . . Forgives me if I hold on to my positions in spite of your efforts to debunk them. . . . A debate sometimes is difficult and parties by definition will take opposing positions and will logically defend those positions. . . I acknowledge your contribution to the debate but don't accept your conclusions . . .

 

[George B]

(you meant to spell "suspicions" ??)

You must understand, that by that analogy.....
-Germany is still killing prisoners,
-the Khmer Rouge is still in power
-and we are still bombing Japan with nukes.

Now I'm sure you know that is not true.
So past behavior is not a guarantee nor proof that the act is still happening.

Yes, sometimes my IPad changes words on me and I don't catch it before I Post a response. . . You also know that history can and does sometimes repeat itself. . . and I have posted recent legal arguments regarding respected legal opinion espousing the fear that human experimentation practices (like the dispersal of Zinc Cadmium Sulfide from aircraft to map the behavior of chemical and/or biological weapons) by the authorities during the immediate post war era and cold war are still ongoing and being done in spite of laws to the contrary. . .

 

[firepilot]

It was YOUR evidence. And now you are saying that the NOAA article did not eliminate something, so therefore its evidence. Do you you think that aircraft are up there spraying sulfur gases?

You should be intellectually honest, and admit the NOAA article was not about mysterious aerosol emissions, and you should also admit the aerosol study that Jay posted showing no increase too. If you will not even admit to those, then you are lost deep into your chemtrail religion, because to you, faith is more important than facts.

Actually any unusual airframe would be noticed. Have you not noticed the aviation groups that watch airports, monitor traffic and ATC comms, and thats just for run of the mill aircraft like airliners. Noticed the millions of photos on airliners.net?

Have you tried to gain any aeronautical knowledge at all? Or, do you prefer to not learn, and to just speculate?

 

[George B]

It was YOUR evidence. And now you are saying that the NOAA article did not eliminate something, so therefore its evidence. Do you you think that aircraft are up there spraying sulfur gases?

You should be intellectually honest, and admit the NOAA article was not about mysterious aerosol emissions, and you should also admit the aerosol study that Jay posted showing no increase too. If you will not even admit to those, then you are lost deep into your chemtrail religion, because to you, faith is more important than facts.

Actually any unusual airframe would be noticed. Have you not noticed the aviation groups that watch airports, monitor traffic and ATC comms, and thats just for run of the mill aircraft like airliners. Noticed the millions of photos on airliners.net?


Have you tried to gain any aeronautical knowledge at all? Or, do you prefer to not learn, and to just speculate?

And so what if they have photographed an unusual aircraft. . . Did they note if it left a persistent contrail?? By-the-way. . .I ignore all videos, photos, I really don't think any visual observations will prove anything regarding the Chemtrail Conspiracy . . . Why. . . The people doing the deed are not that stupid!!!! Same thing for the measurement of any aerosol level in the atmosphere or ground. . . They are too smart about what they are doing.

I included most of the items in the 28 to get a discussion started. . . It worked. . . I think the program can only be investigated indirectly. . . That is the only evidence that might be available. . . Everything else is hidden, concealed, disavowed, impossible to prove or pick out of the background noise. . .this is by design not by error. . .

 

[firepilot]

So we are back to, the lack of evidence, actually means it is evidence for a secret program. And by investigating "indirectly", you mean endlessly speculating and playing "What if", and not requiring evidence.

And so now, there has to be a secret aerosol program, that does not even result in aerosols being physically detected? Are you trying to play one big joke on us now? Because when you thought there were aerosols being detected, or higher amounts, then it was all evidence to you. But now that there were not increased aerosols, or mysterious sources, well now thats just evidence too of how secret it is.

You really do cling tenaciously to your faith. You will twist and manipulate anything and everything to make you feel better about living in your made up conspiracy.

 

[Leifer]

. . . Why. . . The people doing the deed are not that stupid!!!! Same thing for the measurement of any aerosol level in the atmosphere or ground. . . They are too smart about what they are doing.

(snip) . . . Everything else is hidden, concealed, disavowed, impossible to prove or pick out of the background noise. . .this is by design not by error. . .

So an average person question would ask....If it's:
Secret
Hidden
Concealed
Impossible to prove
Proof-less

...then they might say, "how do YOU know ?"

Do you know where I'm coming from ??
It does not make sense that only a few internet posters know of such a large operation....it's just not possible that is the case.

 

[Leifer]

Yes, sometimes my IPad changes words on me and I don't catch it before I Post a response. . . You also know that history can and does sometimes repeat itself. . . and I have posted recent legal arguments regarding respected legal opinion espousing the fear that human experimentation practices (like the dispersal of Zinc Cadmium Sulfide from aircraft to map the behavior of chemical and/or biological weapons) by the authorities during the immediate post war era and cold war are still ongoing and being done in spite of laws to the contrary. . .

...but you are not addressing my point.
Past behavior does not mean present behavior.

 

[firepilot]

...but you are not addressing my point.
Past behavior does not mean present behavior.

Apparently, we can expect the Germans to bomb Pearl Harbor again

 

[George B]

...but you are not addressing my point.
Past behavior does not mean present behavior.

The evidence is not just Chemtrail advocates believe covert illegal human experimentation is still ongoing. . . Some very competent legal scholars also believe covert illegal human experiment is quite possible. . . .

 

[George B]

http://mindjustice.org/humprot2-06.htm​
ByCheryl Welsh
Fall 2005
McGeorge School of Law
National Security Law
Professor John Sims



There are indications that today, the intelligence agencies and industrial-militarycomplex are repeating the cold war deception and patterns described by Welsome. Human rights experts describe “new”weapons of mass destruction, after the atomic bomb that have also been classified for decades, involve top government officials and scientists, andreports of government actions beyond legal limits. Coupled with the continued secrecy and growth of national security, these factors are a valid challenge to the view that future illegal experiments won’t happen again. A 2002 RichmondTimes-Dispatch described the increased secrecy surrounding experiments:
"It borders on the scandalous that we still don't have rules in place that would atleast begin to protect the people who are in those trials," cautionedJonathan D. Moreno, director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at theUniversity of Virginia. . . . Moreno pointed to a December news report that President Bush had given the secretary of health and human services [HHS] the authority to classify the information assecret. Moreno said that could allow the Defense Department or CIA to undertake secret human experiments with the HHS.26​
Inhis 1999 New York Times reviewed book, Undue Risk, Secret StateExperiments on Humans, Moreno wrote that national security concerns willoutweigh human subject protections:
Todayand ever since the end of the World War II, the universal sensitivity abouthuman experiments is coupled with the fact that they are probably unavoidablein the real world of national security. Textbook theories, laboratoryexperiments, and computer and animal models can only go so far. At some point, when information is needed about how human beings will react to new forms of weaponry, human experiments will have to continue in this business. In a dangerous world one might well argue that it would be irresponsible for us not to do so.27​

 

[George B]

Apparently, we can expect the Germans to bomb Pearl Harbor again

Based on their three invasions of France by Germany since the 1880 . . . I have calculated that they are 25 years overdue to invade France . . . Japan doesn't need to bomb Peral Harbor they own much of the island already . . .

 

[George B]

So an average person question would ask....If it's:
Secret
Hidden
Concealed
Impossible to prove
Proof-less

...then they might say, "how do YOU know ?"

Do you know where I'm coming from ??
It does not make sense that only a few internet posters know of such a large operation....it's just not possible that is the case.

I undersand your point . . . all I can tell you is how I think . . . you may accept or reject . . . many, many projects have been secrets and only indirect evidence existed until full disclosure . . .

 

[GregMc]

http://mindjustice.org/humprot2-06.htm​
information is needed about how human beings will react to new forms of weaponry, human experiments will have to continue in this business.

I suspect this quote is the smoking gun that describes why new forms of combat weaponry such as autonomous robots are camouflaged in the manner of domestic animals, to see how humans react to them.

"here kitty"
"whirrr click.....purrrrrrrr"

 

[George B]

So we are back to, the lack of evidence, actually means it is evidence for a secret program. And by investigating "indirectly", you mean endlessly speculating and playing "What if", and not requiring evidence.

And so now, there has to be a secret aerosol program, that does not even result in aerosols being physically detected? Are you trying to play one big joke on us now? Because when you thought there were aerosols being detected, or higher amounts, then it was all evidence to you. But now that there were not increased aerosols, or mysterious sources, well now thats just evidence too of how secret it is.

You really do cling tenaciously to your faith. You will twist and manipulate anything and everything to make you feel better about living in your made up conspiracy.

Are you trying to play one big joke on us now? Absolutely not! I have twisted noting in my head . . . I tell the truth as I know it . . . it may confuse you . . .if so I am sorry . . . I don't mean to confuse . . . however, IMO the Conspiracy is very, very, complex and defies simple answers . . . I have not departed from my position in close to two years . . . if you wish you can go to GLP and read my many Threads . . . one over 200 pages long and 80,000 plus views . . . the confusion is probably my fault . . . created by me by presenting what others may believe about the visibility and other evidence about Chemtrails that I don't totally accept . . . I was trying to give a balanced approach but probably confused some of the issues . . .

 

[firepilot]

Of course if there had been actual evidence, they would not have to have stolen a pic from airliners.net.

That graphic is silly. "Project Overlord"?????? Oh geez, that was "Operation Overlord", a military invasion of the European continent. The Germans knew it was coming too, just not where. And that is supposed to be evidence of chemtrails. Wow

The existence of the B-2 was not secret, just what it would look like.
The U-2 was only at Area 51 for a short time, before being openly acknowledged
The SR-71 was acknowledged before it ever flew.
Manhattan project was secret, and yes in the 1940s, in buildings. But not so secret that the Soviets did not know about it and had sent spies.
F-117, which was secret until 88, was operational for 5 years, but flown around the Nelllis Ranges at night and parked in hangars all the rest of the time.

Aurora..haha. The NT-43, or also the Constant Peg programs, would have been much better examples.

 

[George B]

I suspect this quote is the smoking gun that describes why new forms of combat weaponry such as autonomous robots are camouflaged in the manner of domestic animals, to see how humans react to them.

"here kitty"
"whirrr click.....purrrrrrrr"

Could be . . . this Forum sure has a thing about robotic cats . . . however, I don't believe it is a major topic on the news or internet . . . don't think I seen one article or presentation on it until I came here . . .

 

[George B]

Of course if there had been actual evidence, they would not have to have stolen a pic from airliners.net.

That graphic is silly. "Project Overlord"?????? Oh geez, that was "Operation Overlord", a military invasion of the European continent. The Germans knew it was coming too, just not where. And that is supposed to be evidence of chemtrails. Wow

The existence of the B-2 was not secret, just what it would look like.
The U-2 was only at Area 51 for a short time, before being openly acknowledged
The SR-71 was acknowledged before it ever flew.
Manhattan project was secret, and yes in the 1940s, in buildings. But not so secret that the Soviets did not know about it and had sent spies.
F-117, which was secret until 88, was operational for 5 years, but flown around the Nelllis Ranges at night and parked in hangars all the rest of the time.

Aurora..haha. The NT-43, or also the Constant Peg programs, would have been much better examples.

Say what you wish . . . everyone of these projects were unknown and deep in covert secrecy by the authorities until full disclosure was made or the event was happening . . . I think it demonstrates the concept of hidden projects very well . . .

 

[firepilot]

Are you trying to play one big joke on us now? Absolutely not! I have twisted noting in my head . . . I tell the truth as I know it . . . it may confuse you . . .if so I am sorry . . . I don't mean to confuse . . . however, IMO the Conspiracy is very, very, complex and defies simple answers . . . I have not departed from my position in close to two years . . . if you wish you can go to GLP and read my many Threads . . . one over 200 pages long and 80,000 plus views . . . the confusion is probably my fault . . . created by me by presenting what others may believe about the visibility and other evidence about Chemtrails that I don't totally accept . . . I was trying to give a balanced approach but probably confused some of the issues . . .

Its obvious that nothing will ever make you change from your chemtrail religion. No amount of facts, and no amount of debunking what you have posted, will ever change. You will forever cling to your faith in being sprayed, regardless of any lack of information otherwise.

And yes it is a big joke. When you thought there was an increase in aerosols, that was possible evidence of chemtrails. Of course when there is no actual increase in aerosols, instead of rethinking your faith, now that means the chemtrail program used undetectable aerosols, which is of course scientifically silly. Its amazing how you will turn a lack of evidence into actually being even more convincing evidence.

And with that, I think I will try to bow out. As you yourself admit, you have gone years without changing your chemtrail faith, and thinking that introducing reason, facts and science to you would even get you to rethink it, is unfortunately not going to be productive. You are unable to admit when wrong, unable to re-examine beliefs when contradictory evidence is presented, and will faithfully believe in your conspiracy forever.

Good luck

 

[George B]

Its obvious that nothing will ever make you change from your chemtrail religion. No amount of facts, and no amount of debunking what you have posted, will ever change. You will forever cling to your faith in being sprayed, regardless of any lack of information otherwise.

And yes it is a big joke. When you thought there was an increase in aerosols, that was possible evidence of chemtrails. Of course when there is no actual increase in aerosols, instead of rethinking your faith, now that means the chemtrail program used undetectable aerosols, which is of course scientifically silly. Its amazing how you will turn a lack of evidence into actually being even more convincing evidence.

And with that, I think I will try to bow out. As you yourself admit, you have gone years without changing your chemtrail faith, and thinking that introducing reason, facts and science to you would even get you to rethink it, is unfortunately not going to be productive. You are unable to admit when wrong, unable to re-examine beliefs when contradictory evidence is presented, and will faithfully believe in your conspiracy forever.

Good luck

That is two down . . . how many more will throw in the towel . . . seems the members of this Forum are not able to deal with any realities that don't present hard data to analyze, measure, and debate . . . is everything in your lives that cut and dry .? . . you conduct your entire lives based on measurable facts .? . . I don't think so . . . you constantly engage in activities based on faith that something is going to be there that you cannot see or measure . . . you rely on what others tell you is real . . . not what is real manytimes . . .

 

[George B]

Good night all . . . I will check in tomorrow to see if anyone is still interested . . . let me know . . . . . . I would love to talk about:


1) different Whistleblower theories
2) methods of dispersal
3) what pilots know and don't know . . .
4) a list of questions that a senior pilot answered for me . . .

 

[Leifer]

I undersand your point . . . all I can tell you is how I think . . . you may accept or reject . . . many, many projects have been secrets and only indirect evidence existed until full disclosure . . .

So it is how you think...not what you know.
...and there "have been secrets" which are now known..
So if you add those two sentences up, you arrive at, "I think there are secrets, and therefore I know them now....because there were secrets in the past."
Do you understand how that does not make sense....or prove there are any unknowns? (secrets)
It may make you and others feel better to assume secrets based on connecting two or more dots....and if those dots are widely available and can be connected in any way...then you are connecting those dots to suit your suspicions.
I could connect the dots another way.
A third person could connect the dots even another way, and come up with an entirely different theory....based on "what they don't know".

 

[Leifer]

Your suspicion (dot connection) has become your truth.
It's a very primal intuition.....in ancient history, the moon rises over the ocean, therefore it comes out of the sea and lands in the hills far away.
The dots are...
Moon appears at the ocean horizon (dot #1)
Moon sets into the far-away hills (dot #2)
(or visa-verse depending on the viewpoint)
...so the sun or moon does not circle, it obeys the landscape (seascape).

The Sun, the Moon, the Dawn and the heavenly Constellations all rose and set into the Ocean-stream. At night Helios the sun travelled the northern reaches of the earth-encircling river to reach his golden palace and rising place in the East.

http://www.theoi.com/Kosmos/Okeanos.html

The point is....don't obey dots...obey known scientific principles.

 

[Unregistered]

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?

lol

 

[JFDee]

In all the extended discussion, I seem to have missed an important point. Maybe the sheer amount of text has veiled it.

Most conspiracy theories are attempts to explain seemingly unexplainable phenomena. They provide explanation B, often opposed to official or scientific explanation A.

Here is the thing I did not grasp, George:
What is your phenomenon? Can you state what specific issue(s) your theory explains?

 

[Noble1965]

In all the extended discussion, I seem to have missed an important point. Maybe the sheer amount of text has veiled it.

Most conspiracy theories are attempts to explain seemingly unexplainable phenomena. They provide explanation B, often opposed to official or scientific explanation A.

Here is the thing I did not grasp, George:
What is your phenomenon? Can you state what specific issue(s) your theory explains?

George just hates the congressional military complex. He's afraid. And he needs others on his side. So, he has modified/manipulated the "chemtrail" theory to implicate his perceived enemies...and now he's in recruit mode.

Unfortunately for him...I don't think he found many HERE to jump on his bandwagon.

He seems to have much better luck on the conspiracy sites....Hmmm....I wonder why!

 

[George B]

Your suspicion (dot connection) has become your truth.
It's a very primal intuition.....in ancient history, the moon rises over the ocean, therefore it comes out of the sea and lands in the hills far away.
The dots are...
Moon appears at the ocean horizon (dot #1)
Moon sets into the far-away hills (dot #2)

(or visa-verse depending on the viewpoint)
...so the sun or moon does not circle, it obeys the landscape (seascape).

http://www.theoi.com/Kosmos/Okeanos.html


The point is....don't obey dots...obey known scientific principles.

Hmmmmm . . . Interesting . . .
So the establishment thinkers, sages, scientists of that era in which you were referring above . . . through watching the observable behavior of their environment came up with a theory which stood for centuries. . . .a theory we now find silly . . But took years of other tinkers risking their lives and reputation to supplant. . . I am sure the new theory was ridiculed and the individuals propsing their new theory were castigated and rejected. . . .

 

[George B]

So it is how you think...not what you know.
...and there "have been secrets" which are now known..
So if you add those two sentences up, you arrive at, "I think there are secrets, and therefore I know them now....because there were secrets in the past."
Do you understand how that does not make sense....or prove there are any unknowns? (secrets)
It may make you and others feel better to assume secrets based on connecting two or more dots....and if those dots are widely available and can be connected in any way...then you are connecting those dots to suit your suspicions.
I could connect the dots another way.
A third person could connect the dots even another way, and come up with an entirely different theory....based on "what they don't know".

There are more than hidden secrets. . . There are undeniable, analogous behaviors which were only exposed through an angry Congressional debate. . . Exposed decades after the projects took place. . . If you refuse to accept that as evidence you may, that is your right. . . However, It resonates with me and others. . .

 

[Noble1965]

Hmmmmm . . . Interesting . . .
So the establishment thinkers, sages, scientists of that era in which you were referring above . . . through watching the observable behavior of their environment came up with a theory which stood for centuries. . . .a theory we now find silly . . But took years of other tinkers risking their lives and reputation to supplant. . . I am sure the new theory was ridiculed and the individuals propsing their new theory were castigated and rejected. . . .

LOL! You are actually suggesting that you think the way you do because you are some sort of pioneer of science?!

 

[GregMc]

Hmmmmm . . . Interesting . . .
But took years of other tinkers risking their lives and reputation to supplant. . . I am sure the new theory was ridiculed and the individuals propsing their new theory were castigated and rejected. . . .

The people who came up with the accurate correct understanding used accurate data, accurate reasoning and verifiable evidence to supplant the earlier ideas based on flawed thinking .

That is very different to your approach.

Conspiracy theorists often adopt the quote attributed to Schopehauer claiming "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self- evident"

They erroneously think because they are ridiculed then automatically they must be right.

But they fail to grasp that Absurdity also goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Second it is proven to be nonsense. Third it is championed by fools on the internet.


"They laughed at Einstein. They also laughed at Groucho Marx."

or per Carl Sagan "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Of course Newton, Einstein and many others who revolutionised knowledge were not laughed at at all.




Interesting search for the real origin of the three stages quote: http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/Papers/stages.pdf

 

[Noble1965]

There are more than hidden secrets. . . There are undeniable, analogous behaviors which were only exposed through an angry Congressional debate. . . Exposed decades after the projects took place. . . If you refuse to accept that as evidence you may, that is your right. . . However, It resonates with me and others. . .

And I'm sure in the future, things we don't know about now, will be common knowledge...but that, in itself, is NOT any more evidence of a secret aerosol spray operation than it is of robotic cats.

You have to do better...for the average person, than "they have hidden things in the past...so they must be hiding "chemtrails" ".

This type of "logic" may work for the chronically suspicious/paranoid/speculative....but the average normal person needs much more.

 

[George B]

In all the extended discussion, I seem to have missed an important point. Maybe the sheer amount of text has veiled it.

Most conspiracy theories are attempts to explain seemingly unexplainable phenomena. They provide explanation B, often opposed to official or scientific explanation A.

Here is the thing I did not grasp, George:
What is your phenomenon? Can you state what specific issue(s) your theory explains?

That is a good and valid question. . . .and in science, as this Forum likes to use as a standard. . . Why investigate if I don't have something I can readily observe or use some type of objective measure to evaluate. . . An instrument, a measuring device, etc. . . .

My answer to your question would be. . . the concept of chemtrails might have begun as a misconception or error of observation. . . Coincidental with the proliferation of long haul high altitude aircraft with larger more efficient engines and helped with greater vortices caused by new and improved airframes and control surfaces . . . and of course The availability of the world wide web and alternate news blogs etc. . . Fueled by an increasing new found core of individuals that realized believing in the established authorities was not founded on sound logic. . .

This new group started . . . Motivated by their possible error of observation and conclusion . . . Turning over rock after rock to prove their pet theory and found much to be alarmed about . . .including much science, technology, history, capability, patents, opportunity, and motivation to accomplish such programs they were fearing could have been ongoing. . . Then the whistleblowers started to appear. . . Real or hoax this fueled the conspiracy. . . Not to mention YouTube . .

I have tried to evaluate all the data, evidence and misconceptions and continue to come to the same conclusion. . . My inquiring mind cannot reject the concept of an intentional aerosol injection program. . . .