Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
I mean that it is growing.
Is Belief in "Chemtrails" Growing?
- Thread starter Dan Page
- Start date
NoParty
Senior Member.
You did express yourself accurately...though I too wasn't sure at first which you meant.
In fact, my first sense was that you meant that it was not growing.
Which made me feel good, since it's so whack-a-doodle...
and the movement didn't really seem to be growing--in any meaningful way--to me.
But I'm still a relative noob...and I know you've been fighting this nonsense long before
I ever heard of "chemtrails,"
so your opinion carries a good deal of weight with me.Don't ever stop posting here...your stuff is one of the main reasons I follow MB as closely as I do...
Dan Page
Senior Member.
I also interpreted what Jay said, wrongly, and am now glad to hear, Jay, that you feel as I do, that it is growing. But I'm not happy about the growth at all. A significant reason for this growth, I believe, is Alex Jones and Coast to Coast giving MJM, Dane Wigington, Scott Stevens, David Iycke and others like them, a voice to millions of listeners. I sometimes listen to Coast, just to hear about fringe stuff, and the first time I heard Dane and someone else (might have been Murphy) talking together about chemtrails I was practically yelling at the radio, thinking how can they be real, how could anyone believe this crap. And George Noory doesn't ask a single challenging question. And then, ALL but one of the callers were staunch believers. The one non-believer was a business jet pilot and said he has flown in contrails following a larger jet at the same altitude, and he said the mechanics checked their engines after the flight looking for evidence of any alluminum, or other particulates on the fan blades, and found nothing. I don't recall the response from Dane, but George moved on to the next caller. There have been about 10 more shows since then, on chemtrails, giving the guest(s) either 1 or 2 hours to speak. I don't listen to those shows as I can't stand to listen to them. Coast has millions of listeners all around the world now, thanks to the internet. Some people believe most of what is said on that show, but I think that about 90% or more of it is bunk.You did express yourself accurately...though I too wasn't sure at first which you meant.
In fact, my first sense was that you meant that it was not growing.
Which made me feel good, since it's so whack-a-doodle...
and the movement didn't really seem to be growing--in any meaningful way--to me.
But I'm still a relative noob...and I know you've been fighting this nonsense long before
I ever heard of "chemtrails,"
Don't ever stop posting here...your stuff is one of the main reasons I follow MB as closely as I do...
I never listen to Alex Jones' show, but I've heard him when he comes on Coast, and IMHO, he is over the top nutso.
If there was no longer chemtrails shows on Coast, then I think the movement would slowly die out, but I doubt that will ever happen, as the subject is just too popular and draws in a lot of listeners. So the snowball will gather momentum and grow larger.
Steve Funk
Senior Member.
I think in Mount Shasta, belief in chemtrails has plateaued. The main environmental organization no longer gives them space in its newsletter, and has made a rule that the subject is off limits in the discussions it sponsors on climate change adaptation.
Jay Reynolds
Senior Member.
Steve, would the word "saturation" be more succinct referring to your area? I'm sure that Dane has been able to target most of the available 'hosts' there. In a larger sense, perhaps the same might eventually come to take place on a more global scale. If 1% of US population of 300 million were to at least entertain the idea, that would be 3 million followers.
In comparison, 36% of US believe in UFO's.
What sort of estimate could we make for how many believe in chemtrails?
I agree, when Art Bell hosted William Thomas back in 1999 for many hours it began the outreach. Those outlets sell exciting narratives and very few strong debates on issues take place between knowledgeable factions. The shows are designed to keep the listener in suspense, not to inform them or settle any matters based on logical fact or reason. I contend that they might actually be more popular if they did drill down deeper into things. That might become very interesting, sort of like mythbusters, but they have had the genre as their business model for so many decades I doubt that will change.
Belfrey
Senior Member.
There was that 2013 poll (discussed here before, I think) on conspiracy theories, which put the estimate at 5% over all (although a disturbing 17% among the younger adults). (Included in this compilation of poll results.)
Van Wigington
Member
" do not ", 74-85-91, the trend, not suprising
Young people believe all kinds of crazy stuff. It's not a static picture, every year everyone gets a year older. More teenagers get sucked into conspiratorial thinking, and then years later a large proportion of them find their way out of it. Either they climb out of the rabbit hole, or it just dissolves away from them naturally as they get on with life.
So there's this demographic bulge, and it's not going away. we can try to stop people falling in, we can try to help them get out. we can make the bulge smaller and shorter, but it's never going to go away.
NoParty
Senior Member.
Yes, one of the key pieces of "evidence'
is the "the skies weren't like this when i was growing up" anecdote.
While some older people will kind of go along with it, some remember differently.
But for the youth, they have no memories of the '70s or '80s that put the lie to the claim.
So many assume it's a true statement.
I remember contrails from my youth. Fewer, but then, there was less air traffic.
Dan Page
Senior Member.
In 1979 when I was in training to be a Flight Service Specialist, we first trained in meteorology and doing weather observations. The training was done at the training center in Cornwall Ontario where there is quite a lot of air traffic, even back then. One day the sky was mostly high scattered cirrus with persistent contrails, and by the afternoon they had spread out to cover almost the entire sky. All day we were reporting COTRA in remarks, which means, you guessed it, contrails that remain for more than one hour. At one point I asked our instructor if he knew what, if any, effect these persistent contrails had on the climate. Paraphrasing, he said that there was debate among meteorologists, and they could not agree what effect they had, but that there probably was some effect. After training, I ended up working in 7 different locations in Canada, ending up in Winnipeg where I was born and raised. And every place I worked, except Resolute Bay NWT, I would occasionally see contrails that persisted and would enter COTRA in remarks.
Today, weather reporting is pretty much automated, so because there is no human involved, COTRA in remarks will rarely be seen now.
Today, weather reporting is pretty much automated, so because there is no human involved, COTRA in remarks will rarely be seen now.
Steve Funk
Senior Member.
I would like to think that the backlash from the reality based community has also had some effect, but I don't have any data.
Leifer
Senior Member.
I am thinking the same thing, that we will always come across "beginning" believers.
You'll seen the all over social media.
In a way, it may seem as there's lots of "new believers" (new to your eyes), when it's likely most of them won't take it too seriously after a while as they investigate it further. Or they simply lose interest because chemtrails are a whacky idea, [...], etc.
The more you read social media comments, the more you'll see beginning (curious) believers. I think this can be a deceptive area to judge if the movement is "growing".
...plus that "trolling" is simply too easy these days via anonymous postings. This has grown into a hobby for some...and for kicks, among others.
Is trolling on the rise ?
Last edited by a moderator:
skephu
Senior Member.
You can still measure the number of active believers by the number of people who actively comment on articles.
And that seems to be increasing as well.
Leifer
Senior Member.
Yeah, that was in the second half of my post....that it's easy and somewhat popular to post an opinion or repeat claims they don't understand.
From my experience, it's obvious people like to be controversial online, often just to get a response. Internet life is far different than real life, as in.... many will say things online, that they wouldn't say to their friends or relatives. They can be privately rebellious in a comments section.
I don't think many young people stick with CT's too long, even though they may be distrustful, and have one leg in a camp.
Dis-trustfulness is popular these days especially among youth.....and youth post lots.
It's becoming that new Web2.0 "phase" in life
From my experience, it's obvious people like to be controversial online, often just to get a response. Internet life is far different than real life, as in.... many will say things online, that they wouldn't say to their friends or relatives. They can be privately rebellious in a comments section.
I don't think many young people stick with CT's too long, even though they may be distrustful, and have one leg in a camp.
Dis-trustfulness is popular these days especially among youth.....and youth post lots.
It's becoming that new Web2.0 "phase" in life
skephu
Senior Member.
Within chemtrailer communities, there is no controversy, no trolling and no debates. These are actually discouraged and frowned upon.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Nope. Those actions are quickly stomped out like a small grass fire.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i think @Leifer meant more along the lines of how some Republicans will rally behind a pro-Republican article even if they dont necessarily agree with what the article says.
Or say an article that touches on the topic "Obama isn't an american citizen". Trolls, who couldnt care less about the issue, will post anti-obama stuff just because that's what trolls do.
I could see me getting a "chembow" link on my FB wall and responding sarcastically, which would look like i was agreeing chembows are scary.
Or say an article that touches on the topic "Obama isn't an american citizen". Trolls, who couldnt care less about the issue, will post anti-obama stuff just because that's what trolls do.
I could see me getting a "chembow" link on my FB wall and responding sarcastically, which would look like i was agreeing chembows are scary.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i think its a nice resource to watch for numbers and locales. i'm kinda surprised how many i'm seeing from NY, NJ as in Conn we dont get skies covered in persistent contrails.
and.. ya gotta love East Coast girls
External Quote:
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Ask what their ONE BEST piece of evidence is. I'm interested in hearing. It's probably "contrails don't persist". I'm sure they don't realize how many outright lies are being told to promote the chemtrail story.
JRBids
Senior Member.
Mostly just I know what I see... look up.... planes are too low to make contrails...
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
I think when contrail persist and spread a bit, they LOOK lower to them because they are wider.
Ross Marsden
Senior Member.
and brighter.
Similar threads
