And it miraculously started back up when it stopped."The last time it rained my kidney failed". That has to be the best line I have heard yet. That should go viral on its own.
And it miraculously started back up when it stopped."The last time it rained my kidney failed". That has to be the best line I have heard yet. That should go viral on its own.
No, she saw Dr McCoy and grew a new kidney.And it miraculously started back up when it stopped.
I didn't see it that way. I viewed it twice......and it seemed like the news report did not state any bias.As an 'outsider' that news video was totally biased against the chemtrailists. Calling them "believers" instead of "supporters", the kidney quote etc. I'm sure the chemtrailists aren't happy.
Welcome domerdel. After watching the Shasta meeting it occurred to me that there was a distinct need for something like you mention in your points, above. I'm actually working on "Top Ten" handout right now.
Thank you. Hopefully it doesn't have to turn into a Top 100
Indeed no. It's important to be concise. I'm thinking of something that has around 10 referenced verifiable points, and the claims that they debunk. Something like:
concise is key, great job. I would probably suggest it in the form of 10 questions or accusations preceding what you already have. for example:
1. Normal Contrails dissipate, but the trails I see in the sky can last for a couple days. Doesn't that make it a chemtrail?
False. Fact# (as you put it with the source).
Research suggests that presenting someone with some bunk they are sympathetic to, and then debunking it, will actually reinforce the bunk. I think it depends on the target audience.
Not to barge in, but the very phrase "Normal contrails dissipate" is a kind of meme that has led to the "chem"trail confusion so far.
Because, "normal" is an exact definition.
but my approach was a generalization of formatting
Ah, yes....gotcha...thanks!!
This is (as you seem to already be aware) a volatile topic, with certain "trigger words" and phrases already incorporated into the meme (of those who 'believe' the meme).
I think Mick will help to find a balance between too much "science-speak" (which turns people away) and a more user-friendly way to select the language, in order to help convey the concepts in a conversational easy-to-understand narrative.
Research on what level? National or Regional? Take a look at the KRCR link comments to get an idea of the demographic that you're trying to dispute. The format you have as it stands speaks to me and you, but may not reach Shasta County residents. Regardless of format, I'm impressed you're putting something like this together.
See here, and the references at the end:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf
Looking forward to seeing the final draft. Will you post it on here or the homepage + contrailscience?
1998? I thought the 'chemtrails' started in 1994?I'll post it everywhere
And I get your point with the "Mythbuster" style order of presentation. This is kind of something new I'm trying.
1998? I thought the 'chemtrails' started in 1994?
Oh yeah, that should be 1983. Although now I can't find where I found the 1983 version.
I can't remember this offhand. Does anyone remember this speaker, without revisiting the whole video of the meeting?External Quote:"There's a material that one of the speakers presented that is allegedly physical evidence of the by product of chemtrails. I think it looked metallic, non uniform, I think the size of a football? He mentioned that "they" wouldn't want him to have it, that "they" may get their hands on it if "they" were to know of its existence. Do you know which speaker/exhibit I speak of? Curious to know your explanation."
From a Facebook correspondent, referring to a presentation at this meeting: Jodi wrote:I can't remember this offhand. Does anyone remember this speaker, without revisiting the whole video of the meeting?External Quote:"There's a material that one of the speakers presented that is allegedly physical evidence of the by product of chemtrails. I think it looked metallic, non uniform, I think the size of a football? He mentioned that "they" wouldn't want him to have it, that "they" may get their hands on it if "they" were to know of its existence. Do you know which speaker/exhibit I speak of? Curious to know your explanation."
From a Facebook correspondent, referring to a presentation at this meeting: Jodi wrote:I can't remember this offhand. Does anyone remember this speaker, without revisiting the whole video of the meeting?External Quote:"There's a material that one of the speakers presented that is allegedly physical evidence of the by product of chemtrails. I think it looked metallic, non uniform, I think the size of a football? He mentioned that "they" wouldn't want him to have it, that "they" may get their hands on it if "they" were to know of its existence. Do you know which speaker/exhibit I speak of? Curious to know your explanation."
Then he reads out a letter informing the supervisors of planned cloud seeding operations in the area and says "This is proof."External Quote:I do believe we have something wrong. Something's going on.
In this video, Shasta County supervisor Bill Schappell actually attends a chemtrailist meeting and says (~6:45 in the video):
Then he reads out a letter informing the supervisors of planned cloud seeding operations in the area and says "This is proof."External Quote:I do believe we have something wrong. Something's going on.
So what? Cloud seeding does not look like persistant contrails nor does it contain the chemicals claimed to be caused by chemtrails.
Then he reads out a letter informing the supervisors of planned cloud seeding operations in the area and says "This is proof."
It doesn't appear thatIn this video, Shasta County supervisor Bill Schappell actually attends a chemtrailist meeting and says (~6:45 in the video):
External Quote:I do believe we have something wrong. Something's going on.
It doesn't appear that
Schappell's odd statement has caught much attention outside of the chemtrailer community.
I'm guessing that most view it as not an assertion of evidence, but as an attempt to make some
local constituents feel heard. I think that the beginning of the sentence provides important context:
"I'm not a expert...I don't know, really, a lot about this geoengineering...uh...I came here for support...
I do believe we have something wrong. Something's going on."
9:35 just before he says "thats proof" also . and another strange cut just moments before when all he is doing is reading locations of the cloud seeding letter.There is also a REALLY OBVIOUS cut in the video between the word THIS and the word GEOENGINEERING.(about 6:52 in the vid) I wonder what was missed out.
http://www.theskyistrulyfalling.com/pages/about.htmlExternal Quote:Mineral Force and Mag Force are the first energy medicine products available in history that correct low energy cells through detoxification, subtle energy, nutrition and radiation protection. Dr. Steven Davis, D.C., CTN with the help of physicist Yury Kronn, Ph. D. and Dandy Day Aloe, developed this radiation protection package. This one powerful set of five radiation protection and restoration products will protect you from EMF radiation as well as restore damaged cells and corrupted energy pathways. 1) Mineral Force 2) Mag Force 3) Restore 4) FlaG 5) Aloe Spring
External Quote:
Residents of Eastern Washington are reporting rainfall that contained milky-colored or light gray dirt.
The National Weather Service is stumped about the origin of the dirty rain.