Shasta County Supervisors to discuss chemtrails

Leifer

Senior Member.
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.
I didn't see it that way. I viewed it twice......and it seemed like the news report did not state any bias.
Let me watch it again.....
OK, I stand by my opinion.
I believe the news report took no stance.
I don't understand the difference between "believer" or "supporter".......are they not defined as basically the same....in this instance ?

If anything, they did the least they could do, to attach any science to the subject.
 
Last edited:

domerdel

New Member
I just wanted to reply to this thread because I actually live in Shasta County and hear local residents who campaign daily behind Geoengineeringwatch.com and other forms of chemtrail supporters. I see all the regurgitated conspiracy articles that somehow get revived after being debunked on my facebook thread and other local social media outlets. What at first starts to be a stance on protecting the environment, their message(s) conveyed get lost by tangents of political agendas and government cover-ups.

Sadly, Shasta County has now been put on the map since this agenda has taken place and labeled our predominately red county as "tea party supporters" and a "Breeding Ground for Stupidity". To get an understanding of the local supporters, there's actually another local tv news station KRCR, skip the article content and look at the content. You literally go from chemtrails to 9/11 or GMO conspiracies. To clarify, most supporters of geowatch and chemtrails(at least that I have come in contact with) are actually Libertarians (and in no way am I stereotyping this party in a negative form, just giving a light reference). I am more on the conservative perspective on my politics, but I find in recent years, I have more disagreements with Libertarians than I do with the far left and most of the arguments are conspiracy theories. Before I exhausted myself into a now non-confrontational state, their argument would always be "At least look at both sides before you throw stones" but anytime I challenged their status quo, they assume I watch American Idol, my daily sources come from Fox News and have wool over my eyes. Unfortunately, when my patience runs thin, I tell them "turn off Alex Jones and block infowars.com; they aren't promoting truth, they are campaigning for fear." It's challenging to find the balance of advocacy and inquiry when the tone becomes somewhat aggressive and self-righteous. I'm still unclear how geowatch becomes gospel.

In a passive aggressive way, I came across both sites: 1)this one and 2)contrailscience. I'm amazed on the effort put forth to at least "address the other side" with evidence. The only problem is, I am inclined to research and find out more, but those who are easily convinced are just finding a random internet meme and youtube video with the narrative favoring their political agenda, copy/paste then it gets shared throughout spreading like a virus. They don't or appear to have the attention span to research "both sides". Some of the diagrams are so elaborate on geoengineeringwatch that the support assumes "well this must be scientific". I have questions/suggestions for people like Mick West

  1. Is there an up-to-date Top 10 or Top 20 Debunked 'facts' to argue this without calling a chemtrail/geoengineering supporter a "tin foil hat" ?
  2. Is there a consolidated PDF or online article that could be delivered to Shasta County BOS and/or local news media outlets with up to date that speaks to the general populous and not a scientist?
  3. Is there a video under 15 minutes that's up to date with a general understanding of contrails, rise of global traffic, debunk the top 10 items and why certain items keep resurfacing?
  4. Guest speaker addressing the arguments to the next meeting? (wishful thinking)
Apologize for asking for information that's "dumbed down", but sometimes you have to reach an audience with a platform they are comfortable with. Beyond the lost and very fragmented political agenda, they're pissed when they look at the sky and see '-trails'
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

domerdel

New Member
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 ;)
 

domerdel

New Member
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).
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Not to barge in, (sorry, guess I did)...but the very phrase "Normal contrails dissipate" is a kind of meme that has led to the "chem"trail confusion thus far.

Because, "normal" is an in-exact description (or 'definition').
 

domerdel

New Member
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.
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.
 

domerdel

New Member
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.
Thank you for addressing this, but my approach was a generalization of formatting, wasn't married to that actual question/accusation detail.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
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 (to 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.
 
Last edited:

domerdel

New Member
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.
I agree that Mick appears to know the appropriate balance. While I find someone like Dennis Mersereau's narrative informative, entertaining and humorous on this volatile topic, I wouldn't exactly advise him to advocate in a forum like a Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting because the opposition would tune-out the minute you not only use "trigger words" but blatant insults... and to be honest, I think it would potentially cause a violent uproar lol (half-joking).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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
 

domerdel

New Member
This is powerful piece of literature. Thank you for sharing. I get that if you proceed questions before the actual facts, you're indirectly advertising a myth to gain more attention than it should and it's a valid point on an overall level.

I may have not articulated my initial idea the best, but delivering it as an introduction "this is what you may have heard" in response to is what I was trying to convey. The logic behind that, the narrative at Shasta County BOS Agenda was heavily on 'supporters' and as you already know, advocacy begets more advocacy with little to no opposition (in this case 'factual scientific data'). People watched the TV Show Myth Busters because they associated with "yes, i've been hearing a lot about that and want to know the answers!" run through the linear hypothesis with testing/experimentation (in this case: facts) and conclude. It really depends on the audience and I'm a little biased to my experience with Shasta County residences because for my MPA degree I had to sit in on city council meetings to hear people talk during public commentary. While it's their right to do so, there's moments of shaking my head and utter facepalms thinking to myself "I really hope this doesn't make national news". It's a long way of saying, I agree with you, but you may have to break out the crayons if you deliver this to Shasta County (or audiences like it). Maybe what i'm trying to convey might make a better video and not a hand out :)

Looking forward to seeing the final draft. Will you post it on here or the homepage + contrailscience?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Looking forward to seeing the final draft. Will you post it on here or the homepage + contrailscience?
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.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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?

and maybe think about putting "are a cirrus cloud'. because they might think its a new cloud the gov just made since that seems to be a thing now. I remember cirrus from high school, so I think most people will recognize the word. (maybe)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I offered to MB member "Steve Funk" this bit from NPR....it is about a JPL scientist who studies snow melt.

Specifically, in this instance, it is about the fact that the state of California (in particular) is in the midst of a drought. AND, it is about the way that dust can impact the snow melt, in this case, the Sierra Nevada mountain range (which is near Shasta, California).

Basically....it is equivalent to a black car, versus a white car. It is about "albedo". AND, what's most interesting, is the fact that IN California, dust from Asia....including China....has been detected!!:

From 2006:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5415308

More recently:
http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-t...ientist-studies-how-dust-affects-snow-pack-m/

Really, this is GOOD radio!!!!
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
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?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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?
A football sized metallic thing? That sounds like something people would remember. I certainly don't.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
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?
At the Shasta meeting? I'm sure no one said that.
 

skephu

Senior Member.
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."
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
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."
So what? Cloud seeding does not look like persistant contrails nor does it contain the chemicals claimed to be caused by chemtrails.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
So what? Cloud seeding does not look like persistant contrails nor does it contain the chemicals claimed to be caused by chemtrails.
Yeah, I tried to explain that to him in a couple of emails, but didn't get anywhere. He may have been referring to me when he said he got emails calling him a nut, although I don't think I used that word.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
In this video, Shasta County supervisor Bill Schappell actually attends a chemtrailist meeting and says (~6:45 in the video):
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."
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
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."
He did say that the EPA wasn't telling the truth. He also mentioned a letter regarding chemtrails being sent to Senators Feinstein and Boxer along with (I assume) state reps and the county congressional delegation. They have received no answer as of yet. I'm surprised as Senator Rand Paul's office replied to a chemtrail inquiry with a it ain't happening reply.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
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.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
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.
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.

does make you wonder when they start 'editing' stuff.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
He also flat out says the EPA is corrupt. No examples follow. He sounds just like the typical believers, all claims, no proof. I also wonder what they cut out to make it look like he said the cloud seeding was "proof".
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Dr Steve Davis D.C, CTN has a website all of his own and is at hand to provide you with elixiers to protect you from chemtrails. Obviously for a fee

http://www.theskyistrulyfalling.com/pages/about.html

I must admit I am a little confused over the phrase "corrupted energy pathways". People that have enegry pathways that are not working generally tend to be dead ;)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Michael J. Murphy sues Shasta county Contrails and Chemtrails 8
Mick West Double "Black Beam" Contrail Edge Shadow over Mt Shasta Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 2
CapnPegleg Cool lenticular over Mt. Shasta Contrails and Chemtrails 1
P Hi all, I'm new to this forum, so still trying to find my way around. I wanted to comment regarding Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Steve Funk Elana Freeland, "Chemtrails, HAARP and the Full-Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Only Four Airliner Flights/Day over Mt. Shasta, CA Contrails and Chemtrails 36
Steve Funk Earth Day, Mt. Shasta Contrails and Chemtrails 0
C Debunked: Shasta Snow and Water Aluminum Tests. Contrails and Chemtrails 109
H Need Debunking: Hernando County platforms from more than 10 miles Flat Earth 9
Chute Flight Activity Over Moorpark, Ventura County Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 77
Robert Tankersley Debunked: Meteorite? Paris, Oxford County, Maine [Sunlit contrail segment with shadow] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 46
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Suffolk County, NY Geoengineering Law Contrails and Chemtrails 68
Mick West Debunked: "Rainwater Samples From Alachua County Florida Test Positive for Aluminum" Contrails and Chemtrails 51
MikeC Alachua County - the next cause celebre for aluminium in Rainwater? Contrails and Chemtrails 6

Related Articles

Top