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.
Thank you. Hopefully it doesn't have to turn into a Top 100Welcome 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.
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: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:
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.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 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.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.
Thank you for addressing this, but my approach was a generalization of formatting, wasn't married to that actual question/accusation detail.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.
Ah, yes....gotcha...thanks!!but my approach was a generalization of formatting
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).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.
See here, and the references at the end: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.
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.See here, and the references at the end:
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.
A football sized metallic thing? That sounds like something people would remember. I certainly don't.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?
So what? Cloud seeding does not look like persistant contrails nor does it contain the chemicals claimed to be caused by chemtrails.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."
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.So what? Cloud seeding does not look like persistant contrails nor does it contain the chemicals claimed to be caused by chemtrails.
It doesn't appear thatIn this video, Shasta County supervisor Bill Schappell actually attends a chemtrailist meeting and says (~6:45 in the video):
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.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.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Michael J. Murphy sues Shasta county||Contrails and Chemtrails||8|
|Double "Black Beam" Contrail Edge Shadow over Mt Shasta||Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation||2|
|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|
|Elana Freeland, "Chemtrails, HAARP and the Full-Spectrum Dominance of Planet Earth||Contrails and Chemtrails||15|
|Debunked: Only Four Airliner Flights/Day over Mt. Shasta, CA||Contrails and Chemtrails||36|
|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|
|Flight Activity Over Moorpark, Ventura County||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||77|
|Debunked: Meteorite? Paris, Oxford County, Maine [Sunlit contrail segment with shadow]||Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky?||46|
|Debunked: Suffolk County, NY Geoengineering Law||Contrails and Chemtrails||68|
|Debunked: "Rainwater Samples From Alachua County Florida Test Positive for Aluminum"||Contrails and Chemtrails||51|
|Alachua County - the next cause celebre for aluminium in Rainwater?||Contrails and Chemtrails||6|