Some questions regarding chemtrails and debunking

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Unregistered

Guest
[Admin: this was originally posted under https://www.metabunk.org/threads/661-Debunked-Chemtrail-Plane-Interior-(Ballast-Barrels) and those would be the photos referred to here, I've moved it into its own thread here, as it raises much broader questions]

I think it's great to come to those kinds of photos with a critical eye. Obviously it's not a scientific approach for anyone to "doctor" photos for any cause. I'm sure that on both sides of the argument there are those who look for data to support their belief and they will interpret those data accordingly. It's the challenge of science. Can one actually be objective? Does one "take a side" on emotional impulse, or does one simply follow the data like a curious child?

While I'm mildly impressed with the debunk of the photos and I think it will only bring more clarity to the issue, it doesn't in any way debunk the entire chemtrail issue as a whole. So don't be too impressed with yourselves. You've got a ways to go, and far, far more data to analyze.

Just a few simple questions should cause careful reflection in every logical thinker:

1) If there really were a top-secret program to release aerosols into the atmosphere via jet airplanes, is there any way we would actually have photos of the interiors of such planes? Is it possible that personal cameras or other devices would be allowed anywhere near the facilities and equipment? [Based on what we know of other top-secret programs and facilities, this is highly improbable. You've seen security at the public airport -- what do you think it would like at a highly classified military research facility?]

2) How do environmental samples and readings play into this? Are thousands of researchers around the globe merely "doctoring" the results of their soil and water samples showing alarming levels of heavy metals? Have they all somehow got it wrong? Keep in mind that among these researchers are biologists, chemists, lab technologists, and many other experts.

3) How do the astute observations of experienced farmers play into this? Some farmers are reporting as much as 60% losses to their crop yields since they started observing what they call "spraying." Is this merely in their imaginations? Or are these farmers, who are very experienced with weather conditions, soil conditions, and so forth, observing the direct results of geo-engineering?

4) How does the openly stated goal of "owning the weather" play into this? The U.S. Air Force released a paper, "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025." This is not the only government document discussing weather [and food] as a weapon of war. Are we to suppose the biggest military machine on the planet is merely joking about "owning the weather"? Is there a precedent for their ambitions? [Hint: Vietnam -- Ben Livingston -- Operation Popeye]

5) How does the meteorological science play into this? Is it possible that the formation, appearance, and character of "normal" contrails has so radically and so suddenly changed? On the basis of pure observation -- WITHOUT INTERPRETATION -- why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into a haze? [Whereas contrails used to simply dissipate in a matter of seconds -- and some still do] How is this possible? [Neither "debunkers," nor "hoaxers" can yet sufficiently answer these questions! They have only opinion, backed by "data" that supports their belief!]

6) How does the recent marketplace activity of "weather trading" play into this? It is an established fact that on various futures and trading exchanges, "weather" is now bought and sold as a commodity! Who stands to benefit from insider trading in such activities? Does it stand to reason that some group *might* have a stake [on multiple fronts] in controlling the weather?

7) How does corporate behavior play into this? Take, for example, a corporation like Monsanto, repeatedly caught red-handed lying, cheating, and otherwise rigging the system for its own benefit. It is clear from careful investigation that the Biotech - Agra industry [Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, etc] has been "in bed" with the FDA for years -- surely there's a conflict of interest when the former VP for Monsanto is now head of the FDA? This "revolving door" between corporate giants and the government is well-documented. The point is this: Monsanto, for example, has done everything in its power to get GMO's into the food supply with virtually no human testing, no regulation, no public discourse. Furthermore, the link between GMO's and a whole carnival of diseases is clear, yet as usual, "profit" is more important than health and ecosystem vitality. Could the same kind of psychology apply to the recent obsession with "halting climate change" and "controlling the weather"?

These first few questions merely scratch the SURFACE of this issue; so please, don't pat yourselves on the back too much for discrediting a few lousily photo-shopped images. And please, rid yourselves of the pretentious labels your throw around, such as "hoaxers." The fact is, people researching this issue are sincere and concerned individuals for the most part, like most of you.

So instead of taking sides on emotional impulse, and instead of searching for data that confirm our perceptual worldview, let's all work together to be more like children, who are simply, open, innocent, and ultimately curious. They don't dismiss information out of hand, merely because it isn't in keeping with their worldview. They consider every possibility, no matter how outlandish it may seem, and they follow all ideas to their final conclusion. Obviously, as adults, our reasoning capacity is developed where the child's is not. But on the same hand, if we do not have the flexibility and innocence of a child, then we have also lost our ability to think critically and creatively -- we have fallen into the rigid trap of merely propping up our worldview.

We all have a ways to go, and there's FAR more to the story.

In addition the questions I posed, consider this article, which cites a number of sources for your convenience. And truly, CONSIDER It. Don't merely dismiss it out of hand because it's posted on a website that you've been pre-programmed to filter out on the basis of a reputation projected onto it by someone else. Consider the INFORMATION -- forget the propaganda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A lot of questions there. Let's take one:

5) How does the meteorological science play into this? Is it possible that the formation, appearance, and character of "normal" contrails has so radically and so suddenly changed? On the basis of pure observation -- WITHOUT INTERPRETATION -- why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into a haze? [Whereas contrails used to simply dissipate in a matter of seconds -- and some still do] How is this possible? [Neither "debunkers," nor "hoaxers" can yet sufficiently answer these questions! They have only opinion, backed by "data" that supports their belief!]
They have not changed. Science and the historical record says they have not changed. People remember contrails persisting in the past just like they do now.

Of course there are people who DON'T remember persistent contrails, but when you weight that against all the people who do, AND the huge weight of scientific and historical evidence, then it seems vastly more likely that their lack of memory is due to reasons other than a new spraying program or change in the atmosphere.

The real change between the "debunkers" and "hoaxers" is that the "hoaxers" do NOT have data that supports their belief.

But also keep in mind that the one post you see here is not the totality of chemtrail debunking. All the point you raise are points that have been raised multiple times over the last 15 years, and debunked multiple times. You can find a lot of the debunking here, and on contrailscience.com, and even on sites like abovetopsecret.com or godlikeproductions.com.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Just a few simple questions should cause careful reflection in every logical thinker:


5) How does the meteorological science play into this? Is it possible that the formation, appearance, and character of "normal" contrails has so radically and so suddenly changed? On the basis of pure observation -- WITHOUT INTERPRETATION -- why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into a haze? [Whereas contrails used to simply dissipate in a matter of seconds -- and some still do] How is this possible? [Neither "debunkers," nor "hoaxers" can yet sufficiently answer these questions! They have only opinion, backed by "data" that supports their belief!]

Good question!

As Mick pointed out, contrails have been observed to persist for hours and spread into a haze for as long as planes have flown high enough. Indeed, the meteorological science and historical record supports this as this research paper from 1972 confirms. There are literally 100s more papers written by atmospheric scientists from around the World over the last 40yrs detailing the processes by which contrails form, persist and spread suggesting that the belief that this behavior is somehow "new" and contrails never did this is, in fact, false. Thus, the main premise upon which the theory is built is FALSE. The historical record of persisting, spreading contrails is FACT- not opinion. The physics of atmosphere are a fact- not opinion.


http://ciresweb.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/knollenberg72.pdf

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
R.G. Knollenberg
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)


"It is often observed that contrails spread considerably...Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed...If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails."
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In addition the questions I posed, consider this article, which cites a number of sources for your convenience. And truly, CONSIDER It. Don't merely dismiss it out of hand because it's posted on a website that you've been pre-programmed to filter out on the basis of a reputation projected onto it by someone else. Consider the INFORMATION -- forget the propaganda.
This seems to be missing a link?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think you have left out an important issue regarding the contrails observed . . . there are now more of them and they are more frequent than they were historically . . . Why? Several reasons . . .

1) There are more long haul aviation flights now than ever before . . . simple . . . a greater chance an aircraft will venture through optimal air to produce persistent contrails

2) Aircraft are flying at higher altitudes routinely now than ever before . . . again . . . this results in more aircraft transiting optimal air for contrail formation and cirrus cloud banks. . .

3) More aircraft are using higher efficiency engines which have a greater capacity to form persistent contrails and thus cirrus clouds as well . . .

4) More aircraft emissions increase the relative humidity in cruising lanes so subsequent aircraft crossing these lanes have a higher probability of finding optimal air for contrail formation . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
1) There are more long haul aviation flights now than ever before . . . simple . . . a grater chance an aircraft will venture through optimal air to produce persistent contrails . . . more aircraft means more contrails as in this projection of the increases from 1992 to 2050 . . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
7 Km = 22, 965 feet


 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
2) Aircraft are flying at higher altitudes routinely now than ever before . . . again . . . this results in more aircraft transiting optimal air for contrail formation and cirrus cloud banks. . .

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rico

Senior Member.
I'm not really a debunker or anything, though I do share the same skies that people often point their fingers to when they suspect there is something shady going on (I do a bit of flying myself). I mostly invest my interest on the topic of chemtrails because, after a bit of reading, I find it disturbing that some proponents advocate, promote, and perform violence for something they know so little about but instead jump to conclusions. My tackle on the whole topic of chemtrails is that whether you believe them or not, you should not take a side and jump to conclusions until you actually piece together the whole puzzle with all the pieces of available evidence. Problem is, a lot of people do jump to conclusions--there is a lot of real bunk out there, and I say bunk because they raise the flag for the wrong reasons--and this has caused a lot of paranoia. Now, normally this would be fine, but there has been finger pointing, accusations, and again, violence.

Here are my thoughts on some of the questions raised though (point by point, by the op). Again, I'm not a debunker, but I do know a little bit about this topic because my life's hobby is aviation and I do believe in a little common sense.

1) Getting photos of interior from a theoretically top-secret facility is difficult. But, think of it this way, there is a lot of logistics required to launch a jet plane. With a few exceptions, a top-secret military facility requires at least a sizeable runway, and a supply chain to keep the aircraft and facilities operational. You also require a lot of people to keep their mouth shut. For a sizeable operation such as modifying the weather at a global scale, the trail would be difficult to cover up. Then you have to think of the motive: is it to 'mind-control' people as some people are concerned about, and if so, why not just put something in the water supply? Is it a genuine effort to control global warming, and if it is, are they covering it up because it happens do do harm to the populace? And then you have to imagine all the possible ways to get caught. Taking off and climbing up straight into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere is not that easy to go unnoticed, especially if one has a preconceived idea that they are doing this world-wide. There is a lot of people you have to pay off to keep this quiet.

2) As far as environmental samples go, I've mostly seen the alarming reports come from proponents of chemtrails. They might be out there, but so far, a lot of the evidence placed on the table involves misread reports (or intentionally misread reports), and poor sampling. One of the guys I saw on "What in the World are they Spraying" couldn't even properly read his ph samples correctly, couldn't distinguish between two uniquely different units of measurements, and his credentials were apparently up the wazoo as far as science goes. There are also controlled variables that one must take into account, such as leaving a jar of water outside while being exposed to all kinds of elements. Don't get me wrong, environmental samples and readings are a good thing to point to some kind of uncertainty, but the problem is, there hasn't been anything reliable. If there are thousands of researchers out there showing alarming levels of heavy metals, I certainly don't hear about it, and I live in a place that literally has farms scattered hundreds and hundreds of miles in either direction.

3) It might depend on the farmers you are talking to. If they have a preconceived notion that there is "spraying" going on, they might be having a confirmation bias. I work with people who grew up in farms all the time, and never in our conversations do we talk about any spraying outside. One of my flight instructors who taught me how to fly actually owns a farm (or at least his father does), and again, I don't hear about this from him either, despite the fact that there is a community of people here who believes in chemtrails. There is weather seeding, and I -think- some farmers know about this, since the insurance companies that pay for weather modification are there for the farmers, but beyond that, nothing. I know this year there has been a relatively lower crop yield here in North America, and a lot of this can be attributed more to drought than illicit spraying.

4) This isn't a topic that I'm too familiar with. I've heard of the USAF paper, but never read it myself. I heard about operation popeye though, but you must keep in mind that that was performed way back. I've also heard that the UK admitted to illicit spraying of their own people of some community a while back as well. Here is the thing though: yes, the technology is there; yes, people have been sprayed on before. Question is, can we accuse them the same thing now? Keep in mind the context of all the things that have happened. The way weather was used in Vietnam is completely different from the thing that happened to the UK. The only similarity is that they both came from an airplane. We get it, planes can drop stuff. But are they releasing stuff for the reasons we think? Well, I think we need stronger evidence before we can start pointing fingers.

5) Ah, this is a topic that we pilots know a bit of, since we study meteorology. Meteorological science has been around for a long time. Persistent contrails have been known from the early days in aviation, but it seems a lot of proponents don't really know that much about it. I keep hearing: "contrails go away within a few minutes. Chemtrails last for hours," and that has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. You ask: "why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into haze?". It's not really that trivial of a question here. The problem is, most people who has never been too deeply exposed to aviation and meteorology simply don't know much about what's going on in our atmosphere, and I don't blame them--they don't get exposed to this stuff often. There is no real change in science here, and the science explaining it is so straightforward that it is almost childs-play if one takes the time to look it up. The explanation for contrail formation, whether persistent, aerodynamic, or otherwise, hasn't even changed much if at all since the early days we've been studying contrails.

Quite simply, you go up to the upper reaches of the troposphere where it gets really cold (-40 to -56 C or so), and if you inject a little bit of water vapor into the air, it's going to condense, freeze, and possibly form a cloud, and clouds can last a long time. It makes total sense. You can simulate this stuff on the ground too if you had the right tools. Heck, one can simply open their freezer with a humidifier going which would likely yield some small-scale results. The other thing to consider is how our planes have changed over the years. A Boeing 777, for instance, carries two large high-bypass engines on it's wings, which actually contributes more to contrail creation than previous airliners before it. Our planes also tend to cruise at higher altitudes than before. There are also a lot more of them today than say, 20 years ago.

6) Don't know much about this. I just read an article around this, and yes, it does appear that it can be bought and sold. Obviously, there are money makers who can benefit off of this. Whether or not this actually implies something shady is going on is another matter. Yeah, some group may have a stake in controlling weather, but whether there is something shady going on for the sake of this is a totally other matter. You need to bridge the correlation.

7) I've always been pretty distrustful for a lot of corporations out there. But again, the correlation needs to be bridged. Just because a corporation may benefit from a certain practice doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it. They need to cover their back sides too.

I agree that information shouldn't be dismissed. To arrive at the truth, one should consider all the variables with what they have. However, we can't dismiss there is junk information out there. I guess, for the debunkers, the job is to disseminate the evidence from the bullcrap

Edit: Fixed a few things for clarity
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I'm not really a debunker or anything, though I do share the same skies that people often point their fingers to when they suspect there is something shady going on (I do a bit of flying myself). I mostly invest my interest on the topic of chemtrails because, after a bit of reading, I find it disturbing that some proponents advocate, promote, and perform violence for something they know so little about but instead jump to conclusions. My tackle on the whole topic of chemtrails is that whether you believe them or not, you should not take a side and jump to conclusions until you actually piece together the whole puzzle with all the pieces of available evidence. Problem is, a lot of people do jump to conclusions--there is a lot of real bunk out there, and I say bunk because they raise the flag for the wrong reasons--and this has caused a lot of paranoia. Now, normally this would be fine, but there has been finger pointing, accusations, and again, violence.

Here are my thoughts on some of the questions raised though. Again, I'm not a debunker, but I do know a little bit about this topic because my life's hobby is aviation and I do believe in a little common sense.

1) Getting photos of interior from a theoretically top-secret facility is difficult. But, think of it this way, there is a lot of logistics required to launch a jet plane. With a few exceptions, a top-secret military facility requires at least a sizeable runway, and a supply chain to keep the aircraft and facilities operational. You also require a lot of people to keep their mouth shut. For a sizeable operation such as modifying the weather at a global scale, the trail would be difficult to cover up. Then you have to think of the motive: is it to 'mind-control' people as some people are concerned about, and if so, why not just put something in the water supply? Is it a genuine effort to control global warming, and if it is, are they covering it up because it happens do do harm to the populace? And then you have to imagine all the possible ways to get caught. Taking off and climbing up straight into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere is not that easy to go unnoticed, especially if one has a preconceived idea that they are doing this world-wide. There is a lot of people you have to pay off to keep this quiet.

2) As far as environmental samples go, I've mostly seen the alarming reports come from proponents of chemtrails. They might be out there, but so far, a lot of the evidence placed on the table involves misread reports (or intentionally misread reports), and poor sampling. One of the guys I saw on "What in the World are they Spraying" couldn't even properly read his ph samples correctly, couldn't distinguish between two uniquely different units of measurements, and his credentials were apparently up the wazoo as far as science goes. There are also controlled variables that one must take into account, such as leaving a jar of water outside while being exposed to all kinds of elements. Don't get me wrong, environmental samples and readings are a good thing to point to some kind of uncertainty, but the problem is, there hasn't been anything reliable. If there are thousands of researchers out there showing alarming levels of heavy metals, I certainly don't hear about it, and I live in a place that literally has farms scattered hundreds and hundreds of miles in either direction.

3) It might depend on the farmers you are talking to. If they have a preconceived notion that there is "spraying" going on, they might be having a confirmation bias. I work with people who grew up in farms all the time, and never in our conversations do we talk about any spraying outside. One of my flight instructors who taught me how to fly actually owns a farm (or at least his father does), and again, I don't hear about this from him either, despite the fact that there is a community of people here who believes in chemtrails. There is weather seeding, and I -think- some farmers know about this, since the insurance companies that pay for weather modification are there for the farmers, but beyond that, nothing. I know this year there has been a relatively lower crop yield here in North America, and a lot of this can be attributed more to drought than illicit spraying.

4) This isn't a topic that I'm too familiar with. I've heard of the USAF paper, but never read it myself. I heard about operation popeye though, but you must keep in mind that that was performed way back. I've also heard that the UK admitted to illicit spraying of their own people of some community a while back as well. Here is the thing though: yes, the technology is there; yes, people have been sprayed on before. Question is, can we accuse them the same thing now? Keep in mind the context of all the things that have happened. The way weather was used in Vietnam is completely different from the thing that happened to the UK. The only similarity is that they both came from an airplane. We get it, planes can drop stuff. But are they releasing stuff for the reasons we think? Well, I think we need stronger evidence before we can start pointing fingers.

5) Ah, this is a topic that we pilots know a bit of, since we study meteorology. Meteorological science has been around for a long time. Persistent contrails have been known from the early days in aviation, but it seems a lot of proponents don't really know that much about it. I keep hearing: "contrails go away within a few minutes. Chemtrails last for hours," and that has to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. You ask: "why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into haze?". It's not really that trivial of a question here. The problem is, most people who has never been too deeply exposed to aviation and meteorology simply don't know much about what's going on in our atmosphere, and I don't blame them--they don't get exposed to this stuff often. There is no real change in science here, and the science explaining it is so straightforward that it is almost childs-play if one takes the time to look it up. The explanation for contrail formation, whether persistent, aerodynamic, or otherwise, hasn't even changed much if at all since the early days we've been studying contrails.

Quite simply, you go up to the upper reaches of the troposphere where it gets really cold (-40 to -56 C or so), and if you inject a little bit of water vapor into the air, it's going to condense, freeze, and possibly form a cloud, and clouds can last a long time. It makes total sense. You can simulate this stuff on the ground too if you had the right tools. Heck, one can simply open their freezer with a humidifier going which would likely yield some small-scale results. The other thing to consider is how our planes have changed over the years. A Boeing 777, for instance, carries two large high-bypass engines on it's wings, which actually contributes more to contrail creation than previous airliners before it. Our planes also tend to cruise at higher altitudes than before. There are also a lot more of them today than say, 20 years ago.

6) Don't know much about this. I just read an article around this, and yes, it does appear that it can be bought and sold. Obviously, there are money makers who can benefit off of this. Whether or not this actually implies something shady is going on is another matter. Yeah, some group may have a stake in controlling weather, but whether there is something shady going on for the sake of this is a totally other matter. You need to bridge the correlation.

7) I've always been pretty distrustful for a lot of corporations out there. But again, the correlation needs to be bridged. Just because a corporation may benefit from a certain practice doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it. They need to cover their back sides too.

I agree that information shouldn't be dismissed. To arrive at the truth, one should consider all the variables with what they have. However, we can't dismiss there is junk information out there. I guess, for the debunkers, the job is to disseminate the crap from the bullcrap
You have listed many issues . . . which one is most important to the chemtrail conspiracy you would like to discuss???
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You have listed many issues . . . which one is most important to the chemtrail conspiracy you would like to discuss???
George, Rico was responding point by point to the original post. You should ask that question of the OP :)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
[Admin: this was originally posted under https://www.metabunk.org/threads/661-Debunked-Chemtrail-Plane-Interior-(Ballast-Barrels) and those would be the photos referred to here, I've moved it into its own thread here, as it raises much broader questions]

I think it's great to come to those kinds of photos with a critical eye. Obviously it's not a scientific approach for anyone to "doctor" photos for any cause. I'm sure that on both sides of the argument there are those who look for data to support their belief and they will interpret those data accordingly. It's the challenge of science. Can one actually be objective? Does one "take a side" on emotional impulse, or does one simply follow the data like a curious child?

While I'm mildly impressed with the debunk of the photos and I think it will only bring more clarity to the issue, it doesn't in any way debunk the entire chemtrail issue as a whole. So don't be too impressed with yourselves. You've got a ways to go, and far, far more data to analyze.

Just a few simple questions should cause careful reflection in every logical thinker:

1) If there really were a top-secret program to release aerosols into the atmosphere via jet airplanes, is there any way we would actually have photos of the interiors of such planes? Is it possible that personal cameras or other devices would be allowed anywhere near the facilities and equipment? [Based on what we know of other top-secret programs and facilities, this is highly improbable. You've seen security at the public airport -- what do you think it would like at a highly classified military research facility?]

2) How do environmental samples and readings play into this? Are thousands of researchers around the globe merely "doctoring" the results of their soil and water samples showing alarming levels of heavy metals? Have they all somehow got it wrong? Keep in mind that among these researchers are biologists, chemists, lab technologists, and many other experts.

3) How do the astute observations of experienced farmers play into this? Some farmers are reporting as much as 60% losses to their crop yields since they started observing what they call "spraying." Is this merely in their imaginations? Or are these farmers, who are very experienced with weather conditions, soil conditions, and so forth, observing the direct results of geo-engineering?

4) How does the openly stated goal of "owning the weather" play into this? The U.S. Air Force released a paper, "Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather by 2025." This is not the only government document discussing weather [and food] as a weapon of war. Are we to suppose the biggest military machine on the planet is merely joking about "owning the weather"? Is there a precedent for their ambitions? [Hint: Vietnam -- Ben Livingston -- Operation Popeye]

5) How does the meteorological science play into this? Is it possible that the formation, appearance, and character of "normal" contrails has so radically and so suddenly changed? On the basis of pure observation -- WITHOUT INTERPRETATION -- why is it, and how is it, that "persistent" contrails now remain in the sky for many hours, expand, and form into a haze? [Whereas contrails used to simply dissipate in a matter of seconds -- and some still do] How is this possible? [Neither "debunkers," nor "hoaxers" can yet sufficiently answer these questions! They have only opinion, backed by "data" that supports their belief!]

6) How does the recent marketplace activity of "weather trading" play into this? It is an established fact that on various futures and trading exchanges, "weather" is now bought and sold as a commodity! Who stands to benefit from insider trading in such activities? Does it stand to reason that some group *might* have a stake [on multiple fronts] in controlling the weather?

7) How does corporate behavior play into this? Take, for example, a corporation like Monsanto, repeatedly caught red-handed lying, cheating, and otherwise rigging the system for its own benefit. It is clear from careful investigation that the Biotech - Agra industry [Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, etc] has been "in bed" with the FDA for years -- surely there's a conflict of interest when the former VP for Monsanto is now head of the FDA? This "revolving door" between corporate giants and the government is well-documented. The point is this: Monsanto, for example, has done everything in its power to get GMO's into the food supply with virtually no human testing, no regulation, no public discourse. Furthermore, the link between GMO's and a whole carnival of diseases is clear, yet as usual, "profit" is more important than health and ecosystem vitality. Could the same kind of psychology apply to the recent obsession with "halting climate change" and "controlling the weather"?

These first few questions merely scratch the SURFACE of this issue; so please, don't pat yourselves on the back too much for discrediting a few lousily photo-shopped images. And please, rid yourselves of the pretentious labels your throw around, such as "hoaxers." The fact is, people researching this issue are sincere and concerned individuals for the most part, like most of you.

So instead of taking sides on emotional impulse, and instead of searching for data that confirm our perceptual worldview, let's all work together to be more like children, who are simply, open, innocent, and ultimately curious. They don't dismiss information out of hand, merely because it isn't in keeping with their worldview. They consider every possibility, no matter how outlandish it may seem, and they follow all ideas to their final conclusion. Obviously, as adults, our reasoning capacity is developed where the child's is not. But on the same hand, if we do not have the flexibility and innocence of a child, then we have also lost our ability to think critically and creatively -- we have fallen into the rigid trap of merely propping up our worldview.

We all have a ways to go, and there's FAR more to the story.

In addition the questions I posed, consider this article, which cites a number of sources for your convenience. And truly, CONSIDER It. Don't merely dismiss it out of hand because it's posted on a website that you've been pre-programmed to filter out on the basis of a reputation projected onto it by someone else. Consider the INFORMATION -- forget the propaganda.
You have listed many issues . . . which one is most important to the chemtrail conspiracy you would like to discuss???
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Unregistered;15498. So instead of taking sides on emotional impulse said:
Unregistered, I will not be like a child. Children trust too easily, and the basis for the chemtrails hoax, same as for any CON, has always been trust. Someone trusted someone else and that got the ball rolling and keeps it that way. What a shame?

Adults have the benefit of wisdom based on personal life experience and vatsly greater knowledge. You decrythe use of the word hoax, eh? Perhaps you need some background information on the first evoluton of the chemtrails hoax, something very few chemtrail believers even bothered to look into.
Chemtrails didn't just 'happen', it was something that was intentionally created:

http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/evolution.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
SFX Where to ask questions about posting? Site Feedback & News 5
A Augie Snyder's contrail/chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 18
K Did Elvis really say this about Andy Kaufman? Quotes Debunked 11
Vindog Vindog's Contrail Questions [Contrails Near Boston] Contrails and Chemtrails 561
Mick West Morgellons on Joe Rogan Questions Everything Health and Quackery 43
Mick West Joe Rogan Questions Everything: Weaponizing Weather Contrails and Chemtrails 100
taha Questions about knifed connection and erection clearance General Discussion 23
Miss VocalCord Dutch Government answers chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Jump Some chemtrail/contrail questions from Jump Contrails and Chemtrails 5
secretschizoid23 Questions about the chemtrail theory Contrails and Chemtrails 13
U Some Old Questions from Contrails in Airline Advertising Contrails and Chemtrails 4
C Questions for the experts Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Stefan Leahu A real-life 2D curvature analogy and a few thoughts regarding scale Flat Earth 2
Stefan Leahu Question regarding distant lighthouses Flat Earth 31
MikeG Debunked: Mike Adam's Claims Regarding HPV "Shock Study" Health and Quackery 5
Mick West The Various Physical Models Used in Demonstrating Ideas regarding the WTC collapses 9/11 5
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
somnamblst Posting this in light of the "EMT" claims regarding Jeff Bauman Boston Marathon Bombings 6
George B What can debaters and debunkers agree upon regarding chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 211
Jay Reynolds Debunked- Dane Wigington's 10 "bullet" points regarding geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ben Geddy Happy to have found this site and Mick thru JRE! Practical Debunking 4
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Demythologizing Prince's reference to "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 5
ParanoidSkeptic Chemtrails: Experiments on the Public Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" Contrails and Chemtrails 92
skephu Chuck Norris on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee Debunked: Lichens and Moss on Trees Caused by Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Sausalito Spectral analysis of alleged "chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Safya Yassin, Missouri ISIS supporter and chemtrails believer arrested for threats Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top