The International Chemtrail Association

halva

New Member
This is what some chemtrails activists are saying. But is it relevant whether it is trolling or not, whether it is satire or not, whether it is a joke or not, and/or who the joke is on?
 

halva

New Member
I can't see how it makes any difference whether it is "genuine" or not. Perhaps I could see if I could understand what Metabunk sees as the deceitful element.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Very interesting! Seems the authors of this spoof are very up on their climate change science, politics, etc. Sometimes I wonder exactly what their point is? Yes, technologies are available, yes, there are those who warn of impending doom if actions are not quickly undertaken. The implication that there is a real group of individuals powerful enough and organized to conduct such global activity is, I think, the major stretch here.
 

halva

New Member
For months some chemtrails activists have been announcing their gut feeling that we are on the verge of a “breakthrough” and that the other side (whether official agencies such as NASA or well-known geoengineering advocates such as David Keith) were shortly going to “admit the truth".

Is this going to be the way, step by step, "the truth will be admitted" with The International Chemtrail Association saying what it says, its input coexisting with continuing official denials, and the balance gradually, imperceptibly, changing?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The “International Chemtrail Association”. https://www.facebook.com/InternationalChemtrail/info
has started a facebook group. Here are some quotations from its content. Would Metabunk want to debunk this content?

...
"Trolling" is my first guess. HOWEVER, not to seem "impolite"...might I suggest that "New Member: "halva" take a moment.

I'd like for New Member "halva" to know a few things about me (despite this "Gish Gallop" of an "opening post":

I am a pilot, with 40+ years experience AS a pilot. My last 22 years as a professional pilot were at Continental Airlines.

IF your wish, here, is to promote the MYTH and HOAX of so-called "chem"trails? Then, I will be more than happy to explain the aspects of aviation to you....and, there are OTHER pilots who will be able to assist me. NOT to be rude, but to provide expertise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
My wish here is to publicise what this International Chemtrail Association are saying (They seem to me, as to the majority of chemtrails activists, to be trolls, but a new kind of troll), and see how METABUNK reacts. Nothing else.
OK....let me look up the term "International Chemtrail Association":::

Oh, a Google search found it.

HERE: https://www.facebook.com/InternationalChemtrail

For me, as a professional airline pilot, what I see is a litany of the same old misconceptions.

PLEASE, feel free to contact me, and I will help to explain.
 

halva

New Member
Explain here, if you like, where they are being deceptive. It seems they want the public to accept the necessity of Solar Radiation Management.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member
My wish here is to publicise what this International Chemtrail Association are saying (They seem to me, as to the majority of chemtrails activists, to be trolls, but a new kind of troll), and see how METABUNK reacts. Nothing else.
Well I don't know about anyone else but I am having a good chuckle.
 

halva

New Member
These messages deleted by me just have to do with unfamiliarity with the format here. I haven't deleted anything except the response to WeedWhacker, which he quoted anyway, so no content lost.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
I can't see how it makes any difference whether it is "genuine" or not. Perhaps I could see if I could understand what Metabunk sees as the deceitful element.
It basically consists of a bunch of claims, including the implicit claim that an organization called the "International Chemtrail Association" really exists, outside of a Facebook page. I see no evidence presented, so there's nothing really to debunk.

It seems like a rather transparent hoax, probably intended to troll the believers in the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory.
 

Hevach

Senior Member
A real organization will also generally do the minimum level of work.

A real organization needs to have certain things in place. Articles of incorporation and/or DBA/assumed name(s) to do official things like accept, bank, move, and spend money under the organizations name, tax IDs as either for or non profit, and in most places they'd need a business license. None of these appear to exist, despite how incredibly easy it is to get one. Want to create a corporation? In my state it's a 3-page form and an $30 fee. A DBA? 1-page form and $18. Business license? $10 and a 1-page form, more than half of which is a fire code/hazardous materials checklist.

Setting up a domain for a persistent online presence can cost less than $10, you can point it at a free Wordpress account or something, and slap some fancy but cheap/free/stock graphics on it and the product will look quite professional for an afternoon's work and a pocket change investment. If you're really lazy you can point it at the facebook page. A domain can be traced by whois, but numerous companies offer intermediary buying so the domain can't be traced to you, the real owner. Using one of those is usually a red flag that the organization is fake.


Setting up a facebook page requires you to have an account, click a pulldown menu, click a link, and type some stuff, and offers extremely limited options for use.

Whoever made this page couldn't be arsed to invest $10 in at least looking like a real organization, yet claims to be speaking and acting on behalf of a massive global operation that must be burning trillions of dollars? Yeah, no.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
It could be a clever way to provide "proof", or extend a false "credibility", couldn't it? In fact it could be used more than once, couldn't it? I can see such such "plots" as extensible indefinitely into the future.

Unless, that is, some detection work isn't carried out by someone to discover the crucial links (which no doubt really exist) with known "chemtrail" "activists".

I say that, @Hevach , because all phenomena in the sky (and especially condensation trails) have had a simple scientific explanation, which has been known and understood for round about a century now. That's a long time.

There is a general idea in science that the simplest explanation is the pathway to the truth.

In this case, it's that "chemtrailers" really haven't the faintest idea of what the atmosphere comprises, nor of the way fanjets work.

That's easily proved. Let's not bother to get any more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:

halva

New Member
There is no claim that the "International Chemtrail Association" exists outside of a facebook page. Certain individuals project themselves on a Facebook page, implying that they speak on behalf of those who not only advocate Solar Radiation Management but say that it is a global reality, which is a very good thing, and that the public should accept it as such. I do not speak on their behalf. I regard them as probably "trolls", which is the claim also being put forward here. The only content I have put forward on my own account is a certain factual statement and a question, or rather a conjecture, namely:

"For months some chemtrails activists have been announcing their gut feeling that we (they?) are on the verge of a “breakthrough” and that the other side (whether official agencies such as NASA or well-known geoengineering advocates such as David Keith) were shortly going to “admit the truth".

Is this going to be the way, (I ask), step by step, "the truth will be admitted" with The International Chemtrail Association saying what it says, its input coexisting with continuing official denials, and the balance gradually, imperceptibly, changing?"

If you wish to debunk me, debunk that factual statement and question, or rather conjecture. Whether or not I agree with chemtrails activists about their claims concerning contrails/chemtrail or anything else is neither here nor there. I simply ask Metabunk what it thinks of the idea of the International Chemtrail Association having a possible future mission of the kind I describe.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
It could be a clever way to provide "proof", or extend a false "credibility", couldn't it? In fact it could be used more than once, couldn't it? I can see such such "plots" as extensible indefinitely into the future.

Unless, that is, some detection work isn't carried out by someone to discover the crucial links (which no doubt really exist) with known "chemtrail" "activists".
You suspect a CONSPIRACY ?????:confused: That is, conspiracy theorists conspiring to hoax a conspiracy to prove a conspiracy exists? Say that three times fast.
 

Hevach

Senior Member
There is no claim that the "International Chemtrail Association" exists outside of a facebook page. Certain individuals project themselves on a Facebook page, implying that they speak on behalf of those who not only advocate Solar Radiation Management but say that it is a global reality, which is a very good thing, and that the public should accept it as such. I do not speak on their behalf.
If there's no claim they exist outside a facebook page, then frankly I take that as the same as saying they do not exist. As I said, for $10 you can look like a real organization. For $50 you can make it look really good with a corporation and bank accounts and everything. If this is a real organization, speaking and acting on behalf of the geoengineering cash furnace that presumably must burn trillions of dollars a year (just last week I mathed out a specific claim of geoengineering that required 2.5 billion megawatts of electricity over three days, about what the entire US uses in seven months), which holds numerous patents, involves numerous massive corporations in myriad industries, and is backed by deficit-spending governments, and they couldn't spend TEN DOLLARS to at least look as legitimate as the Bonsai Kitten guy?

I regard them as probably "trolls", which is the claim also being put forward here. The only content I have put forward on my own account is a certain factual statement and a question, or rather a conjecture, namely:
"For months some chemtrails activists have been announcing their gut feeling that we (they?) are on the verge of a “breakthrough” and that the other side (whether official agencies such as NASA or well-known geoengineering advocates such as David Keith) were shortly going to “admit the truth".
Is this going to be the way, (I ask), step by step, "the truth will be admitted" with The International Chemtrail Association saying what it says, its input coexisting with continuing official denials, and the balance gradually, imperceptibly, changing?"

If you wish to debunk me, debunk that factual statement and question, or rather conjecture. Whether or not I agree with chemtrails activists about their claims concerning contrails/chemtrail or anything else is neither here nor there. I simply ask Metabunk what it thinks of the idea of the International Chemtrail Association having a possible future mission of the kind I describe.
Activists were on the verge of this breakthrough in the BBS and Usenet days, in a dark age of the internet that most current ones don't even believe existed ("contrails didn't persist in the 80's"). They've always been on the verge of the breakthrough - the clinching proof, the rogue insider, the public admission. Just like ufologists have been on the verge of a major government revalation for decades and we've been in the Seven Year Tribulation since the fifth century. These things are all David vs. Goliath narratives, the little guy vs. the big man, the few good vs. the infinity of all evil. Those narratives run on hope, on the promise that this rock, this sling, will be the one that fells the giant. Anything less is hopelessness, failure, and defeat, and those things just don't hold appeal.

Even if they were right, the breakthrough will not come from an anonymous free facebook page with no credentials, any more than it has come from the pilots and insiders attached to other hoaxes. It would come from someplace big. It might be gradual, but it wouldn't start in a venue that carries less legitimacy than the conspiracy theorists themselves, because frankly, that's the same as not happening at all.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
There is no claim that the "International Chemtrail Association" exists outside of a facebook page.
Even that is too complicated.

The simple fact is that "chemtrails" are a myth, like fairies.

They are entertainment, like werewolves, vampires, trolls.

Like religions, they have no basis in reality, except as a dangerous meme.

Now I like stories, just like everyone else, but when people go out of their way to distort the human objective view of reality it isn't difficult to see that only harm will be the consequence, and such people one could interpret as works of the devil, if one were religious, which one isn't.

Well, don't know about you, but I'm basically against harm. First principles. /rant.
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
You suspect a CONSPIRACY ?????:confused: That is, conspiracy theorists conspiring to hoax a conspiracy to prove a conspiracy exists? Say that three times fast.
Yes I do. It's a delusion, George, and people with shared delusions are prone to conspire with each other. "conspiracy theor......…………ists" x 3. See? :)
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I simply ask Metabunk what it thinks of the idea of the International Chemtrail Association having a possible future mission of the kind I describe.
I think there are two possible reasons behind the ICA (which I feel sure is just one person, although I have no idea who).

1) It's someone trolling. Trying to get a reaction for laughs.
2) It's someone trying to use satire to get people to think about their claims.

It's very clear to me (and I imagine most people here at Metabunk) that this is just a joke, and not an effort to normalize spraying. The writing is very subtly sarcastic, mixing facts, speculation, chemtrail theory, and humor together with a clear totalitarian propaganda style.

I think it's very annoying. Just muddies the water. Many people seem to have taken it seriously (as many people take satirical stories from The Onion serious), and it's not helping in any way. And now we've got people thinking it's some kind of Psyops think.

It's just satire/trolling.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
It's just satire/trolling.
It is still harmful. This is one of countless social crimes that may be carried out in a free media. Over the long term I hope that people learn to distinguish better between what's harmful and what isn't.
 

halva

New Member
I don't find this development annoying and I don't expect any breakthrough. Just more of the same, with gradually changing balances of forces.
 

JDubyah

Member
I don't find this development annoying and I don't expect any breakthrough. Just more of the same, with gradually changing balances of forces.
I don't consider it much of a 'development' either. It reminds me of the fake 'Illumicorp Illuminati training video' that came out a while ago, where someone decided to make a satirical video of what an Illuminati training video *might* look like *if* the Illuminati existed. It summarized a lot of the existing conspiracy talking points on things like NWO, Chemtrails, Banks, etc. It did it so well, that many people either believed it, or said they didn't care if it was real or not - because they felt it summarized the points well enough anyhow, even if in satire.

Same here. Someone (not you right?), summarized many of the talking points of Chemtrails and weather modification/geoengineering out there today, and put up a Facebook page of what they think it would look like *if* this sort of modification was real, and *if* it were suddenly made public and legitimized by an organization.

So that's the debunking, I guess, you can get - on the group/page itself.

For the various talking points referenced on the Facebook page, you can browse through Metabunk and find almost all those topics covered elsewhere.
 

RyanBiv

New Member
1) It's someone trolling. Trying to get a reaction for laughs.
2) It's someone trying to use satire to get people to think about their claims.
Mick is exactly right. This is trolling for laughs and to get a rise out of chemtrail believers. Check some of the first comments under their posts from people in on the joke:

Although I can see how this could be harmful, I did get quite a chuckle from it. The insertion of the plane into the Pepsico logo is pretty genius.
 

JDubyah

Member
It also sounds a little like someone wants a free fact-checking and debunk-proofing of the material, possibly maybe. :)
 

halva

New Member
This is the centre of my problematic: If there is an effort underway at this time to secure public consent for solar radiation management and other such geoengineering (or "geoengineering") activities, the kind of grass roots assistance one would require would be an International Chemtrail Association-type input, not a Metabunk-type input. Metabunk is an impediment to normalization and securing of public acceptance. I would therefore say that your days are numbered. What is the Metabunk reaction to my floating of that idea?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Mick is exactly right. This is trolling for laughs and to get a rise out of chemtrail believers.
This is disturbing.

I mean, sure the "chem"trail Urban Legend is on a par with the belief in "BigFoot", but at least believers in "BigFoot" do not advocate violence...so "poking the bear" (so to speak) is not a good idea.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
If there is an effort underway at this time to secure public consent for solar radiation management...
'SRM' has a multitude of technical applications and devices. Most NOT associated with airborne "spray" applications.
 

Hevach

Senior Member
This is the centre of my problematic: If there is an effort underway at this time to secure public consent for solar radiation management and other such geoengineering (or "geoengineering") activities, the kind of grass roots assistance one would require would be an International Chemtrail Association-type input, not a Metabunk-type input. Metabunk is an impediment to normalization and securing of public acceptance. I would therefore say that your days are numbered. What is the Metabunk reaction to my floating of that idea?
I'd argue this would require astroturf , not grassroots, but that's irrelevant. Either possibility would be an actual organization, with articles of incorporation, bank accounts, fundraising infrastructure, likely nonprofit status, and the credentials needed for effective lobbying.

Not a guy on Facebook with sock puppet commenters and stolen Pepsi logo.


And Metabunk? Astroturf means bunk, and there'll still be skeptics around to debunk it. In this wild mescaline fueled fever dream of a hypothetical, the skeptic community would survive just fine. Even in the absolute absense of chemtrail related bunk, that's only one facet of what skeptics strive to debunk, there's still plenty of UFOs and microchip implants and mind control left to go around.

But the idea you're floating is based on a series of nonsequitor conclusions starting from a faulty premise, which itself is a nonsequitor product of easily and extensively disproven bunk. There are so many levels of, "No," here that I don't think English has a comprehensive enough word to describe it.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is the centre of my problematic: If there is an effort underway at this time to secure public consent for solar radiation management and other such geoengineering (or "geoengineering") activities, the kind of grass roots assistance one would require would be an International Chemtrail Association-type input, not a Metabunk-type input. Metabunk is an impediment to normalization and securing of public acceptance. I would therefore say that your days are numbered. What is the Metabunk reaction to my floating of that idea?
My reaction is that it is nonsense. Any effort to gain public acceptance of future geoengineering would require openness, free and accurate information, and critical analysis. Which is what Metabunk is about.

But you seem to come from the perspective that the "chemtrail theory" is real, and that there is already a covert geoengineering program going on. If that were true, then you might have a point. But there's no evidence to suggest it is. And this ICA joke is certainly not indicative of anything other than someone trolling for laughs.

Perhaps you might want to take a step back and sum up the actual validated evidence from the past ten years. Maybe read some of the criticism of "Case Orange", etc.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Any effort to gain public acceptance of future geoengineering would require openness, free and accurate information, and critical analysis.
THIS (^^^) is a precept that I often mention. Perhaps this thread is a venue to repeat it?

The ENTIRE so-called "chem"trail "conspiracy" trope implies some sort of World-Wide event (See "Dane Wigington" or "Max Bliss").

Yet, this is obviously false, since there are International boundaries to consider....and no "ONE" nation can unilaterally decide to violate the airspace of other sovereign nations' airspace....lest those that DO SO be called out (WHICH would be BIG news!!).
 

halva

New Member
Mick wrote: "You seem to come from the perspective that the "chemtrail theory" is real, and that there is already a covert geoengineering program going on. If that were true, then you might have a point. But there's no evidence to suggest it is."

Once the discussion ceases to be a complaint about what "one sees in the sky" and becomes reaction to proposals from advocates of solar radiation management that such programmes be adopted, under the precautionary principle all the onus of proof lies on those making such proposals, including proof that the programmes are not already a global reality.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Once the discussion ceases to be a complaint about what "one sees in the sky" and becomes reaction to proposals from advocates of solar radiation management that such programmes be adopted, under the precautionary principle all the onus of proof lies on those making such proposals, including proof that the programmes are not already a global reality.
So in order to do something you've got to prove that you are not already doing it?

While that makes absolutely no sense, it's quite easy to fulfil - just note the absence of evidence.

Anyway, the topic here was the ICA hoax. It's a hoax. Let's leave it at that. New topics in new threads.
 

halva

New Member
I've said what I have to say on ICA. I don't care whether or not it is a hoax or in what way it is or is not a hoax.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I've said what I have to say on ICA. I don't care whether or not it is a hoax or in what way it is or is not a hoax.
Strange, you should. A hoax cannot be the vanguard of some legit pre-disclosure movement.
The most basic way in which it is bunk; it says contrails (or claimed chemtrails) are the SRM talking place. Actual SRM isn't proposed to be done at that height, nor would it visually resemble contrails or lines in the sky.
 
Top