The psychology of the CT believers

[JRBids]

maybe ? a better tactic @Dan Page et al can try, if they are so motivated, is to not post on the chemtrail pages but go to the "shares" and if permissions allow post questions on thier profile links.. this would also act as a deterant for their friends who might see the post and start thinking "chemtrails?, oh no!".

Then you get banned from there. Or if it's a weather page they don't see your replies cause the posters block you. I look at some of the shares posted in CGS with my debunking alt and I see only "wow, beautiful sunset", I look with my other alt and see all the "does this look NORMAL to you?!?!?!?!" posts.

 

[MikeG]

They resort to claiming that people are threatened with losing their jobs or the catch-all "compartmentalization".

Or, you'll see claims about crackdowns on whistleblowers.

This recently appeared on Dane Wigington's website.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...-whistleblowers-with-geoengineeringwatch-org/

Still, I think that it is worth it to try gentle persuasion with individuals.

No guarantees though. I still get the default "Look Up!" admonishment.

 

[JRBids]

This type of questioning is considered undesirable and is strongly discouraged in chemtrail groups..

Yes they tell you to "do your own research" they're not going to do it for you.

 

[Whitebeard]

Yes they tell you to "do your own research" they're not going to do it for you.

And when you do your own research and come up with a conclusion that doesn't tie in with their own crank theories they don't like it and remove your posts.

 

[Efftup]

you laugh, but I was involved in a thread regarding the pentagon attack on 911, and a "skeptic" thought he had a killer point when he said "where is all the mobile phone footage" - lol

at

And when you do your own research and come up with a conclusion that doesn't tie in with their own crank theories they don't like it and remove your posts.

that's because when they SAY "Do your own research" they mean go and watch lots of 1 and a half hour long youtube videos that have scary music and just repeat the same thing over and over with no backup.

NO WAY are you meant to actually go and look up the science or research into aircraft or thermite or what really happened to Adam Weishaupt or whatever.

 

[Auldy]

that's because when they SAY "Do your own research" they mean go and watch lots of 1 and a half hour long youtube videos that have scary music and just repeat the same thing over and over with no backup.

CT: Wake up Sheeple, Open Your Eyes!
Me: What's going on, what's this noise about?
CT: It's so obvious! Can't you see what they are doing?
Me: Not really. Can you explain it to me?
CT: Do your own research!
Me: If its so obvious, and I haven't seen it by now, yet you know and are well informed, can't you just tell me? Show me?
CT: Here is a 2hour docu-drama about subject x, it will explain everything to you, do your own research.
Me: Oh I watched that documentary, it has several points I don't think are accurate, how would you further explain this part of subject x to me? I've done some other research which seems to refute some of the observations from that video, how would you help me with that?
CT: Shill!

Me banned...

repeat ad nauseam

 

[Efftup]

CT: Wake up Sheeple, Open Your Eyes!
Me: What's going on, what's this noise about?
CT: It's so obvious! Can't you see what they are doing?
Me: Not really. Can you explain it to me?
CT: Do your own research!
Me: If its so obvious, and I haven't seen it by now, yet you know and are well informed, can't you just tell me? Show me?
CT: Here is a 2hour docu-drama about subject x, it will explain everything to you, do your own research.
Me: Oh I watched that documentary, it has several points I don't think are accurate, how would you further explain this part of subject x to me? I've done some other research which seems to refute some of the observations from that video, how would you help me with that?
CT: Shill!

Me banned...

repeat ad nauseam

yup, that;s about the size of it

 

[Auldy]

And if you're lucky enough to get into a semblance of a real discussion, be prepared for a liberal misuse of ad hom and strawman. And ping ponging gish gallop.

 

[Mick West]

We've all seen this type of thing. The real question is what can we do about it? How can we decrease the amount of bunk in the world? Should we just ignore the intractables? Gently nudge them in the right direction?

 

[Auldy]

We've all seen this type of thing. The real question is what can we do about it? How can we decrease the amount of bunk in the world? Should we just ignore the intractables? Gently nudge them in the right direction?

How do you turn an evangelical Christian into an atheist?

I think nudging can even be too abrupt. Don't steer the ship that heading, but direct the winds to blow it there peacefully. But how do you influence people's world views when the new view is completely opposite to what is currently believed? If someone can answer that question properly, well they won't. They'll be too busy running a cult/country.

 

[JRBids]

How do you turn an evangelical Christian into an atheist?

I think nudging can even be too abrupt. Don't steer the ship that heading, but direct the winds to blow it there peacefully. But how do you influence people's world views when the new view is completely opposite to what is currently believed? If someone can answer that question properly, well they won't. They'll be too busy running a cult/country.

Maybe by totally ignoring them although it's not something I can do!! Engaging seems to firm up their beliefs and turn them into zealots, much like a Christian if you try to turn them into an atheist!

 

[Hama Neggs]

We've all seen this type of thing. The real question is what can we do about it? How can we decrease the amount of bunk in the world? Should we just ignore the intractables? Gently nudge them in the right direction?

They seem to be the only ones available for discussion. If they are on Youtube posting under chemtrail vids, which is where I encounter them, they seem to be already lost causes.

 

[Dan Page]

I am dealing strictly with Twitter so far and have been told I've been banned, but I'm still able to reply to the messages of anyone. My posts are always there, none have been deleted that I can see. So even though I've been "banned", I continue to post with no problem. I've gained a few more followers who may be on the fence and are considering what I have to say, so may be making some headway. But it's a gauntlet to be sure, they sure don't want me there! But that's just too bad, I really don't like seeing people being scared, really scared of such a benign thing as a contrail 6 miles up that consists of water vapour and or ice crystals. And if there is something I can do about it, then I will.
Ok, off my soapbox now.

 

[JFDee]

The real question is what can we do about it?

We can carry on, with brain

It's obvious that not every "case" is alike. Sometimes it's possible to actively create an atmosphere for a reasonable exchange; however, this requires being sensitive and occasionally swallowing one's own pride.

A number of suggestions:

• 'Finding common ground' (Mick's words), possibly in areas not directly related to the conspiracy theory. Signalling agreement to a statement of the other side can be disarming. E.g. Governments can't be trusted, geoengineering is probably a bad idea etc.
  
• If the other side accuses you of a personal attack, intrusion or whatever, reply with "Sorry, I did not intend this" - even if you don't see how your reply could be perceived that way. This can also be disarming.
• Keep calm. Don't let initial jibes and sarcasm arouse you. Ignore insults or at least don't shoot back. BTW, the degree of these can help you to determine the chances of the "case".
• Science can be introduced indirectly. E.g. I find that the FR24 topic is useful in case it's news for the other side. I explain how planes can be identified, and then explain about ADS-B and how it's freely receivable. This and other topics can help to bring the exchange on a more rational level where other science facts meet better reception.
• Don't bother too much with "cases" beyond hope, where you get "gish-gallopped" with images or links. If the other side is obviously not willing to focus, don't waste your energy.
  
• Ceterum censeo: control your attitude and therefore your style. I find it helps to try and be genuinely sympathetic where possible. If you're friendly, the barrier for insulting or dismissing you is higher. Communication has many levels, as is generally known.

 

[MikeG]

We can carry on, with brain

• Ceterum censeo: control your attitude and therefore your style. I find it helps to try and be genuinely sympathetic where possible. If you're friendly, the barrier for insulting or dismissing you is higher. Communication has many levels, as is generally known.

What a great way to express it.

 

[Dan Page]

We can carry on, with brain

It's obvious that not every "case" is alike. Sometimes it's possible to actively create an atmosphere for a reasonable exchange; however, this requires being sensitive and occasionally swallowing one's own pride.

A number of suggestions:

• 'Finding common ground' (Mick's words), possibly in areas not directly related to the conspiracy theory. Signalling agreement to a statement of the other side can be disarming. E.g. Governments can't be trusted, geoengineering is probably a bad idea etc.
  
• If the other side accuses you of a personal attack, intrusion or whatever, reply with "Sorry, I did not intend this" - even if you don't see how your reply could be perceived that way. This can also be disarming.
• Keep calm. Don't let initial jibes and sarcasm arouse you. Ignore insults or at least don't shoot back. BTW, the degree of these can help you to determine the chances of the "case".
• Science can be introduced indirectly. E.g. I find that the FR24 topic is useful in case it's news for the other side. I explain how planes can be identified, and then explain about ADS-B and how it's freely receivable. This and other topics can help to bring the exchange on a more rational level where other science facts meet better reception.
• Don't bother too much with "cases" beyond hope, where you get "gish-gallopped" with images or links. If the other side is obviously not willing to focus, don't waste your energy.
  
• Ceterum censeo: control your attitude and therefore your style. I find it helps to try and be genuinely sympathetic where possible. If you're friendly, the barrier for insulting or dismissing you is higher. Communication has many levels, as is generally known.

Very good advice, and totally agree with all you have said.

 

[JRBids]

I would add "keep them on topic". They frequently try to sideline the conversation, move the goalposts, or avoid answering questions.

 

[JFDee]

I would add "keep them on topic".

Indeed. I try to do it in a polite but firm way.

However, if someone brings up a new claim after an exchange which was on topic for a while, this can be an indication that there are no arguments left in favour of the first claim - actually a good sign.

I suggest not to insist on conceding (in most cases). If someone is silently dropping a claim, it may lead to some more thinking later in private. Demanding a public 'revocation' doesn't help there at all.

That's why I have warned @Dan Page not to expect visible results of his efforts.

 

[benben]

Problem is, for some, their research simply means going to the websites that tell them what they want to hear.

 

[benben]

My "chemtrail" believing friend started with "chemtrails". Now he's upset with Monsato, 2nd amendment rights (which is weird since he's Canadian). Says he approves of Putin and the group Anonymous.

It gets worse as time goes by ... don't know how to talk to this guy anymore

 

[Marin B]

My "chemtrail" believing friend started with "chemtrails". Now he's upset with Monsato, 2nd amendment rights (which is weird since he's Canadian). Says he approves of Putin and the group Anonymous.

It gets worse as time goes by ... don't know how to talk to this guy anymore

Yes, it does get worse as time goes by. Next will probably be 9/11 and NWO.

 

[PeteSYD]

My "chemtrail" believing friend started with "chemtrails". Now he's upset with Monsato, 2nd amendment rights (which is weird since he's Canadian). Says he approves of Putin and the group Anonymous.

It gets worse as time goes by ... don't know how to talk to this guy anymore

Someim

My "chemtrail" believing friend started with "chemtrails". Now he's upset with Monsato, 2nd amendment rights (which is weird since he's Canadian). Says he approves of Putin and the group Anonymous.

It gets worse as time goes by ... don't know how to talk to this guy anymore

Sometimes it's easier to tell people that you don't want to be their friend anymore than to continue to bang your head against a brick wall. Do a careful risk/benefit analysis and be prepared, if necessary, to write the friendship off and go no-contact.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Just found this great short "documentary" of sorts that captures the die hard 9-11 truthers in their own words. I don't think this was cut to make them look good or bad; it's just cut to show them as they are. The way they speak is indistinguishable to those who are devout religious believers: they are blessed and burdened by knowing the Truth and just wish others could understand.

 

[benben]

to me, these are "internet cults" ...

"The way they speak is indistinguishable to those who are devout religious believers: they are blessed and burdened by knowing the Truth and just wish others could understand."

YES!!! exactly ... which is why my "chemmie" friend HAS to throw it in my face every time I see him. His neighbors describe him as well, like a bible thumper lol

 

[Hama Neggs]

to me, these are "internet cults" ...

"The way they speak is indistinguishable to those who are devout religious believers: they are blessed and burdened by knowing the Truth and just wish others could understand."

YES!!! exactly ... which is why my "chemmie" friend HAS to throw it in my face every time I see him. His neighbors describe him as well, like a bible thumper lol

Does he think contrails don't persist?

 

[Joe]

We've all seen this type of thing. The real question is what can we do about it? How can we decrease the amount of bunk in the world? Should we just ignore the intractables? Gently nudge them in the right direction?

Nudge ?

 

[Mick West]

Nudge ?

Just because Sunstein uses a word, it does not mean it's a cornerstone of the New World Order.

 

[benben]

Does he think contrails don't persist?

yup, he does ... even showed him that 2012 vid where MJM, in not answering a woman's question, admits they exist and that he can't tell the difference and all that but he just got royally mad ...

Being from a region that has harsh, cold, very snowy winters every year ... he posts "
I wonder when these terrorist Geoengineers will send snow our way?" ... uhm, what???

Sometimes it's easier to tell people that you don't want to be their friend anymore than to continue to bang your head against a brick wall. Do a careful risk/benefit analysis and be prepared, if necessary, to write the friendship off and go no-contact.

I've stopped hanging around with the guy, he's become too nutty ... but he knows way too many people I know, his daughter (who's worried) I coach on my hockey team, so on and so on so I can't completely disassociate myself from him so instead, I TRY to be informed a little bit to counter his crap ... maybe at least plant some seeds of doubt

 

[Marin B]

I can't completely disassociate myself from him so instead, I TRY to be informed a little bit to counter his crap ... maybe at least plant some seeds of doubt

This is my situation. But in my case it's a family member, and we still love and respect each other despite our different viewpoints and, surprisingly, we still enjoy each other's company (almost like being friends with someone who is a polar opposite on the political or religious spectrum).

 

[Mick West]

This is my situation. But in my case it's a family member, and we still love and respect each other despite our different viewpoints and, surprisingly, we still enjoy each other's company (almost like being friends with someone who is a polar opposite on the political or religious spectrum).

I've talked with a few "chemtrail" folk. They are generally very nice people, there's just a bit of a disconnect at some points. But really we all have vastly more in common than even these seemingly great differences.

 

[tadaaa]

I was quite surprised to find out my BIL held some of these alternative views - mainly the 911 CT stuff, and the continual use of "they" without ever identifying who/what "they" is

It was over a late night schnapps in the Italian Alps, - so out of context to our normal meeting venues

I have known him since he was one years old - so view him as my brother

But we have never discussed it since, and tbh if I am being honest it would be me bringing it up which, I am absolutely aware would make me seem like the evangeliser - so I am careful not too

Because in a way that's my point, anyone can hold these views - that's fine, the problem comes when they are evangelised like a religion at every opportunity

 

[eon_flux]

Obviously you can't attack all points of concern, in one person's head, at once. But as pointed out on this site, by creating doubt about one theory, I'm sure you can start to create a subconscious change in some people.

So if we were to attempt to deal with chemtrails, we can see that people are fearful for their health, and at the same time astounded that many other people are not aware of the issue (as I was). We can create a sympathetic dialogue based around these issues:

The vast majority of other people are still not concerned, but not through ignorance.
The vast majority of scientists are not strictly controlled, and would speak out if there were such proof.
The vast majority of media is not strictly controlled, and many outlets would like a big scoop.
The vast majority of theories are propagated on facebook, youtube and small websites.
There is zero proof of ground operations that match the requirements of such an operation.
Some people will suffer from health issues, but there are scientific proof of the causes.

Once upon a time they weren't worried, and didn't they feel better about the world?

There could be many more strands to add, but what I'm saying is that you need logical reasoning that doesn't require the user to adopt science, that is already disputed by the chemtrail community. It needs to be simple.

It's nice to see other people here, saying they've changed their thought process, but it's in amongst some lengthy threads. I'd like to see a single thread or even website that contains basic facts, and some science, but a real winner I think, would be personal testimony from those who did believe, now realise they were wrong and how much better they feel now they understand things differently.

 

[smithcorp]

They still claim Indigo Skyfold is real.

Wow, that is really down the rabbit hole.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think personal testimonies from former believers are some of the most powerful tools for curing CTers. I also think they are a vital illustration of the harm that can be done, in answer to the "who cares?" people - the ones who ask why debunking is important.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I think personal testimonies from former believers are some of the most powerful tools for curing CTers. I also think they are a vital illustration of the harm that can be done, in answer to the "who cares?" people - the ones who ask why debunking is important.

There is a forum for that:
https://www.metabunk.org/out-of-the-rabbit-hole-former-believers.f29/

 

[benben]

foggy and rainy here today ... "chemmie" is saying

"Geoengineering. Bastard terrorists are spraying us like bugs with poisonous chemicals, on a daily basis!! I can't play dumb, sorry. This subject might be taboo to yous, but it ain't to me!!

Nanoparticle sized raindrops are falling from the sky right now!! I dare you to go outside, collect some of that rainwater in a glass/ cup/ bowl if you want to, then drink it, and even share it with your family, that you love sooo much!! Let me know how it turned out"

So I did, I collected rainwater, and drank it lol ... apparently, I'm still fine

 

[Spectrar Ghost]

Of course you are. Illuminati shills get paid in antidote.

 

[trevor]

There has got to be some chemtrail believers that are on the fence about whether or not it is true, and perhaps they can at least see that there are dissenting opinions and hopefully come around to the truth, or at least have more questions for the likes of Dane Wigington. So I will keep plugging along, and try to be as polite and respectful as I can, even though it is hard sometimes. And yes I've been following Micks tweets for the past month.

yup, John Constable captured these 'un-natural' clouds over Sailsbury in 1831


JWM Turner painted this 'chemical' pink sunset in 1840


And Thomas Gainsborough painted these 'heavily seeded' clouds in about 1765


All of which begs the question, if the Wright Brothers didn't get off the ground til 1903, How the hell were they spraying back then?

beautiful paintings.

 

[trevor]

Of course you are. Illuminati shills get paid in antidote.

i always laugh when i stumble across this video on youtube. Metabunk has really pissed some people off.

Warning


the top ranked comment is "Isnt he atheist? Why is he talking about spirits? I thought he believed in evolution that there is NO such thing as spirits etc etc. Yet he hangs out with anton levy`s grandson?. He is a shill." - JC333

Mick, can you debunk this?

 

[Mick West]

Mick, can you debunk this?

Debunk what?