The Truth Denied: Evidence of deliberate disinformation in CHEMTRAILS KILL Group

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
I read the points earlier today, and how Lopez is using them them to prove the comments wrong. But I feel that she is actually debunking herself by mixing actual science into the mix. Not least to say she creates a big mess of definitions, making it hard to follow what exactly she is talking about.

For example:

"Star Bricker Do you have any concept of the amount of stuff in a horizon to horizon trail? Its over 200 miles long. How can all of that fit in a single plane? [...] A single cumulus cloud contains about 550 TONS of water. How can a plane spray something 200 miles or more long?"

Lopez' response is: => "Wrong, answered by point 4."

Point four is this according to Lopez:

4. "Thick trails do not require the plane to have special water container. Most water is from the plane’s surrounding."

First of all, Star Bricker does not talk about "special water container". He most likely does not talk about water at all.

What Star Bricker probably suggested is that the original "chemtrail" theory claims that it's not ice particles that are visible, but the actual content of what is being "sprayed" and that huge amount of material must be stored and ejected on thousands of planes every day. I know the "chemtrail" meme have evolved with time to go more in line with science, suggesting that (hazardous) particulates acting as nuclei is to blame for the increase of contrail persistency.

But the point seem to speak against Lopez if we look at all the other "supporting" points she lists. The only thing is that she replaced the word "contrail" with "chemtrail" to make the points look more relevant and supportive.

Nucleation is nothing new. Exhaust particles are nothing new. Such particles have been around since the dawn of the combustion engine. Lopez is simply forcing this well known fact to fit her own conspiracy angle.

Her angle must be that more persistency equals more particulates. Not only is this an oversimplification of the phenomena, but there have been no particular change in contrail behaviour ever. Only "chemtrail" believers think that contrails "changed", confusing increased frequency of planes with increased trail persistency.

The sources she links to suggest that nothing but what you would expect from conventional exhaust particles contribute to contrail formation. You have to really share her mindset to distort this information to fit the conspiracy narrative.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's rather a strange list. Sucahyo's seven points seems to be mostly arguing about the relative importance of the role of particulates in contrail formation, and their contribution to cloud formation.

Then the use of those points to "debunk" various objections to the chemtrail theory does not really debunk anything. If anything he's just trying to say that chemtrails are just contrails.

I had a short discussion with Sucahyo a while back, which then got framed as prove of me being a disinfo agent, but was just this strange focus on particulates.

http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/...trailscience-lies-once-again-please-be-aware/

Rather bizarre. I'd not pay it any heed, as the regular folk will not understand what he's trying to say either.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This all points to the impossibility of addressing complex issues in simple terms. Debunkers haven't often mentioned the aerosol particle aspect of contrail formation because it needlessly complicated the explanation. Now Roxy is trying to say debunkers are wrong because we say contrails are just "water vapor"- missing and obfuscating the entire point. It's all just a mis-characterization of the debunker arguments. Roxy is pretending that she/they know the science better than do debunkers. It is to laugh.

PS: She/they say that we only cite web pages which are "our" sites, but she would define ANY site upholding our argument as a "shill" site, by her definition.

PPS: She is giving them something they can toss out, as she has, without even understanding what they are saying, pretending it proves something. Sheesh...
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
It's rather a strange list. Sucahyo's seven points seems to be mostly arguing about the relative importance of the role of particulates in contrail formation, and their contribution to cloud formation.

Then the use of those points to "debunk" various objections to the chemtrail theory does not really debunk anything. If anything he's just trying to say that chemtrails are just contrails.

I had a short discussion with Sucahyo a while back, which then got framed as prove of me being a disinfo agent, but was just this strange focus on particulates.

http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/...trailscience-lies-once-again-please-be-aware/

Rather bizarre. I'd not pay it any heed, as the regular folk will not understand what he's trying to say either.

What is happening, there, is what I have previously seen in the "Planet X" debates. The discussion is being dragged into a debate of meaningless minutia. No common reader is going to begin to understand or care about any of those details. It just makes it appear as if there is an actual debate going on and those predisposed to believe in the chemtrail conspiracy will accept what he says about the data being manipulated by conspirators.

PS: I see he didn't respond to your last post for 5 months and then didn't really address your point. Typical.
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I see the same behavior in the Anti GMO movement. Link to a US government source, dismissed because 'Monsanto owns the FDA'. Link to an ESU site and they will claim the same. They are contaminated by Monsanto, but the studies they tout were paid for by anti GMO groups and organic food producers--folks that benefit from the study they did.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Talking about disinformation, have a look at Sucahyo. Look at both Aircrap and Roxy's message board specifically. Read the style of posting from the beginning posts a year or so ago and pay attention to the english fluency, grammar, etc. Note the "pidgin" english used at first, a caricature of what an english speaker would use when impersonating a foreigner, and compare to the current 'Sucahyo' fluency.

Something isn't right.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I actually had some dialog and private discussion with Sucahyo a long time ago (well over a year). He claimed to be from Malaysia....?
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Talking about disinformation, have a look at Sucahyo. Look at both Aircrap and Roxy's message board specifically. Read the style of posting from the beginning posts a year or so ago and pay attention to the english fluency, grammar, etc. Note the "pidgin" english used at first, a caricature of what an english speaker would use when impersonating a foreigner, and compare to the current 'Sucahyo' fluency.

Something isn't right.

I think there is at least some actual subterfuge taking place in the chemmie community. I'm not sure what that's about, but I saw it in the "Planet X" community too. It reads like intentional enflaming of the believers. Don't know why it would be happening, but there seems to be some individuals who know exactly what they are doing and are feeding the frenzy. It could just be people who get off on the power-trip of pulling other people's chains.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I actually had some dialog and private discussion with Sucahyo a long time ago (well over a year). He claimed to be from Malaysia....?
Same here. He was promoting his own version of orgonite, using "female orgone". Called it "cemenite".
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
What Star Bricker probably suggested is that the original "chemtrail" theory claims that it's not ice particles that are visible, but the actual content of what is being "sprayed" and that huge amount of material must be stored and ejected on thousands of planes every day. I know the "chemtrail" meme have evolved with time to go more in line with science, suggesting that (hazardous) particulates acting as nuclei is to blame for the increase of contrail persistency.

.


I thought the "theory" was that the plane was spraying aluminum particles that form into a cloud. Or if you want to follow the Gnarly Carly "theory" they're nano aluminum robots that fall to the ground and are inhaled.
 

mrfintoil

Senior Member.
I thought the "theory" was that the plane was spraying aluminum particles that form into a cloud. Or if you want to follow the Gnarly Carly "theory" they're nano aluminum robots that fall to the ground and are inhaled.

It is today, but I know people in the past who claimed that the visible particles were not ice crystals, but other hazardous substances.
Chemtrailers have evolved enough to realize the unreason with this notion.

I believe this is what Star Bricker was referring to.
 
Top