why does this site even exist?

[TWCobra]

I started here out of self interest in that the number of threats to pilots was increasing and activists, in Australia anyway, seemed to be becoming more aggressive in their approach, to the point of identifying pilots and threatening "visits". Having seen the way Metabunk operates, and the rules in place, I cannot see how it can be anything but positive, and many people would have had their fears allayed about many things.

I suspect most don't post here however, so it is difficult to quantify.

Much of what I read on subjects that I have no expertise in is very thought provoking, which can only be a good thing.

 

[Michael P]

I've been a regular Metabunk lurker who was prompted to register in response to your diatribe IKnowWhoYouAre. You'd be hard pressed to find a more polite and equitable response to your insinuations than you have found thus far on nearly any other skeptical or debunking website out there. If anything, you seem to come off more as a bully spoiling for a fight with a permissive bunch of well intentioned folks.

 

[iKnowWhoYouAre]

ok-i consider myself to be what has commonly become known as a conspiracy theorist. a term that we have been labelled with not a title that i have self appointed. it is an inaccurate description in the sense that the acknowledgement of situations around us are based on theory when in fact they are simple observations. even the term conspiracy has lost its inclusion in this label as the activities that were once carried out behind closed doors are now, more and more frequently, happening in plain sight. indicators have led the inquisitive nature of many like minded people to see the outcome of conspiratorial planning years before it is finally acknowledge in the common arena of mainstream media.

i experience things that shouldnt be happening. things that are carried out with the protection of our various national leaders that are damn right criminal. ..but mention it before the fact, when you see it approaching in the distance, and you are crowned with a tin foil hat. tell people that you had told(warned)them about something many years before...well, its too late for some already.

still, i think debunking sites do the "conspiracy theorist" community a great injustice and i am certain that there are many who would agree that whilst we consider ourselves to be seekers of the truth we will at the same time view people calling themselves debunkers as protectors of a system.

you mention chemtrails and i havnt even looked at your chemtrail forums yet because i know it is another schoolboy battlefield. your(someone elses)'data" versus conflicting data presented in opposition. and around and round in circles we go. completely pointless.

my own experience is that from the perspective of an artist, of someone who paints the sky.

how can anyone pass doubt on MY own personal experience without entering my head, reading my memory and literally seeing what i have seen? ..but you have 'data' that says i am wrong..sure.

it is inadvertently the subject of chemtrails that brought me here to this site-well-from a post regarding aluminium resistant crops. anyway..

how can anyone possibly debunk something that i see with my own eyes? how do you do that? i first notice the presence of chemtrails in the mid 90's. it took a few weeks to sink in that these things that were vandalising the sky where becoming more and more frequent. i have always looked at the sky and i could point out a contrail anytime since i first saw one as a child, but these were something new and persistent.

i dont care what the science says because it is my own experience that one day they were not there and the next they were and a month later they were absolutely everywhere. so you can say that i, eh, duh, just never noticed them before, that i was blind to them, that i never looked up at the sky....but i would deny that any of that were true. next you can assess ones mental stability/condition/temperament etc...fine...all fine. ..and then you can choke me on data upon data mixed with data after data...

but it would never discourage my own experience, were it seeing a bus blown up by 'terrorists' or just looking up at what was once a blue sky.

 

[HappyMonday]

how can anyone pass doubt on MY own personal experience without entering my head, reading my memory and literally seeing what i have seen? ..but you have 'data' that says i am wrong..sure.

i first notice the presence of chemtrails in the mid 90's. it took a few weeks to sink in that these things that were vandalising the sky where becoming more and more frequent. i have always looked at the sky and i could point out a contrail anytime since i first saw one as a child, but these were something new and persistent.

i dont care what the science says because it is my own experience that one day they were not there and the next they were and a month later they were absolutely everywhere.

Okay, that's pretty much the whole issue in 3 sentences right there.

Are you sure you didn't see persistent contrails prior to 1990? It's just there's an archive on a site related to this one which hosts photographs of them from back much further than that. Here's a number of pictures from World War 2 -

http://contrailscience.com/wwii-contrails/

I'd like to know how you square the legion of documented occurrences of something you're sure you didn't see in the sky prior to 1990?

Try to bring yourself to actually look at what is presented to you here too, rather than using your patent hostility towards debunking as an excuse not to face it.

Personally, I discovered that archive when I was teetering on the edge of believing these persistent white lines were 'chemtrails'. My discovery of the facts, of the truth that it's actually a hoax, was a weight off my shoulders. It made me feel loads better to not see the government trying to poison us all from the sky every time I looked up, regardless of what else I may think about their activities.

 

[JRBids]

you mention chemtrails and i havnt even looked at your chemtrail forums yet because i know it is another schoolboy battlefield. your(someone elses)'data" versus conflicting data presented in opposition. and around and round in circles we go. completely pointless.

See there's the problem. It's not "my" data vs "conflicting data". It's DATA vs "I know what I saw when I was a kid", "just LOOK UP and see for yourself" or "contrails don't last chemtrails do".

 

[MikeC]

ok-i consider myself to be what has commonly become known as a conspiracy theorist. a term that we have been labelled with not a title that i have self appointed. it is an inaccurate description in the sense that the acknowledgement of situations around us are based on theory when in fact they are simple observations.

Observations are fine.

however what sets conspiracy theorists apart from everyone else who makes observatins is that the CT's then make conclusions about what nature, cause, effect, purpose, etc of the things they observe are, without recourse to verifiable data, or making completely unsupported/unsupoprtable connections between disparate facts or some similar error.

I have no trouble at all with someone saynig "I see white lines from aeroplanes in the sky - I never saw those white lines before" - that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.

the CT adds to it: "I know those white lines aer actually an evil plan to depopulate the word/control teh weather/hide alienspacehips/whatever because somone else says that is what they and they have too much aluminium in hteir soil and because the US infected black people with STD's (pick any previous human experimentation or secret programme of your choice). "

the observation cannot be debunked - it is what it is.

the conclusions are easy to debunk and people don't like that.

 

[Mick West]

how can anyone pass doubt on MY own personal experience without entering my head, reading my memory and literally seeing what i have seen? ..but you have 'data' that says i am wrong..sure.

Nobody can doubt your memory exists, it's the accuracy, the completeness, and the interpretation that people raise issues with.

But you also are raising the same issues about thousands of other people, including many who believe in chemtrails. Have a look at this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AthfJKf0ArdPdHBrby1RVURIcTlZZk1GNHM2dWhTbkE&gid=0

It's the results of a survey of about 300 visitors to contrailscience.com. Pay particular attention to the second column. It's the year the person first because aware of either persistent contrails or "chemtrails". Compare that to your own experience. Why is there a difference? In particular why are they so many people who did not notice until years like 2010-2012? Did they not exist before then?

And if they simply did not notice them from the min 1990s to 2010, why would you have for sure have noticed them from 1980 to 1995?

 

[JRBids]

Right, then when you post something after their comment, they delete it and block you. There is no discussion.

 

[Mick West]

I personally don't have any real memories of persistent trails before 2006. That does not mean they were not there. I don't have any memories of sidewalk gum spots either.

 

[Cairenn]

I remember contrails when I was a child. Were they persistent? I don't remember. I do remember they hanging around at times. I do remember seeing them spread. Is that what is called a 'persistant' contrail? Of course I was interested in the weather and in clouds from an early age.

I also remember sonic booms occurring. Those planes usually seemed to be military, either from Hensley Field, a Naval base or Carswell AFB.

We do not always 'SEE' everything in our environment. I had a friend that really loved cats. When we were in a car together, she would notice cats, walking down the sidewalk, asleep on a porch, playing in a yard. She saw the cat and most often what color it was. At the best I saw a cat. I like dogs, I did the same with them, I would be able to give color and breed or breed mix--she saw either a small or a med or a large dog.

Are you aware of the problems of 'eyewitness testimony"?

 

[Joe]

Do you remember when your a kid and you played the game of looking up in the clouds to see if you can see a shape that resembles something like a animal or mickey mouse ? Funny I don't ever remember snakes ? I see a lot of those these days

 

[Joe]

I personally don't have any real memories of persistent trails before 2006. That does not mean they were not there. I don't have any memories of sidewalk gum spots either.

Have you ever check your own photo albums from years ago Mick ?

 

[Mick West]

Have you ever check your own photo albums from years ago Mick ?

Yes, I've certainly got some photos from pre-2006, Like these from Mammoth, CA, in 2003:




But I have no recollection of the sky seeming in any way odd. I was just not looking at the sky.

 

[Joe]

which one is you in the photo ?

 

[Cairenn]

TBH, I never played that game, it seemed senseless to me. I knew major cloud types by the second grade. Yep, I was an odd child. I saved my allowance and bought myself a basic chemistry set when I was 5

 

[JRBids]

Do you remember when your a kid and you played the game of looking up in the clouds to see if you can see a shape that resembles something like a animal or mickey mouse ? Funny I don't ever remember snakes ? I see a lot of those these days

I think it depends where you lived. You are from Long Island, we never really had any of those big clouds that looked like bunnies or horses. You remember seeing them from the island? The first time I went out west I was amazed at the clouds.

 

[JRBids]

TBH, I never played that game, it seemed senseless to me. I knew major cloud types by the second grade. Yep, I was an odd child. I saved my allowance and bought myself a basic chemistry set when I was 5

I had a chemistry set too. I also used to launch rockets with a boy in the neighborhood back in the 60s.

 

[Joe]

TBH, I never played that game, it seemed senseless to me. I knew major cloud types by the second grade. Yep, I was an odd child. I saved my allowance and bought myself a basic chemistry set when I was 5

did i say I was 15 ? maybe like 3 or 4

 

[Rico]

still, i think debunking sites do the "conspiracy theorist" community a great injustice and i am certain that there are many who would agree that whilst we consider ourselves to be seekers of the truth we will at the same time view people calling themselves debunkers as protectors of a system.

you mention chemtrails and i havnt even looked at your chemtrail forums yet because i know it is another schoolboy battlefield. your(someone elses)'data" versus conflicting data presented in opposition. and around and round in circles we go. completely pointless.

my own experience is that from the perspective of an artist, of someone who paints the sky.

how can anyone pass doubt on MY own personal experience without entering my head, reading my memory and literally seeing what i have seen? ..but you have 'data' that says i am wrong..sure.

it is inadvertently the subject of chemtrails that brought me here to this site-well-from a post regarding aluminium resistant crops. anyway..

how can anyone possibly debunk something that i see with my own eyes? how do you do that? i first notice the presence of chemtrails in the mid 90's. it took a few weeks to sink in that these things that were vandalising the sky where becoming more and more frequent. i have always looked at the sky and i could point out a contrail anytime since i first saw one as a child, but these were something new and persistent.

This shouldn't be a conspiracy theorist vs. debunker issue here. There is no denying that some debunkers can be jerks, but the premise of debunking isn't out to get you or other conspiracy theorists. They are only after the claims people make, and if the claims are not well supported, well, in that case, the theorist has some work to do.

But let's talk about doubt and your own personal experience for a moment. Have you ever considered the possibility that you can be wrong about something sometimes? I know I have about myself. Everyone, including people here I'm sure, have been wrong about something at some point in their life. With this in mind, you really need to look at things from differing perspectives, sometimes even your own experiences. A little doubt is natural, especially if one is saying something along the lines of 'they are poisoning us up there!' The act of debunking is really more of a practice than a title. Even you can try your hand at debunking. It's more or less just an exercise of skepticism. It's not a side you take.

 

[Joe]

I think it depends where you lived. You are from Long Island, we never really had any of those big clouds that looked like bunnies or horses. You remember seeing them from the island? The first time I went out west I was amazed at the clouds.

Even though on Long island believe it or not . Usually in a car when we were driving since we had no Game boys and couldn't bring our chemistry sets in the car or launch our rockets out of the car window I almost hit a cop a a park with my model rocket once . for some reason instead of going up and deploying the parachute it fell and became a missile instead and buried itself in the ground 2 feet from the cop that asked us earlier if it was safe to launch rockets in the park . we had to leave no more rockets at the park for us

 

[hemi]

Yes, I've certainly got some photos from pre-2006, Like these from Mammoth, CA, in 2003:

But I have no recollection of the sky seeming in any way odd. I was just not looking at the sky.

Coincidentally enough I was browsing through some old wedding and honeymoon photos last night (14th anniversary yesterday!), and spotted some very obvious, very long contrails overhead in a series of photos from our honeymoon in Picton, NZ (just across from Nelson, NZ -- a 'hotbed' of NZ chemtrail activists, mostly because Nelson is under the flight-path of any North-South traffic between the major South Island towns and Auckland in the North, and East-West traffic from Wellington to Australia).

Similarly, no recollection at all of seeing them at the time.

 

[Cairenn]

It would be interesting to look for 60s era photo albums at antique shows and see what shows up there

 

[Belfrey]

you mention chemtrails and i havnt even looked at your chemtrail forums yet because i know it is another schoolboy battlefield. your(someone elses)'data" versus conflicting data presented in opposition. and around and round in circles we go. completely pointless.

For the most part, that's not the case, as you'd see if you really started looking at the forums. Where there is real information brought up by chemtrails believers, it tends to be more an matter of putting that information in context. For example, some of them point to tests of samples collected from soil, water, and air and point to elements such as aluminum, barium, and strontium found within them, as found by a professional lab. Rather than saying, "those data are wrong, here are our data instead", we generally point out that these elements are naturally found in the environment, and that the results being found by believers are not unusual for the types of samples they are taking and the methodology they used - all of which is backed up by the relevant historical scientific literature and other scholarly sources.

That's when there are data presented. Very often, we're confronted with claims which are made without evidence to support them. Some of the claims (such as that contrails didn't persist until the 1990s) are provably false based on the available evidence, others are just unsupported.

We don't doubt that you remember things the way you do (you never remember seeing persistent contrails before the 1990s). It's a fact that you remember it that way, but that doesn't make it a fact that persistent contrails didn't exist before then. Other people remember things differently (I clearly remember seeing persistent contrails in the early 1980s). There's no point in arguing over whose recollection is correct, when there is plenty of documentation ranging from pictures and films of them, to scientific journal articles regarding them, going back several decades. Check out the Pre-1995 Persistent Contrail Archive if you have a few minutes.

 

[David Fraser]

For the most part, that's not the case, as you'd see if you really started looking at the forums. Where there is real information brought up by chemtrails believers, it tends to be more an matter of putting that information in context. For example, some of them point to tests of samples collected from soil, water, and air and point to elements such as aluminum, barium, and strontium found within them, as found by a professional lab. Rather than saying, "those data are wrong, here are our data instead", we generally point out that these elements are naturally found in the environment, and that the results being found by believers are not unusual for the types of samples they are taking and the methodology they used - all of which is backed up by the relevant historical scientific literature and other scholarly sources..

This is entirely one if the main points of the forums I feel. I know the OP mentioned an apparent lack of "scientists" posting in the forums or the lack of us doing research. On FB recently I made the mistake of revealing my past science background and was then accused of not doing my own research. When I asked what he meant by research and the reply was lab work. Now I don't work in that field anymore but he refused to accept that the bulk of scientific investigations is done on paper and in the library. Decisions for new research are often made by reading a journal article and you have to present a valid thesis through trawling through what is available already (David Keith mentions it in his Q&A video with the chemtrailers). I did mention that I had gathered a great deal of historical data with regards to Al and Ba and could easily write an article about it, but essentially it would be worthless as it would never get published. To get published you need a point to your argument or at least something that shows something unusual. He did not seem to grasp that most reports that are presented to government are only opinions by the writer based on research done by others and how he interprets that, but because his sources are verifiable the report is trusted.

I suppose in a sense these forums are similar to an individual writing a report. Evidence is produced and then challenged. I know for one I question the validity of all that I read and certainly follow the sources back as far as I can. From doing that I have certainly learnt more about some subjects than if I were to just accept what was presented before me.

 

[Cairenn]

The lack of knowledge about science how a scientist works is amazing, of course so is the lack of knowledge of business. I keep wondering what folks did learn in school?

 

[Mick West]

There's no point in arguing over whose recollection is correct, when there is plenty of documentation ranging from pictures and films of them, to scientific journal articles regarding them, going back several decades. Check out the Pre-1995 Persistent Contrail Archive if you have a few minutes.

A lot of the photos on that thread were got from old photo albums that people had scanned and put on Flickr. I would just take a subject where the camera would be pointing upwards, and then filter it by date, like for the 80s:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=skyscraper&d=taken-19800102-19891230&mt=all&adv=1&page=2

And there's one, from 1985:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobmendo/19989783/

 

[Cairenn]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jayphagan/8476119557/ 1988

 

[RolandD]

I did notice an increase in contrails in the early '90s. I just attributed it to the local AFB 80 miles away and the fact that the first Gulf War was going on. I'd say there were a lot more training sortees during those years all across the country. Lots of folks probably noticed that increase, but didn't pay much attention if they decreased in the middle to late '90s. After 9/11, I'm sure the Air Force geared back up on training and haven't stopped. Something else, Air Force training flights are going to occur in areas outside normal air traffic lanes.

 

[Billzilla]

Hi-altitude WW2 bombers, such as B-17's, left clear and persistent contrails.
They were the first to really spend much time up high, and that was in the early 1940's.

 

[TWCobra]

I remember in about 1974 there was a news item here in OZ regarding something that was drawn in the sky by the training jets from RAAF base Pearce near Perth. It was very funny...and quite rude. I think some student pilot realised he was contrailing and seized a once in a lifetime chance to impress the people of Perth with his artistic flair.

 

[Cairenn]

A group I am in had a large event some years ago, in Central Texas. About 8 am one morning the site was hit with a sonic boom. Sort of unusual these days, even if the site was not far from Ft Hood and a large AF base in San Antonio.

Later we heard that the pilot was just saying hello. He had asked for leave and didn't get it--and he did get into trouble for it


I'm guessing he 'drew' an anatomical sketch?

 

[Jazzy]

am i making any sense here?

Yes. I can see where you're coming from.

It seems that you accord other people less respect than they deserve. The efforts of others really do not figure too highly in your mind. You fear implacable certainty. You believe in yourself.

So give us a clear stream of informational flow, a succession of links coming to a conclusion of some sort, on A SINGLE POINT. You are the one with belief in yourself. Prove to us your case.

Enough with the insults, eh?

Where was I? LOL.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Parasites usually benefit at the expense of their host. Debunking the false information which surrounds many conspiracy theories actually strengthens the theory, allowing it to better stand up to scrutiny and forcing the exponents to more rigorously vet future evidence before making it public.

Happy Monday makes a very important point.
I think it really answers the title of this thread, but the OP feels threatened by it, which is why he only is discussing trying to throw off "parasites".

If you read scientific journals you will see that there are comments made which essentially point out what the commenter sees are flaws in the ideas put forth, and avenues for further research which could be explored. This is what must happen to ideas for them to become accepted. The first time I spoke to Michael J. Murphy and G. Edward Griffin about chemtrails, they told me they wished it weren't true, and I told them that I was going to make their wish come true. Since that time, they have continually acted much like the OP and feel that I am only trying "to discredit our film", but a more logical response would have been to engage in constructive debate over the issues, and refine their ideas until they could stand against any discreditation.

To be truly free-thinking, you shouldn't fear examination of your ideas by others. Consider that as something which will make your ideas better, stronger, and more supported by the facts. No wonder we are seeing lots of insults but no well thought out ideas presented.
The OP isn't confident enough to do that yet, and it bothers him.

 

[Dan Wilson]

as an example doctors in the UK who are general practitioners retain a higher income when they limit the number of GPs per practice. 4 doctors in a practice will benefit more financially individually than if there were 5 GPs in the same practice. that is not the ethic of people who work for the patient or the good of their community, that is a financially motivated scheme to keep GP salaries above the £200,000 pa mark.

General practitioners in the UK, on average, earn about £70,000 a year without working overtime. Not very many make the higher end of the spectrum which is £250,000-£300,000. They are also paid more based on the quality of their work through the Quality and Outcomes Framework established by the NHS. All after 8-10 years of schooling. Unless you personally know a significant amount of doctors, making the statement that most are in it for the money is ignorant.
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/general_practice_doctor_salary.htm
Where are you even getting your information?

 

[scombrid]

Do you remember when your a kid and you played the game of looking up in the clouds to see if you can see a shape that resembles something like a animal or mickey mouse ? Funny I don't ever remember snakes ? I see a lot of those these days

The shapes in the clouds game is generally played when fair weather puffy cumulus clouds are the predominant cloud type. Very often these occur the day after a frontal passage when there is subsidence aloft but enough low level moisture for diurnal heating to create scattered convective clouds. The cirrus clouds and contrail cirrus would have passed ahead of and along with the weather front. The cool fair weather behind the front (think of a crisp fall day) invites people outside to watch the clouds. Two things come into play that would explain someone not remembering the contrails. One, the contrails weren't present on most of the ideal cloud watching days. Two, even if the trails were present the viewer may have paid them no attention because the viewer was focusing on the puffy shape clouds while looking for mickey mouse or a bunny. People have a tendency to not notice things that they aren't already looking for when those things aren't of any immediately consequence. Then when someone points the thing out and gives it meaning, you see it everywhere.

The fact is, the contrails were there decades ago whether you noticed them or not. Cloud types that are often mis-identified as Chem-clouds (various cirrus types) or HAARP (various wavy clouds), that people frequently claim weren't present prior to X-date, are well documented in text books and remembered by meteorologists and weather enthusiasts. Our memories are tricky things and quite selective. That is why we require controlled expiraments to test medicines and are wise to avoid relying on annecdote and testimonials as evidence that something (like power balance bracelets) 'works'.

 

[JonJson]

what would you do without people like me?

I personally would spend more time knitting socks.

 

[Cairenn]

I would spend time playing with my dog, making jewelry, and researching other topics I am interested in, Then there is reading and lots of things to do. I will soon be old enough to take some reduced cost college classes. I am planning on taking a lot of interesting ones

 

[iKnowWhoYouAre]

well here we go then...DAN WILSON-you are wrong. just accept that you are wrong-your page pulled from the web WRONG. seriously-cannot be bothered. it is the schoolyard bully thing here. your web pulled page my web pulled page-my experience-your web pulled page...

ive just loooked at a thread on flu vaccine...jesus, you people [are wrong]

on this site, something is debunked on the basis that you disagree with something or refuse to believe something.

that is it. that is all. thankfully this is a much neglected place to visit. except for debunker troll inc. good luck with [that, you !#$%^&*]

 

[Pete Tar]

You're lovely.

 

[Jazzy]

You're lovely.

Isn't he?

Isn't he going to have interesting times? LOL.