Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 328

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #211

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by jbox: View Post
    Gee Kate, when you told me you weren't going to waste your time with wacco, I thought we had seen the last of you, but maybe your asbestos pants are on fire. Why don't you tell us about all the other conspiracy theories you hold to be God's truth? Ya know, like Bush planned 911, the Rothchilds, Trilateral commission, bigfoot. But chemtrails (lol) have been put to rest here a while back. I'm gonna call on Jay Reynolds to set us straight again. Before I do why not post that laughable link debunking Reynolds.
    Go away jbox, you add no value to the thread here.

    Maybe a fire enema could help your kind of assholeism:

    https://news.yahoo.com/photo-of--fir...161842041.html

    BTW Barry, after signing in via facebook with a confirmation welcoming me, I composed a well researched reply to Kate, pushed the preview post button and the post disappeared with a message saying I could not post without signing in, and the contents were lost. What's up???

    This post was a test, contents were not lost - did not re-sign in. Can you explain, or find my lost content?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by:

  3. TopTop #212
    Sara S's Avatar
    Sara S
    Auntie Wacco

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    And your gross attack does add "value to the thread'? Not to my way of thinking, and you're not even funny.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Colleen Fernald: View Post
    Go away jbox, you add no value to the thread here...
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-10-2014 at 12:35 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by:

  5. TopTop #213

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Scott,
    I find your repeated references to Cliff Carnicom as 'Cornicom' juvenile and highly disrespectful plus a backhanded slur against those here who have stated great respect for him, especially in light of your likely inability to intelligently discuss .01% of his site content, let alone how the inaccurate outweighs the accurate to the overwhelming degree that justifies demeaning and mocking.

    More likely, you took a glance to say you did but couldn't be bothered to really understand his research in depth, did a lot of searching on some form of 'why only idiots believe chemtrails exist' instead to feel armed and your ego needed to mock him and his supporters to smugly place yourself above us as judge and jury.... though you know next to nothing of what he says, let alone able to discuss it intelligently... which implies fairly, objectively and comprehensively.

    This is a clear example the shallow conclusion making I pointed out and the shallow surface thinking iPragmatist so intuitively pointed out that you and all the deniers who can't be bothered to really understand the issues do.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  7. TopTop #214
    jbox's Avatar
    jbox
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens: View Post
    Kate - Please go away like you said you would. This chemtrails bullshit is the most ridiculous conspiracy of them all. Seriously, if the government, over several decades, with presidents of both parties controlling the program, wanted to spray poison over the public, to sicken them or kill them, is that what this baloney is about? Really? And nobody knows about it except you and a few others? Why aren't there large numbers of people dying or sick then? If you believe this you, madam, are a complete idiot.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by:

  9. TopTop #215
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by jbox: View Post
    ... If you believe this you, madam, are a complete idiot.
    Please mind your manners, jbox.

    Since it seems that people who believe in the various "conspiracy theories" and people who do not don't always get along, I'll be starting a category just for those who have taken the "red pill" where they can discuss the matter amongst themselves. More about this soon...

    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  11. TopTop #216
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by jbox: View Post
    Kate - Please go away like you said you would. ....If you believe this you, madam, are a complete idiot.
    Jbox -- Maybe you can explain it to me...but do you really think the quality of the conversation on this forum is enhanced by you asking people to go away and calling them an "idiot" for expressing their view?

    As I said before -- I may disagree with Kate (I remain unconvinced that there is such a thing as "chemtrails") but I respect her for being willing to speak her truth. And (although it might not always seem like it) I appreciate that people like Kate post information that challenges my paradigm, even if that information is unconvincing for me.

    Maybe I'm an unrealistic romantic of sorts, but I really believe in the phrase Barry coined of "Connecting Conscious Community". People shouldn't feel they can't post unconventional ideas for consideration without getting personally attacked here. This should be a sanctuary for the freedom of expressing such thought.

    That is not to say that claims and sources cannot be challenged. I would even argue that it's healthy for some assertions, in particular very scary and outlandish contentions, to undergo the scrutiny of challenge. But let's please keep the discussion in the realm of ideas and not descend into hurling personal insults at each other. It bothers me when I get personally attacked for expressing my views, and it bothers me when I see it happen to others -- regardless of which "side" of the discussion it comes from.

    It's sad that many people won't participate on this forum because they feel unsafe to express themselves or feel they will get personally attacked -- on both "sides" of contentious discussions. It's a loss for our community. (Again, there is a HUGE difference between having one's assertions and sources challenged on their merit, and getting personally insulted.)

    Perhaps people would feel it would be too much censorship of their freedom of expression here, but I often wish that there could be an unbiased "umpire" on Waccobb to call foul whenever someone wanders from the discussion of ideas and into personal attack of other participants on this forum.

    Scott
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. TopTop #217
    kpage9's Avatar
    kpage9
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Why corral them off, Barry? I don't think it hurts us to either witness or take part in this contentious conversation, and I also don't think it helps anyone to--what, protect? the red-pill people from public awareness.

    kathy

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    Please mind your manners, jbox.

    Since it seems that people who believe in the various "conspiracy theories" and people who do not don't always get along, I'll be starting a category just for those who have taken the "red pill" where they can discuss the matter amongst themselves. More about this soon...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  13. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  14. TopTop #218
    eric
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    I've always considered the exhaust from airplanes, and jets, to be just that, exhaust... Just like the exhaust from my vehicle on a cold morning, I can physically see a plume of smoke coming out of of my exhaust pipe.

    Is that a "chem trail"? Well hell yeah it is, technically speaking, those are nauseatingly toxic fumes being emitted from my vehicle. This of course is the reason for smog prevention as we all know it...

    Now I imagine that planes and jets have an even more toxic emission of exhaust fumes. Is that a conspiracy, or just a byproduct of jet, and combustion engines? Why do many people consider this an intentional assult upon the general public? And If it is, is it by default because exhaust is by definition, toxic emissions? Why would anyone want to assult the general public, and if they are, why would the people propagating and promoting these airborne "chemtrails" do this, and how would they avoid being negatively affected by these chemtrails themselves? It seems to me that if certain powers that be, want to emit airborne chemicals into the atmosphere, those chemicals wouldn't necessarily need to be visible like exhaust fumes.
    Chemical emissions from aircraft could be completely invisible gasses. So what's with all the uproar regarding these smokey "chemtrails" that are probably just exhaust fumes, I'd imagine that they are probably just as dangerous or even more so than automobile exhaust fumes.

    I've heard of certain aircraft emitting different substances for weather control.

    I've also heard of rather sickening human experiments sponsored by the U.S., government, such as infecting certain populations in South America, with venereal diseases in order to study the effects of these diseases upon a general populace. What I'm saying is that the U.S. Govt., has been harshly and heartlessly inhumane in the past so I can't blame anyone for not trusting the U.S. Government.

    However, with all the public outcry concerning chemtrails, why haven't these planes been inspected?

    Why isn't there an official report by Green Peace, or the Sierra Club, or some other reputable organization concerning these airborne exhaust fumes?

    It's about time we all deserve a definitively honest answer. This is a serious question that doesn't deserve speculative conjecture, or to be a guessing game.

    This deserves some honest insight and investigative journalism. What is the truth here?
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-12-2014 at 12:52 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  15. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  16. TopTop #219

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by kpage9: View Post
    Why corral them off, Barry? I don't think it hurts us to either witness or take part in this contentious conversation, and I also don't think it helps anyone to--what, protect? the red-pill people from public awareness.

    kathy
    This was my proposal from a couple years ago finally getting started. It's the opposite - these subjects create such contentiousness so quickly, it's for corralling off the people who have not yet taken the proverbial Red Pill to create a safe, supportive zone where like minded people can move forward and not have to explain, defend or contend. Anyone will be able to witness all they want and still be free to be as contentious as they want elsewhere. But anyone who doesn't get what taking the Red Pill means and stands for it in their life already won't fit.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  18. TopTop #220
    eric
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Kate Magdalena Willens; " I am convinced that our skies do indeed contain plenty of evidence of aerosols being sprayed upon us, even this very day. "

    As it turns out by definition you are right about aerosols being dispersed upon us by these aircraft.

    According to the Free Dictionary:
    Aerosol
    n
    1. (Chemistry) a colloidal dispersion of solid or liquid particles in a gas; smoke or fog
    2. a substance, such as a paint, polish, or insecticide, dispensed from a small metal container by a propellant under pressure
    3. Also called: air spray such a substance together with its container
    [C20: from aero- + sol(ution)]

    The exhaust from these aircraft can definitely be referred to as a gas, smoke, or fog, and that's considered an aerosol...

    However, you must realize without a separate container for a propellant, chemtrails from aircraft would in actuality need to pass through in liquid form as fuel and essentially be burned by an aircrafts engines before being emitted as exhaust. Therefore these aerosols may definitively only be smoke, and of course smoke isn't considered healthy by any means.

    Essentially is seems like the key to discovering which chemical compounds are in the smoke emitted by an aircrafts engines. One would need to determine the make up of the jet fuel being used. Ultimately I'd imagine that jet fuel would need to be a very pure substance.
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-13-2014 at 12:12 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. TopTop #221
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens: View Post
    Satellite image, courtesy of NASA showing aerial view over San Francisco Bay Area, Dec. 17, 2013
    Guess NASA's not in on the coverup. I still don't see the relevance of this kind of evidence. I don't have (or expect to take the time to develop) specific critiques of Carnicom's evidence collection. I wouldn't claim it's impossible that he's actually got something. But random photos, anecdotes based on memory and personal experience of cloudless skies don't add much.

    I can't remember if I used this anecdote of my own on this site; but I was extremely impressed by the tack taken by paleontologist Neil Shubin in his talks to creationists about his discovery of a missing-link walking fish. I'll put us 'deniers' in the category of creationists for this example! He had two representative fossils from different times, and reasoned that there would be a link between the two with intermediate features. He found rocks of the appropriate age, dug at the site and sure 'nuff found a fish fossil that matched his prediction. And he has the fish. Pretty strong combination, which makes people challenge their beliefs. It's not just an elbow bone that only an expert could evaluate; it's a whole damn fish. Where's our chemtrail fish?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  20. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  21. TopTop #222
    Gus diZerega's Avatar
    Gus diZerega
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    There is a principle in science that is very appropriate here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims about "chemtrails" are truly extraordinary. The evidence we have read about their supposed existence seems at best weak, and usually with far more ordinary explanations.

    There is another scientific principle that is also relevant: the more open a scientific claim shedding new light on an issue is to withstanding efforts at disproof, or to evidence that disconfirms it, the more scientific weight it has.

    Science's greatest strength is its ability to eliminate faulty claims by appeal to replicable experiment or to prediction. Duplicating an unexpected claim by experiment or measurement is impressive. At the same time failing to be able to duplicate the claim is evidence it is false.

    Accurate predictions of otherwise unlikely phenomena carry significant scientific weight. If my theory claims God wills the sun to come up in the east and it does, that is not evidence in its favor. If my theory is that God wills it to come up in the West, and tomorrow it does, that is reason to take a good long look at my claim.

    I have seen no evidence of either replicable claims or successful improbably predictions in the claims that "chemtrails" exist.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    Guess NASA's not in on the coverup...
    Last edited by Gus diZerega; 05-13-2014 at 07:14 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  22. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  23. TopTop #223
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega: View Post
    I have seen no evidence of either replicable claims or successful improbably predictions in the claims that "chemtrails" exist.
    One was made May 7 on this thread. What happened? I didn't notice anything myself.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  24. TopTop #224
    geomancer's Avatar
    geomancer
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    Guess NASA's not in on the coverup. I still don't see the relevance of this kind of evidence..
    It seems to me this discussion breaks down into two issues: the nature of the condensation/aka chem [sic] trails and what additives, if any, there might be in them.

    Regarding the condensation trails, I'm 73 and I've been seeing them all my life. I distinctly remember one I saw in a western movie in the late 1950s - an airplane slowly moved across the sky leaving a vapor trail in the background as the oblivious cowboys did their thing. I've been an avid Nature photographer since my late teens, and have had to watch out for trails when composing a photo with any significant area of sky. The great increase in air travel in the last 30 years has resulted in a corresponding increase in condensation trails.

    Regarding the supposed additives, someone needs to show me quality-controlled samples that were obtained and analyzed following current best practices in environmental toxics investigations before I will waste any time on this nonsense. That is the kind of work I do, so I know how these investigations have to be done to have any scientific credibility. Chain-of-custody, sample handling protocols, sterile containers, analytical methods used, etc., all that presented in detail. Laboratory certification would be very nice. Photos on a sketchy website don't do it I'm afraid.

    With all the disastrous social and environmental problems we face, to waste mental bandwidth on bullshit like chemtrails [sic] is tragic. The West Antarctic ice sheet may slowly collapse for God's sake. In the words of Louis C.K., what we have here is a "White People Problem" -

    Richard
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-14-2014 at 11:21 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  26. TopTop #225
    Gus diZerega's Avatar
    Gus diZerega
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Well said Richard.

    One of the things that perplexes me is that we have very real threats against us and our world, threats that people are attempting to counter in concrete ways with specific proposals and attempts to elect politicians likely to help. Then we have issues like 'chemtrails' that are so vague, involving an anonymous "they" and lacking even one proposal to counter the alleged threat. The effect is to weaken anyone's ability to actually contribute to helping the earth and the rest of us on a concrete issue while perpetuating the fear that we are entirely at the mercy of a secret "they" that only those with insight the conspiracy know about, but cannot do anything about.

    A short list of useful alternatives on which to focus

    1. Global warming
    2. Over fishing the oceans
    3. the water crisis in CA
    4. the demise of our middle class
    5. the rise of a parasitic oligarchy
    6. Endless war for no clear ends
    7. Palm Drive and connected issues
    8. abuse of police power
    9. spying on everyone by the government
    10. privileges to corporations and penalties to human beings

    That's just off the top of my head.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by geomancer: View Post
    It seems to me this discussion breaks down into two issues: the nature of the condensation/aka chem [sic] trails and what additives, if any, there might be in them...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  28. TopTop #226
    Jim Wilson's Avatar
    Jim Wilson
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Good Morning:

    This is a worthwhile thread. I appreciate the discussions of the nature of evidence and inference; they have broad implications.

    This is not the main focus of this thread, but I wanted to comment on what Gus said about 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' I don't think that is actually true; I am skeptical regarding the value of such a position.

    For example, if I say that I won the lottery, that is an amazing claim given that the odds for any specific individual winning the lottery are almost astronomically low. In other words, claiming to have won the lottery is an extraordinary claim in that it is a rare event and extremely unlikely to happen. But the evidence needed to back this claim is completely ordinary; all I have to do is produce the lottery ticket. If I cannot produce the lottery ticket then my claim to have won is refuted.

    Another example would be global warming: what is happening right now is a rare, some would say unprecedented event. It is unprecedented in human history. Yet the evidence presented to support human generated global warming is standard; that is to say it is based on collected data, computer models, and standard types of inference that all scientists are familiar with. Again, an extraordinary event is backed by ordinary (in the sense of well within the standard procedural norms) scientific evidence.

    I think that this rubric about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence was first put forth by Hume as a mechanism for deflecting miracle claims. That is to say, if you are claiming something that violates the laws of nature, then the evidence you need to present will have to be compelling to an extraordinary degree. Even here, though, I would argue that this is not the case. An experience, or appearance, that does not fit into scientific paradigms may, (emphasis on the 'may'), indicate that the paradigms needs modification rather than the experience being inherently flawed or bogus. In other words, if someone makes a claim for an event that violates our understanding, and they can back it up with ordinary evidence, then I think it deserves to be considered without requiring that claimant come up with 'extraordinary evidence' before we will consider the claim. Note, however, that the chemtrails hypothesis does not argue for a miraculous causation.

    The other aspect regarding this rubric that needs addresing is to flesh out what the term 'extraordinary' means. It appears to me to be a subjective term, one that different people can legitimately disagree on. What one person considers extraordinary another will consider ordinary. Unless there are clear parameters as to what constitutes extraordinary claims this principle rests on what appears to me to be shaky foundations.

    Again, I realize this is not the main focus of this thread, but it is an area I have been interested in for a long time (how to judge claims that something has happened). Gus's analysis of the nature of the evidence, incidentally, does not rely on the 'extraordinary' nature of the claim. Rather Gus, correctly, points to the lack of evidential data, and this kind of analysis undermines any hypothesis whether it is ordinary or extraordinary.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  30. TopTop #227
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson: View Post
    'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' I don't think that is actually true <...snip...>
    For example, if I say that I won the lottery, that is an amazing claim <...snip...> But the evidence needed to back this claim is completely ordinary; all I have to do is produce the lottery ticket.
    I think you're misunderstanding 'extraordinary' in this context. A winning lottery ticket in your possession is pretty damn extraordinary! A receipt from 7-11 for a bunch of lottery tickets is not. Even lots of receipts, plus evidence from your friends that you've suddenly started spending a lot of money.

    To my eyes, the extraordinary claims made by most conspiracy theorists have the latter failing - they're full of indirect evidence (receipts) and suggestive or speculative evidence (what's the source of the money? could be a lottery winning, but could be bank robbery).

    The global warming claims don't need to be supported by evidence of something new and weird, or by a type of evidence that's surprising and novel. That's what you need for a patent, not a scientific proof. You do need an extraordinary amount of evidence that can't be otherwise explained before you reshape the economy to counter the effects of global warming, though. There are indeed several 'climate change deniers' who try to make the argument that we've yet to reach that threshold. I disagree but that's a different argument.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  31. TopTop #228
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega: View Post
    One of the things that perplexes me is that we have very real threats against us and our world, threats that people are attempting to counter in concrete ways with specific proposals and attempts to elect politicians likely to help. Then we have issues like 'chemtrails' that are so vague, involving an anonymous "they" and lacking even one proposal to counter the alleged threat. The effect is to weaken anyone's ability to actually contribute to helping the earth and the rest of us on a concrete issue while perpetuating the fear that we are entirely at the mercy of a secret "they" that only those with insight the conspiracy know about, but cannot do anything about..
    that's why 'they' have started these theories!!

    duh! should be obvious!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. TopTop #229
    hummingbird
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    It appears to my untrained eyes that the lines in the sky are somewhat random.....Living several times in my life under the flight routes of local airports I learned that airplanes travel certain lines in the sky. Kinda like invisible roads. Somedays the skies are covered with a sort of basket weave pattern. My eyes do not indicate to me that the lines in the sky regularly are made by planes going from point A to point B....

    This is not fear based, but plain observation. Truth with no facts to back it up. My own knowing as a result of opening my eyes and looking up with a willingness to accept what I see. My guess is there are others with similar knowing about all sorts of "conspiracies." It's important when anyone has this sort of knowing not to take them to trial. This is how we discovered the world was round, no? Some one has to take the leap. Knowing and acknowledging are quite different than fear and hysteria based denial. Or worse "facts" and "science." (Notice I don't value the use of "facts" to support either side of the discussion since we all know that in this day and age "facts" can be conjured up to support just about any perspective. When we focus on the facts we stop listening to what we KNOW. "Facts" are a distraction here and almost anywhere.

    I heard a great quote the other day....to paraphrase "The literal minded have a difficult time accepting reality as it is"

    It is also important to note how much personal attack and dismissal go into the effort to deny this possibility. Why?

    Unicorns, ufos, chemtrails, santa claus, angels, fairies, gods, aliens,....all things that take courage during this age of information to believe in, especially in this venue which is particularly abundant with amateur lawyers. It takes a willingness to access a part of the brain that most humans are still afraid of opening. Yet some of us do it any way. And some of us look up. Some of us listen to what is not being said in the media. Some of us just know that the truth has nothing to do with facts, proof and denial. No fear, just knowing.

    So what do we do? I agree that the chicken little thing is not so effective for solutions, but perhaps its necessary for calling attention in the early stages. Another opportunity to engage as activists? I don't see that working either. What would it be like to take back our power? To just simply take back our skies?

    In indigenous traditions from around the world humans directly affect weather. So there must be at least a few of us during this time of unleashing our human potential that have the ability to do this. If one person in every village could do it (maybe another couple in training) then how many folks here in west county have this ability? Probably at least a hundred, my guess is WAY MORE or perhaps all of us. So what harm would be done if instead of all the hollering, fact sharing and denying, that those who are passionate about this just work together or independently to change it... Kick up the wind, and observe what happens. Call on help from the fairies, the benevolent ufo's, and your personal god to brew a storm to blow away and nullify the effects of what ever "they" are attempting with the spraying. It does take belief in your ability to do this. (Science has finally accepted that belief is HUGE in getting results) Don't worry about the nay-sayers. There is no harm done, they can just think your crazy (and I'm crazy for writing it), bless their hearts. Anger and denial is a painful place to reside. If you are wrong and the "chem trails" are benign then no harm done... perhaps you gained something from the exploration. Perhaps we all did. If you are right, then thank you for you work....please just remember to stay focused on solutions because fear and resistance only feeds the demons, where ever they may be.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens: View Post
    Satellite image, courtesy of NASA showing aerial view over San Francisco Bay Area, Dec. 17, 2013
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  33. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  34. TopTop #230
    TyrannyNews
    Guest

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    ...I'll put us 'deniers' in the category of creationists for this example!
    Growing up, I was somehow made to believe in something people were calling Evolution, of which I grasped only the basic premise. Later, I was given a broader perspective by seeing more evidence that supported the concept. Note that I'm referring to it as a "concept" because it was not usually presented as a "theory." Not much of what is taught in elementary or high school is though.

    Once I learned that there were dissenting views on so many things, I was fortunate to be exposed to a less biased view of Evolution and the history of evolutionary theory. It helped change my views on science as a whole. It also caused me to see how I had been taking the veracity of Evolution entirely on faith. My guess is that the theory was presented so often without challenge, I accepted it without question.

    Can you see the irony here? I was taking evolution on faith, faith being mostly a religious phenomenon. Evolution is typically a hot topic in the debate over religious beliefs, most commonly Creationism. But, I'm not religious and don't subscribe to the biblical concept of Creation.

    Ultimately, if asked which was a more accurate account of events, Creation or Evolution I'd have to go with Creation. In the case of Creation, there appears to be one central component that hasn't changed very often over many years. In the case of Evolution, untold numbers of hucksters have contributed countless deceptions to the deception that continues to this day. As a result, the practice of science is lost as the term is used in the context of Evolution.

    Lastly, I think it's very telling that the champions of earth sciences and heads of great scientific institutions commonly agree that evidence to support evolutionary theory is largely incomplete, which is a point that shouldn't be ignored. For example, to my understanding insect fossils have been found dating back as far as we've been able to look. Surprisingly, none of these insects appear to have actually evolved. Work continues to force or facilitate insect evolution, but as of yet it only appears to yield something more akin to mutations. To me, this is a strong warning sign that we may have taken a wrong turn. Again, I'm not religious and don't subscribe to the biblical concept of Creation.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  35. Gratitude expressed by:

  36. TopTop #231
    kpage9's Avatar
    kpage9
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Kate,

    With apologies for any previous snark (seriously--i don't like it any better than you do. sometimes it gets the better of me) i still don't quite grasp this: they took our normal winters and our rain---to what end, do you believe?

    kathy

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens: View Post
    Dear Hummingbird,
    How I appreciate your validation of intuition as a bridge to knowing. However...

    I hope people are noticing the new "normal" in our Sebastopol weather. Press Dem has it today that this weather is a precursor of what is to come this summer. Just like they took our normal winters and our rain, and plunged us in a drought, now they are taking our natural foggy summers. Water will be a very valued commodity. I recommend everyone start investigating back up water supplies now. ...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  37. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  38. TopTop #232
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by TyrannyNews: View Post
    Growing up, I was somehow made to believe in something... My guess is that the theory was presented so often without challenge, I accepted it without question... I was taking evolution on faith, faith being mostly a religious phenomenon.
    please don't generalize your mode of thinking to the rest of us. If you think my own education, or development of my ideas, follows the pattern you just described you are mistaken. I don't think you're unusual (I'm sure I'm not either) but you've explained why some don't understand what evolutionary theory is, or how scientific dialog works. Obviously you've exposed yourself to some of the scientific arguments, but you're seeing them through filters that prevents you from following their logic.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  39. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  40. TopTop #233
    Scott McKeown's Avatar
    Scott McKeown
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by geomancer: View Post
    Regarding the condensation trails, I'm 73 and I've been seeing them all my life.

    ...The great increase in air travel in the last 30 years has resulted in a corresponding increase in condensation trails.
    I've also observed the phenomenon of jet condensation trails (contrails) my entire life. They are not any different in their fundamental characteristic now than at any other time. Only more of them.

    Increased population + increased overall global affluence = more air traffic = more condensation trails.

    And I suppose it could be possible that shifting conditions due to climate change could be affecting some atmospheric conditions in certain regions that allow for more observable jet contrails.

    Here is a chart showing the increase in air travel traffic since 1970:



    Here is another chart showing the increase in air cargo traffic since 1981:



    That overnight package you ordered on the Internet? Guess how it got to you.

    What I have trouble understanding is the contention that somehow only "chemtrails" leave lingering residue that can turn into sheets of clouds. Can anyone offer any substantial evidence for that?

    I find this video interesting that highlights different authoritative books about clouds going back 60 years all explaining how jet contrails, under the right atmospheric conditions, can remain in the sky and spread out to form clouds:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=X72uACIN_00

    The best evidence for the existence of chemtrails that keeps being offered is for us to just look up and observe how there has been an increase in jet trails that linger and spread out.

    Well...yeah.

    When it comes to unconventional ideas I'm not sure (for least for me) that it requires extraordinary evidence. A good argument can be made that there should not be a different scientific standard for radical ideas over conventional ideas. Good evidence is good evidence. I would be open to just standard, non-extraordinary evidence to become more convinced of the existence of chemtrails.

    In the meantime, there is no disagreement that the increase in air traffic spewing more toxic jet fuel residue is polluting the atmosphere and endangering our existence. No special additives required.

    Scott
    Last edited by Scott McKeown; 05-14-2014 at 07:11 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  41. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  42. TopTop #234
    podfish's Avatar
    podfish
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    And here's a link
    [by in the ]

    I think some of those pushing for openness to the idea of chemtrails et al. would find this guy makes their argument quite well, though I can't say for sure 'cuz I'm not on that side of the argument!


    and to make myself a demonstration of what Roth says is wrong - he's wrong. (Ok, that was fun but really..) He's making a good point; a purely cynical and oppositional reaction to ideas is destructive. But it's a straw man argument, too. He may be plagued in his courses by those who aren't engaged by the topic, only by the forum for offering critical analysis. That's not a hammer that can be used to beat down all critical reaction, though - and uncritical openness to implausible ideas is not the only other position.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  43. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  44. TopTop #235
    Gus diZerega's Avatar
    Gus diZerega
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    I admit I was shocked by your post. It takes a special kind of selective attention to say that science has hucksters and religion does not. For example, the many radio and TV preachers living very high on the hog cannot all be right, let alone the long and bloody traditions of competing religious leaders urging their followers to kill one another in the name of their deity.

    If you understood science you would realize that science does not take us to truth, nor does it claim to. It takes us to increasingly reliable knowledge which may or may not be the truth. Its method constantly winnows out explanations found to be less effective than alternatives. Consequently science is working as it is supposed to work when it is continually increasing the reliability of our knowledge by abandoning former beliefs. You are applying the standards of some religions (not all) to science and finding a flaw in the fact that science does not meet them.

    Ironically you are typing your post on a computer that was created by knowledge made available by the scientific process I am describing.

    As to evolution, to my mind there is not much point in talking to an adult who is a complete creationist, but I will make this side point. The issue is not a dichotomy. It is not Dawkins vs Genesis. There are many possibilities in between. For example, concepts of emergent order and self-organization are not random, a la Dawkins, nor are they creation by some deity off somewhere else. Reducing complex issues to dichotomies is a way not to have to think much at all.

    And I consider myself quite religious, BTW.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by TyrannyNews: View Post
    Growing up, I was somehow made to believe in something people were calling Evolution...
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-15-2014 at 12:03 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  45. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  46. TopTop #236
    Hotspring 44's Avatar
    Hotspring 44
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    I have observed what could be a so-called “Chemtrail”. It was coming out of a fairly low altitude jet that was in a MOA air space area.

    The what I believe to have been a “Chemtrail” was different than the Contrails that I have seen, it was like when someone in a car would have a oil-to-exhaust smoke-screen devise and it was on for a short time and did not dissipate the same way as the water vapor, ice crystals, or oil smoke that I have experience with do.

    It was thicker, more silver in color and was done during part of a turn maneuver the aircraft was doing and as far as I could tell only coming from one of the jet's engines.

    It looked to be controlled because it was as if someone switched it on, then off like it was instantaneous and not like an engine malfunction would otherwise indicate.

    Some of the aforesaid “conspiracy theories” (in this case “Chemtrails") that exist are factual in general terms even though many lack specific enough “evidence” to get a 'conviction' in a 'criminal' court (beyond a shadow of doubt I am saying) or have enough physical evidence to warrant a significant scientific review

    Just observe the “arguments” given against anthropogenic contributions to global warming, or even 'if' global warming even is happening at all (some still continue say it's not); and how those arguments are waged as if it is a war and (almost) anything goes to destroy the so-called “enemy” who or what ever they or it are.

    Discrediting an abstraction of actual facts that could be and oftentimes are classifiable as “conspiracy theories” does not negate the actual facts that do exist. No doubt, people do connect the dots, so to speak, and some people come up with their own conspiracy theory differently in terms of their own bias but so do the deniers, deniers of the actual reasonably “proven” facts, for instance: the likelihood that many people that see contrails are mistakenly identifying them as "Chemtrails" and making it out to being something it is not.

    For a theory to hold up to the rigors and burden of “proof”, they, the 'conspiracy theorists' have to also contend with the potential resistance of the perpetrators of whatever so-called conspiracy that, if there is one, actually exists.
    When the 'conspirators' are high-up in societal power structure the act of proving can be quite hazardous and therefore the means to “prove” is even more difficult to acquire and all the resistance against bringing any discovered facts of the matter to light is exponentially compounded.

    Who are the “they” are is what the main contention and burden of “proof” seems to be focused on most often when a “conspiracy theory” is proposed; that appears to me to be the crux of the issue but there is also the why that is actually the center-point which seems to get lost in the “argument” against a particular “conspiracy theory” like “Chemtrails” which is the goal of the “them” (whoever “they” may be) that want to continue being protected by a veil of 'whatever it takes' for it to continue being concealed.

    Take for example a “World Domination Conspiracy Theory”; the “why” should be glaringly obvious but when it comes to the “they” the 'theory' gets tangled-up in superfluous arguments, some of which are specifically designed to discredit even so much as the idea that someone (the “they”) would try to dominate everything on earth because it is supposedly so preposterous of an idea in the first place and seems so impossible, so why would anyone even try to do it (?).

    Then here we are in the thread called:
    Quote Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails
    ...and still the mention of “theory” (“conspiracy”).

    Are “Chemtrails” a fact; ever, at all”?...

    ...Who actually has the ability to follow every airplane that might be about to leave a Chemtrail, and what would it actually take to “prove” that a particular airplane was emitting a so-called“Chemtrail”?

    ...Where is the “absolute” “proof”-”beyond a shadow of doubt”, and how would that so-called “proof” be tested?...

    ...Then there is the “why”; unless someone that has actually done it and was credible enough to be believed; then, obviously it is a free-for-all on that, isn’t it?...

    ...And last but not to be ignored, who are the “they”?... ...Unless there is a way to 'catch' “them” in the so-called act, wouldn’t it be reasonable to state that there is no way to actually “prove” a certifiable 'conspiracy' behind “Chemtrails” exists?

    All of that being said, just because those questions are likely to never to be satisfactorily answered any time soon, that does not mean that 'Chemtrails' haven’t happened or that there is not a conspiracy of sorts behind the “Chemtrail” “conspiracy theory” phenomenon, et al.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by podfish: View Post
    that's why 'they' have started these theories!! duh! should be obvious!
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-15-2014 at 12:05 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  48. TopTop #237
    kpage9's Avatar
    kpage9
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Hey, Gus--whatever your religion is I want some! (actually it sounds like it might be a lot like mine, but this kind tends not to congregate much. if there IS a congregation based in such good deep common sense I would seriously like to know.
    kathy

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega: View Post
    I admit I was shocked by your post. It takes a special kind of selective attention to say that science has hucksters and religion does not...
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-15-2014 at 12:07 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  49. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  50. TopTop #238
    arthurr
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    I don't think "Chemtrails" are a "White People Problem" because of the potentially extensive damage they can cause to the environment. But I do think the term "Chemtrail" is a misnomer that lends itself to dismissal as "conspiracy theory," "tin hat crackpot", etc. I think the more accurate term is "geoengineering." Google this term and you'll find that there lots of ongoing discussions by mainstream government-funded scientists proposing doing exactly what the "Chemtrail conspiracy theorists" are saying is already being done.

    From my personal perspective, yes, I have always seen contrails in the sky, even as a kid in the 50s, but I have never seen them persist and spread out to a white haze that fills the sky even on cloudless days like I've seen in the last 10-15 years. So from my own perceptual perspective something does seem qualitatively different in our skies.

    Two excellent videos addressing this issue are "What in the World are They Spraying" and "Why in the World are They Spraying," both available on YouTube. I would suggest that before you choose to just dismiss this phenomenon, you dig a little deeper and check out these videos.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by geomancer: View Post
    It seems to me this discussion breaks down into two issues: the nature of the condensation/aka chem [sic] trails and what additives, if any, there might be in them.

    In the words of Louis C.K., what we have here is a "White People Problem" - Richard
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-15-2014 at 12:09 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  51. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  52. TopTop #239
    eric
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Today I was pondering the thought of planes leaving smokey trails as a result and by product of engine exhaust, as opposed to crop dusters using a tank to spray pesticides on the fields...

    I wondered who if anyone was capable and willing to emit chemicals in the friendly skies, and what their reasoning might be.
    I know there's been scientific studies for airborne weather control, as well as other undoubtedly secret scientific tests involving chemtrails. There could possibly be a terrorist threat some day, domestic, or non, of a chemtrail catastrophe happening...

    I've even recently discovered that drone planes in Beijing, China, emit chemicals to counter act smog. It's a substance that atomically bonds to smog molecules therefore making smog particles drop to the ground in order to help obtain cleaner air quality...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...pollution.html

    Meanwhile: While perusing the internet for additional info I found more examples of planes emitting these huge amounts of smokey contrails. Whether these are chem-trails or no, it's still rather unsettling and ultimately leaves me feeling like something is amiss, and disturbingly wrong with this. Isn't there some prerequisite for the emissions of planes, similar to the highly regulated automobile smog testing industry?
    No matter what, these emissions don't look environmentally friendly, and there's such an overwhelming amount of this "byproduct". Is it all really just exhaust? Do you believe that absolutely everyone out there can be trusted? Hmm...

    Check out https://www.greatdreams.com/chems.htm

    Ultimately I happened upon this website:

    https://worldtruth.tv/busted-pilot-f...while-landing/

    The video and photographic evidence seems to substantiate that a pilot of a descending plane coming in for a landing has actually forgotten to turn off the chemtrail's. I've watched the footage numerous times now and the emissions are evidentially coming from sections of the wings that are non engine related. As a matter of fact a steady flow of emissions are coming out of the wings whilst the planes engines are seemingly off. This may qualify as evidence that these emissions are more crop-duster like in their origins as opposed to being strictly exhaust related. Or perhaps it's engine exhaust condensing on ice cold wings and creating the illusion that it's non-engine related. Perhaps it's an engine fire, so smoke is going everywhere. In any event it could also possibly be CGI or computerized graphic imaging...

    What do you think?

    https://worldtruth.tv/busted-pilot-f...while-landing/
    Attached Thumbnails (click thumbnail for larger view) Attached Thumbnails (click thumbnail for larger view) Expand  
    Last edited by Bella Stolz; 05-15-2014 at 12:13 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  53. TopTop #240
    Dixon's Avatar
    Dixon
     

    Re: Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens: View Post
    Just like they took our normal winters and our rain, and plunged us in a drought, now they are taking our natural foggy summers.
    The "they" you refer to is us. It is our profligate lifestyle (especially that of USAmericans) that has destabilized the climate, with unpleasant consequences we have only begun to see.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us."
    --Walt Kelly
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  54. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2011, 01:46 PM
  2. "Voter Information Guide for Democrats"
    By Barry in forum General Community
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 05:12 PM

Tags (user supplied keywords) for this Thread

Bookmarks