Reporter seeking "unbiased" information on Chemtrails

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...f4qQVljWA-urjw

Darknet -- Sonoma County Division -- Level 51 Clearance Only

Shadow Government operations confidential memo

From: Agent Mordon, Supervising Agent, Darknet Sebastopol office

To: Agent Fhtagn, Supervising Agent, Darknet Santa Rosa office

Agent Fhtagn,

A reminder to be vigilant against any more leaks of these confidential memos. That leak last year to that goddamn West County hippie bulletin board got me transferred for six months to the Rohnert Park field office. What a wasteland! Swear to God I would have rather been transferred up to the H.A.A.R.P field office. Plus I had to endure the ribbing of the guys down at Regional that it was the worst leak since Gunderson leaked the info about our Satanic human sacrifice rituals in NYC. Jesus, remember how long it took to get that program back on track?

A couple of things:

Item 1: I've been asked by Central to relay to you that we'll shortly be receiving our shipment of Morgellons version 9.6 to administer in our Sonoma County aerosol spray-over operations. But this time be sure your agents are more careful! That stunt that Agent Slyther pulled at Agent Gormor's disappearance party with that pinata full of Morgellons was not funny. Christ, it took us three days to cycle all the agents through the decontamination chambers.

Anyway, this new shit is serious. Central won't tell me crap but I've heard that the new bio-nano bots in these puppies migrate up and lodge in your frontal cortex. It's about some new generation of mind control. Those boys over in Central Lab are some sick motherfuckers, even for me! We'll be receiving the times our agents are to be confined in the bunkers during fly-overs.

By the way, today some "citizens" noticed some of our spraying up near Cloverdale and it got onto that damn internet forum. Can you please tell your guys to be a bit less enthusiastic?

Item 2: It's that time of year again when we all regional field offices need to "inform" all the freshly minted atmospheric scientists who are about to begin their careers of their real mission. This year it's your turn to manage that process in our region. I did it two years ago, remember?

Actually, it's sort of fun. You get to watch these young scientists' spirits being crushed when they realize they are now being forced to spend their entire lives and careers covering up for our aerosol program, or otherwise they and they're entire families will...disappear. A "conference" of these young upcoming atmospheric scientists has been set up and they'll all be there. All you need to do is show up with your team and do the standard procedure.

But please try to minimize any resistances because we all know how messy disappearances can get. Central really frowns on us having to do any "wet" work. Besides, Darknet has had a perfect record of suppressing all dissent with all generations of atmospheric scientists for over 40 years. Not even one internet leak! You don't want to be the one agent who blows our perfect record. It would make all of us look bad. But no pressure.

You've got to come over sometime for some Pliney the Younger. I've got an untapped keg of it at the house. Ah, the advantages of being on the dark side. By the way, hats off to you for whatever that shit was that you put in Carrillo's Pliney the Elder beers. No pants! Brilliant. We have our fun.

Agent Mordon out

Scott...not for nothing, but the US government DID have a part in the Oklahoma City bombing. You either don't pay attention to much of the real news, or you have a terrible memory. I watched that morning when the 'bomb' went off, and the initial news casts reported and showed that there were two bomb disposal trucks and crews that showed up right after the bombing, and the news teams reported that these teams were there because there were two more bombs located IN the building that hadn't gone off. After they diffused the bombs, the bombs were loaded onto the trucks, the trucks left, and the 'official' story of the bombing changed to a bomb outside the building. If you look at the photos, you can see clearly the debris came OUTWARD from the building, which was a clear sign the bomb was INSIDE the building when it went off. A woman just outside the doors of the Murrah building, supposedly in between McVeigh's truck and the Murrah building, was blown all the way across the street, past where McVeigh's truck supposedly was, and survived.

No way would that have happened if the bomb went off as the 'official' story was true. And....please account for the fact that none of the ATF agents, who had an office there, went to work that morning....as well, find initial news crews in helicopters that flew above the Murrah building right after the bomb supposedly went off. There are no marks on the ground from any bomb from McVeigh's truck, yet later in the broadcast, the Feds put down a scaffolding to cover the massive hole left from the truck bomb. You are incredibly ignorant, or don't pay attention. Let me guess...you believe the official stories of 911, the Sandy Hook shootings, et al? I'd listen to the openmindedness of Gunderson any day of the week rather than yours. And you quote wikipedia for crying out loud? That is about as left leaning and fascist as you can get. You, sir, need to look outside the box and question your own reality. You don't state any of your credentials as being righteous enough to criticise Gunderson and others I see you bash. Why not enlighten us on what makes you more believable than people who have spent decades of their lives presenting real proof of their claims, whereas you just sit here as an armchair quarterback, showing nothing but ignorance and an insolent attitude?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Really? Ted Gunderson of all people? You're disappointing me here.

From Ted Gunderson's Wikipedia page:

In a 1995 conference in Dallas, Gunderson warned about the proliferation of secret Satanic groups, and the danger posed by the New World Order, a shadow government that would be controlling the US government.^[10] He also claimed that a "slave auction" in which children were sold to men in turbans had been held in Las Vegas, that four thousand ritual human sacrifices are performed in New York City every year, and that the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was carried out by the US government.^[10] Gunderson believed that in the US there is a secret widespread network of groups who kidnap children and infants, and subject them to Satanic ritual abuse and subsequent human sacrifice.^[11][12]

It gets much worse if you Google him.

Scott

---

I grew up in Wichita, Kansas, then home of Boeing's largest factory outside Seattle, many other aircraft manufacturers, and a very large air base. Large jets overhead were a part of daily life beginning in the 1950s. (I am 66.) So were contrails, some of which rapidly disappeared and some of which lingered for a long time and some of which spread out. It all depended on atmospheric conditions. Much later while flying in a passenger jet I watch another jet fly below me. In what appeared to be a few feet behind the wing tips the contrails could be seen forming. There is nothing strange about them at all- they look the same now as when I was growing up.

These phenomena are so high that were they used to spread anything at all, there is no telling where whatever it was will come down. There are many easier ways to spread stuff, ways that are far more able to target a specific place or group. Given that the contrails are visually the same as they were many decades ago, that passengers can see them forming behind planes rather than expelled from some secret tank on them, that such a conspiracy must involve many people over many years, and their very inexact ability to target anything smaller than planet earth, I admit I haven't studied the conspiracy theories behind them in any depth.

I learned from my time as a young man growing up in a right wing area that conspiracy theorists can make almost anything at all appear connected to a conspiracy- as when the Gambles of the movie Thrive finally connected today's conspiracies to the Bavarian Illumaniti. We are very good at finding patterns and very bad at evaluating their reality. My point is not that there are no conspiracies, it is that they should be our last resort for actual things happening with actual verifiable consequences that stupidity and error and ego cannot account for. I even wrote an account of one involving the Kochs ( https://dizerega.com/2013/10/08/the-...can-democracy/ ) - so I am not simply a debunker. But we need to keep our feet on the ground here.

And the PDF link does not work.

- Gus

Scott...time for another round from this post. Your quote "But we know that regular jet contrails do that, as documented in legitimate scientific research and observation going back to at least 1970, really back to WWII." Pray tell what legitimate research you speak of....might that be information from the same military and government that has lied to you and me and the rest of the world for decades now? I'm sincerely interested in reading things you can reference, provided it doesn't come from wikipedia (god forbid man) or any military or similar organization that has a vested interest in lying to cover certain things they don't want us to know.

Again, I quote you "The Carnicom "Institute" is obviously just that one guy. By looking at his "studies" it is clear he is an amateur working alone and he does not come close to following scientific protocols. The Carnicom website is all about the theory that there are mysterious "Morgellons" which are engineered filaments of some sort being intentionally sprayed on the population to make people sick." An amateur he isn't, and working alone he doesn't, and following protocols he does. He has attained an IRB designation (Institutional Review Board) from the US government HHS, and that affords him with a hell of a lot of credibility within the government and medical establishments for the work he engages in tirelessly. And the website isn't all about the theory that there are mysterious "Morgellons"....blah blah blah. Clifford Carnicom has an immense amount of integrity, and believes in helping others. He's based his life on that, and doesn't benefit financially from the work he does. I guarantee if you sat down with him and had a conversation, you'd have a completely different view of him, what he does and the incredible empathy he has for those who truly DO have Morgellons. You can stick your head in the sand.....that's what all people do who can't deal with the truth. I have my own proof of what I believe....it is blatantly obvious you and people like you choose a side of an argument, and defend that side regardless of the data that is presented to you. That is ignorance, plain and simple. I've read every single paper Carnicom has written, and studied it all. You can't even begin to tell me he's some amateur solo guy who is a hack trying to drum up hysteria about something called Morgellons. What I can tell you is he is a friend of mine, and he'd destroy you if you tried to debate him on any matter related to what you espouse knowing anything about.

Your simplistic view of the world speaks volumes about you. Those of us who work diligently trying to stop the things we are discussing will benefit you if we're successful in stopping what is happening, which conveniently sucks for us but will benefit people like you if we're successful. If you can't deal with reality, then you are wasting your and other peoples' time here acting like you know anything. We have our proof for what we are fighting to stop. Doesn't sound like you have much, other than wikipedia, which is kindergarten for google. You need stop posting here making accusations and offensive remarks....you appear to be an incredibly unenlightened and surface dwelling character. That makes your need to come up for air an easy task.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Kate -- I appreciate your sincerity.

But we are now going round and round....

---

Gus...contrails are so rare, odds are most people have never seen one. You want to get into your understanding of the conditions for contrails...be our guest. The conditions involve altitude, temp ranges and relative humidity ranges, all within fairly specific measurements. Add to that today's jet engines are designed to not produce 'contrails'....I am 54 and can say, even having lived literally right behind Griffis Air Force Base in Rome NY all my life and sitting at the end of the runway all the time, NEVER saw a contrail. EVER. You imply that you don't necessarily debunk all things...that is admirable. What you might want to research, or enlighten us all on research you've done on, the military weapons aspect to chemtrails. Your statement that "There are many easier ways to spread stuff, ways that are far more able to target a specific place or group" doesn't seem to have a deep understanding of the military applications of the trails. With all due respect, that is probably the most pressing issue related to the chemtrails. Tesla understood many things that most people find hard to understand, even being spoonfed information. The power of using the ionosphere as an amplifier should be enough to make all of us quake in our boots. The reasons behind the chemtrails aren't to benefit mankind, rather the reasons are quite nefarious.

Thanks for the post. You are open minded and pragmatic. That is admirable and respected.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

I grew up in Wichita, Kansas, then home of Boeing's largest factory outside Seattle, many other aircraft manufacturers, and a very large air base....

---

You say they are rare and I saw them so often that in high school I wondered how we could have Westerns anymore because the contrail;s would give away that they were not in the past. I'll, go with my memories. We have more and more jets and so more and more contrails, but there are pics from WWII of high altitude bombers leaving them, behind.

Here is a picture from WWII and a discussion of some simple aspects of the issue.
https://goodsky.homestead.com/files/deception5.html

Here are more pictures and more discussion.
https://depletedcranium.com/the-realities-of-contrails/

Here is a google page of more images of contrails mostly in WWII:
https://www.google.com/search?site=i...23.tegZbbrLy-0

Maybe Griffith had different weather conditions- I saw them all the time. So much so that I did not like them because I liked 'unsullied' skies. In fact I often wondered how future 'Western' movies could be made because the damn contrails would be over head, giving the game away.

I see no reason to do research on the 'military' applications of contrails because I can imagine none worth the while and my research agenda is very very full. I just finished one book and am working on another. Time is limited and I research what I think will pan out. Here is why I do not bother with 'chemtrails':

They are a stupid way to spread pathogens because they cannot be targeted and a stupid way to spread anything else with other than a world-wide intent- which means those spreading them will also be exposed. I have yet to see an argument as to why anyone want to poison/sicken/lkill those close to them, their families and friends. I have yet to see an argument that people on air bases and in airports would not ever report that planes were being loaded with secret cargoes to spread in the sky. A principle behind conspiracies is that the more there are who are in on it the harder it will be to keep it secret. A lot of people would need to be in on it, and for a considerable length of time.

I know that the military has tested spreading germs from the air and other ways. This is immoral but makes sense from the perspective of American militarists. But these efforts were not from contrails that are so high up there is no telling where the germs will land. Further, they were exposed.

I think the evidence for Bigfoot is MUCH stronger than the evidence that contrails are 'chemtrails.'

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

Gus...contrails are so rare, odds are most people have never seen one. ....

---

Mr. McKeown,

My personal friendship with Clifford Carnicom is such that I am compelled to respond to your description of Clifford. You might be surprised to learn that he's very much like you and just wants to bring people together to form a shared vision and purpose.

I think your description falls short of being overly negative, but rather I would describe it as less than glowing. Which, I don't understand given how much everyone here seems to encourage harmony.

If your criticism is directed more towards the quality and overall value of the work he does, then I hope you'll understand that merely suggesting he does not adhere to scientific protocol isn't going to motivate people to ignore his findings. No, I'm afraid that for anyone to view a researcher negatively these days requires that they be found fudging data, forging data, playing favorites with studies or accepting funding for and engaging in research that is clearly intent on harming humans. Even better, if they are known to fabricate evidence in criminal cases where life sentences were imposed that would be worthy of criticism.

My gut tells me that you're someone who deeply respects the work of experts and their opinions. I can assume as well that you see the importance of authority, especially in a world in which so many people fall prey to different thinking. One can grasp the enormity of the problem by simply noting the ever-growing number of specific psychological conditions within the spectrum of mental health being identified with no end in sight. Dare I admit that the experts now identify these conditions present in the majority of the population? Obviously, there's a need to moderate the free exchange of ideas taking place on the Internet and elsewhere. This is ongoing and unregulated. Before long, there won't be enough of us left to act as the moderators or "transitioners" we too could succumb to mental illness.

This is partly why I look back on certain decisions made by men far more perceptive and brave than myself, and appreciate what they've done to head off this epidemic of thinking. For example, elimination of the trivium and quadrivium and critical thinking itself from our school curriculum has helped somewhat. But, it wasn't enough. When those masterful giants of industry were faced with the post-war abundance of manufacturing facilities geared for bomb making with phosphates at its core, they were decisive in finding a way to continue use of phosphate as a replacement for soap. All of these great decisions were made by great men who received great educations and possessed impeccable credentials.

Getting back to your views of Clifford Carnicom, I wonder if you have similar views of other maverick thinkers? I'm referring to people who aren't satisfied to (or are incapable of) staying within the lines set forth for scientific pursuit. One example that comes to mind is the notorious charlatan, Buckminster Fuller. Clearly he was a man backed by the aristocracy in that he was twice ushered into Harvard, only to be expelled both times. So, his status as an "expert" or "professional" had to be based solely on his actions, his character and the products of his labor. That was all the more difficult, as he then entered the field of "futurism." Not exactly a field with many established protocols. Even still, I have a soft spot for the guy even though I know nothing about him and yet find myself willing to soft-slander him.

Now, on to more important points for anyone else reading this. Clifford and fellow researchers at the institute have identified a characteristic of the biological form they've been studying all along. That being that it begins first as a bacteria-like organism. Sadly, that led very quickly to the discovery that all 3 biological domains are host to it, plant, animal and human alike. Anyone who cares to look can observe it for themselves by examining their blood at high magnification. Although many cells look fine, a huge number will be deformed by the bacteria, which derives energy from Iron I theorize.

The term now used to identify this unclassified biology is "Cross Domain Bacteria." Without knowing for sure exactly the process, I'll just say that the smaller bacteria-like form then grows to become what some will experience as filament-like structures of incredible strength and resilience. There's no doubt about it all being synthetic. No doubt that samples of it have been obtained from the fallout of skies obscured by persistent contrails. However, that is no indication of the extent of distribution or even of any spraying let alone help us to know why it's being done. I'll leave that speculation to Mr. McKeown.

B C-ing U

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Kate -- I appreciate your sincerity.
...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

You either don't pay attention to much of the real news, or you have a terrible memory.

---

I

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

I'd listen to the openmindedness of Gunderson any day of the week rather than yours. And you quote wikipedia for crying out loud? That is about as left leaning and fascist as you can get. You, sir, need to look outside the box and question your own reality. You don't state any of your credentials as being righteous enough to criticise Gunderson and others I see you bash. Why not enlighten us on what makes you more believable than people who have spent decades of their lives presenting real proof of their claims, whereas you just sit here as an armchair quarterback, showing nothing but ignorance and an insolent attitude?

---

I

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

You can stick your head in the sand.....that's what all people do who can't deal with the truth. I have my own proof of what I believe....it is blatantly obvious you and people like you choose a side of an argument, and defend that side regardless of the data that is presented to you. That is ignorance, plain and simple.

...Your simplistic view of the world speaks volumes about you.

...If you can't deal with reality, then you are wasting your and other peoples' time here acting like you know anything.

...You need stop posting here making accusations and offensive remarks....you appear to be an incredibly unenlightened and surface dwelling character. That makes your need to come up for air an easy task.

---

My goodness. Such invective! Such anger!

It appears your panties have gotten all in a bunch because I apparently challenged your worldview.

I notice you joined this forum yesterday and are hiding behind a fake name. Do you have the courage to tell us who you really are?

Although we may disagree, I respect people like Kate Willems who is willing to stand up as who she is and speak her truth. And we can engage in some meaningful dialogue. You, on the other hand, joined this forum under a fake name within the last 24 hours and hurl insults at me and post angry rants. It's obvious you didn't read the entire thread or look at the sources I provided earlier.

Chill out, dude (whoever you are). This is community (if you are even really part of it). We can disagree and have conversation without all the insults.

Scott

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by TyrannyNews:

Mr. McKeown,
My personal friendship with Clifford Carnicom is such that I am compelled to respond to your description of Clifford. You might be surprised to learn that he's very much like you and just wants to bring people together to form a shared vision and purpose.

---

I suppose I'm honored that you joined this forum yesterday (from afar, it seems) just to respond to me. You make some good points and I appreciate the tone of your posting. Such civility lends me to be more receptive to what you have to say.

There seems to be two issues: 1) The phenomenon of Morgellons, and 2) The contention that Morgellons are being spread by aerial spraying.

The kind of quality of research I would like to see more of about Morgellons (with either issue) are along the lines of these reports:

https://www.plosone.org/article/info...l.pone.0029908

https://f1000research.com/articles/2-118/v1

https://archderm.jamanetwork.com/art...icleid=1105158

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...09.01227.x/pdf

I notice that in addition to the Cornicom website (and some others) there is also a large amount of compelling information debunking the more extreme claims. I would particularly welcome reports done by professional pathologists to review.

When researching controversial and unconventional claims, there are the proponents and there are the debunkers. The best way to get to the truth (both sides can make compelling cases on the surface -- who to believe?) is to compare the quality of the research being done. Sources and methodologies matter.

I imagine you might contest some of the findings in the reports linked above. That's fine. Then put up a countering report done with the same amount of rigor!

To be honest, I was not impressed by the quality of research I found on the Cornicom website. Seemed amateurish. But I suppose I have a pretty high standard about how science reports and papers are done.

I don't want to keep engaging "tit for tat" about this (just don't have the time right now to sufficiently engage) but I'll be open minded to any gold-standard studies (no matter who does them) about any of this you might post.

Scott

I live in Sebastopol, and I see them all the time; I wouldn't consider them rare at all.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

Gus...contrails are so rare...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

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?

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:

Go away jbox, you add no value to the thread here...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2014/05...-in-pensacola/

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

... 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...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

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

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:

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...

---

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

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?

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:

Guess NASA's not in on the coverup...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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

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:

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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jim Wilson:

'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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

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!

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:

Satellite image, courtesy of NASA showing aerial view over San Francisco Bay Area, Dec. 17, 2013

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...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.

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:

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. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by TyrannyNews:

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

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:

https://www.irelandiaaviation.ie/med...ough_Time3.jpg

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

https://www.boeing.com/assets/images...harts-Lrg1.gif

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

And here's a link
[by

By MICHAEL S. ROTH

in the https://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...logo152x23.gif ]

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.

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:

Growing up, I was somehow made to believe in something people were calling Evolution...

---

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:

that's why 'they' have started these theories!! duh! should be obvious!

---

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:

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...

---

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:

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

---

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/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

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

From what I hear, China is challenging us in the pollution field.......

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

---

I would agree with you Dixon if there was not a HUGE overt and covert disinformation campaign to keep us sucking in fossil fuels and other poisons.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

---

Kate you expressed gratitude for this, and then didn't answer it. Or did I miss you response?
kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

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 Sara S:

From what I hear, China is challenging us in the pollution field.......

---

Not per capita. They have a lot more people than we do.

Thank you Dixon, succinct and to the point. Difficult for many to grasp this as it involves definitive personal action to change our lifestyles. Much easier to point to evil-doers, swap out our gas guzzler for a hybrid and continue life as usual.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

---

I believe this was the question: "i still don't quite grasp this: they took our normal winters and our rain---
to what end, do you believe?"

I see no reason why attempting to make sense out of geoengineering (of which "chemtrails" may be
one technique) is "going into the realm of conspiracy theory." You see something apparently being
done on a global scale but there's an almost total blackout of information from official sources.
Seems perfectly natural to want to understand why this would be happening. It also seems quite
logical if I make some effort to think like an oil magnate (and here's my imagining of what they
might think):

Yes, burning all this fossil fuel is dumping enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and
of course you can't do that without consequences. But the problem isn't just too much carbon
causing a greenhouse effect; it's an imbalance of substances (okay, pollutants) that needs to
be corrected. If you are trapping too much heat in the atmosphere, the solution is to reduce the
amount of heat getting in. I'm sure the weather modification folks have some ideas for how to
do this. Oh yes, look here - not only ideas, but patents on the very methods we need! Let's get
this happening!

What do you mean "side-effects?" Oh, well, yes, there are always going to be some problems
with whatever you try. But we have a serious problem on our hands here. If we don't get a handle
on this global warming problem quickly, all that methane frozen under the oceans could come
bubbling up and we'll really be in deep shit! Do you want to deal with some droughts and deluges
as by products of geoengineering, or would you prefer a mass extinction event? I mean it's pretty
clear we can't phase out fossil fuel burning fast enough - just too much inertia in this billion-dollar
industry! Too much invested to make a rapid shift to carbon-neutral energy; what would happen
to the economy?! Anyway, it's cheaper to pump a lot of metal-oxide aerosols into the stratosphere
(and whatever else will bring temperatures down). And we better just do it and not talk about it, so
our corporate images aren't associated with the undesirable impacts.
----------------------
Makes perfect sense to me. It's a pretty sad situation when most of us seem caught up in a way of
life and economic system that has us in a "damned if you do; damned if you don't" situation. I look
around and it seems to continue. People still flock to the big-box stores, the freeways are still full
of our vehicles, we hardly think twice about buying airline tickets. Even the food we eat used gallons
of petroleum to produce and transport (less if it's local and organic).

When the path you're on is leading toward catastrophe, it makes sense to stop and seek another path.
Who wants to be part of an economic malignancy that continues to grow and spread, destroying its
own host? There is another way, but it means learning to meet our needs without depending on earth-
and life-destroying production systems. It means working together to create alternatives to the fossil-
fuel-based economy. It may cost us more at the outset, but can we really afford the cheap way if it's
trashing our planet?

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

Hi Kathy, Sorry, didn't see the question.
That is the million or billion or trillion dollar question. I honestly cannot answer it. My heart breaks when I see the sky as it was today, when I feel the heat, when I know how the weather fronts have been manipulated, destabilized to send our moisture to the east, and to make the west burn. I cannot know why. But I do not believe it is just global warming as a result of carbon.
I wish I had a better answer, but to go further would really be to go into the realm of conspiracy theory. I'm not prepared to speculate, at least not here. I hope you understand.

Best to you, Kate

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

To C. Summer --
If this were a benevolent program to shield the earth from the ravages of global warming, why not tell the public? Clifford Carnicom has found that this program is actually working to trap heat, and it is causing the earth to warm. Therefore, this is not a program designed to offset global warming.

The reason that I hesitate to comment on the real motivation is that its true purposes are so deleterious that to even speak of it on this thread would be to invite further attack and ridicule. The truth is that those directing our "leadership" have depopulation, the biomodification of all life, as well as other military and geophysical purposes. Clifford Carnicom has laid it out well in the research to which I have already alluded, and which has been cast off as unworthy by some commenters on this thread.

Sincerely, K. Willens

---

So, as horrible as it may seem, the truth is out there and now we know..... the Reptilian Overlords are in total control. Oh, my goodness!!

Dixon, your comment?

Kate,

It didn't seem possible to me that you had no idea what might be behind "aerosols", and the resulting theft of our winters, as you said a few days ago, quoted here:


Hi Kathy, Sorry, didn't see the question.
That is the million or billion or trillion dollar question. I honestly cannot answer it.

But you were just pretending not to know in hopes of avoiding further challenge?

The reason that I hesitate to comment on the real motivation is that its true purposes are so deleterious that to even speak of it on this thread would be to invite further attack and ridicule. The truth is that those directing our "leadership" have depopulation, the biomodification of all life, as well as other military and geophysical purposes.

This is where it seems to fall apart, Kate--your whole mission seems to be to wake us up to the horrible stuff happening...but you don't want to say what that really is? i mean...depopulation, for example. to whose benefit?

i would still really like to know.

kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

So, as horrible as it may seem, the truth is out there and now we know..... the Reptilian Overlords are in total control. Oh, my goodness!!
Dixon, your comment?

---

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. :snake:

A few years ago there was an interesting report of an experiment exploring how people reacted to feelings of powerlessness. The core discovery was

"a set of experiments that used a variety of psychological tricks to induce feelings of insecurity among groups of volunteers. With these tricks, they managed to induce a number of different illusions – increasing the risk of seeing false images, making links between unrelated events, creating conspiracy theories and even accepting superstitious rituals. Superficially, all of these behaviours seem quite different but they all involve seeing patterns where none exist. They have a common theme and now, this study suggests that they have a common motive too. . . ."

"Of course, there are instances when making false connections can be downright damaging . . . Imagined pharmaceutical conspiracies or implications drawn about medicines from one-off anecdotes could drive people to embrace fruitless or potentially dangerous forms of alternative treatment. People can avoid taking responsibility for, or psychologically coping with, events in their lives if they ascribe them to higher powers or sinister agencies. And seeing too much meaning in the actions of others could lead to paranoia and severed social ties.

"[Their] work suggests that it’s possible to counteract the inclination to see misleading patterns by instilling people with a greater sense of security and control. In their own words, studies like these 'hold promise for preventing futile pursuits born of the perception of illusory patterns.' "


https://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsc...racy-theories/

As I mentioned earlier those viewing the conspiracy present their case in a way that accentuates all feelings of powerlessness while simultaneously making themselves part of an elite that are "in the know." The Gambles who put out the movie "Thrive" demonstrate how ideology encourages seeing these false patterns, but most of their followers are not libertarians and see them as well- thereby confirming themselves as an elite who know the answer to our problems (just do what the movie recommends) while never ever making a solid case as to what to do against the evil forces assaulting us. For the Gambles it's the Illumaniti. For others its the reptilians. For others it's maybe the Greys. For the radical right it's the "homosexual agenda" or "libs." Always it makes the believers out as uniquely insightful while confirming everyone's powerlessness to do anything except maybe prepare for apocalypse.

I wonder what we are seeing here- along with the worst of the Tea Patty as another manifestation - is the result of the growing powerlessness of people in a society that claims power is the most important value? ('Makers not takers' and other twaddle.)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss. :snake:

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

... Imagined pharmaceutical conspiracies...

---

I find it ironic, yet it's no coincidence that the publication you quoted uses pharmaceutical companies in their example scenario where delusions of conspiracies can lead people to danger. My news feed just included an article presenting evidence that ignorance of the very real conspiracies is the true danger. It's from Natural News, which I don't endorse but the facts appear to be what they are. So, read the following and ask yourself if it's just an "illusory pattern."

But, before you do I'd like to explain something about having a sense of control and power over one's life. Is it reasonable to assume that people who defer to authority or "experts" do so at little risk and cost to their reputation? I think it is. Conversely, wouldn't those who choose to disbelieve authority or "experts" do so at greater risk and cost to their reputation? Which behavior demonstrates greater control over one's life?

Here's a tougher one for you. If a person was inclined to always denounce conspiracy theories and ridicule the people who give them credence, would it be even slightly possible that they were doing so at the behest of agencies seeking to hide their crimes? Would that even be a possibility, no matter how remote? Conversely, if a person was inclined to suspect certain conspiracies (not all, just some) were very real and attempted to share their concern about them, would it be possible they were doing so for some deceptive reason or at the behest of someone else? Would that be a possibility? Would spreading disinformation be a possible motive? What other agenda would this serve? Between the 2 examples, which sounds more likely?

"The Attorney General of South Carolina...sued five pharmaceutical companies for conducting a price-fixing conspiracy to defraud the state of Medicaid money.

Similarly, in 2008, a federal judge ruled that three pharmaceutical companies artificially marked up their prices in order to defraud Medicare.

In fact, dozens of U.S. states have filed suit against pharmaceutical companies for actions that are conspiracies: conspiracy to engage in price fixing, conspiracy to bribe doctors, conspiracy to defraud the state and so on.

The massive drug company GlaxoSmithKline, even more, plead guilty to a massive criminal fraud case involving a global conspiracy to bribe doctors into prescribing more GSK drugs."

"The FDA conspired with a drug manufacturer to keep a deadly diabetes drug called Rezulin on the market in the USA even after safety regulators pulled the product in Europe.

Similarly, the corrupt, criminal-minded operators of mainstream science journals conspired in a particularly evil way to railroad Dr. Andrew Wakefield with provably false accusations about the nature of his research into the side effects of vaccines. The GMO Seralini study has been similarly railroaded by a genuine conspiracy of evil, corrupt science journal editors who routinely conspire to suppress all the science they don't want to be seen by the public. Fortunately, 150 other scientists have come to support Seralini with a global condemnation of the obviously contrived scientific censorship."

Source of the above reference:
https://www.naturalnews.com/045172_c...#ixzz324wwHmWz

Meteorologists begin public admissions -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54YX5o4yfLM

Thank you for the Link..... the hard part will now will be to decipher all the stories that are coming out about what it is all truly intended to do. It's a shame that we have such a difficult time exploring this topic with out the the need to prove one another crazy. I think there are some folks here who have their finger on the pulse of something important for the rest of us to pay attention to.

What is this stuff about reptilian overlords? That calls my attention. Is it about brains? Is it a joke? It feels like there is a charge?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

Meteorologists begin public admissions -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54YX5o4yfLM

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hummingbird:

I would agree with you Dixon if there was not a HUGE overt and covert disinformation campaign to keep us sucking in fossil fuels and other poisons.

---

I don't see how that contradicts at all my statement about our profligate lifestyle causing global climate change.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hummingbird:

What is this stuff about reptilian overlords?

---

From the Wikipedia page on "Reptilians":
"Reptilians (also called reptoids, reptiloids, or draconians) are purported reptilian humanoids that play a prominent role in science fiction, as well as modern ufology and conspiracy theories. The idea of reptilians on Earth was popularized by David Icke, a conspiracy theorist who says shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining political power to manipulate our societies. Icke has claimed on multiple occasions that many of the world leaders are, or are possessed by, reptilians ruling the world."

Icke's conspiracy theory is surprisingly popular considering how bizarre it is. It reads like bad science fiction. Do I know for sure it's not true? Nope. But the claim that shape-shifting, blood-sucking reptilians from the "lower part of the Fourth Dimension" are secretly ruling our planet is so apparently silly that I file it under "claims so unlikely to be true that I needn't devote any time to researching them". I was even using "Reptilian Overlord" as my Wacco screen title, but that seems to have disappeared recently. I'm sure the person who invoked reptilians in this thread meant it as a put-down of those who believe in "chemtrails", by associating the one conspiracy theory with the other. And for all I know, there may be some overlap between the chemtrail believers and the reptilian overlord believers--maybe even here on Wacco?

Thanks, Hummingbird, for offering a solution to chem spraying and many other obscene acts by our enslaved leadership:

Each one of us can neutralize these acts of treason and murder of this and future generations being foisted on us by taking one simple step together. Bucky Fuller and Albert Einstein would also concur.

“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?”

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

It does seem a little weird on a “progressive” website.

And, those who slap a label of conspiracy theorists, for free, on the carefully researched work of folks, who truly care about humanity’s plight, are the duped ones.

There are folks on the net who are paid good money to seek out any situations where they can label others as “conspiracy theorists” to discourage truths, long hidden, from being exposed by conscious community work.

Thank you for your thoughtful, intelligence and active change post!!!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hummingbird:

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...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I'm sure the person who invoked reptilians in this thread meant it as a put-down of those who believe in "chemtrails", by associating the one conspiracy theory with the other. And for all I know, there may be some overlap between the chemtrail believers and the reptilian overlord believers--maybe even here on Wacco?

---

that's how I read the comment in an earlier post that the purpose of chemtrails is not to prevent global warming, but is part of a plot to increase it. Seemed like a thinly veiled reference to me. If it did indeed have another meaning, I'm ready to be corrected.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

From the Wikipedia page on "Reptilians":
"Reptilians (also called reptoids, reptiloids, or draconians) are purported reptilian humanoids that play a prominent role in science fiction, as well as modern ufology and conspiracy theories. The idea of reptilians on Earth was popularized by David Icke, a conspiracy theorist who says shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining political power to manipulate our societies. Icke has claimed on multiple occasions that many of the world leaders are, or are possessed by, reptilians ruling the world."

---

Here's a video of David Icke introducing the notion of reptilian overlords! And I thought it was just a joke made up by the skeptics to poke fun other outlandish theories (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster) . He's serious! He gets to the meat of it around the 4 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctIpUmJjkAs

Thanks Dixon. That's the first explanation I've heard for the behavior of the federal government that makes sense..... So these reptilians might be behind the chem trails too? I wonder what they are trying to do? Why would shape shifters want to spray us with all that stuff?....hmmmm... my curiosity is up.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

From the Wikipedia page on "Reptilians":
"Reptilians (also called reptoids, reptiloids, or draconians) are purported reptilian humanoids that play a prominent role...

---

TyrannyNews, I am most likely as aware of the shortcomings of Big Pharma as you are, and have probably written about them more than you have. But what they do that is wrong, such as bribing doctors, not reporting on bad lab tests of their products, fixing prices, or manipulating patent law, do not require conspiracies beyond the mendacity of a single company or small number of companies, or the corruption that arises when a regulatory agency's people are in a revolving door relationship with those producing what they are regulating. Look at bank regulation. It's corruption. In other less common cases enthusiasts take a well-meaning trend such as vaccination to extremes, but people disagree legitimately as to where the extremes begin. Few sane people question smallpox vaccinations. Vaccinating everyone for everything we have vaccines for is at the other end of crazy.

There is a long history of some scientific elites using dirty tactics against those with whom they disagree because before they are scientists they are people, with the same basic drives as anyone else. What I do not know of are examples of entire scientific communities suppressing alternative views because scientists often rise to fame by challenging accepted orthodoxies. Schools of thought suppress other schools all the time- but in science there are many schools of thought and many graduate students and young scientists looking to earn their spurs. All your reported examples fit the very human phenomena.

They also have one other characteristic: they are amenable to evaluation by evidence available to any competent researcher.

In this respect these examples are entirely different from the chemtrail issue which if it exists involves a worldwide conspiracy of thousands of participants extending from those making the chemicals or bio-agents or whatever to those attaching the canisters to the planes to those filling them to the pilots releasing them- all for reasons having no observable financial payoffs. I find that intrinsically unbelievable until more evidence than what I have encountered in these discussions presents.

Do conspiracies ever exist? Of course they have and do. I have published a rather extensive discussion of the Koch brother's conspiracy against American democracy, one picked up by Alternet and Truthout, among others. https://dizerega.com/2013/10/08/the-kochs-role-in-the-conspiracy-against-american-democracy/ Check it out sometime. My argument did not depend on massive numbers of conspiring people or evil motives. It referred readers to verifiable issues connected by a chain of reasonable logic without reducing it to evil or to nefarious motives. But it did describe a genuine conspiracy - the Kochs are pursuing a tactic that depends on most not knowing about it to work. And the issue is important. It made concrete enough statements that people could in principle rebut it, though so far none have.

Because of the nature of conspiracy theories, for many of those most attracted to them ALL countervailing evidence is evidence for how devilishly clever the conspirators are. It is like Fundamentalist relatives telling me that fossils are evidence of God's sense of humor or when Goldwater lost to Johnson extreme right wingers claimed he lost the election because he was Jewish- in a plot to undermine the conservative movement at its greatest chance of victory. To me, your reply is a perfect example of that approach.

In my opinion conspiracy theories attract lazy analysis. Consider one episode from this chemtrails discussion. One person wrote that contrails are rare whereas chemtrails are common. I showed photographs from WWII demonstrating they were nothing unusual 70 years ago. Silence.

Another example: Scott showed reports from atmospheric books published over decades refuting the commonly described ways to distinguish between chemtrails and contrails. Again silence.

There is no discussion when evidence against conspiratorial claims is ignored.

When evaluating a conspiracy claim it seems to me several questions have to be answered in ways we find reasonable, and the more extreme the claim the more demanding we need be that the answers be convincing and eliminate reasonable alternatives:

1. Who gains from the conspiracy? I see no one who gains from chemtrails. Chemicals or bio agents scattered at the altitude jets fly will come to ground all over the earth. Even advocates of chemtrails suggest many alternative theories as to what is happening- which means they have no coherent theory.

2. How many people are involved in the supposed conspiracy? The more that are the less likely it is to exist.

3. How long has the supposed conspiracy existed? The longer it has supposedly existed the less likely it is to be real.

4. Is there physical evidence the conspiracy exists and does it resist explanation by more mundane accounts? There is no such evidence that anyone has described.

5. What motives would enable reasonably normal people to participate in the conspiracy? I have seen no discussion at all of this. Alternatively, how could bad people so successfully find one another so that there is never a leak, never a person who becomes disillusioned and spills the beans, no whistle blower with samples. Given the difficulty of government or corporations keeping far smaller szecrets, this beggars the imagination and yet is simply taken for granted by those advocating that such things exist.

6. If a person believes in many conspiracies that fail the above questions, their judgment on any one of them is suspect. For example, that many global warming deniers are also often birthers is evidence to me of their incompetence in evaluating complex questions.

For an example of an aerial conspiracy that hurt people and really did happen, the military spread chemical agents in some areas of the US. There was a small number of people involved, convinced they were studying germ warfare that might be employed by either side in a future was. It did not last long, physical evidence existed, and people found out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dugway_sheep_incident

Is your view absolutely impossible? No. proving a negative is impossible. But the more people that are involved, the longer the conspiracy supposedly has been going on, and then worse the required motives for it to happen, the more improbable it becomes. They should be our last choice for explaining, not our first.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by TyrannyNews:

I find it ironic, yet it's no coincidence that the publication you quoted uses pharmaceutical companies in their example scenario...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Here's a video of David Icke introducing the notion of reptilian overlords! And I thought it was just a joke made up by the skeptics to poke fun other outlandish theories (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster) . He's serious! He gets to the meat of it around the 4 minute mark.

---

What was even more interesting, to me was how a group of people took the conspiracy even further. Jewish groups, although I don't recall if it officially reached the level of the ADL or not reacted strongly to David Icke's theory. Their public position was that, when David spoke of Lizards or Reptiles he was actually covertly referring to Jews. They were very serious and vocal to the point of disrupting his appearances, etc.

To my thinking, when a man says he thinks some people are shape-shifting reptilians, he's talking about shape-shifting reptilians. Of course, some people will shout anti-Semite just for the sport of it. Did they truly believe it? It probably didn't matter to them, as he served as a fresh target. It reminds me of the many people who claim to be of the opinion that "truthers" or "birthers" or whatever are in fact mentally ill or of limited intellect. Do they really believe it? Well, let's just say that the claims are usually packaged inside smug insults. So, my hope is that they don't.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

From someone on Facebook who shows the difference in the skies between yesterday and today; like night and day, and yet the same atmospheric conditions apply.

---

um, this is instead proof that the two days have different atmospheric conditions

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hummingbird:

Thanks Dixon. That's the first explanation I've heard for the behavior of the federal government that makes sense..... So these reptilians might be behind the chem trails too? I wonder what they are trying to do? Why would shape shifters want to spray us with all that stuff?....hmmmm... my curiosity is up.

---

As Robert Stack in Dr. Strangelove so famously said: "they want our precious bodily fluids"

Wikipedia is an extremely left leaning organization and their comments tend to be left leaning, and not of a reasonable nor educated slant. If you google chemtrails, the number one site is wikipedia. Coincidence? I think not. They, like google, youtube and the rest are government collusions to make you think that all is ok when it isn't. Those of us who have been fighting against the powers that be are more that tired of those who tow the official line. If you want REAL information about chemtrails, HAARP, Agenda 21, targeted assassinations, the toxicity of fluoride in the water and more, get real, research all sites and see what the overall data brings you to. This ain't conspiracy theory. How convenient to call us that....'conspiracy theorists'. Those who claim that such things are false are brain dead. Simple really.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

When I first heard about Chemtrails in the late nineties, I spent many hours looking at everything I could find online. Since I'm not a Biochemist, Climatologist, Chemicals Engineer, Aerospace Engineer or any other kind of expert in the relevant fields, I could only evaluate what I understood.

What became clear after a while is that the original claims came from a small group of websites, and a few key individuals, that cited each other in a daisy-chain of "confirmation". And the voluminous texts available all fed off each other. That was over ten years ago. I'm sure there's far more interconnected information now available.

So, as in most conspiracy theories, unless and until there is hard evidence, checked by and verified by established and reputable sources, competing sources, I will remain skeptical.

Of course, in such conspiracies, the fact that no reputable sources support the claims, is part of the "proof" that they are true. And the whole chemtrail vs. contrail distinction, is also given as "evidence".

Here's the question I've never seen Chemtrail claimants answer. If there is a vast global conspiracy to spread chemicals in the upper atmosphere for nefarious purposes (Weather Control? Terraforming for the Saurians? Genetic Engineering / Stupefaction of the Masses? Take your pick, there are several other intersecting versions.) why would the elites responsible for them expose themselves and their families to the same chemicals?

What's in it for them?

This wiki seems apropos to the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

---

Nah...I live in upstate NY. We were subjected to the new fangled 'polar vortexes' this past winter. I've been alive and living in this area for 54 years, never heard of polar vortexes. Regardless....no matter the time of year, time of day, month, weather.....we ALWAYS are bombarded with chemtrails. Your simplistic and idiotic necessitation for a return to a disney soft, cozy, fluffy, safe life might be what you need to deal with your inability to deal with cognitive dissonance, but the rest of us who grew out of the need to waste away watching football, baseball and dancing with the stars might ultimately favor your exact ignorance on the real issues. You should be thankful there are those of us who are paying attention to real issues that affect you and us. The fucked up thing about this all is that you choose to be ignorant....we don't, and our work to stop this will favor you. And your response is to tell us we're nuts. Keep up the ignorance....at a time, we will hit critical mass, and nothing we or you can do will stop what is about to happen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

um, this is instead proof that the two days have different atmospheric conditions

---

Noooooooooo...the enemy is 'THEM'. Do you realize that every time a rocket (aka shuttle et al) is sent into space, there is a many miles wide hole blown through the ozone, where the ozone layer is destroyed? And our military and government, as well as that of other countries, blame US for the damage THEY caused?!!! 'WE' have done a minute amount of damage compared to what 'THEY' caused, yet they are hell bent on destroying our way of life. You have to be a complete moron to have said what you did. Wake the fuck up.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

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

---

Why don't you tell us what your educational level is? Then take an IQ test and let us know the results. I ask that because it's quite obvious you are a typical close minded guy who wouldn't know the difference. Just sayin.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Icke's conspiracy theory is surprisingly popular considering how bizarre it is. It reads like bad science fiction. ...

---

Hey Gus....if you're so involved in the whole pharma thing, why didn't you mention the poisons that are in the pharma drugs? Huh? You act like you've researched so many aspects of the pharma situation, yet you don't mention the damage these pharma drugs are doing to the average person, especially kids. As far as chemtrails, contrails are NOT common, and any pictures you can site are probably showing chemtrails. They WERE around in WWII. Stop taking us all for fools....they used chemtrails to seed rain in the Viet Nam war. THAT is known. Why are you refuting the fact that today's plane engines don't produce chemtrails? You are another boring guy who wants those of us to think you are an authority. You aren't. You are a shill, you simply push lies to make others think you know what is reality. I'll debate you any time old man. That is what you are, an old, tired, lying, sack of shit old man. And people like you should be made fun of. Which I will graciously do. Take me on...I dare you. Old man. Sorry, tired, lazy, bought off, surface dweller, old man.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

TyrannyNews, I am most likely as aware of the shortcomings of Big Pharma as you are, ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

...That is what you are, an old, tired, lying, sack of shit old man. And people like you should be made fun of. ...

---

To my fellow Waccos,

Please accept my apologies for being exposed to this.

I have banned iPragmatist until the "Red Pill" category has been created (for like minded "conspiracy theorists").

The more respectful "theorists", such as Kate Magdalena Willens and "TyrannyNews" are welcome to continue to post here for the time being.

Let me also take this opportunity to remind you that:

you can remove this active thread from your digest
by clicking the https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...8_21-40-22.png button at the bottom of this post (or any post in this thread).

I hope the rest of you are enjoying this dynamic discussion!

Barry

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

You should be thankful there are those of us who are paying attention to real issues that affect you and us. The fucked up thing about this all is that you choose to be ignorant...... And your response is to tell us we're nuts. ....

---

not all of you are nuts, but some clearly are. The nuttiest thing is to make things like chemtrails the 'real issues'. Almost no-one on their deathbed will ever say that except for the damn chemtrails, their lives would have been great and the lives of their fellow citizens would have been rich and rewarding. If threats to your precious bodily fluids (and solids, for that matter) seem like a big deal, they're far more impacted by what's in our food and medicines than they are by Fukishima fallout or lizard spray. The people who limit your freedoms and create the economy that you have to deal with are unfortunately your neighbors who tolerate and accidentally encourage the behavior of political and corporate leaders who have no reason to care much about how your life is affected by their actions. (how many letters in that sentence? tweets must be hard...) So if you're going to take hundreds of random harmful actions, undertaken by dozens or hundreds of organizations for various purposes of their own, and instead lump them together as a grand conspiracy controlled by a malevolent few, yeah, you've got a big burden of proof. Or, instead, like a group of superheros, you can just handle it for the rest of us - and we'll probably never know or say thanks.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

Wikipedia is an extremely left leaning organization...If you google chemtrails, the number one site is wikipedia. Coincidence? I think not.

---

Ha! If you google just about anything, Wikipedia is gonna be #1 or near #1 on the list (as it's a great resource for comparatively reasonable, concise general knowledge). Seeing that as evidence of conspiracy speaks volumes about your thought processes. And if Wikipedia seems like "an extremely left leaning organization", you must be waaaaay over on the right-wing end of the spectrum. And, if you think the political left is the protector of the corrupt imperial status quo, I can't even imagine the fantasy world you're living in.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

Noooooooooo...the enemy is 'THEM'. Do you realize that every time a rocket (aka shuttle et al) is sent into space, there is a many miles wide hole blown through the ozone, where the ozone layer is destroyed?

---

I am aware that rockets are hugely polluting, though am not sure whether your quantification is quite accurate. It's certainly a point well taken, but if you think that that means the damage we cause with our zillions of cars, methane-producing livestock industry, etc. is negligible, your analysis is one-sided, to put it politely.

Quote:

---

...they are hell bent on destroying our way of life.

---

I'm very curious to know what you mean by "our way of life". In your mind, what is "our way of life"?

Quote:

---

You have to be a complete moron to have said what you did. Wake the fuck up.

---

I could certainly be wrong about anything at any time, but just being wrong about something doesn't mean one is a moron. iPragmatist, do you feel that your argument is strengthened by the addition of a bit of verbal abuse?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

Why don't you tell us what your educational level is? Then take an IQ test and let us know the results.

---

I'm disinclined to indulge in intellectual penis-measuring, preferring to leave that to the insecure. If you really, really want to engage in that sort of pissing contest with me, I suppose we could sit down together and take an IQ test, wagering a sizable amount of money on the outcome. I could sure use the dough. But more to the point, what does educational level or IQ have to do with the discussion at hand? Are you veering toward some logical fallacy such as the appeal to authority (you've already engaged in ad hominem attacks)?

Quote:

---

I ask that because it's quite obvious you are a typical close minded guy who wouldn't know the difference.

---

And what connection does one's educational level or IQ have with closed-mindedness? And, given that I haven't even aligned myself with one side or the other in the chemtrails debate, why do you see me as closed-minded? Is it because I've admittedly written off the reptilian humanoid overlord conspiracy theory without researching it deeply? Have I offended your anti-reptilian sensitivities?

You don't tell the public that you're dumping millions of tons of metal oxides and other pollutants into the atmosphere because you don't want to deal with a global uprising against an activity that could have (is having?) far-reaching and devastating impacts on the environment and human health. If they stay silent, it will be that much more difficult to know who's behind it, and so who do you rise up against?

It may be that the actual effects of geoengineering are not what they were intended to be. It wouldn't be the first time a plan of this sort backfired. It's also likely that many are involved at many levels, and the eventual execution of a plan may not reflect the spirit of the original intention. Take free and democratic elections, for example . . . There are those who, failing to stop a plan from moving forward, will attempt to pervert it to fit their own ends in the execution.

Not that Clifford Carnicom doesn't know vastly more about it than I do. Just letting you know how I make sense out of it.

CSummer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

To C. Summer --
If this were a benevolent program to shield the earth from the ravages of global warming, why not tell the public? Clifford Carnicom has found that this program is actually working to trap heat, and it is causing the earth to warm. Therefore, this is not a program designed to offset global warming.

The reason that I hesitate to comment on the real motivation is that its true purposes are so deleterious that to even speak of it on this thread would be to invite further attack and ridicule. The truth is that those directing our "leadership" have depopulation, the biomodification of all life, as well as other military and geophysical purposes. Clifford Carnicom has laid it out well in the research to which I have already alluded, and which has been cast off as unworthy by some commenters on this thread.

Sincerely, K. Willens

---

I do care about the air I breathe, and that you breathe, and that our children breathe. I don't consider that caring to be "a white person's problem" or less important that political and economic problems of our time. This photo was taken yesterday near Lake Tahoe. I suppose it reflects very unusual atmospheric conditions indeed.

I'm sorry this discussion has morphed into the inanities of reptilian overlords. That emphasis must only be to denigrate the realities of legitimate concerns. Unless of course lizards have painted the above with their snouts. I'm also sorry for the level of personal attacks on this thread.

Dear Kathy,

One easy place for the information you seek is Forbidden Knowledge TV - free subscription to daily videos which enlarge your understanding of what is not commonly known about the intersections of reality, politics, etc.
Requires time, fortitude, courage to learn, absorb, discern, integrate - all needed to be awake in 2014.
While Alexandra is smart, savvy, vets her material and publicly acknowledges mistakes, one always needs one's own discernment.
I just posted today's installment in Wacco Reader - or go directly to:

US Military Trains for Martial Law

https://www.ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.com/page/26407.html

And, of course, KPFA ( 94.1 FM ) is THE news source which is least corporate - a FAR cry from PBS and their public radio station. Listen and draw your own conclusions. You'll find a whole other world...

Blest, Jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:

Kate,

It didn't seem possible to me that you had no idea what might be behind "aerosols", and the resulting theft of our winters, as you said a few days ago, quoted here:


Hi Kathy, Sorry, didn't see the question.
That is the million or billion or trillion dollar question. I honestly cannot answer it.

But you were just pretending not to know in hopes of avoiding further challenge?

The reason that I hesitate to comment on the real motivation is that its true purposes are so deleterious that to even speak of it on this thread would be to invite further attack and ridicule. The truth is that those directing our "leadership" have depopulation, the biomodification of all life, as well as other military and geophysical purposes.

This is where it seems to fall apart, Kate--your whole mission seems to be to wake us up to the horrible stuff happening...but you don't want to say what that really is? i mean...depopulation, for example. to whose benefit?

i would still really like to know.

kathy

---

Congratulations! You have written one of the most articulate and penetrating analyses from a right wing mentality I have read in a long time. This is particularly clear in your use of reason, examples, and demonstrated ability to address the central issues at hand. Any three year old in a tantrum would be left breathless with admiration.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

Hey Gus....if you're so involved in the whole pharma thing, why didn't you mention the poisons that are in the pharma drugs? Huh? You act like you've researched so many aspects of the pharma situation, yet you don't mention the damage these pharma drugs are doing to the average person, especially kids. As far as chemtrails, contrails are NOT common, and any pictures you can site are probably showing chemtrails. They WERE around in WWII. Stop taking us all for fools....they used chemtrails to seed rain in the Viet Nam war. THAT is known. Why are you refuting the fact that today's plane engines don't produce chemtrails? You are another boring guy who wants those of us to think you are an authority. You aren't. You are a shill, you simply push lies to make others think you know what is reality. I'll debate you any time old man. That is what you are, an old, tired, lying, sack of shit old man. And people like you should be made fun of. Which I will graciously do. Take me on...I dare you. Old man. Sorry, tired, lazy, bought off, surface dweller, old man.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...13-54-25-1.png

I do care about the air I breathe, and that you breathe, and that our children breathe. I don't consider that caring to be "a white person's problem" or less important that political and economic problems of our time. This photo was taken yesterday near Lake Tahoe. I suppose it reflects very unusual atmospheric conditions indeed.

I'm sorry this discussion has morphed into the inanities of reptilian overlords. That emphasis must only be to denigrate the realities of legitimate concerns. Unless of course lizards have painted the above with their snouts. I'm also sorry for the level of personal attacks on this thread.

---

Kate,

What you see here is a very common cloud formation going north to south along the crest of the Sierra Nevada that occurs when the prevailing winds descend over the crest into the desert. I see it all the time backpacking along with jet contrails. No need to get all alarmed.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

Why are you refuting the fact that today's plane engines don't produce chemtrails? You are another boring guy who wants those of us to think you are an authority. You aren't. You are a shill, you simply push lies to make others think you know what is reality. I'll debate you any time old man. That is what you are, an old, tired, lying, sack of shit old man. And people like you should be made fun of. Which I will graciously do. Take me on...I dare you. Old man. Sorry, tired, lazy, bought off, surface dweller, old man.

---

What we have here is a classic example of what I described in my list of "new terms" (posted earlier) as a "vaportroll".

Vaportroll (noun)

Someone who creates a temporary anonymous account on Waccobb for the sole purpose of blasting away at people with personal insults while hiding their true identity. Typically, vaportrolls reveal their own idiocy without help from anyone through their own emotional angry rants. Usually a vaportroll is someone who has their worldview challenged in some way and can't seem to not take things hyper personally. Used as in, "We were having a fairly civil debate online when all of a sudden this vaportroll showed up and had a meltdown."

"iPragmatist" joined Waccobb only 12 days ago and has been spewing invective in this discussion since. I notice he/she claims in one of his/her posts that he/she lives in upstate New York. He/she hides behind the name of "The Pragmatist" and won't reveal his/her real identity.

I think my definition of a vaportroll speaks for itself.

Scott

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

Consider one episode from this chemtrails discussion. One person wrote that contrails are rare whereas chemtrails are common. I showed photographs from WWII demonstrating they were nothing unusual 70 years ago. Silence.

Another example: Scott showed reports from atmospheric books published over decades refuting the commonly described ways to distinguish between chemtrails and contrails. Again silence.

There is no discussion when evidence against conspiratorial claims is ignored.

---

Gus, I think we finally have our answer:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by iPragmatist:

As far as chemtrails, contrails are NOT common, and any pictures you can site are probably showing chemtrails. They WERE around in WWII. Stop taking us all for fools....

---

That would explain why atmospheric scientists and authoritative books about cloud formation going back over 60 years (and confirmed by observation by just about everyone since the 1940's) describe and explain the phenomenon of jet trails spreading out and forming into lingering clouds. Apparently, all of it has been chemtrails all along going back to the very introduction of jet engine flight technology.

I'm wondering if any chemtrails proponents disagree with this.

Scott

I think you are right Scott about the vapor troll.... The only problem is that s/he was likely controlled by a reptilian overlord as well attempting to give the grounded folks who share his perspective (with out the personal insults) a bad rap. It looks like a technique to discredit a pretty clear truth about chemtrails. The message is actually totally reasonable and I buy it more than most of the other "facts" I've seen here, but the delivery quickly causes many to discredit the whole thing. "What a jerk, I would much rather believe the calm linkers."

LINKER (noun)

Some one who has a long standing account on Waccobb for many possible reasons. They often bring information and "proof" from links from throughout the internet with little regard for the intuitive aspects and alternate realities that help to shape our existence. While most "linkers" are well meaning, they often lack awareness to formulate an argument that encompasses the broader thinking necessary to fully understand the stated issue. Still through their sweet and bumbling ways they manage to find comfort in one another and through it all build some resemblance of a community. :wink:

Blessings

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

What we have here is a classic example of what I described in my list of "new terms" (posted earlier) as a "vaportroll".

Vaportroll (noun)

Someone who creates a temporary anonymous account on Waccobb for the sole purpose of blasting away at people with personal insults while hiding their true identity. Typically, vaportrolls reveal t...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Gus, I think we finally have our answer:

I'm wondering if any chemtrails proponents disagree with this.

Scott

---

Absolutely I do, Scott. My name is Peter Klein, btw. I choose the TyrannyNews username to be recognized. It's actually quite depressing when I consider how many other Peter Kleins their are. For some reason, they're all mega-accomplished geniuses. I get buried in the pile so I promote my blog and channel, which is what I'm aiming to do anyway. There was even a Peter Klein said to have died in the towers on 9/11.

Returning to your wondering if any proponents of "chemtrails" disagree with iPragmatist's assertions. Contrails, he says are not common and any pictures showing airborne trails are probably chemtrails, which he claims were around during the WWII period. I disagree with all of it.

I think of myself as a well-liked, highly intelligent guy with a very balanced constitution. I go out of my way to be respectful of others, to be helpful to others, to be consistent and dependable. I'm fortunate to have been raised in an environment that fostered creativity and didn't aim to box me into a traditional path. The down side of it is that I had few close relations that could encourage discipline, achievement or the importance of knowledge. Being curious helped to keep me going forward. Even still, I can't say which form of rearing would have been better.

Part of why I have a deep trust in my instincts and yet am still highly self-critical is because of what I was exposed to that most would view as bad. My sense of humor applies to that and to myself, meaning that I don't have a chip on my shoulder.

I found that being an adult wasn't what I had expected and began to look at things differently. It wasn't only that I was applying a different view. The things I observed were different and had been all along. I noticed that some of my ideas were being rejected by the majority as undesirable. I experienced the real impact this had in my life, in relationships, in my career, in my personality and in my attitude towards society and life in general. I determined it to be a very small price to pay in exchange for learning the truth. At no point was I willingly or lazily accepting fallacy, although I'm well aware of how stupid I am and that I can't know where exactly my understanding is really misunderstanding.

The result of these transgressions and the aftermath has empowered me to view things more as they are. I've also learned to view issues in a near-impartial way (sounds boastful, I know), allowing me to even argue against my own theories.

So where am I going with this? About a year ago, I started work on the outline and narration to a documentary I hope to produce soon. I've produced a couple videos that were received well, and so the research and work I've done has been pretty determined. My working title is, "My Position on Chemtrails" for lack of considering a real title. I'm good at titles though. Not, "Flow my tears, the Policeman said" good. I actually started work on this just prior to my reaching out to the Carnicom Institute in the hopes of becoming a volunteer. I did, and the experience has been everything I hoped it would be. Clifford, myself and the other people involved appear to be standing still, but I know to look at how the micro/macro interplay. Minor achievements are joined by huge shifts in understanding on a world scale.

My reason for choosing to go to work for Carnicom is that, over the years and during my research for this documentary Clifford has always seemed like someone marooned in some distant place. Although he's very much here observing and interacting, when it comes to his work he does it irrespective of everything and everyone really. He's not like me, as I am far from immune to social conditioning and typical pressures. People tend to want to be noticed by their peers for something admirable. Some think it’s too risky to reveal a belief that the majority finds undesirable. This process is irrespective of the truth.

So, with that as a back story here's my view and limited understanding of what people call "chemtrails." Having been privy to what is likely the most clear vision into the phenomenon, with the best prepared and best equipped minds to see it without so much static, I think my opinion is more than sufficiently valid. I can only offer my opinion, as even the best-established findings are far too controversial to be allowed their place in our collective understanding. Despite what some will claim, there are many organized groups and many programs working at present to dissuade, discourage, discount, deflate, you name it. This is basic economics. They told us the bank bailout was going to be $700 Billion all the while knowing it would actually be more like $29 Trillion because Economics is a "soft science."

The focus of research at the Carnicom Institute is bioengineering in essence. Yes, geoengineering remains a topic of research. But, not as much progress has been made in that area. But, many of us see a connection between the two. Fundamentally, spraying of aerosolized elements including biological elements falls in the category of geoengineering primarily because of the scale of the operations. Without knowing the purpose, one could classify it as either bio or geoengineering. I suspect that, where the danger lies is when the purpose is not environmental but biological. That’s just my opinion. Man’s sperm count has been halved in only 20 years, yet most shrug that off and reproduction continues.

Before I get into the meat of the biological bombshell discovered by Clifford and his colleagues, I should clarify the connection to chemtrails. Yes, I suspect very strongly that a global program of distributing various substances from aircraft is and has been underway since as far back as 1996. Previous to that, I have little knowledge except what I know of minor weather modification efforts and other small operations involving testing of bacteriological and chemical weapons.

Where I disagree with many proponents of “chemtrails” is on some of the more prominent theories. For instance, many people suspect that a jet fuel additive is the source, and therefore most planes will be involved with little or no modification of the aircraft and not require the knowledge of the pilots or crew. I see some evidence to support this capability. What can be done however is limited because of problems presented by the requirements in fuel composition and especially the combustion of the fuel. To my mind, this delivery method might work to some degree for distribution of minute metallic particles.

Speaking of metallic particles, there is plenty of evidence that at least some of what is being sprayed is metals and other suitable chemical compounds for various reasons. I’m less inclined to take a guess at the purpose when it comes to this aspect of the operations. Any conspiracy proponent or denouncer has heard of HAARP, which isn’t the only large radio array in use. From what I’ve learned and from some of the unverified claims, there’s a lot about the ionosphere and other magnetic (for lack of a better term) phenomenon that the public is not aware of, but that certain agencies are actively making use of. This is one issue that concerns me a great deal.

What I have not personally observed with my own eyes, but I have overwhelming evidence to support is the spraying of substances from aircraft-mounted apparatus. In fact, I have almost no interest in looking at the lines in the sky from day to day at this point. The reason being that, so many things are going on atmospherically I can’t say with a good enough degree of certainty which trails are jet contrails and which not. But, when presented with either photo or video evidence showing certain things that can’t be caused by jet engine operation or other plane effects, I become very interested.

One clear example of spraying taking place is in cases where there is an even sheet of white vapor-like emissions being emitted right at the wing’s trailing edge, across the entire span of the wing. This is not wingtip vortices or other known effects. The only reasonable explanation I have come to is it constitutes one method of spraying. Another very good example should be easier to understand for most people. When a commercial or cargo jet has only 2 engines, yet the plane is leaving behind a persistent trail of four distinct lines that are evenly spaced and evenly pronounced, it is almost certainly the result of spraying through some apparatus. To be more sure, if the trails form right at the wing itself, it is the result of spraying. Normal jet contrails will form at a short distance from the engines, usually no closer to the engine than the rear vertical stabilizer.

There are a few anonymous accounts of what these spraying apparatus are composed of and of how the operation generally takes place. I’m not sold on any one account, but some points are very compelling and sometimes chilling. Did you know that most passenger jets are equipped with dozens of explosive charges? These charges are also wired for remote detonation. I’m referring to the exit doors which contain explosive actuators that blast the door free from their footing. Now, consider that many planes are modernized with fully electronic controls that enable remote control from the cockpit or remote control from anywhere, really. In other words, those exit doors can be triggered to pop by anyone crafty enough to access the flight control systems.

Last on my list of unusually frightening realities of modern aircraft is what’s called Smacsonic. It’s made by a French company. It’s a thin material that comes in sheets and is used to line both the inside of the fuselage for sound suppression and to form part of the bulkhead that supports the large equipment below the passenger compartment for vibration dampening. But get this. The sheets are essentially two very thin aluminum layers compressed onto a core of chemicals and other elements, including a high percentage of iron and even red phosphorus! Are you familiar with Thermite? One envisions how a plane might be converted to liquid magma in an instant. But I digress. These points are totally unrelated to accounts of how some planes may be equipped for spraying.

Lastly on the point of “chemtrails,” there’s the highly unusual but frequently reported issue of spraying by drones. There are even accounts of UFOs spraying, but I don’t see enough evidence to support the theory. Although, there are plenty of video clips where a plane either involved in spraying or simply leaving a very persistent contrail is buzzed by or shadowed by strange objects. I have no theory as to what accounts for that. As for the drones, I am still looking into it. What is very well documented is nighttime spraying. Obviously, if an operation was underway and is meant to be kept under wraps night spraying virtually eliminates observation by most people. This aspect, coupled with what can be seen in flight path analysis as planes flying in loops or flying back and across their own paths seems to indicate a purpose other than destination travel.

This is getting very long, so I’ll end it here without detailing what actually concerns me most related to the chemtrail phenomenon, bioengineering. In short, most people, animals and plants are now carrying within them a bacteria-like form that, in humans first infects blood cells. Looking at your own blood under a high-powered microscope (about 4000x) will “likely” reveal bulbous mutations of many cells. This is the “Cross Domain Bacteria” that Clifford Carnicom has discovered develops into the filament structures that emerge from the skin of certain people with a particular genetic characteristic. Seemingly, only people with this chromosome trisomy will develop the “Delusional Parasitosis.” Ha ha. Very funny, CDC. Talk about commitment to a bit. They took 4 years and $8 million dollars before delivering that punch line. In truth, the NIH knew all about this and it was they who referred to the condition as “Morgellons” as far back as 2002, I believe.

On a less funny note, some rare cases are so bad that they are truly between a rock and hard place. On the one hand, they could really use some medical attention for an almost alien-like condition in which semi-organic material is forcing itself out through the skin or though gaping wounds. On the other hand, the medical community is either oblivious or is well aware that proper diagnosis and treatment is a quick way to lose their license to practice. Therefore, at best they are forced to play along as anti-parasitics are prescribed. At worst, they fend for themselves or risk explaining the reality of their situation and being referred to a psychiatrist. I’ve seen what these things look like and it’s not as simple as picking fibers growing through the skin. It’s not entirely biological, as often crystalline objects of geometric shape are present. Seahorses, spiders, crabs…I can’t write it all off as a hoax when these things emerge from a 16” laceration requiring hours of tending, sterilization and bandaging every day. And this person didn't appear to seek attention and was generally in good spirits. Go figure.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hummingbird:

...little regard for the intuitive aspects and alternate realities...

---

Okay, but the whole question is "Which of the 'alternate realities' are really realities, and which are just alternate illusions?"

:fucklogic:

And, re: intuition--I'm not sure how you see intuition connected with the topic of this thread, chemtrails (maybe you're just digressing, as I am now), but I'd caution anybody about citing "intuition" as support for any position about objective reality. Interested Waccites might wish to read my essay "The Role of Intuition" here. Okay, end of digression--now we're back to our regularly scheduled contentious philosophical train-wreck.

I completely understand that the link you have provided to the article and graph discusses the effects of “chemtrails” and assumes that the reader is aligned with the theory posited by Clifford Carnicom, the author, that in fact there is an “Aerosol Operation” afoot. My objective in this missive is to demonstrate just a few points of the article, it's assumptions, and the writer that don't pass the smell test. I do not do this as a mere exercise to nay-say. I am genuinely interested in responses, particularity from you Kate, to the specific issues I present.

The first item I noticed was immediately apparent. Here was a 1200 plus word report discussing scientific research and observations citing only 6 information sources, three of which are the author's own institute. In effect Clifford Carnicom is corroborating his assertions about aerosol operations with his own previously reported assertions. I checked those three reports and they too had no outside corroboration. This is not, to say the least, good form. Credible scientific work relies on the research done by others. Citing self-referential sources, particularly in the name of science, is absurd, not to mention provides zero reference for cross checking facts and theories. Conclusion: his writings are nothing more than opinion pieces.

The remaining 3 sources cited in this report were references only to general statements of the existence of global warming &/or climate change. None, and I checked them, supported any of Carnicom's “findings” of aerosol operations. This left me with the impression that Mr. Carnicom intentionally stretched beyond reasonable measures in an attempt to give his report an air of authenticity.

And finally, I checked Clifford Carnicom's credentials. In short, he has no background in the areas of meteorology, chemistry or physics, any of which would be necessary to conduct, analyze or interpret legitimate research on the causes and effects of climate change. Nor does he have any background in bio or geo-engineering which would be significant to research and conclusions positing theories on chemtrails. He does have training in statistics and mathematics which is valuable in these particular areas of study but not likely to establish one as an expert. Certainly this is not enough background to conduct legitimate, plausible scientific research that is devoid of any outside corroboration.

When I receive information as evidence or in support of a hypothesis, theory or belief I first vet the sources provided. In this particular situation, for the simple three points I cited, Carnicom and his institute do not pass the credibility test. If you can refute my observations with reliable facts I would be delighted to reconsider my position. If you cannot provide any such evidence I propose that you reconsider your position on the issue of chemtrails.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

This article and graph may help. Carnicom explains that the aerosols are not cooling the planet, but warming it. Given the charade that is occurring now among the geoengineers who doth protest too much that they are afraid geoengineering may have devastating consequences upon the environment, while knowing full well that aerosol operations have been underway for over a decade, we can assume that they know exactly what they are doing.

https://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/gwmodel.htm

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

...And finally, I checked Clifford Carnicom's credentials. In short, he has no background in the areas of meteorology, chemistry or physics, any of which would be necessary to conduct, analyze or interpret legitimate research on the causes and effects of climate change. Nor does he have any background in bio or geo-engineering which would be significant to research and conclusions positing theories on chemtrails. He does have training in statistics and mathematics which is valuable in these particular areas of study but not likely to establish one as an expert. Certainly this is not enough background to conduct legitimate, plausible scientific research that is devoid of any outside corroboration....

---

Rustie, I appreciate the tone of your response and think some of your comments were valid and well thought out. However, I disagree with your critique of Clifford Carnicom and feel compelled to provide the members here an alternative assessment.

First, it should be known that I am a volunteer member and consultant at the Carnicom Institute. As you might expect, my involvement is a cost center and not a source of revenue or any other privilege. I like to think that I work harder for the Institute than I do in any other capacity. In any case, I'm aware that my total impartiality is not really possible so I won't make that claim.

There are really two distinct ways to view a person's abilities in a professional, scientific or academic sense. There is the approach of factoring in their academic or professional credentials within the discipline for which they are being assessed. Then, there is the approach of taking an in-depth look at their actual knowledge along with their typical lifestyle and the way in which they involve themselves in activities related to the discipline for which they are being assessed. In both cases experience can be a factor in the assessment.

I'll begin by explaining how I have assessed Clifford using factors outside of traditional academic credentials. With regard to knowledge of the disciplines required for any appreciable research into both the geoengineering and bioengineering subjects being studied at the Institute, Clifford is widely known as someone who can at minimum converse fluently with any highly-credentialed person on a full spectrum of topics, both commonplace and more obscure. I won't provide references to any individuals, as I assume they would prefer deciding for themselves whether to risk the consequence of associating themselves with controversial topics, even if only to acknowledge them.

Clifford is, from my personal observation something of a genius in a number of areas. Yet, I consider him to be very well-oriented to social interactions, a good communicator and appears to relate to people from different walks of life, unlike many geniuses who many seem to lack these traits. It should also be known that he has made a number of scientific breakthroughs which I think pale as compared to his development of practical methodologies. For instance, he's developed a red wine self-test for determining of a person is infected with the Cross Domain Bacteria, currently the focus of research at the institute.

In this very accessible test method, a person first brushes their teeth vigorously for at least 5 minutes followed by a thorough rinsing of the mouth. Next a solution of 1/3 3% non-food-grade hydrogen peroxide and 2/3 dark red wine (merlot) is prepared. Next, the person swishes a comfortable portion of the mixture in their mouth vigorously, for 5 minutes. Afterward, the mixture is spit into a clean container (a glass) and the process is repeated a few times. The resulting substance will, if infected to any degree contain up to 4 forms of the pathogenic form, encasing filaments, sub-micron filament networks, a chlamydia-like form and hybrid form. These are all signs of infection. If a person is so inclined and capable, they can allow the mixture to dry completely and prepare a slide for examination under a microscope. A high percentage of samples used in cultures for production of the pathogenic form are derived from this, or a similar method.

I just learned recently of his amazing trick that enables someone with an inexpensive trinocular microscope with a 1000x magnification power to increase that to between 4000x and 5000x by fabricating the attachment of a barlow diverging lens. I'm anxious myself to create one of these hybrid microscopes.

Now, as to your statement that Clifford has no training in advanced mathematics, here's something interesting to consider. Very recently, Clifford was encouraging me to take some courses at MIT. He was nearing the end of a course that just happens to have been in advanced mathematics. I believe he began another course just yesterday. A fellow volunteer at the institute just completed his Masters in advanced mathematics and I would hazard to guess that he would consider Clifford to have a superior understanding of the topic. In short, anything Clifford does he appears to require of himself that he become extremely well-versed and efficient in. I don't dare say he achieves "expertise," as I no longer value the concept.

Speaking of "experts," I find there to be a growing use of the concept to the detriment of science, learning and communication. This field of "expertology" does more to shield people from criticism and accountability than it serves as a measure of one's abilities. That is why I will almost never consider one's education when attempting to assess their capabilities in any particular area. At best, I see the modern education system as a blight on society and simply disgraceful.

I hope people will consider what I've testified to here as helpful when making any assessment of Clifford himself, his institute and the topics being researched.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by TyrannyNews:

In short, most people, animals and plants are now carrying within them a bacteria-like form that, in humans first infects blood cells. Looking at your own blood under a high-powered microscope (about 4000x) will “likely” reveal bulbous mutations of many cells.

---

I’m gathering you are another person who has joined Waccobb in the last couple of weeks to participate in this discussion (your only posts have been on this chemtrails thread) and specifically to comment about the work of Clifford Carnicom, who you clearly ardently support. I also gather you live far from West Sonoma County. You originally signed up under the name Derrick Smithers and now you say your name is Peter Klein.

While acknowledging the value of intuitive knowledge (which I believe has some place in many cases) I try to be open minded about objectively considering evidence that is presented to support extraordinary claims.

To that end, I took the time to watch all ten of a ten-part series of YouTube videos of a presentation by Clifford Carnicom — a total of one hour and thirty-eight minutes — of which Part 1 can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlCCEmNkd6A

I could pick apart a lot of his contentions I find lacking, but here are my conclusions in a quick nutshell:

• Carnicom seems like a quite likable and good person who is sincere in his efforts to try to help people.

• It seems that (by his own admission) he is an amateur researcher with no training or professional experience in pathology, forensics, material sciences, or any other relevant field to make him qualified to really understand what it is he is looking at under a microscope.

• While I concede that of course there is always some possibility he could be right, I found his presentation to be rambling and, in my opinion, he just doesn’t make a coherent, compelling case that there are strange, bio-engineered bacterial-like forms that are being purposefully sprayed on us from airplanes and that have now infected most people’s blood cells, and which can likely be viewed with a microscope (or through the "red wine test") and that only he and a few others have noticed them who are either not afraid to come forward or not intentionally suppressing the information.

I suppose my personal conclusions might be greatly offensive to some people on this forum who apparently are huge fans of Carnicom and who seem to take rather personally any critique that challenges his work. I hope I’m not personally insulted again for having my own views on this.

I understand there are people who suffer greatly from what is called Morgellons Syndrome and I don’t want to belittle what is happening to them. It must be horrible.

Scott

Dixon, to answer your the the as to how intuition applies to this topic....

While there are many "experts" posting here with all sorts of ideas about what is true and what is not, I am forced to read between the lines to find the truth. I use my intuition to guide me so I don't get bogged down in intellectual debate that seems to just go around and around and around and around in circles. My hope is to encourage others to try it out.... It's kinda fun. What is "objective reality", but just another belief system that is extremely difficult for most muggles to break through.

The left brained intellectual thought process has brought little to the deeper understanding of this and many other issues. Solutions are virtually non existent or are limited to "just let it go...there is nothing we can do anyway" opposing the "we must do something to stop them" even though we have no clue who "they" are, or what the the rules of the game are.

Similar to what Mr. Tyranny said about expertise, the overuse of the intellectual mind is a shield, protection for the ego which is deeply attached to the mental BELIEFS that most of us consider fact. The Chemtrails issue is a big issue that none of us really seem to understand fully. Unless we delve into the intuitive brain and allow information and truths to come through those parts of ourselves that we have historically shut down, the conversation never broadens. We remain polarized and with no deeper understanding from when we started out.

I look forward to seeing folks hoping off the merry-go-round of the intellect and exploring more possibilities. I apologize if this concept eliminate the hobby of debate for those who are deeply committed to keeping the argument going for sake of a good sport. If it resonates, I challenge anyone and everyone to explore what it would mean to look at this discussion through the lense of intuition... if only for a day.

Blessings

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

And, re: intuition--I'm not sure how you see intuition connected with the topic of this thread, chemtrails (maybe you're just digressing, as I am now), but I'd caution anybody about citing "intuition" as support for any position about objective reality. Interested Waccites might wish to read my essay "The Role of Intuition" here.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hummingbird:

Dixon, to answer your the the as to how intuition applies to this topic....

---

Did you read Dixon's excellent article: "The Role of Intuition"? Please read it before replying.

As far I can tell, what you are saying boils down to your intuition saying that "they" are out to get us, and the contrails following planes looks suspicious, so that must be how they are doing it. And let's not overuse our intellectual mind to shield us from the various shortcomings of this argument.

Dixon's article is excellent in my opinion. I want to add one important point. As I continually told my students, when your intuition tells you some argument or finding must be false, without your being able to explain why, two possibilities arise. First, you do not understand what seems false to you. Not understanding it, you would change your view once you did.

Second, it is in fact wrong and your intuition is picking up information that you cannot make clear to others or even yourself. In that case, if you want to engage in public discussion your job is to SHOW THE WAY so that othjers can find the same conclusion you intuited. As you do you might even find your initial intuition needed revising even though it correctly told you something was wrong. In the case of this conspiracy stuff, it requires showing evidence where the explanation of conspiracy is at least as rational as any other explanation.

The discussion so far has convinced me even more strongly than when I entered it that those claiming chemtrails exist do not understand science and do not understand even the minimal requirements for making a scientific claim. They are not alone- much of this culture is in free fall as to their ability to make a rational argument or subject their own claims to rational evaluation.

I urge those attacking experts to use their intuition to fix their computer when it crashes, fix their transmission when it needs work, set their bone, or the bone of another, when it breaks, and grind the lens needed for their glasses. WITHOUT using a instructional source - because such sources were prepared by experts.

Being an expert does not mean you are always right (and many experts need frequent reminding of that), and experts sometimes disagree, but it does mean that they know much more about the subject concerned than non experts, and their views deserve being given MUCH more weight on the issue than those of a non-expert. While it is irritating to encounter an expert so full of himself as to think he or she is always right, it is even more irritating to encounter a non-expert who pretends to be as worth listening to on a subject as an expert in the field.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Did you read Dixon's excellent article: "The Role of Intuition"? Please read it before replying.

As far I can tell, what you are saying boils down to your intuition saying that "they" are out to get us, and the contrails following planes looks suspicious, so that must be how they are doing it. And let's not overuse our intellectual mind to shield us from the various shortcomings of this argument.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

I urge those attacking experts to use their intuition to fix their computer when it crashes, fix their transmission when it needs work.

---

as one who fixes computers and transmissions, I can attest that many people strongly believe their intuition about the cause of the problem. And are happy to explain how to go about fixing it. They typically do stop short of fixing it themselves but are quite distrustful if the problem you find and correct is different than the one they diagnosed for you.

the fact that condensation can occur with anything that causes pressure differentials is what makes cloud formation so interesting. If you have ever been to the Midwest, you can go from clear, to thunderstorm clouds, in a matter of minutes, and the clouds form "out of thin air" (actually its out of heavy air when the humidity is high). Here is a couple of youtubes showing very cool condensation patterns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWrbip5TwJs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d9A2oq1N38

Also, liquid fuel rockets use H2 and 0 to burn and produce only water, just like a fuel cell. I'm not sure what the exhaust is from the solid rocket boosters.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

Kate,

What you see here is a very common cloud formation going north to south along the crest of the Sierra Nevada that occurs when the prevailing winds descend over the crest into the desert. I see it all the time backpacking along with jet contrails. No need to get all alarmed.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

Now there's a man that I know, the only man that I have personally met on this earth that decided to take what he knew, what he had, and devote his entire life to the service of humanity and the world.

---

I don't mean this to belittle your obviously strong feelings. You know by now that most people won't be convinced, and I'm sure that's frustrating for you - though I bet you've figured a way to account for it.

but i gotta say, this all sounds like a Robert Heinlein story from the early 50s. Down to the heroic iconoclast... it's a story that probably was told by Homer in a different form -- obviously it resonates with the way we perceive our world and have for millennia. Of course, its familiarity; or rather, the re-occurrence of its form in epic tales, speaks against the likelihood of its truth.

Well, now, all this talk bout experts and fixing stuff has reminded me of a story about Edgar Cayce, the Sunday school teacher who was known as the Sleeping Prophet.

Seems there was an ocean liner stuck out at sea because the engine wasn't working. The mechanics had been through the rooms of gears and cable and thingamajigs innumerable times. Experts had been brought in from afar. All was to no avail - the huge ship stayed floating helplessly in the ocean with passengers and crew waiting for the engine to be made to work.
As a last resort, someone thought of contacting Edgar Cayce. He knew nothing of engines but was ready to help where he could, so he went into his trance, got clear on where the problem was, then gave detailed though entirely un-mehanical directions to the mechanics, who finally located the small piece which had malfunctioned, fixed it and the ship engine turned on and took the ship et.al. on their way.


And Albert Einstein had much to say about intuition, including these 2 quotes:

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1397746759p2/9810.jpg“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
― Albert Einstein


I'll have what they're having - BOTH sides of the brain.
Blest, Jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Gus diZerega:

Dixon's article is excellent in my opinion. I want to add one important point. As I continually told my students, when your intuition tells you some argument or finding must be false, without your being able to explain why, two possibilities arise. First, you do not understand what seems false to you. Not understanding it, you would change your view once you did.

Second, it is in fact wrong and your intuition is picking up information that you cannot make clear to others or even yourself. In that case, if you want to engage in public discussion your job is to SHOW THE WAY so that othjers can find the same conclusion you intuited. As you do you might even find your initial intuition needed revising even though it correctly told you something was wrong. In the case of this conspiracy stuff, it requires showing evidence where the explanation of conspiracy is at least as rational as any other explanation.

The discussion so far has convinced me even more strongly than when I entered it that those claiming chemtrails exist do not understand science and do not understand even the minimal requirements for making a scientific claim. They are not alone- much of this culture is in free fall as to their ability to make a rational argument or subject their own claims to rational evaluation.

I urge those attacking experts to use their intuition to fix their computer when it crashes, fix their transmission when it needs work, set their bone, or the bone of another, when it breaks, and grind the lens needed for their glasses. WITHOUT using a instructional source - because such sources were prepared by experts.

Being an expert does not mean you are always right (and many experts need frequent reminding of that), and experts sometimes disagree, but it does mean that they know much more about the subject concerned than non experts, and their views deserve being given MUCH more weight on the issue than those of a non-expert. While it is irritating to encounter an expert so full of himself as to think he or she is always right, it is even more irritating to encounter a non-expert who pretends to be as worth listening to on a subject as an expert in the field.

---

I understand now Kate – you joined this board, May 02, 2014, solely to pick up on an old thread, one that had not received any activity since Dec 2012, for the purpose of proselytizing for the Chemtrails Cult and one of it's guru's Clifford Carnicom. My question is are you a hired gun or a groupie? Beyond that I have nothing else to say to you. Your inability to respond intelligently with any form of evidence other than 'I believe what I believe because I believe it' says it all.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

We will not settle this argument here. For what we seek to establish is airborne, clandestine, denied...

---

Six hundred and sixteen words into your ramble you have said nothing in response to my observations. You seem to be of the impression that spouting your personal opinions and citing zero relevant facts to substantiate anything you offer somehow has credibility and we should now understand that Mr. Carnicom is a genius. I'm particularly entertained by your dissertation about Clifford's “scientific breakthrough” in his development of a self-test for Cross Domain Bacteria. Of course you neglected to mention that Mr. Carnicom also invented the disease, for which I was unable to find any outside corroborative evidence of its existence. Now that's a scam worth considering – I'm wondering when he will get around to inventing the cure?

Eventually you attempted to respond directly to one of my statements. Unfortunately you got that wrong. There were two things I attributed to Clifford's expertise and one of them was mathematics – so there we have no disagreement. Considering this is the only point you attempted to address I'm guessing that the results of my relatively cursory search vetting Mr. Carnicom are in fact spot on. He is simply not qualified to be an authority on any of the issues his institute represents. He has opinions and he began the Carnicom Institute to propagate those opinions and guise them as scientific research. Does he have a right to do this? Of course he does. Do you have the right to bite on his hook and get reeled in? Of course you do. Is it appropriate for Clifford, yourself or anyone else to misrepresent themselves? In my opinion, it is not.

Now you might want to consider mentioning to your cohorts, Paul Harris (who I realize might well be you under another name) and Kate Willens that you have all been sniffed out for what you are – Internet trolls, likely for hire but not necessarily so, but definitely pushing an agenda. In my opinion it's time for you all to move on and find another discussion board to infiltrate.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by TyrannyNews:

Rustie, I appreciate the tone of your response and think some of your comments were valid and well thought out. However, I disagree with your critique of Clifford Carnicom and feel compelled to provide the members here an alternative assessment.

First, it should be known that I am a volunteer member and consultant at the Carnicom Institute. ...

---

Rustie,

I agree with nearly everything you say, and admire the way you say it. If you haven't published, you should. If you have, I'd be curious to read what you've written. The only thing that troubles me about your post is the imperiousness of it--you practically order this triad to flee the kingdom. I hope they don't. I'm quite happy to read what they say, as one of my fascinations is mass delusion. Arthunter and I have gone around a few times on the subject of Targeted Individuals; Morgellons are clearly in the same delusional category (though differing in the randomness of the victim).

While I appreciate your "tribal elder"-like efforts to keep our commons here free of rubbish, I also value the ability to interact with people I'm curious about. And to really get to know the logic. Mostly I hope to get some insight into how an apparently intact intellect allows itself to jump off into outer space like that, and ONLY about the one subject. Encapsulated delusions in minds that are otherwise perfectly good--one end of a spectrum, not so far away from the band that believe global warming is a hoax, or that tax cuts for the rich make sense for a poor person. Not all the way out at the end of the spectrum, where schizophrenia lives...but a little nuts just the same. And i think it behooves the rest of us to understand it all a little better.

To the three Clifford devotees: I know this seems really judgmental, off-putting, maybe painful, what I say here. (Although my suspicion is that you take some "us against them" satisfaction in fielding criticism.) There is nothing I can do about that, and if it does cause pain i am sorry. You may instead be feeling sorry for me, since I've obviously opted for the blue pill, in your collective book.

kathy

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Rustie:

Six hundred and sixteen words into your ramble you have said nothing in response to my observations. You seem to be ...

---

Jude, in all this talk...nothing about fixing it, as far as I can tell. That would be different.

kp

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

Well, now, all this talk bout experts and fixing stuff has reminded me of a story about Edgar Cayce, the Sunday school teacher who was known as the Sleeping Prophet. ...

---

Kate- I sadly think Rustie is correct. But I will make one last try.

I doubt you are aware of how smugly arrogant what you wrote was, but it was offensively so. You say you and those like you have superior values to the values of “this world” without getting any more specific as to what those values are than you did to the evidence behind chem. trails. For your information the writers with whom you have been dealing have widely divergent be;iefs, from strong atheism or agnosticism to very strong religious and spiritual beliefs. Many have made life choices expensive in terms of the dominant financial values of “this world.” What most of us share is a belief in reasoned discussion and the obligation to provide evidence when we make claims we expect others to accept.

That is an important kind of humility that involves respect for those we talk to and awareness of our own fallibility.

Perhaps your alternative value is pride and arrogance?

If the man you admire is as you describe, he is one of many such, including arguably people on this thread. Sorry you have met only one.

Many of us have devoted ourselves to seeking to serve those around us, each in different ways. And many of us disagree as to how best to do that. This is why having a common commitment to reason and evidence is so important. The world has been filled with misfortune not just from the actions of the bad and amoral, arguably even more suffering can be traced to those who in their sincerity hold themselves above others. The ease with which you denigrate any and all who have different views suggests you are at least prone to those errors.

When you want to engage in honest dialogue try and give concrete verifiable claims. If those claims are rebutted, address the rebuttals. And address others’ reasons for disagreeing. If you do not do that you are not engaging honestly with people who see the world differently than you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

We will not settle this argument here. For what we seek to establish is airborne, clandestine, denied. My initial post was never to establish proof. I have observed the sky every day since I first found out about chemtrails in 2011. There is no way that any of you can tell me what I know I have seen is not what I know it to be....

---

Kate, you say:

"Now there's a man that I know, the only man that I have personally met on this earth that decided to take what he knew, what he had, and devote his entire life to the service of humanity and the world."

are you serious?

Clifford is the only person you've ever met who has devoted his or her (I'm assuming your use of "man" is just a figure of speech, albeit an archaic one) life to the service of humanity and the world???

kp

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Magdalena Willens:

...
(btw, this thread is being marginalized as the last post still appears on the front page as 5/4.....is this intended?)

---

It's not being marginalized (unless there is a conspiracy I don't know about :wink:). Here's what it looks like in the WaccoTalk category listing (at or near the very top of the category):

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_12-27-30.png

What are you seeing?