SOCO Magazine Publishes Chemtrail Article: Causes Uproar and Major Troll Activity...Going Viral

a reply to: MRuss

Hello MRuss,
If you look at this link it will take to you airliners.net and show some examples of water ballast testing which is what that photo in your article is. The process is there to test weight transfer on board an aircraft. They can pump more water to one side or the other to verify the planes capabilities.

For the folks who believe in chemtrails, it's nothing that is bad, they usually just are concerned about the environment. But they usually are very defensive if you try to show them that what they think is proof of chemtrails is actually not. As with your article and it's photo.

Lots of people are enthusiasts of airplanes and weather phenomenon, so those are typically the ones who disagree with chemtrails, as they actually UNDERSTAND the dynamics that make weather happen. I realize you aren't here to discuss chemtrails so I won't bother you with any questions or badger you, I only wanted to try to explain why the information in that article is misrepresenting some facts.

have a nice day.

a reply to: MRuss

have you actually read the article ????

a reply to: MRuss


I'm in my 5th decade too, and my memory serves me well.

But i won't discuss my own opinion on Chemtrails, as your thread was 'supposed' to be about questioning whether or not the relatively rare happening of the Chemtrails topic being shown and spoken about in detail on a regional mainstream media, is perhaps indicative of shifting attitudes or beliefs about Chemtrails.

It's difficult to say one way or the other if it's significant, remembering the subject has been aired a number of times previously and so it isn't a unique or particularly startling subject for discussion, but still...it is obviously a controversial subject bound to polarise those with an opinion, and so provokes a point of view that is somewhere between being perched on the edge of conspiracy theory and self-obvious conspiracy fact. And everywhere between.

This show just taking the Chemtrails subject on, because it's controversial is a good thing for a media company to do.

It shows courage and a level of journalism that ought to be standard, but sadly isn't. Informing the public whether through print or TV is what journalists are all about, asking the difficult questions, rooting out truths and lies and letting us know what is going on, is journalism..that's the whole point.

Showing shows that tackle the difficult and controversial subjects unashamedly, is just good journalism.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

As a journalist, I mostly write features that don't involve "conspiracies" or similar topics because, it must be said, I have to make a living.

I think my point here is that it is certainly refreshing to see any topic that is considered "off limits" to emerge in any publication even close to mainstream is a refreshing change.

My true cross to bear is with the media. I went to journalism school and everything I was taught about freedom of press, and the fourth estate is completely out the window.

I'm old enough to have watched the changes---to have actually been a part of these changes in newsrooms throughout the northeast for a number of years.

There are still curious journalists but they are being cut off by the gatekeepers at their organizations. There is no freedom of the press anymore.

Except---for smaller magazines like SOCO who don't have as much to lose.

So, yes, there was some bravado on the part of the editors there to berate the main stream media and then publish something controversial.

That was my point.

a reply to: MysterX

Thanks for your reply!

I think you got my point, so I'm grateful for your thoughtful response.

As for chemtrails.... of all the topics that interest me, I have paid the least attention to this, especially lately. With whispers of war, decapitated children in the news, and the unraveling of society as we know it, I guess it hasn't been foremost on my mind.

But because I squarely believe the manufactured demise of this country is currently taking place, nothing would surprise me. I believe there are people who have every right to be concerned that chemtrails may exist. And while solid proof is hard to come by in this big game of thrones we're all in, I think they're going to have to do a better job of proving it.

Having said that, proof never seems to pacify anyone. It's never enough.

I stopped debating UFO's and chemtrails and similar topics years ago. Now, I just adopt my own world view and try to live the best I can within those parameters, waking up a few people here and there.

In this day and age, that's the best that we can do.

a reply to: MRuss

I think my point here is that it is certainly refreshing to see any topic that is considered "off limits" to emerge in any publication even close to mainstream is a refreshing change.

Wouldn't it help something be real before it's considered off limits?

And the only one's saying they are off limit are the one's who have never really done the research into chemtrails.

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
The only thing I can attest too, is that "contrails" never lingered when I was a kid, I'm now 58.

the only thing I can attest to is that contrails lingered ever since I was a kid, and I'm now 55.

and what's more I actually have evidence to suppor that other than my memory:

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: tsurfer2000h
The only thing I can attest too, is that "contrails" never lingered when I was a kid, I'm now 58.

I'm 49, and I had two reasons for specifically remembering that contrails DID linger and spread out into clouds.

1. I lived near a rural area in the 1970s, and I was always interested in aviation as a kid (as many kids are) the TV farm reports would discuss the issue of the jet age causing more cloudy days than before the jet age, due to the proliferation of high-altitude airlines creating persistent contrails.

2. I had a science teacher in 1979/1980 who was really into meteorology. I specifically remembering using charts (probably the appelman chart) to track contrail persistence as it relates to weather conditions at altitude...

...Actually, being only a junior high science course, we did it a bit backwards, and when we saw persistent contrails, our science teacher would explain that the temperatures and relative humidity where the contrail was lingering/spreading must be at a certain level.

We didn't have the access to the data to confirm those temperatures and humidity, but the teacher was just trying to show us how we could know (in very general terms) temperatures and humidity at altitude by looking at contrails.

However, the point is there were in fact persistent and spreading contrails then, and I have specific reasons for remembering them. Do people who don't remember them have specific reasons that they KNOW there weren't any?


If people think my memory of my 1970s farm reports and science class are faulty, then what about this:or this:

originally posted by: MRuss

The significance of my post, by the way, was not to debate chemtrails (which many intelligent and concerned citizens seem to have an issue with), but to merely point out the unusual advent of a mainstream magazine reporting on a "conspiracy theory" and the backlash that comes with doing such a thing. I suppose my intent was lost on you and for that I apologize.

The backlash was not for reporting on a conspiracy theory, it was for doing so without researching the topic and in doing so reporting proven lies.

a reply to: MRuss

Who's really the trolls here?

The ones pointing out the error of the picture, or those that are misleading and lying by claiming the photo is something it's not?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The backlash was not for reporting on a conspiracy theory, it was for doing so without researching the topic and in doing so reporting proven lies.

ding ding - we have a winner

in brief the article cites :

the aledged "german whistleblower " - demonstrated to be a liar

a faked pic of a COG [ centre of gravity ] ballast testing rig

and a gish gallop of other throwaway claims

ending on a low note of new age " medical mumbo jumbo ] - my favourite - pumping herbs up your arse will cure you of chemtrail poisoning

originally posted by: MRuss

Fact: Their FB page (in two different posts) is being inundated with known trolls. These trolls have alerted authorities about the article's picture (wasn't properly licensed?) and have generally derailed the topic by insulting posters.

Define troll. Someone who asks for evidence to back up claims?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
ending on a low note of new age " medical mumbo jumbo ] - my favourite - pumping herbs up your arse will cure you of chemtrail poisoning

At least they did not say disperse vinegar in your back yard ... I hope ...

Just another example of chemmies faking so-called evidence.

Perhaps one day a chemmie will be honest about the "evidence" - but it isn't somethign to hold your breath for.....except for this guy...but even hten chemmies still quote him as "Evidence" - and he's deliberately trolled them for lol's and $$''s, and says so!!

a reply to: MRuss

I think the big backlash about this is how poorly the article was researched. As a journalist, I am sure you know that it's imperative to verify your information. That certainly wasn't done here. But that is often the case with regards to chemtrails. manufactured evidence is all that exists. Oh, and loads of speculation.

a reply to: MRuss

I will agree that is a good thing when a magazine (or any outlet) isn't afraid to publicise or tackle difficult or controversial subjects.

It's just a huge shame when that courage is so poorly and shoddily employed, rehashing old and utterly false claims such as contrails don't persist and pictures of ballast test equipment (for pity's sake!) and generally undermine ing their own position to the point it diminishes the credibility of anything else they subsequently decide to cover if this is their journalistic standard. When they do that they've actually regressed, not progressed.

Yet all it would have taken was some diligence and genuine research. There is plenty to expose, but they chose all the wrong stuff!

Disappointing.

a reply to: waynos

Yet all it would have taken was some diligence and genuine research. There is plenty to expose, but they chose all the wrong stuff!

But if they researched it they wouldn't sell as many magazines as the truth just isn't as good as a fairytale.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

what gets me is :

there are several arguments against the current level of air - traffic , employing valid science and sound logic that SHOULD be addressed

why are idiots writing about the " chemtrails " fantasy - when they could ardress real issues ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

why are idiots writing about the " chemtrails " fantasy - when they could ardress real issues ?

Real issues don't make as much money as fantasies.

Also last week, an article that actually spoke the truth about chemtrails, and in a NATIONAL newspaper.

In Le Monde, published in Paris. Written by Audrey Garric who is also a contributor to The Guardian in the UK.

ecologie.blog.lemonde.fr...



Unfortunately it's in French, but you could use an online translator if you don't speak French.