Proof that Geoengineeringwatch had been lying all along.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I can't speak for him.

I would have to know his side of the story, and I don't.

I don't know enough about his website yet to have a clear understanding. I haven't been researching chemtrails very long.

Like I've said, my focus is on the New World Order plans of the shadow government to bring us into a One World Government. Something I don't want and don't want for my children or grandchild.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
No offense intended, but thanks for a making me laugh.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h
I don't know. I can't even remember the context of where I saw the term. I'll comment more about it when I see the term used again in my research.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance
Yes, I've heard of it.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I noticed the words, " . . . we would not see any aircraft and there is no reason to suppose chemtrail spraying would produce clouds at lower altitudes, or indeed, be in any way visible from the ground at all. This later fact being IMO the elephant in the chemtrail room."

I also saw that apparently the discussion was about AGW, as in Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Why wasn't it about "Climate Change"?

a reply to: ConnectDots
THAT is what you chose to focus on?

Is that where you got the idea of invisible ''chemtrails'' or not?

a reply to: ConnectDots

How is this connected to chemtrails, and why are you posting about it here and not in "Fragile Earth"?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

You're talking about the scientific method.

In the case of a shadow government, how could you reasonably apply the scientific method to it?

That's why the only way is to give whistleblowers the respect they deserve, because they put their lives at risk when they speak out.

Once you get the testimony, you could try to test it by researching the record of historical events to see if there is confirmation there. But you have to be careful because the historical record as reported by the mainstream media is often full of propaganda.

But you have to at least listen to whistleblowers.

In my opinion, we owe that to ourselves, our families, and our world because we're all impacted by what they're doing behind the scenes. And, in my opinion, we need to be looking for ways to not go along to get along with the shadow government.

There is no way for me to fact-check a whistleblower who states that he worked directly for George Herbert Walker Bush and carried out assassinations himself until one day he stopped and refused. Then he went to prison for refusing.

Except - to have a general knowledge of what's going on in the world - but NOT from mainstream television news.

It takes an inquiring mind to seek out this knowledge of the shadow government, for which Chip Tatum says he worked. I believe him. I make use of my overall research into the New World Order plans of the elite, along with my intuition. Once I hear a person's testimony, and better, see a video, I listen to my gut. We have more to work with than just our mind.

Well that's interesting. I guess listening to your gut and intuition is one way to approach things. But of course there's always the danger of confirmation bias. Once you've come to the conclusion that there must be a shadow government with nothing but evil plans for humanity (as seems to be your case), then anything such a 'whistleblower' tells you will fall on fertile ground.

So how do you go about preventing that from happening, and make sure that alleged whistleblowers aren't selling you a whopper of a tale?

I hope you don't take this as an offence, but one of the problems with American society/education is that it's seriously challenged when it comes to critical thinking. Instead it is like you say: people go by their gut feelings and have individuals they trust tell them how the world sticks together. I think that's called 'cult of personality'. You're paying attention to WHO is telling you something, instead of examining WHAT they're saying.

So maybe this can be helpful in your further investigations. Learn some critical thinking skills. Here's a handy set of guidelines that will help you do just that:

1.Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2 Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3 Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4 Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5 Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6 Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7 If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8 Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9 Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I was responding to DenyObfuscation's thought that maybe some light would be cast on what an invisible chemtrail is about in the discussion linked. The discussion in question was about AGW, which I thought was an outdated term, according to the mainstream.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
But you have to at least listen to whistleblowers.

How do you even know they're whistleblowers, as opposed to random crackpots on the internet making things up? Because they said so?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I was responding to DenyObfuscation's thought that maybe some light would be cast on what an invisible chemtrail is about in the discussion linked. The discussion in question was about AGW, which I thought was an outdated term, according to the mainstream.

Not exactly. I'm not saying there ARE invisible ''chemtrails''. The purpose was simply to find out if that is where you got that idea from.

Why does Wigington get a pass on his manners issue?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

You're talking about the scientific method.

In the case of a shadow government, how could you reasonably apply the scientific method to it?

That's why the only way is to give whistleblowers the respect they deserve, because they put their lives at risk when they speak out.

What's the point of respecting an alleged whistleblower a priori when they might just as well be talking a lot of bollocks, for whatever reason ( I can think of a few).

In the case of chemtrails it's not too hard to check the claims. Actually, the fundamental claim that we find in the most popular media pushing chemtrails is that contrails can't persist. The fact that they never tell you WHY this should be the case should raise a lot of red flags. They don't tell you that this isn't the scientific consensus at all either. They just depend on you swallowing their camel, because they're such wonderful people or something.

So check whatever claims you can. It's not rocket science. Wonder why a cirrus cloud at the same altitude has no trouble persisting, but supposedly a contrail can't even though it's technically the same thing (hence the name Cirrus Aviaticus).

It's not going to help to start with the conclusion that the shadow government is evil, therefore they must be spraying us with something, and then try to back-engineer chemtrails into the picture by only focussing on alleged data that confirms your stance. That inevitably leads to confirmation bias.

same thing for the shadow government. Go through the claims one by one, and see in what way you can find out whether they're true. Claims from authority are always suspect, so doubly make sure you investigate those. Some will be easier to verify than others, and sometimes it will be impossible, in which case it's good to leave the matter open.

Good luck

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I was responding to DenyObfuscation's thought that maybe some light would be cast on what an invisible chemtrail is about in the discussion linked. The discussion in question was about AGW, which I thought was an outdated term, according to the mainstream.

as far as I know AGW is still a valid term for that part of climate change thought to be caused by human activity.

AGW is not all of climate change.

Either way it is a sidetrack - geoengineringwatch still tells lies.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I was responding to DenyObfuscation's thought that maybe some light would be cast on what an invisible chemtrail is about in the discussion linked. The discussion in question was about AGW, which I thought was an outdated term, according to the mainstream.

as far as I know AGW is still a valid term for that part of climate change thought to be caused by human activity.

AGW is not all of climate change.

Either way it is a sidetrack - geoengineringwatch still tells lies.

It is indeed. Why does Wigington need to redact his comments to the extent that not a single critical post is allowed to stand? If the chemtrail theory is on to something, then leave the comment and post a reply explaining why he thinks the comment is wrong. At least that way we may be getting some food for thought. But as it is now, it only confirms our suspicions that geoengineeringwatch is perpetrating a hoax.

I should hasten to add that to me this isn't a mere suspicion anymore.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: mrthumpy

Sequence of Events

1. You accuse Wigington of having a closed mind.
   
2. I challenge you to consider that you might have a closed mind.
   
3. You answer that your mind is not closed as evidenced by being called a shill by "chemtrailers."
   

But my question to you is: Can you open up your mind to the possibility that overall, the chemtrailers are right; we are being sprayed to accomplish some goal of the shadow government?

It's perfectly possible that we are being sprayed but apparently it is being done without leaving any evidence whatsoever. I'm going to need a bit more than lies, ignorance and censorship to convince me it's happening though

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I've stumbled upon where I probably first saw the term.

It is in the Description of the video "Secret Chemtrail Pilot Speaks, on Dec 8, 2014," the video in the OP of "Operation Indigo Skyfold."

Here is the specific part:

. . . INSTEAD, he says the opposite: "a very new "extremely toxic" chemtrail mix, is going to be sprayed. Using new technology, that makes these special chemtrails, completely invisible." . . .

www.youtube.com...

The transcript for the video is in the Comments section. The first paragraph:

TEXT OF PILOT MESSAGE: December 8, 2014 My cousin who was fired by our dictator, just before making "rank withheld", sent me information given to him by a friend, who is still an Air Force pilot. This pilot is saying that he flies CHEMTRAIL flights!

www.youtube.com...

I will continue to investigate what's going on with GeoEngineering Watch, but in my opinion, if you have considered my posts about the shadow government, all of them, the stage is set to open your minds to the possibility that it's the whistleblower testimony that we should be discussing as this point, not the alleged sins of Dane Wigington.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: DenyObfuscation


I will continue to investigate what's going on with GeoEngineering Watch, but in my opinion, if you have considered my posts about the shadow government, all of them, the stage is set to open your minds to the possibility that it's the whistleblower testimony that we should be discussing as this point, not the alleged sins of Dane Wigington.

Feel free to start a thread then. This is about the (alleged) deliberate cover up by Dane Wigington

a reply to: mrthumpy

That's a good idea.

Thanks.

a reply to: ConnectDots

the stage is set to open your minds to the possibility that it's the whistleblower testimony that we should be discussing as this point, not the alleged sins of Dane Wigington.

Why should he get a pass? You suggested that he might have denied info due to politeness. If politeness is that important then shouldn't he be leading by example?