reply to post by MathiasAndrew
You know how it goes Mathias, but just in case others missed it here's what happened with a little analysis at the end.
Essen was the first of anyone on the thread to make mention of Cirrus clouds and that wasn't until the 3rd page and was done in a very derisive
Incidently, as far as geoengineering goes, what type of geoengineering involves replicating cirrus clouds? Unless the purpose is to cause very slight
global warming? Some people just don't think things through
I then, mistakenly responded in the next post by quoting "Debunking the Debunkers" from Rense and then said:
It seems cirrus cloud replication is but a byproduct of the process, which in this case is drought inducing. I suppose that's a form of
That gave him all the opening he needed and Essen responded:
Cirrus - whether natural or manmade - has never, ever, produced precipitation to ground level (it may occasionally produce virga). Cirrus - again
whether natural or manmade - may often occur ahead of a frontal system. And this may well produce rain. But not always everywhere. And sometimes the
front is too weak to bring much precipitation, even over Britain. Cirrus forms at a much higher altitude to rain bearing clouds Cirrus can neither
induce nor prevent convection. Clearly whoever wrote that article hasn't thought things through Sometimes it helps to do a bit of research on basic
meteorology before making things up
Again, he was the first person to mention cirrus clouds in the whole thread and used it to draw me in enough to make his point more thoroughly even
though I never said any of those things about cirrus clouds and neither did the article I quoted. Still he used it to "show proof" I and therefore the
whole geoengineering/chemtrail issue was false as well as ridiculing both me and the author of the article.
Ignoring that I posted some other possibilities that came from reading the article, refusing to get drawn in any further. To which Essen responded by
deriding and trying to draw me in with the one liner, also repeating himself to try to drive the point home to anyone that was not paying
As I said, sometimes it helps to do a bit of research on basic meteorology before making things up
When I called him on the tactic and refused to get drawn in with a little support from Mathias, Essen disappears and Aloysius shows up with
Yep - so knowing what is actually IM-possible is a good start. Lots of things are possible without ever happening - but postulating about stuff that
is not possible in hte first place seems kind of pointless, and saying "well what iff..." when you have enough information to know that it is not
possible is dishonest....unless you are writing science/fantasy fiction
Again, derisive and dismissive without addressing any real issue other than information assassination. When I pointed out that many things that are
commonplace today were once impossible and Mathias asked:
What exactly are you saying is impossible? That's a new spin I haven't heard yet. Please be specific about what you think is impossible and
Aloysius responded with:
Really - I thought Essan pointed out quite clearly that cirrus does not produce precipitation at ground level .
Remember Essan was the first one to bring up cirrus clouds well into page 3. No "chemmies" (I'm taking the title as a badge of honor) ever mentioned
anything about cirrus producing precipitation or not.
7) Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does
not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.
And yet this was Aloysius' answer to the blanket assertion that presumably all of the things we had talked about on the thread to that point were
Eight minutes later Mathias asked Aloysius again:
Are you avoiding the real question or just playing dumb? What does the comment you just made have to do with this conversation?
and reiterated the point and purpose of this thread and....crickets.
A little bit of analysis:
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and
the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent
arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk
all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer...simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent
response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense,
provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any
actual material fact.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or
controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with
you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses
which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid
discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then
focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented
by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not
be at his disposal). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid
sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Other things that have appeared in this thread, again Aloysius:
Then they found it was making them quite famous among some circles - big fish, small pond syndrome. So they published and wrote whatever possibilites
crossed they could imagine. However when other people read and saw their work some of them started asking questions involving factual information and
science, and it soon became fairly obvious thaat chemtrails did not exist and could not exist. but there was fame and fortune involved here, so
anything counter-factual to their ego boost had to be gotten rid of somehow - or at least demonised so the true believers wouldn't have to actually
think about it in any meaningful waty.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other
bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
From Aloysius next post:
I think Tankerenemy is actually a real disinfo agent. He posts such obvious rubbish that he can't possibly actually believe it...if he's not a
disinfo agent - I think the term is actually "false flag" then he's certainly not a real friend of the chemtrail theory.
The methods of disinfo in that post have already been covered. And that has to do with the topic of the thread how? When nobody bit the hook and
people refused to even acknowledge the comment Chadwikus pops up with
If chemtrails are geo-engineering. It ain't working! 20 years of...nothing!
Based on what I'm not sure but clearly an attempt to goad people into reacting. Pianopraze dealt with it calmly and intelligently and rather than
engaging more in the discussion Chadwickus responds with a good 1 liner:
So, it's so top secret that they decided to make big, long, white lines that cover the sky? These guy are slick!
Pianopraze again intelligently answers the question but again, without going into the issue further Chadwickus responds with another straw man
argument and a little baseless derision to boot:
I see no mention whatsoever about HAARP. It wasn't even built when this paper was written. Turns out this is a typical chemtrail thread, full of
misinterpreted, straw clutching crap.
and again trying to knock over the straw man:
YOU said HAARP can do mind control and YOU posted this paper as proof, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with HAARP, hell it has NOTHING to do with
Mathias handled the comment intelligently and because everyone on the post was trying to stay on topic aside from the "debunkers" Network Dude pops up
Assuming that what everyone sees in the sky is more than a condensate trail left from aircraft exhaust in cloud forming conditions, I would say we are
being sprayed with vitamins and minerals meant to increase life expectancy. Based on this information I can look at almost any country in the world
and see that the life expectancy is ever increasing. Should we discover that chemtrails are real, I think we should be thanking the perpetrators of
Again this is shameless baiting and I bit with the Asthma info which shifted the discussion into another straw man tactic and Aloysius returns to blow
the straw man down:
Asthma was at a historical low in hte 1970's - see www.cdc.gov..., which has data back to 1960.
and from a later post:
The fact that asthma rates now are about the same as the early 60's are probably not relevant....since we've both shown that there's no actual
What this has to do with the original thread topic of possible purposes for chemtrails I'm not sure, but it sure does make a great straw man to deny
their existence altogether without actually addressing any of the possibilities of purposes that people brought up throughout the thread.
It also fits:
17. Change the subject.
Aloysius also posts saying:
Well there you go then - I "always" knew that "geoengineering" was a possibility. IIRC the first time I encountered the concept that a/c might alter
the world's climate was as a young mechanic in the 1970's when a possible US SST was still a hot topic, and the effects of pollution being "injected"
into the stratosphere were very much under discussion. Then in the 1980's & 1990's there was a lot of discussion of the effect of the combustion
products of a/c on the Ozone layer - particularly "NOX & SOX" - nitrous and sulphur oxides. Engine manufacturers were going to massive lengths to
decrease the amount of such products. So for me the concept of "geoengineering" is not new at all - I have not had a blinding revelation.
Which seems very much like:
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to
illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
From another article on tactics other things seen in this thread and almost every other chemtrail thread include:
1) Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of
the impersonal nature of the web.
3) Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people
4) Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive
responses to honest arguments.
6) False Paradigms: Human beings have a tendency to categorize and label other people and ideas. It is, for better or worse, a fundamental part of how
we understand the complexities of the world. This component of human nature, like most any other, can be abused as a powerful tool for social
manipulation. By framing a polarized debate according to artificial boundaries, and establishing the two poles of that debate, social engineers can
eliminate the perceived possibility of a third alternative.
Again from Aloysius' first post out of the gate:
Anyone who consistantly presents fcounter-factual evidence must be asked how much they are getting paid. Any site that organises counter-factual
evidence must be labelled as "unbelievable", "impressive disinformation", "government paid for", lies, etc. No evidence must be presented to prove
this tho - no effort must be made to actually show how the disinfo is actualy wrong -
I know that this was a long post but I hope people have found it informative. Almost every, if not all of the chemtrail threads and the debunkers on
them use these same techniques over and over again and you too can do your own deconstruction (though it gets a bit difficult with the 40+ page posts
filled with said techniques.)
Obviously I have no proof other than the words and methods the debunkers use to say they are or aren't paid shills but I would have to say that if you
don't want to be labeled as a paid disinfo agent or shill you shouldn't use so many of their tactics.
edit on 27-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: cleaning
edit on 27-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: more cleaning