Not your typical Chemtrail thread

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





This is how "they" get away with "spraying" over their own families - "they" won't take the vaccines, or fluoride, or whatever, so "they" won't be affected.


I know you are just being sarcastic and derisive, but that actually makes sense.


"If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination." -Retired Vaccine Researcher to Jon Rappoport


www.rense.com...

Also, I can't find the exact quote right now, but Hidden Hand said as much (not about the chemtrail combination but about not coming near the health impairing things the masses do

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 25-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: partial removal of response




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


Nope - I was doing exactly what Matty asked for - passing on information that I have actually seen about what someone thinks chemtrails were intended for.

Of course I think it is drivel like every other chemtrail theory...but I don't need to be sarcastic to say that - I am perfectly happy using plain language to do so



Besides, what does data from the 60's or 70's have to do with anything, especially with chemtrails not really supposed to have been started until the mid 80's, early 90's since which there has been a steady increase of COPD and Asthma.


Chemtrails were supposedly started at the time of the "Owning the weather" paper published in the mid 1990's, not in the 80's at all.

So increasing rates since the 70's through the 80's & early 90's must be irrelevant - not trying to show correlatoin was a good move on your part


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 correlation
edit on 25-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Here's an interesting article I found:


Aluminum chaff has been suggested as being used to prevent terrorist communications from being successful in the country.
Barium oxide has been proposed to be being employed to facilitate American military and governmental broadcasts across the nation and overseas. It has also been linked to the generally obscure, but technically public, HAARP project.
Ethylene dibromide and the numerous pathogens often found in abundance after massive chemtrail presence over an area have led to considerations that everything from eugenics to wholesale destruction of populations is an aim of the apparent campaign of serial spraying over the country.
Other theories such as weather manipulation and control of global warming have been advanced for the spraying in the skies over the nation.



In fact, though, it is often possible to raise objections to each theory, and that fact is frequently employed by those who call themselves "debunkers" to criticize, demean and even baldly ridicule those who want an answer to the issue of chemtrails! It is possible to counter each theory, it appears, because, in fact, no one is universally correct! It appears that many different purposes are being served by chemtrails, and, for each, different substances are being sprayed into the air. To claim one unique purpose for every case of aerial spraying is to run the risk of not identifying correctly what is being done in each particular area.


The article goes on to address other aspects of the phenomenon:


Unsurprisingly, however, though, there are those who seek to oppose the assertions of those who contend that chemtrails are abnormal, and should be stopped. Apparently calculatedly, they term themselves "debunkers", to inculcate the perception that concern over chemtrails is, more than "misguided", an out-and-out hoax or fraud! Indeed, a number of them have used the term "hoax" in describing the concern over chemtrails - evidently suggesting that those who address the issue are actually pulling a prank on themselves - and even accused some who pursue the issue of doing it purely for personal profit. As if someone choosing to try to make a profit off a situation suddenly makes that situation not exist.


I won't go to far into that aspect of the article but the rest is very interesting, informative, and familiar.

www.rense.com...



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


great post. i think the answer absolutely is in a variety of places. some is probably chaff, some is probably the over the horizon radar and other military tests and applications, some probably for harp, some for studies or actual geoengineering.

we need to shift the fight from "chemtrails" which show up with less credible information in searches.. to geoengineering. geoengineering is the heart of this subject and they are working hard to keep it out of textbooks and news sources so this is exactly where we need to strike.

chemtrails is a dead end.

geoengineering is the motherload.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


The one theory which no-one has yet been able to disprove - and you yourself declined to get involved in a discussion on the subject - is that they are........



........ contrails



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
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



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 






what type of geoengineering involves replicating cirrus clouds? Unless the purpose is to cause very slight global warming?


Again quoting the article I cited in my earlier post


For example, in the Northeastern part of the United States, chemtrails have been a prevalent sight for some time, now. However, there, they rarely, if ever, precipitate a rainstorm. Indeed, in that part of the country, the purpose of chemtrails seems to be to forestall rainfall. Since at least winter of 2002, that part of the country has experienced massive drought. Reservoir levels are down almost to record lows, if not actually below them! Yet, in that time, chemtrailing has been very frequent! In fact, it had become a pattern that forecasters would predict showers or even thunderstorms a couple of days ahead, then chemtrails would be seen in abundance in the sky, and, afterward, the predicted precipitation would not come! The region would be lucky if it got a misting on days when, previously, thunderstorms were forecast. This went on through most of the winter of 2002, and has begun, again, the past couple of months. The reason for this seems to be that, in the Northeast, the purpose of chemtrails was to disturb the process that can generate a rainstorm. In general, a rainstorm can occur if warm, wet air rises particularly quickly into an overlying cold area. This can result in the rapid cooling of water into clouds like thunderheads. The sudden, uncontrolled invasion of wet air into cool air seems to spawn many of the systems that give rise to rainstorms. What chemtrails seem to have been used to accomplish, for at least the past year in the Northeast, has been to steadily gently mix the air at the boundary layers between air masses. Flying in the border between wet and cold air, the chemtrails seem to have been intended to control the rate and degree of mixing of the air, allowing cloud banks to form, but not swiftly and suddenly. Wispy but not stormy cirrus clouds were the inevitable result, each time, the sky hazing over into a sheet of white, but never cumulous clouds.


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 geoengineering.




Some people just don't think things through


edit on 26-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
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


edit on 26-3-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
So here's a few more potential reasons in terms of geoengineering:
(it's important to talk in terms of potentials until we can peg down exact reasons)

To create drought conditions (in some areas)
To make it rain (in others)
To block sunlight or the blue sky (in yet other areas)
To use weather as a weapon
To increase or (more benignly) reduce pollution

Even though it's been said to be used for combating global warming, I'm not sure that global warming is even a real phenomenon (at least not in the way that we are being told.)
edit on 26-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


As I said, sometimes it helps to do a bit of research on basic meteorology before making things up



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 





As I said, sometimes it helps to do a bit of research on basic meteorology before making things up


And other than trying to bait me into an argument or disparage my input this comment serves what purpose and contributes to the discussion in what way exactly? I'm not making things up, merely putting out possibilities as to what could be going on, that is after all the purpose of this thread. You and your one or 2 liners. Nice try.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


As I said, sometimes it helps to do a bit of research on basic meteorology before making things up



When speculating about any topic it requires some imagination to hypothesize about what might be possible and the motives. The theories are then tested against the evidence. At this point we are only trying learn and hear what all the theories are and lightly test them. We will test them more thoroughly later on.

I was hoping to brainstorm with everyone in a sense. Which means throwing out ideas and reasons why a theory might be possible. I was also hoping to hear and discuss some of the theories that have not had a chance to be discussed as much in other threads. Because they are more controversial and don't have enough supporting evidence at this time.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


As I said, sometimes it helps to do a bit of research on basic meteorology before making things up



When speculating about any topic it requires some imagination to hypothesize about what might be possible ......


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



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I believe the OP politely laid out some basic ground rules for this thread, but as usual, the "gang" shows up to try to trash the place.
Mods, have you noticed? "Off topic" anyone? Do we see a trend?

Thanks to all of those that are operating in good faith on this thread, for all of the links and the possibilities on what we are being subjected to. Stars for each of you.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


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 why. Nothing I have heard at least in my opinion has been proven impossible so far. A few might not be probable but that's an entirely different conversation.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 





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 why. Nothing I have heard at least in my opinion has been proven impossible so far. A few might not be probable but that's an entirely different conversation.


Good point. Within my lifetime, carrying around 30 gigs of information or your entire music collection in your pocket was impossible. Having a phone available to call anywhere in the world at any time from any other point in the world was impossible. Prior to the 20th century, air travel was impossible as was travel by automobile. Prior to the advent of the internet, having access to all sorts of information or the ability to communicate as we do was impossible. Everything we have now in the 21st century was at one time considered science fiction and fantasy, and yet here we are, able to do all of these things. In fact, psychiatrists and doctors are now able to conduct their business via telemed sometimes from completely different parts of the world. That was just fantasy and a good cartoon when "The Jetsons" did it.

What may be possible in the future we likely consider impossible right now. All of this to say that in this case, impossible means "don't question, don't go against the official line, don't dig any deeper into the topic because it's pointless as we already have all of the answers we need." If people responded that way when the first computers were invented we wouldn't have all of this now, would we? In the end, that is exactly the type of ignorance that we are trying to deny.
edit on 26-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: grammar
edit on 26-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: Adding telemed
edit on 26-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


What exactly are you saying is impossible? That's a new spin I haven't heard yet.


Really - I thought Essan pointed out quite clearly that cirrus does not produce precipitation at ground level .
.
.
.
yep - I see it just a few posts above...did yo miss that?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 
Are you avoiding the real question or just playing dumb? What does the comment you just made have to do with this conversation? You're getting off topic IMO. Let me clarify the question I posed to you.

What theory or theories about the suspected use and purposes of chemtrails and/or HAARP's involvement with chemtrails do you think are impossible?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
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 manner:



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 geoengineering.


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 attention.



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 why.


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 impossible.

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.


www.911truth.org...

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 chemtrails!


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 with:



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 this phenomenon.


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 correlation


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 involved.
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.


pakalert.wordpress.com...

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



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Pianopraze said:



HAARP is also used as a mind control device. Guess who I found talking about it? An army Psy Ops guy, and then later NSA Michael Aquino. In this paper he suggest the army should keep the american people always under mind control and suggests ways which that HAARP is theoretically capable of (some are even in the patents):


Were you aware that this was the same person noted below?


The Temple of Set was established in 1975 by Lt. Colonel of the US Army Michael A. Aquino and certain members of the priesthood of the Church of Satan,[1] who left because of administrative and philosophical disagreements with its founder, and, as Aquino said, because he was disgusted at the corruption within the Church of Satan.[1] The Temple of Set was incorporated in California that same year as a nonprofit church.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting person to be writing about mind control don't you think?





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join