A case for chemtrails?

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Sounds to me like you're describing the "contrailers". Almost every "chemtrailer" thread begins with wanting to discuss this topic in a rational polite manner. They (we) make a few statements and present some evidence. That's when a whole team of debunker goons pile into the thread insulting every aspect of a the persons ideas, intelligence, character, honesty..etc..etc.

The debunkers all claim that this or that has been proven and this or that is fact. When none of the debunker facts disprove chemtrails. If there is any PROOF that debunks chemtrails and PROVES it's a hoax, then why hasn't that been used at the beginning of a debunkers argument instead of calling someone stupid or other ignorant insults?

Why hasn't the whole chemtrail argument been moved to the HOAX section and why are more and more people describing this phenomenon everyday? Why is it debunkers lie about the facts over and over until they get proven wrong and then they just go lie about the same thing again in a different thread?

Why are people bringing this issue up in their town meetings, their churches and schools? Writing politicians and holding congressional sessions? Why are so many actors, writers, musicians, scientists, doctors and lawyers, housewives, husbands and children speaking out and getting involved?

It seems that when the evidence that gets presented by a debunker that shows your comments to be flawed you start throwing up anything that looks like it will help to bolster your theory. So you should think about what your going to post before doing so, because then you will see the holes in your theories

Why is it just because a theory has a flaw you think thats makes the entire theory false or wrong? If anything has more flaws it's the debunkers so called science of "persistent contrails". No chemtrailer claims to know exactly what is causing it or why it's being done. What option do we have other than promoting a theory on what and speculating as to why?

I would love to see a chemtrail thread that doesn't have any insults by either side or claims of "I'm smarter than you" type BS. I would like to go over the evidence and try to politely prove or disprove each aspect. Unless you're willing to do that, you are being a complete hypocrite. So please go ahead and show me the PROOF that chemtrails are a hoax or let's discuss this like intelligent and rational human beings, ok?

Let's begin with the most easy to prove false and work towards the more factual theories and arguments. That should make it easier to debunk one theory at a time. My position is that you can not even debunk the most wildest claims. So just because we can't prove our claims doesn't make the claims false. Please let's decide what the wildest chemtrail claim is and try to debunk that. I will help debunk it even. I don't think it can be debunked, but I will try.

Your move now, what do you think is the craziest chemtrail claim ever made?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Ignorance.

Planes have more than 1 fuel tank.

SO??

You really, really, really don't know much about jets, do you? Oh, you think maybe you do, just from your armchair Googling....but you have no OPERATING EXPERIENCE!! No first-hand knowledge, hands on.


I know what you're trying to "claim" there....but, it displays an utter ineptitude of understanding.

Let's look at a typical Boeing 737 (without the optional Auxiliary fuel tank). Each wing is one "tank", and there is the larger central "tank" (actually, again more of the wing structure) in the center. Hence, the "Center" tank.

Aircraft operation rules require that when there is fuel in the Center tank, IT MUST BE USED FIRST, before the fuel in the "Main" tanks is used. Of course, all jets have fuel pumps, whether submerged in the tanks, or mounted on a spar, and "poking in" the business end into the tank..... to provide a positive, and reliable, flow pressure delivery to the engines. On Boeings (and, common to most airliner types) to simplify operational complexity (and as a margin of safety) the pumps in the Center tank are designed to put out a bit more pressure....as much as double the PSI more, than the pumps in the Main (outboard wing) tanks. This way, ALL fuel pumps are turned on.....the Center pumps, with the higher pressure output, override the other pumps....so those are running, circulating the fuel....but there are check-valves built into the system, so none of the outboard wing fuel is delivered to the engines....UNTIL the Center tank begins to run dry. By having this arrangement, attention to the pumps need not be paid constantly....the outboard Main tank pumps "take over" immediately, as the Center pumps empty the tank....oh, and BTW.....there is also a cross-feed valve, normally left CLOSED, to isolate the two sides.

This restriction, is based on structural concerns design concerns. The airframe is designed to have fuel in the outboard wing sections only, or in all three sections....but, NOT to have the outboards nearly empty, with all of the weight concentrated in the Center tank. The secondary reason to use the outboard fuel last is so that IF there were a total electrical failure (and, no fuel pumps operable) there would still be, at least, gravity feed to the engines.

www.b737.org.uk...

Some of the fuel-related "Limitations" pertinent to the B-737:

...Main tanks must be full if centre contains over 453kg

For ground operation, centre tank pumps must be not be positioned to ON, unless defuelling or transferring fuel, if quantity is below 453kgs.

Centre tank pumps must be switched OFF when both LP lights illuminate ...

Also, from the source above. Happens to be British, hence the spelling and metric units. "453" kg is about 1,000 pounds....units we use in the States.

I have type ratings on the B-737, B-757/767 and DC-9....and thousands and thousands of hours flying them. I know more in my pinkie finger than any amount of armchair Googling will "teach" you.


The 757/767.....much the same, with only minor differences, such as the "switchology" (a humorous term we use, to denote how various airplane models have different switch designs, layouts, and procedures):

www.biggles-software.com...

The two center tank fuel pumps have approximately twice the output pressure of the left and right main tank fuel pumps. When all six pumps are operating, the center tank pumps override the left and right main tank pumps so that center tank fuel is used before left and right main tank fuel.

NOW.....what about UPLOADING fuel, into the airplanes?? Modern jets are designed with the "single-point" location, in the wing leading edge somewhere, for easy access, and away from other areas, like busy cargo or passenger loading, etc. The Main wing tanks DO have provision for over-the-wing fueling, of course.....but, THAT is very slow process, for large jets. AND, would be very obviously "odd" to see occurring, on a regular basis.

Here, read all about the fueling process and procedures, here for the B-757:

www.biggles-software.com...


Really.....there is SO MUCH MORE that is not understood, by the "chem"-trail believers....they make such outrageous claims, completely ignorant of the realty of aviation......

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by tsurfer2000h

 

Sounds to me like you're describing the "contrailers". Almost every "chemtrailer" thread begins with wanting to discuss this topic in a rational polite manner.

Politeness is easy.

However any "rational" discussion of chemtrails is always doomed to degenerate because it is an irrational subject - there is no credible evidence, just people who believe they exist despite that.

If believers kept their opinions to beliefs instead of purporting to be showing facts then it would avoid that irrationality - if you want to beleive something for your own reasons that's fine.......but when you start telling me it is a fact that I have to believe then you open yourself to me asking for evidence, and telling you that I don't think it is any good.

The debunkers all claim that this or that has been proven and this or that is fact. When none of the debunker facts disprove chemtrails.

I'm not trying to disprove chemtrails tho - I'm asking for the evidence that proves them....and so far it simply does not do so.

Therefore, on the balance of evidence, I believe they do not exist.

But if there is any credible evidence showing they exist I will change my mind - because I believe in the evidence.

If there is any PROOF that debunks chemtrails and PROVES it's a hoax, then why hasn't that been used at the beginning of a debunkers argument instead of calling someone stupid or other ignorant insults?

Ah the old "you haven't proved it doesn't exist" fallacy.....it is called "Argument from ignorance", it even has its very own wiki page - en.wikipedia.org...

It also figures in any page that deals with logical fallacies - a simple search for "logical fallacies" gives you plenty of pages to choose from....

Why hasn't the whole chemtrail argument been moved to the HOAX section

Because to be moved to the HOAX section requires proof of deliberate invention of evidence - read the T&C's - so far you've only been caught out in minor stuff.

and why are more and more people describing this phenomenon everyday?

Because they don't know better. More and more people are also laughing at it ......

Why is it debunkers lie about the facts over and over until they get proven wrong

I haven't noticed much being proved wrong in the "debunking" argument - oh sure you caught WW making a too-wide-ranging claim about aluminium in fuel - congratulations....but you make much worse ones on every page so it's nothing to crow about.

and then they just go lie about the same thing again in a different thread?

Tut -tut - objectionable.....

Why are people bringing this issue up in their town meetings, their churches and schools? Writing politicians and holding congressional sessions?

Because they are alarmed by people like you telling them that something nefarious is going on. Of course they are concerned - being concerned about something you've been told is dangerous is a rational human reaction.

However being alarmed is not actually evidence that there IS something wrong in the first place.

Why are so many actors, writers, musicians, scientists, doctors and lawyers, housewives, husbands and children speaking out and getting involved?

Are you trying to tell us that actors and children "speaking out and getting involved" is evidence of something? Scientists maybe - but then every scientist knows that it is the actual information that is important....not who they are....although many seem to forget it......

Why is it just because a theory has a flaw you think thats makes the entire theory false or wrong?

"A flaw" doesn't make something wrong.

However having no credible evidence to support it makes it seem quiet unlikely to be correct.

If anything has more flaws it's the debunkers so called science of "persistent contrails". No chemtrailer claims to know exactly what is causing it or why it's being done. What option do we have other than promoting a theory on what and speculating as to why?

Theories are subject to investigation and confirmation or rebuttal based upon what is found.

In many cases theories have ambiguous credible evidence, or seem to fit the facts after every investigation, but the axiomatic "proof" (in the scientific sense, not the courtroom one) has not been found or confirmed.

In the chemtrail case the theory has been investigated by all sorts of people - from "believers" to "debunkers" and a bunch of concerned people in between.

And no credible evidence has been found.

no chemicals, no water analysis, no samples, no whistleblowers, no equipment, no manufacturing plants, no shipping manifests.

The rational response after all that investigation is to say "well there's no evidence, so it looks like it isn't really happening after all".

I would love to see a chemtrail thread that doesn't have any insults by either side or claims of "I'm smarter than you" type BS. I would to go over the evidence and try to politely proves or disprove each aspect. Unless you're willing to do that, you are being a complete hypocrite. So please go ahead and show me the PROOF that chemtrails are a hoax or let's discuss this like intelligent and rational human beings, ok?

As above - argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

If that is the only argument you still have then you do not have an argumetn.

Let's begin with the most easy to prove false and work towards the more factual theories and arguments. That should make it easier to debunk one theory at a time.

Contrail Science already does this - and yet you always claim it is a pack of lies and a disinfo site, etc.

If you REALLY want a ratinoal discussion then go over there and discuss what it is that the site says about teh "evidence" for chemtrails.

Pretending that Contrail Science doesn't exist won't wash if you REALLY want a rational discussion.

Arguing from ignorance won't wash if you REALLY want a rational discussion.

Only actual EVIDENCE washes in a rational discussion.

And I'm sorry to say that from your performance on ATS over many threads I don't think you are REALLY serious about wnting a rational discussion!!

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Why hasn't the whole chemtrail argument been moved to the HOAX section

Just going to address this point as I have no interest in being involved in the rest of the argument.

It's already in the Skunk Works forum, where highly speculative theories go. There has been no definitive proof that chemtrails do exist but the chance remains that it is possible. Our Governments have shown in the past that they are willing to do stuff to their own populaces for a myriad of reasons without ever informing the people that it is happening. Therefore, it isn't relegated to the Hoax section.

Also, because something hasn't been proven false definitively, doesn't automatically make it true and vice versa. That's an assumption that is a basic logical fallacy.

Why are you afraid to try to debunk chemtrails? Like I said, let's take it one item at a time. Starting with the wildest claim.

What's the wildest claim made by "chemtrailers"?

Let's keep it short and simple, let's just try to debunk the theory with the least evidence.

Can you do that?

reply to post by GAOTU789


I agree with your statements. This is a circular argument.

I think we can all approach this debate in a better way than it usually is discussed.

I see valid arguments on both sides. I would just like to discuss this issue in a polite way.

Talking about the topic one theory at a time and starting with the theory with the least amount of evidence seems to me to be the best rational approach at debunking something.

It seems the debunkers are either unwilling or incapable of doing that.

Here are the 3 theories I think are the most bizzare, and hard to prove.

1) The purpose of chemtrails is that they are being used to mask the prescence of UFO's or Nibiru.

2) They are being used for depopulation

3) They are being used to test biological warfare

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
Here are the 3 theories I think are the most bizzare, and hard to prove.

1) The purpose of chemtrails is that they are being used to mask the prescence of UFO's or Nibiru.

Masking any kind of interplanatary phenomena makes no sense, because differnt parts of the sky are being "masked" depending upon where the observer is standing. Also, and for the same reason, you can move a few miles and see "around" the obstructin.

othe than that physical aspect, presumably one would ahve to disprove the existance of Niiru or UFO's to disprove this, and that comes back to the "you can't prove they don't exist" logical fallacy.

2) They are being used for depopulation

Then they are failing becuse theworld's population continues to grow, and forecasts are that the growth will continue.

3) They are being used to test biological warfare

Then I would expect to see some sort of agent being found - either bugs or some surrogate such as was used in the tests in the 50's to 70's both in the UK and USA.

After all if you are doing a test then you want to be able to measure the results....which means something must exist to be measured.

The "debunking" position is NOT that "we" can prove that chemtrails do not exist - contrary to Matty's dearest wishes.

It is that there is no credible evidence that they do exist, and that known phenomena such as contrails explain everything that is seen in thesky. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, "we" refuse to believe in the existance of chemtrails.

I haven't been on in a while been looking into this topic in detail.I have been rather worried of late as my dog has been ill twice on the day's after we had rather large amount of persistent [yeah right] contrail's both of my kids are feeling weak and are having trouble breathing when they are out playing.
I've also noted that on day's that they are up leaving trail's the increase in headache's in myself my wife and my friends and I can tell you I am not prone to headache's in fact before they started there spraying in my area I could count how many I have had on one hand.
what get's me is that most news paper's on the web don't even come up with any related articles when you type in chemtrail's which I find rather strange after all we can all agree that even if it's a so say hoax with the amount of information on this subject there would be at least 1 related article unless of course there is a media ban on this subject.
Just that fact alone is enough prof for me that these chemtrail's are real add to that the amount of post's you find on everyone of these pages from con-trailer's is also suspect.
Trust your eye's people don't let the naysayer's convince you that your eye's are lying to you.
I will finish by saying that when the dust settled and the truth comes out I will meet my maker with a clear conscious can you con-trailers say the same

Well, if were to approach this discussion with the mindset of a prosecutor deciding wether or not there is enough " credible " evidence to take a case to court some of the criteria that would be used would include.

1) Motive and intent
2) Eye witness testimony
3) Circumstantial evidence

I think there's enough of all 3 to take this to court so to speak....

Originally posted by MountainLaurel
Well, if were to approach this discussion with the mindset of a prosecutor deciding wether or not there is enough " credible " evidence to take a case to court some of the criteria that would be used would include.

1) Motive and intent

for which you still need evidence.

2) Eye witness testimony

which you would ensure is credible in tems of not being able to be challenged easily

3) Circumstantial evidence

As per 2 - you would be very careful before using it as proof postive.

I think there's enough of all 3 to take this to court so to speak....

Wouldn't you also look for factual evidence?

Because as a defence lawyer I'd start with the sort of questions that chemtrail believers have always had so much trouble answering - starting with "How do you know it is a chemtrail?" and proceeding from there along a well worn trail.....

Originally posted by djcarlosa

what get's me is that most news paper's on the web don't even come up with any related articles when you type in chemtrail's which I find rather strange after all we can all agree that even if it's a so say hoax with the amount of information on this subject there would be at least 1 related article unless of course there is a media ban on this subject.

Alternatively it's just not news.

Just that fact alone

What fact - a media ban? How on earth have you determined that that is a "fact"??!!

reply to post by djcarlosa


I'm so sorry to hear about the illnesses affecting you and your loved ones. I have had the same type of experiences, my nose is runny alot when I'm not sick and I have no allergys I'm aware of, family and friends having colds that last for mns., the dogs have these weird weezing spells, I shared in an earlier post my observations about the increase in children with asthma, I never knew a kid with asthma growing up, now it's common place, teachers reporting that kids are coughing year round cronically.

If this is all about Geo-engineering which seems the most likely I wish we just knew so we could protect ourselves, on spray days have the kids have PE in the gym, wear masks, etc., I try and take my dogs out early before they start spraying.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I have looked at a paper which was on a experiment done in 1995 which states that contrail's will become cirrus clouds after an hour and as another report here has stated that it would take many contrail's to create a visual cirrus cloud so my question to you is how can one plane create a cirrus cloud all by itself that lasts for 6 hours which has been disproved by a report your side has used to debunk us.
Also I would like to point out that one of the main factors that effect how long a contrail can last is the aerosol content produced by the plane's engines as these liquid volatile aerosols (mainly composed of H2SO4/H2O), leads to the nucleation of ice crystals so it would follow that in order for a contrail to persist for over 2 hours the aerosol content must be greatly increased.
Now with all the environmental issues you would have thought that plane emission levels would have been reduced not increased so whatever side of this debate you sit on this alone should be a cause for concern don't you think

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

1) The purpose of chemtrails is that they are being used to mask the prescence of UFO's or Nibiru.

Masking any kind of interplanatary phenomena makes no sense, because differnt parts of the sky are being "masked" depending upon where the observer is standing. Also, and for the same reason, you can move a few miles and see "around" the obstructin.

other than that physical aspect, presumably one would ahve to disprove the existance of Niiru or UFO's to disprove this, and that comes back to the "you can't prove they don't exist" logical fallacy.

I agree that this is one of the theories that doesn't have much evidence or basis to support it. It doesn't suit the general idea behind chemtrails. We can probably rule this one out as the main purpose of chemtrails.

However, in the case of Nibiru, If it exists, it is supposed to be a dying Sun. Maybe they are trying to prevent extra radition coming from it or it's effects on our own Sun and not actually trying to hide it's visibility.

2) They are being used for depopulation

Then they are failing becuse the world's population continues to grow, and forecasts are that the growth will continue.

I also agree that this theory has very little evidence in terms of the general purpose for chemtrails. However, if chemtrails are real, they might have this kind of unintentional side effects as it would effect our health and the environment.

Chemtrails at least the ones believed to be associated with geoengineering are not being used everywhere on the planet. They are mostly reported in the USA, UK and over Europe. The over all World population may be increasing but chemtrails are a rather new phenomenon and it might take a few decades to be effectual. There does seem to be an increase of certain respiratory illnesses in the areas where chemtrails are being sighted. So although we can not disprove this theory we can probably rule it out as the main purpose.

3) They are being used to test biological warfare

Then I would expect to see some sort of agent being found - either bugs or some surrogate such as was used in the tests in the 50's to 70's both in the UK and USA.

After all if you are doing a test then you want to be able to measure the results....which means something must exist to be measured.

The "debunking" position is NOT that "we" can prove that chemtrails do not exist - contrary to Matty's dearest wishes.

It is that there is no credible evidence that they do exist, and that known phenomena such as contrails explain everything that is seen in thesky. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, "we" refuse to believe in the existance of chemtrails.

This theory also does not have enough evidence to support the general purpose for chemtrails. There may be isolated cases of this happening. But all the reported cases of illness still were caused by unknown sources.

Although the source is still unknown there have been strange biological samples being found in isolated areas. The hypothesized connections to Morgellons disease would be one example.

So in terms of the general purpose for chemtrails until more evidence is available then we can probably rule this one out too. There is however examples of this happening in the past. So it is still quite possible that is occurring in some cases.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


It is a news ban,there is only one I have found. The way in which it was done was a real eye opener.
There where 5 related story's to chemtrail's but none of the subject matter of the articles where anything to do with chemtrail's just the report heading and a small line underneath with comment's like wake up and look at the sky's,
Can't you see your being sprayed etc.
Now it seams to me that it was someone trying to get the message out in a way that wasn't so easily spotted.
Now how you can say this is not news worthy is stupid I mean if a man who has his xmas dec's up all year is news worthy then why wouldn't chemtrail's which has so many hit's on the internet is not .
I have found that when I read a paper its the little articles 5 lines or less are the real important news the rest is just tripe.
So on that premise if as you say chemtrail's is tripe then why is it not in the papers with the rest of the tripe

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I have looked at a paper which was on a experiment done in 1995 which states that contrail's will become cirrus clouds after an hour and as another report here has stated that it would take many contrail's to create a visual cirrus cloud so my question to you is how can one plane create a cirrus cloud all by itself that lasts for 6 hours which has been disproved by a report your side has used to debunk us.

Can you point me to that report - I'm not personaly aware of it.

In most cases I've seen used as examples there are several contrail tracks that "cover the sky", not just one, however I have personally seen a single contrail spread out to cover an appreciable section of sky - not all of it by any means, but a lot more than the original thin white line.

Also I would like to point out that one of the main factors that effect how long a contrail can last is the aerosol content produced by the plane's engines as these liquid volatile aerosols (mainly composed of H2SO4/H2O), leads to the nucleation of ice crystals so it would follow that in order for a contrail to persist for over 2 hours the aerosol content must be greatly increased.

Not that I'm awayre - my understanding is that it is teh supersaturation with respect to ice of the atmosphere that is the main contributor, but I am open to learning otherwise.

Now with all the environmental issues you would have thought that plane emission levels would have been reduced not increased so whatever side of this debate you sit on this alone should be a cause for concern don't you think

they hae been reduced - there is a lot less NOx and SOx from aircraft per pound of fuel than there used to be.

But the amount of water is never going to reduce.

However there are 2 things that mitigate against this decrease mattering:

1/ NOx & SOx are not, AFAIK, relevant to formation of contrails.
2/ Not only are many more aircraft flying, but the engines are much bigger than they used to be -

For example the original B747-100 had 46-50,000 lb thrust engines, but the 747-400 has 60-63,000 lb thust engines. 707's and DC-8's still common in the early 1980's had 12-19,000 lb thrust engines (4 of them obviously), but Boeing 767's have 50-63,000 lb thrust (x2), and 777's have 2 engines with 90-105,000lb thrust.

And these engines are all more efficient - this study is the only one I am aware of that directly looks at propulsive efficiency, and it shows that the more efficient modern engines make contrails at lower altitudes than earlier engines - the difference given is about 700m - or about 2000 feet - so the aircraft that are flying can make contrails over a wider range of altitudes.

All this adds up to more "extra" contrails than would be predicted just from a/c numbers growth alone.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


1) Motive and intent

we know the technology has been patened and developed, we know funds have been allocated for testing, we know many geo-engineers believe this should be done, we know the presidents advisor for science and technology John Holdren has said this "may" be used if needed, we know the Counsil on Foreign relations has people in place to moniter this program.

2) Eyewitness Testimony

unless all the people seeing these things are suffering from mass delusion they are reporting trails that are unlike the normal contrails they are used to seeing. I can only say to you, you know it when you see it, several non-commercial planes flying in some sort of collective effort, making bizzare tic tac toe patterns, then the sky becomes milky. What motive do all these good people have to make this up?

3) Circumstantial evidence

unusually high levels of alluminum, barium and strotium found in soil and water samples, people and animals getting sick, trees dying, reluctance of government officials to directly answer questions, seemingly avoiding the subject to name just a few.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


In situ microphysical measurements of contrails and natural cirrus clouds have been performed in the upper
troposphere and tropopause region during several airborne experiments over central Europe in 1996–97.
Aerosol particle and ice crystal size distributions in the size range 0.01–500 mm Instrumental comparisons show that ice crystals observed in the contrail core region and in young cirrus come close to spherical shape and that measurements of forward scattering spectrometers for these cases can be regarded as reliable for both concentrations and size.
Typical ice crystal concentrations and specific surface areas of fresh contrails (age , 1 min) exceed a few
1000 cm23 and 104mm 2cm 23, with mean diameters around 1 mm. During the aging process (up to 1 h) the
contrail ice crystal concentrations decrease by two to three orders of magnitude (specific surface areas only
by a factor of 2–3)

Originally posted by djcarlosa
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

It is a news ban,there is only one I have found. The way in which it was done was a real eye opener.
There where 5 related story's to chemtrail's but none of the subject matter of the articles where anything to do with chemtrail's just the report heading and a small line underneath with comment's like wake up and look at the sky's,
Can't you see your being sprayed etc.
Now it seams to me that it was someone trying to get the message out in a way that wasn't so easily spotted.

Sort of "how to have a news ban when you're not actually having a news ban"?

Now how you can say this is not news worthy is stupid I mean if a man who has his xmas dec's up all year is news worthy then why wouldn't chemtrail's which has so many hit's on the internet is not .

Because it is widely seen as "conspiracy nonsense" (or words to that effect) and the realm of nutjobs.

I have found that when I read a paper its the little articles 5 lines or less are the real important news the rest is just tripe.
So on that premise if as you say chemtrail's is tripe then why is it not in the papers with the rest of the tripe

Because not only is it tripe, it is tripe that doesn't sell newspapers - the public is simply not interested in conspiracy theories.