According to the “debunkers” all of the lines we see in the sky are simply persistent contrails that fan out into cirrus like clouds based on the
rules of weather, meteorology, and science. They repeat that as a mantra, often so loudly that other voices can't be heard through the din of their
insistence. They argue, prod, and ridicule any one who thinks that there is something more to these lines citing science as all of the proof that they
need to call the people who think otherwise as hoaxers, somehow deluded by people that are profiting from the phenomenon.
Then there are others, “chemmies” as they are often derogatorially labeled. They are accused of intentionally hoaxing, not understanding science,
clutching at straws, or refusing to see the evidence that there is nothing more to these lines in the sky than just persistent contrails. In forums
such as this, when somebody stands up and uses the word “chemtrail,” debunkers immediately jump into the thread, often derailing it or bogging it
down in so many arguments that productive and open discussion about the topic are effectively quashed. They say they are saving the “believers”
from their own ignorance and yet themselves are not open to other possibilities and therefore suffer from a type of ignorance themselves. It reminds
me of the divide between Atheists and deeply religious people. Both sides are convinced that they are right and both have very good reasons for
believing what they do within the sovereignty of their own mind. Who is right? Who is wrong? Both? Neither? On either side it comes down to a matter
of faith and belief no matter how finely you split the hair.
The truly wise live by the maxim, “the more I know the more I know I don't know.” Of course some of the lines in the sky are simply contrails,
some may even be persistent contrails. To deny all that science has to say about the topic is, in fact, ignorant. Of course some of these trails are
simply contrails, but not all of them. To turn it into an all-or-nothing prospect on either side is equally ignorant. People, at least those who are
open minded, intuitively understand/feel/know that something is not right about some of these lines in the sky. If they are indeed not all innocent
contrails that then begs the question, why? What purpose do these lines serve? Many ideas have been put forth as people seek to understand what their
intuition is telling them. Some may be correct, some may not be. These ideas include (in no particular order)
2) Mind Control/dumbing down
3) Eugenics/population control/sterilization
4) Increasing the number of sick people to benefit the pharmaceutical company
5) Aspect of HAARP or Bluebeam projects
6) Using weather as a weapon
7) A new type of weapons technology being tested on unsuspecting guinea pigs
8) GMO's (like Monsanto's aluminium resistant crops)
9) Creating rain/drought/etc (an offshoot of geoengineering)
10) To block the sun/blue sky for whatever reason.
Or, as one debunker sarcastically suggested
11) Benignly spraying us with vitamins and minerals to help us live longer and be more healthy
Any one or all of them could be possible and valid reasons for the trails that aren't contrails. Yet the debunkers say that they are all contrails.
They use science or at least the illusion of science to argue their point again and again. Science is God and the intuition that many people around
the world feel in regards to what has commonly become know as chemtrails are false, as if the two were mutually exclusive, as if stepping outside of
the strict bounds of science for the openness of intuition is ignorant, blind, or worse.
And yet science is full of people who stepped outside the strict bounds of science for intuition and we are all the better for it
Dmitri Mendeleev is resented by high school students, and lauded among scientists for having come up with the idea that the natural elements can
be arranged neatly and logically in a regular fashion, based on simple properties such as their atomic number. Mendeleev’s Periodic Table is one of
the best examples of synthesis in science, an idea that brought about the ability to make predictions about the discovery of new elements. What is
less known is that Mendeleev had the idea in a dream—not while he was sitting at his desk thinking about the order of the universe. There are other
examples of scientific discoveries made, not through the stereotypical behaviors we associate with scientists, but during dreams, walks in the park,
or sudden episodes of seeing a solution that wasn’t there until a moment earlier. The role of intuition in scientific discovery has been has much
maligned in favor of the importance of rationality in everyday life and human relationships. Worse, the two (intuition and rationality) have often
been considered as opposites, as defining different types of mental activity, and even different kinds of people. Just think of Star Trek’s Mr.
Spock: the quintessential rational entity, yet completely incapable of both emotions and intuitions. It turns out that research on what actually
constitutes intuition is rapidly demolishing some old prejudices (see S. Dehaene, et al., in Science, 7 May 1997) and, in the process, forcing us to
think of human beings again as creatures that have to have both intuition (and emotion) and rationality in order to function properly—so much for
A well-documented case of intuition concerns Frederick Kekule's (1829 - 1896) discovery of the structure of benzene. Kekule saw the answer in a
dream of a snake coiled and biting its tail. In an intuitive flash, he realized that the molecular structure was characterized by a ring of carbon
atoms. Benzene is a 6 carbon ringed compound with 6 hydrogen atoms with the carbon-carbon bonds arranged alternately single and double. This
discovery opened the way to modern theories of organic chemistry. Kekule wrote about his dream in his diary "�. I was sitting writing on my
textbook, but the work did not progress; my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed. Again the atoms were jumbling before my
eyes. This time the smaller groups kept modestly in the background. My mental eye, rendered more acute by the repeated visions of the kind, could now
distinguish larger structures of manifold conformation; long rows sometimes more closely fitted together all twining and twisting in snake-like
motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash
of lightning I awoke...". It is important to recognize that Kekule was immersed in the problem of how atoms combine to form molecules, and he was
focused on benzene. These intuitive discoveries seem to occur when there is a strong emotional focus and intention to solve a specific issue
"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten
Both research professors found that all these three great scientists, who existed far apart in years and geography made it perfectly clear in
their written record that the single most important factor in their great discoveries was their intuition.
-R Buckminster Fuller in Humans in Universe
Clearly these that we consider among the greatest scientists have been guided by something else other than science, willing to step outside of the
bounds of what the science of their day deemed possible, changing the world in the process.
As I have stated, of course some of the lines in the sky are simple, harmless contrails. To argue otherwise would be foolish.
So here is my question and challenge to the debunkers:
Are you willing to admit that at least some of the trails across the sky are indeed “chemtrails” whatever their purpose may be?
If the answer is yes then we can open up a new form of dialogue and you can take your place among the great scientists who believed that intuition is
at least as important as “hard” science.
If the answer is no and you still persist in the belief and the argument that all of the lines are simply “persistent contrails” Then your stand
places you in the same small and closed minded space that you accuse “chemmies” of occupying.
So which is it? Yes, regardless of purpose, some of the lines are chemtrails instead of simply contrails.
Or, No, none of the contrails are chemtrails and you are as small and closed minded as you accuse us of being?
Yes or no? It's a simple question.
edit on 28-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: spelling
edit on 28-3-2011 by coyotepoet because: cleaning