A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

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)

1) Geoengineering
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 Mr. Spock

chem.tufts.edu...

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

www.p-i-a.com...

"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 the gift."
Albert Einstein

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.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Are you asking debunkers to post nothing??

reply to post by backinblack

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.

I am asking for a simple answer to a simple question. Yes or no. That's not so hard is it?

Exactly!!!!

There is nothing to challenge

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

There is nothing to challenge

Why? Because you agree with me? Or because you are close minded and persist in the belief that all trails are contrails?

reply to post by coyotepoet

I am asking for a simple answer to a simple question. Yes or no. That's not so hard is it?

When I posted your OP was blank...

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

There is nothing to challenge

Why? Because you agree with me? Or because you are close minded and persist in the belief that all trails are contrails?

So that's it then? Those who agree with you are correct and those who disagree with you are close minded?

Seems to me you're propping up your own defense by stating there is no reasonable alternative - then hiding it under the guise of asking a question.

Tisk tisk...

I'm sorry OP, but I'm affraid your thread won't amount to much. As you can see from the above posts, it's too difficult for the debunkers to actually read your post. They will just end up using space for no good reason.

Which is too bad, because your premise is interesting. While I haven't studied the subject very much, I'm inclined to think like you that there are both contrails and chemtrails. I rarely read these threads for the same reasons you talk about. Debunkers don't bother reading they just keep on posting the same garbage. They talk a lot, but are unwilling to listen.

reply to post by badw0lf

So that's it then? Those who agree with you are correct and those who disagree with you are close minded? Seems to me you're propping up your own defense by stating there is no reasonable alternative - then hiding it under the guise of asking a question. Tisk tisk...

Isn't that exactly what the debunkers do? That is precisely my point.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by BRITWARRIOR

 

There is nothing to challenge

Why? Because you agree with me? Or because you are close minded and persist in the belief that all trails are contrails?

So my choice is agree with you or be close minded?
Well I was on the fence with chemtrails but silly questions like yours may make me join the debunkers..
Good job..

reply to post by BRITWARRIOR



Ahh...your question makes more sense now. I was automatically on the defensive due to the nature of my posts and the types of responses I expect to get. No, it was a simple mistake. I hit the wrong key when I was posting and sent a blank post out which I then had to fill in as an edit.

reply to post by ajmusicmedia

I'm sorry OP, but I'm affraid your thread won't amount to much. As you can see from the above posts, it's too difficult for the debunkers to actually read your post. They will just end up using space for no good reason. Which is too bad, because your premise is interesting. While I haven't studied the subject very much, I'm inclined to think like you that there are both contrails and chemtrails. I rarely read these threads for the same reasons you talk about. Debunkers don't bother reading they just keep on posting the same garbage. They talk a lot, but are unwilling to listen.

Again, that is precisely my point with the post. I expect the same garbage and unwillingness to listen. An experiment in logic and the nature of this line of "communication" or lack thereof if you will. In fact, with every post of the same garbage, they prove my point for me clearly and plainly.

Besides, they are fond of creating threads and then taunting in every chemtrail thread that we refuse to acknowlege their threads because we don't have a leg to stand on. Now I can do the same.

reply to post by coyotepoet

Again, that is precisely my point with the post. I expect the same garbage and unwillingness to listen. An experiment in logic and the nature of this line of "communication" or lack thereof if you will. In fact, with every post of the same garbage, they prove my point for me clearly and plainly.

Besides, they are fond of creating threads and then taunting in every chemtrail thread that we refuse to acknowlege their threads because we don't have a leg to stand on. Now I can do the same.

Chemtrails remain an unproven theory..Well conspiracy theory...
They will remain that way till someone proves they exist, obviously it's impossible to prove they don't exist..

Well, an "old soul" once suggested "chemtrails" might be for the "better good" (for whatever reason(s) still unknown). He still doesn't believe in the existence of chemicals in "contrails". So perhaps science is by far the only way we "human" could have any measurable explanation as to what we are seeing as lines (or whatever design) in the skies.

reply to post by backinblack

obviously it's impossible to prove they don't exist..

I agree, and yet that's exactly what the debunkers do (or try to do) with every post

reply to post by pikypiky

So perhaps science is by far the only way we "human" could have any measurable explanation as to what we are seeing as lines (or whatever design) in the skies.

And religion does the same thing. Giving us a framework to understand something that is difficult to apprehend. But whether we are talking about science or religion, closing oneself off from the multitude of possibilities does nobody any favors (except for maybe those in power.) Just because it could be understood in one way doesn't preclude other possibilities from being true.

reply to post by coyotepoet

I agree, and yet that's exactly what the debunkers do (or try to do) with every post

Here's a reply I gave in another thread..
You need to start with proving small points..
Someones post..

I'm sure the government has the ability to do a lot of nefarious stuff to me. However, just because they have the ability doesn't mean that anything I think they can do, they are doing (unless someone proves to me that they aren't). If that were the case, I would be afraid to wake up and leave the house in the morning.

My reply..
Well they didn't tell you last time so why do you think they would now??
The FACT that they are capable and have done this in the past is irrefutable.

So you are only arguing if they are still doing it, not if they can or have..
I'll leave this side of the debate at that..

reply to post by backinblack

My reply.. Well they didn't tell you last time so why do you think they would now?? The FACT that they are capable and have done this in the past is irrefutable. So you are only arguing if they are still doing it, not if they can or have.

Very well put.

I'm taking that there no use "arguing" or "debating" whether or not "chemtrails" exist. That's very simplistic in the very least --- to do nothing and hope to come to a reasonable conclusion behind "chemtrails". The world will never know, I guess.

reply to post by pikypiky

to do nothing and hope to come to a reasonable conclusion behind "chemtrails". The world will never know, I guess.

That's why I'm trying to do something, even if it is just attempting to open people's eyes. Obviously I as an individual can do nothing to stop the chemtrails (for whatever purpose they exist) any more than I can take on the Federal Reserve and their frauds or keep Libya from turning into a war. And yet, collectively, the more people wake up to these issues, the better the chance of people standing up and saying "Enough!" It is only when people are aware of what is going on that they have a chance of changing it (whatever it is) in much the same way that you can only combat an addiction by admitting that you have one.