posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 12:20 PM
Debunking the myth that ordinary contrails last a long time is problematic as this link to the pdf titled, 'The Debunking Handbook,' shows:
Unless great care is taken, any effort to debunk misinformation can inadvertently reinforce the very myths one seeks to correct.
It’s self-evident that democratic societies should base their decisions on accurate information. On many issues, however, misinformation can
become entrenched in parts of the community, particularly when vested interests are involved.
A common misconception about myths is the notion that removing its influence is as simple as packing more information into people's heads. This
approach assumes that public misperceptions are due to a lack of knowledge and that the solution is more information - in science communication, it's
known as the "information deficit model". But that model is wrong: people don't process information as simply as a hard drive downloading data.
The article, not a long one, goes on to describe how the mind works and processes and re-aligns existingly held incorrect data with new correct data.
It has a flaw and that flaw is that it does not address and cannot address the inner knowingness.
Here's the thing about chemtrails: they were observed. People saw them and they had never seen them before. The myth of a chemtrail being just a
contrail that lasted longer than usual sprang up in response to all the questions and speculation about what was going on. Because this myth (of long
lasting contrails) is based on information overload and bad science, it is never able to replace the observation itself which is key.
The one major impact that it does have is a yawn. People start to yawn and go away because the bad science doesn't make any sense but we are not
sure why. So, to sum, far from refuting anything, this bad science creates yawns and boredom while explaing nothing.