Hot On The Trails
Before continuing, I want to emphasize that what I'm posting here are my personal opinions as a member of ATS, and they should not be construed as
statements of site policy.
I've been quietly following the thread up to this point and want to share some of my perspectives on the issues being discussed. I've tried (and
failed, I suppose) to keep it brief and to the point, but there's a lot to consider here and my reputation for long-windedness didn't just arise
from nothing, if you know what I mean.
Since I do (apparently) have a lot to say, I'll break things down into two posts.
On The Legitimacy Of Chemtrail Discussion
I don't think it's fair to knock ATSers who want to discuss the question of Chemtrails, refer to the subject pejoratively in BB&Q or debate the
subject in this thread instead of the relevant forum.
Virtually every forum on ATS, including the news forums, could be dismissed as fictitious or invalid in the manner the
Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails forum
is being treated here. If we adopted that
philosophy as a community and presumed to declare various debates closed based on our own beliefs, we might as well shut ATS down, because there are
plenty of other venues on the Internet where such thinking is expected or required, and there is no point in ATS being just another one of them.
Whatever our personal beliefs may be, it is important to respect the rights of all ATSers to share their opinions without fear of ostracism or
ridicule. It is a core principle of our community and one of the only things that makes discussion of unorthodox subjects possible.
Also, as all too often happens, some of us are straying into ad hominem
territory in this thread, which never leads anywhere good, so I hope we can avoid going further down that primrose path.
The topic of Chemtrails is controversial, as so many are on ATS, but to reject it out of hand as illegitimate undermines the value of this thread, in
my opinion, and I hope we won't continue to do so.
We have dedicated forums for debating the merits of the theories themselves.
On Geo-Engineering Versus Chemtrails
While I suppose it may be fashionable in some quarters to equate Geo-Engineering and Chemtrail Theories, I believe the two are not equivalent terms,
and that treating them as such can be misleading.
Not all theories related to chemtrails involve geo-engineering, nor do all geo-engineering proposals involve chemtrails. They are two different
spheres that overlap to various degrees, some greater, some lesser, depending on who you ask.
Chemtrail Theory, by nature, tends to involve an element of conspiracy, because a foundation of the subject is that various chemicals are being
discreetly distributed without public knowledge or consent. Geo-Engineering, on the other hand, tends to involve hypotheses, plans and proposals that
are subject to public debate, with little or no insinuation of clandestine intent.
These are not hard and fast rules, but I think they are well-established elements of these areas of interest. Thus I sympathize with the noteworthy
distinctions between the two subjects and hope we can agree on that.