Chemtrails a HOAX.... So who is responsible and Why are there so many sources of Information?

Here is a video showing who profits from creating the myth of global warming. The global warming myth is related to solar radiation management. Solar radiation management is related to chem-trails. Follow the money and you'll discover the origins of chem-trails. It will lead you eventually to the United Nations and Agenda 21.

Carbon Engineering is a company founded by David Keith, a Harvard School of Engineering professor, who is a global warming snake oil salesman. Listen to the outrageous claims made about his "carbon capture" junk science machines he has received government grants to build. These are the true con men making profits related to the chem-trails being used. They are the ones creating a false problem, that they have a solution for.
carbonengineering.com...
Major clue at 6:56 in video, Bill Gates is involved with this nonsense. Need I say more?

Korg Trinity

network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Wait a minute. You have not seen a shred of evidence to disprove the theory?

The theory is based on the white lines in the sky.

I guess this is where the debunkers have it all wrong and maybe why they get so frustrated...

Chemtrails are as much to do with the while lines in the sky as black rubber rings have to do with driving.

The chemtrail subject is about Geo-Engineering and driving is about getting from point a to point b....

Totally different argument....

Korg.

So it's not mind control or depopulation or to make us ill to feed big pharma or dumb us down or any of the other theories people have come up with to explain the WHITE LINES IN THE SKY?

Mikeultra
Follow the money and you'll discover the origins of chem-trails.

Yep

goodsky.homestead.com...

The money trail, follow the money trail...

Bill Gates Funding Geo-Engineering Research

"Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates has been supporting a wide array of research on geo-engineering since 2007, Science Insider has learned. The world’s richest man has provided at least $4.5 million of his own money over 3 years for the study of methods that could alter the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, techniques to filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, and brighten ocean clouds. But Gates money has not funded any field experiments involving the techniques, according to Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Palo Alto, California."

"Caldeira and physicist David Keith of the University of Calgary in Canada have been in charge of deciding how to dispense the money. The pair have been informal energy and climate advisers to Gates for several years, and they say they remain independent. "This is philanthropic money and when it arrives [to Calgary] Gates does not control it," says Keith."

"Recipients of the funding include Armand Neukermans, an inventor based in Silicon Valley who is working with colleagues to design spray systems for the marine clouds, and students and scientists working for Keith and Caldeira. Funding has also helped support scientific meetings in geo-engineering in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Edinburgh, Scotland, and aeronautics research related to altering the stratosphere."

"There are other grantees, Keith says, but he declined to identify them or say why. "This is like a little private funding agency," he says, though he says they plan to release more information."
news.sciencemag.org...

Korg Trinity

network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

Wait a minute. You have not seen a shred of evidence to disprove the theory?

The theory is based on the white lines in the sky.

I guess this is where the debunkers have it all wrong and maybe why they get so frustrated...

Chemtrails are as much to do with the while lines in the sky as black rubber rings have to do with driving.

The chemtrail subject is about Geo-Engineering and driving is about getting from point a to point b....

Totally different argument....

Korg.

the above is exactly why there will never be conformity with this. You think something completely different than most, but you are convince that you are right.

Geo-enigineering needs to be watched. Chemtrails are fantasy. But chemtrails are only dealing with the white lines in the sky. Hence the name, chemTRAILS.

good job on muddying the waters.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

What would be to gain from a hoax and more importantly whom is gaining from the hoax?

The airliner industry, airlines and airports.

The real issue is pollution from the jets in the biosphere. Chem trails ("mystery" spraying) is the manufactured distraction.

Theres nothing mysterious about jet exhaust in the air or on the runway.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

The biggest question is why? Why disperse poisionous metal into the air? Who does this benefit? We all have to breath the same air. It's not like you can just hide from oxygen. Either it's done to cover up the appearance of something celestial, or its to make people sick for some reason. If real though, it effects all who breath it. Weather modification is also a possiblity.

network dude
reply to post by Korg Trinity

 

how long have "chemtrails" been around?

as long as contrails have perhaps? or did their properties suddenly change when someone found out they could get concerned citizens to donate money to help the "cause"?

Who get's paid here? Do you see a donate button on contrailscience? Follow the money.

are you still using that facile and debunked argument?

funny how you point out donate buttons as if this were some sort of scarlet letter,

but refuse to address contrail[pseudo] science's and it's 3 sister sites 10 year domain licenses
all using the most expensive software.

Where's all that money coming from?

funny how a donation button button is the mark of cain for some yet the same folks are trying to get something for nothing at the taxpayers expense.

follow the money indeed.

as if there were no money in the carbon credits scam or any benefit in controlling the weather so as to benefit only the west at the expense of turning vast swaths of the planet into deserts


P.S. and do not post links to neversoft's wiki page WITHOUT submitting proof of them as being thor's [among other many pseudonyms] financial backers, as tsurfer did yesterday. a such despicably childish action as to not deserve a reply.


back on topic

From Chemtrails to Pseudo-Life: The Dark Agenda of Synthetic Biology - See more at: www.zengardner.com...Chemtrail Crimes As the natural world dies around us, what will take its place? Planetary engineering includes bioremediation measures to bring us genetically engineered trees and crops. And what of humans themselves? How are we being transformed from the inside out?Presented at Conspiracy Con 2011, this 1 hour power point presentation by Sofia Smallstorm introduces primary and scientific findings hidden in the muffles of mainstream alternative media.People around the world are observing aerosol spraying (also called “chemtrials”) and strange man-made clouds. White skies filter sunlight as trees around the country sicken and die. Soil and water tests high for heavy metals, and artificial fibres fall on us from the sky.Is aerosol spraying only about experimenting with weather?…

reply to post by Korg Trinity


I like this soothing piece of poetry from that Chentrailscience link,

"Commercial jets also leave a lovely (non-toxic) vapor trail when the heat from the turbines come in contact with the cool air condensing the water droplets into steam." [Quote altered only for bad speling, where have I seen that before?]

Frankly, I can't tell if that's a baldy statement or an answer to a question, but a Jet exhaust is anything but non-toxic.

Korg Trinity
I have found it quite incredible the lengths that some people will go to attempt to debunk the subject of chemtrails.

I am equally amazed at the lengths some people will go to to promote the story. I have seen photos and videos with explanations that have been totally fabricated, I have seen photos artificially altered to support a claim. I have also seen documents and suchlike that describe what they are about in fine detail, leaving no room for ambiguity paraded as evidence of chemtrailing despite making so such claim within them at all. Its as if there wasn't any ACTUAL evidence to show.

It's almost as if the very idea of chemtrails upsets these individuals sooooo much that they would do literally anything to even deny the possibility.

No, people telling blatant lies in an attempt to hoodwink others upsets me, the fact that it diverts attention away from genuine concerns over unregulated and potentially dangerous geo engineering activity SHOULD annoy you too, unless you are part of the hoax.

Some may say that they do not deny the possibility but then say in the same sentence that chemtrails are not true.

I think you will find that what most (me for instance) deny is that what is CLAIMED to be evidence for a chemtrail isn't and cannot be. When I do that I am very sure of my facts and offer an explanation in an attempt to enter into a dialogue. Sadly many believers cant seem to handle this and become snotty and abusive, which is sad for them.

So I have a few questions....

The Debunkers do not believe chemtrails are real soooo....

Could the debunkers and people whom do not believe in Chemtrails please explain who they think is responsible for this hoax?

IMO, other than misguided people who genuinely believe without fully understanding, it would be the likes of Art Bell, Cliff Carnicom, Will Thomas etc

Also, why is there so many sources of information on Chemtrails and where are they originating from???

Now this is an excellent question and one I have been thinking about posting a thread on, but without so far having found the time to construct it, therefore off the top of my head, initially you have the fear mongering sites that want to sell you snake oil cures, the above named and plenty of others have these, you also then get the proliferation effect where people with genuine concerns manage to be fooled and they repost their sources. As soon as it became clear several years ago that the 'contrails as chemtrails' meme was far too transparent and fallacious to sustain an income stream indefinitely the waters had to be muddied. At this point you started to see things like cloud seeding, aerial firefighting, cold war experimentation and all manner of other things, which had existed publicly for many years all by themselves, suddenly roped in to prop up the edifice. The aim being purely to create so many strands that anyone looking at it without a basic understanding of aviation and meteorology would be swayed by the sheer weight of it. Its an old technique called 'smoke and mirrors' and it has certainly worked.

What would be to gain from a hoax and more importantly whom is gaining from the hoax?

The originators make a living from it, many more too, this much is obvious. Some people are also just evil turds who like to get a reaction and put out scary stories and we see lots of those post on here. I am sure that several people have posted on chemtrails fully comnprehending it is nonsense and just posting for the laugh, such is the way of the world unfortunately.

reply to post by Korg Trinity

while the quote below is regarding crop circles, another debunker bete-noir, [which are connected somewhat to chemtrails ] it applies over many fronts of the disinfo wars:

I have found certain "skeptical" arguments confusing. Part of the confusion seems to involve the use of certain words, such as "believe" and "evidence." Because of this, I have come to call people with a certain viewpoint "selective skeptics." They seem to be extremely skeptical of claims of the paranormal, but, are not equally skeptical in other areas, such as the claims of supposed "circlemaker" hoaxers.

The selective skeptics tend to use techniques similar to political spin doctors. They often setup their arguments by painting a picture of their opponents as "believers" in various paranormal claims. This hints that the claim is to be taken as an absolute belief. The suggested "spin" is that such a big claim must be proven absolutely. In most cases, I think, the word "belief" is not intended to be an absolute. It is not claimed to be a scientific fact that everyone should accept. In most cases the claim is simply that there is some evidence or reason to think that a certain phenomenon is paranormal.

Theories presented are often attacked as if they were claims of fact. The "spin" suggests that absolute proof must be given along with the theory, otherwise the theory is to be rejected. In my view, various theories should be presented, including non-paranormal theories, and then the evidence can be compared to the theories. Each person can determine for themselves which theory, if any, seems most supported by the evidence.

Selective skeptics sometimes say that there is no "evidence" at all to support certain paranormal claims. The "spin" seems to be that the "evidence" must absolutely prove the claim. In my view, the word "evidence" in these cases is intended more like that used in a court of law. The "evidence" can always be disputed. Judgments are made based on the convincing power of the evidence, but the judgments are not considered absolute. Yet, we act on the results, such as a death sentence based on a single reliable witness.

By carefully setting up the "spin," the selective skeptics attempt to put their opponents in the position of having the burden to "prove" the paranormal claim. The "spin" is that the selective skeptics must be considered "right," if such proof is not presented. The "spin" is that all science is on the side of the selective skeptics. As I see it, the selective skeptics simply have alternative theories, not a case that has been scientifically proven. They are in the same boat as the rest of us.

In the worst cases, the selective skeptics use the technique of ridicule. This is sometimes subtle, such as statements indicating that the opponent is childish or gullible. Another "spin" technique is to suggest the opponent's motive is to make money , get attention, or the like.

Another technique is to offer alternative explanations that fit with accepted views. In the case of crop circle formations, human hoaxing is the common explanation. There is nothing "wrong" with this, of course. But, one should keep in mind that it is just one theory that is also not conclusively proven.

In my view, the spin doctoring of the selective skeptics make them suspect. It would seem that they or those they follow intend to turn attention away from certain paranormal claims. For some reason, they seem bent on halting research into claims of the paranormal.

There may be "military" or "religious" reasons behind the position of the selective skeptics at the inner core. Howard Blum, in his "UFO" book, Out There, dealt with people in the secret elements of government. He proposed that such people approached the subject from a "national defense" point of view. If extra terrestrials do indeed exist, from their perspective, it is imperative that the information be kept secret. Otherwise, a high technology could fall into the hands of our enemies and put us at risk. Established religions may have reason to suppress information of a paranormal nature, as it may tend to pull followers away.

In my view, this is not the "proper" scientific approach. A true scientist is skeptical, yet he or she remains open minded. A true scientist does not approach a subject with an axe to grind, or an agenda to force. True scientists do not cause confusion by setting up "spins." They do not attempt to shut down investigations or attention to investigations with techniques of ridicule.

Imagine if such techniques were used in other areas, such as history, psychology, or sociology. Would we turn away from these areas of research because each claim cannot be absolutely, scientifically proven, or from fear of ridicule? I doubt it.

Do not be fooled. Most crop circle researchers are not claiming scientific proofs. They present evidence (that can be questioned), such as photographs and reports of crop circle formations, indicating that the phenomenon is worthy of further attention and research by those interested.

I say, be skeptical of the selective skeptics.

www.greatdreams.com...

sounds familiar, doesn't it? to the point of hearing echoes

[be sure to read further on to read about the lengths to which some so called debunkers will go to into disinforming
in this case A&E/DISCOVERY Channels regarding CC's]


related, as this thread seeks to identify sources of disinformation
Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena

Korg Trinity[/i

What would be to gain from a hoax and more importantly whom is gaining from the hoax?

One could ask the same about Planet Nibiru coming to destroy the world in 2012, or Atlantis being buried under million year old ice sheets in Antartica.

No evidence, no obvious reason why any should believe them, or benefit from people believing them - other than through obtaining hits to websites and through book sales etc - and yet the myths perpetuate because enough people want to believe them and/or are ignorant enough of the facts to persume they could be true.

With chemtrails: as soon as you understand the basic meteorology behind contrails the hoax is obvious, but most people don't know much meteorology (and why should they?) so are easily duped. And some people like duping others. Which perhaps is one of the main reasons the hoax persists?

Also, as we know, once someone tells you that the conspiracy you think might be true is definitely not true, it makes some folk even more certain it must be true (else why would the meteorologist have gone to such efforts to explain that those chentrails are just ice clouds?......)

I've also long wondered, given that chemtrails supposedly first appeared/were talked about around the mid/late 1990s whether the whole thing wasn't just an experiment to see how well the internet (which was fairly new back then) could be used to spread disinformation and hoaxes. In this case, rather well.