So was that draft ever approved? Is it an actual policy?
'Susan Hansen, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, grumbles that the document
on cover stories was confidential. "Whoever sent it to you was
unauthorized," she says. She points out, furthermore, that the document
is an unapproved draft version that "does not represent the policy of the
But then of course that's what she'd say, right?
Anyway I think you're starting from the wrong end here. That same draft has been used to 'prove' that the government is hiding information about
UFO's. The difference between chemtrails and UFO's is that there actually is more to UFO's than there is to chemtrails.
So if you think someone is spraying something from jets flying at cruise altitude, and that such activity results in something that looks exactly like
contrails, then I suggest you find credible evidence that such is the case.
There's a handy guideline which can help you develop a credible argument for your chemtrail hypothesis. If you want anyone but the most gullible to
pay any attention to your claim, this is the way to go about it:
1: Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
2: Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
3: Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a
better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
4: Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think
of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian
selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea
that caught your fancy.
5: Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why
you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
6: Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to
discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the
many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
7: If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
8: Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
9: Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.
Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if
we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out.
Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.
As you can see, the chemtrail theory and it's proponents run into big problems when you observe each of the points here. For instance, there is no
independent confirmation of the facts. In fact, there is no agreement on any of the 'facts' withing chemtrail circles even.
Debate on the evidence (if any) is not encouraged within chemtrail circles. Instead, adherance to chemtrail theory is lauded as an indication that one
is 'awakened', whereas the unbelievers are regarded as 'sheeple'. That kind of thinking is cult territory.
And you can go down the list. Chemtrailism is rife with arguments from authority (just have a look at all the 'whistleblower' nonsense), there is no
attempt to falsify it's theories, no alternative theories that may account for what's observed are spun, etc.
Just for fun give it a try. Pick your favorite theory, and see if it survives scrutiny by going down the list.
edit on 3201628 by payt69
because: (no reason given)