Attachment 3090
Printable View
Is it a crazy tinfoil conspiracy or is it a scientific theory that can save our planet? It can't be both. The government has sprayed it's people many times before, google "the military sprays St Louis". So how can it be a crazy tinfoil conspiracy?
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n...pszme2yo4i.jpg
The military even sprayed San Francisco. But they would never do it again right? Wake up. http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n...psosis3rro.png
Alright, so let's say that we stipulate that, yes, in the past, the government subjected thousands of citizens to chemicals / substances that were sprayed in the air as an experiment to determine what the effects would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
Why would they conduct these tests across the entire nation? How many planes / pilots would it take, all of them keeping the secret, to do this when you would get the same results, at lower cost and with greater secrecy from spraying only here and there?
Yet, we see these trails everywhere.
That's where the thing breaks down for me boss.
Who knows why they are spraying. We do know that the gov has zero problems testing airborne bacteria on their citizens so anything is possible. If I had to guess I would say that at the very least they are doing some kind of weather manipulation/experiments, maybe to save the ozone layer?? maybe to learn how to really control the weather for war, who knows exactly. Maybe it's to control agriculture and Monsanto is involved? Again, who knows. All I know is that something is definitely going on and the secrecy tells me that it's not safe for us peasants.
This looks like a good spot for this. #ConspiracyTheories
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oHdnoWhRkE
If our govt secretly tested chemicals on us.. And other countries.. Just to see their results.. What's to say they didn't find an outcome they liked? Be it people obeying more.. Or working harder.. Or simply getting sick/needing expensive medicines.. There's plenty of reasons why they could benefit by spraying us.. Just a theirs a benefit of front rolling weather. What scares me is the people making the decisions. The same ones who know about what happened in 9/11.. And the same ones who knew about the NSA monitoring literally everything any of us do.. And then allowing for an arrest and infinite prison time without a court case. The politicians and top figures involved in the sex rings that have been coming out more and more recently.. I don't know what chemtrails are about.. But based on the track record of things hidden from the public.. It's probably not good. Luckily the internet exists now.. And more and more information and facts are getting out.. So hopefully enough people get educated in time to do something about it before it's too late (if it's not already).. They're obviously up to something evil.. But I feel like I'm going to live through a cool time period. Lots of changes to e had to the system.
Front rolling = controlling.. Autocorrect -.-
If they created aids and tested it on Americans, created breast cancer and who knows what else, I wouldn't put chemtrails past them. #5676977 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-Kf-JFBuUg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross Davidson
Ok I think I see the points that we are stuck on.
Let’s set aside the topic of epistemology (TOK) Any argument can be derailed by introducing the aspect of theory of knowledge and taking it to a purely philosophical place about what we can know and how know/truth can be determined. It hasn't been settled in all of human history and it may never be. Philosophy is almost as useless as religion when used this way. So if the question is whether or not something is rational, it’s a useless question because unless your reasoning includes a logical system that can be demonstrated true or false, it’s all completely subjective.
Heres the main problem, I failed to note your (Ross) definition of "Chemtrails", "Chemtrails are quantities of particulate matter released into the air by air planes in order to counteract effects of global warming"
This is not at all what Chemtrail means to me. My impression is that the majority of people think;
1. Commercial airliners are spraying these substances.
2. Chemtrails form persistent contrails that seed cloud formation (the H2SO4 shouldn't do this, being an ion it will cause other micro scale particles to clump to it including water vapor in the right condition but it also binds to other particles and the two forms of bonded pairs of sulfur and h2o ions compete making a constantly changing balance of ions (like the classic glass of water example from chemistry class) which does not seed cloud formation in the lower troposphere. Basically is you spray it in the upper stratosphere, then it could make sheets of clouds and would have a good effect of reflecting heat but it would be way better to spray it much higher, like upper stratosphere both for ensuring it is effective at causing nucleation and for multiple other reasons, some related to the topic of mixing. At low elevations, like all the pictures of “chemtrails”, H2SO4 is not thought to seed clouds or contrails Search: Quantum Mechanical Study of Sulfuric Acid Hydration: Atmospheric Implications).
3. Persistent, or regular contrails, near airports/at low elevations are "chemtrails. (this couldn't be since it would be a complete waste of the acid, you want to spray it at the upper altitude limits of conventional aircraft) This goes back to the topic of mixing.
4. Many people don’t agree on the goal of the spraying, I believe Kristen Meghan started off in the "spraying to make only gmo crops growable" camp and has now switched.
I have no idea what your position is? You think that what Keith describes is happing? You think it is likely happing? You think it’s reasonable to say it could be happening? You somehow combine what Keith is discussing with a common(s) variation of “chemtrail” theory?
Your def of chemtrails is extremely weird. Most people seem to think they are related to contrails. Your definition includes non-anthropogenic increases of atmospheric H2SO4 from sources like geologic activity. If volcanos count as “chemtrails” then I guess they are pretty hard to deny.
“.If you must distribute a chemical evenly for it to be uniform in the atmosphere, then you're bound to have different concentrations at different spots in the atmosphere, regardless of the atmospheric mixing. “
This doesn’t make sense in the form of an if/then stamen like you wrote it. It is not because; “you must distribute a chemical evenly for it to be uniform in the atmosphere” that: you're bound to have different concentrations at different spots in the atmosphere, regardless of the atmospheric mixing. “
I think what you are trying to say is maybe that since atmospheric mixing causes not only a general mixing of the atmosphere, like its name implies, but also creates eddies of poorly mixed atmosphere but I’m really reaching for that. It does nothing to counter any of my statements on the topic. You are not factoring in time and elevation of application, like I already mentioned. It doesn't make much sense to go in depth further on any point until I can actually understand your position.
“As for the critical thinking line, I just like to use different word phrases to describe things.
Emotional? Hardly. Sarcastic? Totally.”
But if you use definitions for words/terms that only you know then you aren't communicating very effetely.
The tone of post 22 was not emotional, Really? Are sarcastic and emotional mutuality exclusive? I think they are actually often associated, as in passive aggressive and sarcastic. I don’t care, you seem cool. I shouldn’t have pointed it out in the first place. Sorry.
I haven’t read past post #33 yet. I have a feeling that we are of the same opinion on this somehow and this format isn’t great for the conversation. The way you described Joes position in post #2 is about how I think of it, depending on the version of chemtrails we’re talking about.
Something is going on in terms of there is at least one shady as fuck thing that a group in our government is up to at any given time. That does not provide evidence that one specif thing is going on though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
The have spray other times as well and over larger areas of the country. They ended up using some of what they learned from operation DEW and Operation LAC when spreading defoliants during vietnam.
What if underwear gnomes have been stealing all of our underwear, we just dont know it could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu
Yeah I wasn't really sure about the russian thing but it makes sense to me. It could be all a show and in actuality Obama and putin love each other. If things are what they seem though and russia does hate us I doubt they would keep quite. My feeling is that some of the scandinavian countries would also have problems with it but Im not a politics guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross Davidson
So I was really hoping that you wouldn't respond so I could avoid the huge amount of shit that I'm now going to have to write, cite, and post on this thread. Turns out, we're both wrong, on many topics. Including the point about Russia ;)
I now know more about this issue than I ever really cared to until the other day.
Going to sleep now, but tomorrow I'm going to sift through the 20 or so sources I've found.
intriguing.
Well, how do we know anything is true anyway...?
Look at what has been happening in Russia these past few months regards Flight MH17 and the Ukraine. The Russian mass-media has simply been spouting so many different stories that the population can choose to believe whatever crazy version of the truth that they want. By overwhelming the population with multiple possible "truths" the population just gives up. It is like being under a totalitarian regime but worse. Putin is a post-modern dictator and a bare-faced liar. But then again maybe he believes his own version of the truth.
Due to past history, people in the West have learned not to trust "authorities" including Governments and even scientists. When it comes to chemtrails and Fluroide, people believe whatever they want to believe. Not all jurisdictions have Fluoride in their water and yet they haven't risen up and overthrown their "masters". Also, I can't stand it when people say 'Fluoride is a toxic industrial byproduct' as if that alone qualifies it for evil status. Vitamin C is toxic. So is water, if you get the dose wrong. In fact water is probably the most used industrial solvent. Doesn't make it evil.
With Chemtrails, there are too many different camps, all without actual "evidence". There's the "oh, they are just saving the planet with sulfuric acid" camp which is odd because the Governments in some countries, including Australia, are populated by people who don't believe in science. Our former Prime Minister said 'I have listened to the scientists and I have seen their computer models on climate change, none of which I really understand, but my gut feeling is that they're wrong'. Wow, no need for a degree to understand how physics works, just go on your "gut feeling". GPS will be really accurate if we do that. Then there is the "heavy metals" camp. I don't understand how the apparent conspiracists themselves are supposed to avoid the evil effects of all the heavy metal spraying - those jets fly all over the place and the atmosphere will just spread the poison regardless. How is it loaded onto the planes? in the fuel? No conspiracy theory advocate has ever tested aviation fuel to find the poison in it? No aviation engineer has ever noticed that the incredibly detailed engine data logs show that the engine is performing different from spec on account of the contaminated fuel. I've looked and I can't see any possible way that chemtrails can exist the way that the conspiracy advocates describe. There is no credible evidence of any of these chemtrail conspiracies - just pure speculation.
My main point though is that people will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of facts and evidence. Often, people can't even agree on what a fact is. It's worse than Creationists trying to use the Laws of Thermodynamics to "prove" that evolution is impossible. An unhealthy number of people don't believe that humans have walked on the moon - again, people believe what they want to believe.
I can't understand how you can be so distrusting of our governmentQuote:
Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu
http://i1.wp.com/vigilantcitizen.com...size=281%2C300
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnew...isinformation/Quote:
From Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney. These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political debates, to television shows, to comments on a blog.1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen