In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

After weeks of unconstructive arguments with ATS "debunkers," I feel the need to clarify a few things., not for their sake but for the sake of others who are being confronted by the same individuals with the same arguments that supposedly prove anyone who looks up in the sky with suspicion is delusional.

Below are matters that are equally a part of the discussion about chemtrail conspiracy theory in comparison to the mechanics of jet turbines, how cirrus clouds are formed in the atmosphere, the fact that an element like barium is found naturally in the earth's crust, the interviews of proponents of geoengineering, YouTube videos that have supposedly all been "debunked," the thousands of pages of "evidence" debunkers have already linked to, and all the other absence of evidence that supposedly means anyone who in any way is suspicious about what they see in the sky is delusional. I do not intend to offend anyone by this, and though it will no doubt be dismissed as a rant by self-appointed experts of the scientific method, both chemtrail debunkers and believers can actually benefit in different ways by what I say below IF the discussions at ATS are not simply about winning arguments, which unfortunately they appear to be much of the time. Admittedly, I have an obvious bias against people who believe it is a noble act to immediately "debunk" anything that sounds like it could be a form of conspiracy theory, even regarding so-called chemtrails. Perhaps you will understand why after you read this.

1. Where's the Evidence for that?
It is a valuable tool of rhetoric when engaged in a debate to always resort to the question, "Where's the evidence for that," after your opponent makes a statement. The problem with this is that empirical evidence of a scientific type (directly or indirectly observable) is not always possible or practical for someone to attain. Debunkers know this and often use it to their advantage. However, this is not to say that certain evidence derived from research using the scientific method has no place in trying to uncover the truth. The questions are: What specific evidence is RELEVANT? What SOURCE is this scientific research from? Is the evidence CONCLUSIVE or is it only NON-REPLICATED research with no real consensus over the matter? Are there LIMITATIONS in interpreting certain data when used as evidence for something? The above questions are often ignored by individuals who see themselves as champions of the scientific method, and they place unrealistic and heavy demands on others to ignore the above questions and appraise the scientific method to the extent that they can ask, "Where's the evidence for that," whenever it becomes most advantageous for winning an argument.


2. The Science of New Atheists
Despite sufficient evidence to conclude so, the basic message to ATSers from chemtrail "debunkers" appears to be that anything chemtrail believers posit may be happening in the sky is impossible to be happening, and it becomes a circular argument among debunkers: It's not happening because there's no evidence for it, and if there's no evidence for it then it's not happening. That's the same reasoning as the new atheists. Their influence is all over the Internet, and whether you believe in God or not this approach is not a good thing. It disarms people, and nobody is allowed to have an open mind unless they want to risk being called "delusional." The truth can no longer be tentative. We must come to immediate firm conclusions when direct evidence is absent. The absence of directly observable evidence becomes grounds for condemnation of both people who are concerned about so-called chemtrails as well as those who believe in God. The new atheists do not simply believe knowledge is power, which can become corrupting enough. They act as if having knowledge makes you a God. Hence, they are not simply disseminating scientific knowledge, nor are they always putting the scientific method to good use. They are spreading scientism.

3. Debunkers Know the Public is Seeking Comfort and Reassurance
It should also be noted how comforting it must feel for these "debunkers" and for some who read what they post to think that in their final estimation nothing horrid is happening at all. But there isn't sufficient evidence to support that it's only "logical" to conform one's view to the available scientific evidence when the sky is filled with persistent contrails and spreading cirrus clouds at a rate that is unprecedented while there are proposals on the table by oligarchs and scientists alike to control the weather with geoengineering. You see cases presented in which the proposed nano-size elements to be used in geoengineering experiments (aluminum, barium, and strontium) are suspected as the cause of increased respiratory illnesses like asthma or pneumonia, and these cases are concomitant with reports indicating these elements are being detected at higher levels than what should be present in the soil, snow, or water. Meanwhile, it's virtually impossible to isolate the one true source of a contaminant if it exists both in nature and is also placed into the environment from a human-made source. Hence, it becomes easy to think there's really nothing to worry about.

4. The Limitations of the Scientific Method
When someone with respiratory illness has a test done indicating a certain level of barium is present and suspected of being unusually high, then they are retested when symptoms abate and barium levels have gone down, this is not exactly proof of a cause and effect relationship. However, the barium level can still be a marker of someone who was exposed to an airborne source of barium as particulate matter, and the level that the blood contains is not what causes cellular damage to a person's respiratory system, such as the tiny alveoli of the lungs. Debunkers believe that as long as there is some way to discredit these reports then we shouldn't suspect that something in the air is causing these phenomenon. The limitations of the scientific method, i.e., not being able to isolate a factor that can come from multiple sources, works to their advantage. They over-confidently tell people we should not only forget about any cause and effect relationship; we should also forget about the correlation that exists between a) increased respiratory illnesses, b) increased levels of aluminium, barium, strontium, or sulphur type chemicals found in the soil or water, and c) the chemical elements being proposed for geoengineering experiments. No matter how much comfort you derive from their analysis, we cannot logically conclude there is no threat to the public or the environment without a) resorting to logical fallacies, and b) ignoring the limitations of the scientific approach.

Not to be misconstrued as advice to ignore all science, I encourage the people who have been discouraged from posting your opinion on the topic to keep the above issues in mind when you are confronted with opposition to your beliefs and opinions.




This thread has been promoted on the ATS Twitter Feed with the following image:

Chemtrails will never be proven. For the very simple reason that believers just cannot furnish a reason why ? What would be the purpose? Until this very simple question can be answered there is no discussion that would be logical.

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

For the very simple reason that believers just cannot furnish a reason why

"Why" is the crux of the matter.

a reply to: Petros312


Well-written thread about the many approaches debunkers use to put down conspiracy theories. Made me think a lot about psychology while reading this.

a reply to: Petros312

a) increased respiratory illnesses, b) increased levels of aluminium, barium, strontium, or sulphur type chemicals found in the soil or water, and c) the chemical elements being proposed for geoengineering experiments.

a) pollution from population
b) aluminum is 8% of the Earths crust so it will be in soil and water samples
barium...

The largest end use of barium metal is as a "getter" to remove the last traces of gases from vacuum and
television picture tubes. It is also used to improve performance of lead alloy grids of acid batteries; as a
component of grey and ductile irons; in the manufacture of steel, copper and other metals; as a loader for
paper, soap, rubber and linoleum.
Barium peroxide is used as a bleach, in dyes, fireworks and tracer-bullets, in igniter and welding
materials, and in manufacture of hydrogen peroxide and oxygen. The permanganate is used as a dry cell
depolarizer and in disinfectants.
Barium nitrate is used in fireworks, ceramic glazes, electronics, tracer bullets, detonators, and neon sign
lights. Barium cyanide is used in electroplating and metallurgy. Barium chlorate is used in fireworks,
explosives, matches, and as a mordant in dyeing.
Barium carbonate is used as follows: 45 percent as ingredient in glass, 25 percent in brick and clay
products, 7 percent as a raw material for barium ferrites, 4 percent in photographic paper coatings, 19
percent other.
Barium hydroxide is used in lubricating oils and greases and as a component of detergents in motor oils.
It is also used in plastics stabilizers, papermaking additives, sealing compounds, vulcanization
accelerators, pigment dispersants and self-extinguishing polyurethane foams and to protect limestone
objects from deterioration.
Barium chloride is used in pigments, glass, dyeing, leather tanning, chlorine and sodium hydroxide
manufacture and in water softening. Barium-based dyes are widely used in inks, paints, cosmetics and
drugs.

www.epa.gov...

strontium...

Rocks, soil, dust, coal, oil, surface and underground water, air, plants, and animals all contain varying amounts of strontium. Typical concentrations in most materials are a few parts per million (ppm). Strontium ore is found in nature as the minerals celestite (SrSO4) and strontianite (SrCO3). After the strontium is extracted from strontium ore, it is concentrated into strontium carbonate or other chemical forms by a series of chemical processes. Strontium compounds, such as strontium carbonate, are used in making ceramics and glass products, pyrotechnics, paint pigments, fluorescent lights, medicines, and other products.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

sulfur...

Sulfur is essential for many plant functions. Some of them are

A structural component of protein and peptides
Active in the conversion of inorganic N into protein
A catalyst in chlorophyll production
Promotes nodule formation in legumes
A structural component of various enzymes
A structural component of the compounds that give the characteristic odors and flavors to mustard, onion and garlic

www.spectrumanalytic.com...

So now why wouldn't we expect these to be in water and soil samples, and what exactly makes you think these things come from a chemtrail?

As for the chemical elements for Geoengineering...notice the keyword there proposed meaning it hasn't happened so that isn't a source now is it?

Not to be misconstrued as advice to ignore all science, I encourage the people who have been discouraged from posting your opinion on the topic to keep the above issues in mind when you are confronted with opposition to your beliefs and opinions.

And I encourage others to deny Ignorance when it comes to the topic of chemtrails.

a reply to: FamCore

Well-written thread about the many approaches debunkers use to put down conspiracy theories.

So explain this to me...

How does one know they exist when not one person or group has ever flown up and tested one in the air after it was sprayed?

You see that is a fundamental red flag that chemtrails are real, because as it has been shown in many threads about chemtrails...there is no evidence to back the chemtrail claim.

But feel free to provide any evidence you have that proves they exist.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: Petros312

a) increased respiratory illnesses, b) increased levels of aluminium, barium, strontium, or sulphur type chemicals found in the soil or water, and c) the chemical elements being proposed for geoengineering experiments.

a) pollution from population
b) aluminum is 8% of the Earths crust so it will be in soil and water samples
barium...

The largest end use of barium metal is as a "getter" to remove the last traces of gases from vacuum and
television picture tubes. It is also used to improve performance of lead alloy grids of acid batteries; as a
component of grey and ductile irons; in the manufacture of steel, copper and other metals; as a loader for
paper, soap, rubber and linoleum.
Barium peroxide is used as a bleach, in dyes, fireworks and tracer-bullets, in igniter and welding
materials, and in manufacture of hydrogen peroxide and oxygen. The permanganate is used as a dry cell
depolarizer and in disinfectants.
Barium nitrate is used in fireworks, ceramic glazes, electronics, tracer bullets, detonators, and neon sign
lights. Barium cyanide is used in electroplating and metallurgy. Barium chlorate is used in fireworks,
explosives, matches, and as a mordant in dyeing.
Barium carbonate is used as follows: 45 percent as ingredient in glass, 25 percent in brick and clay
products, 7 percent as a raw material for barium ferrites, 4 percent in photographic paper coatings, 19
percent other.
Barium hydroxide is used in lubricating oils and greases and as a component of detergents in motor oils.
It is also used in plastics stabilizers, papermaking additives, sealing compounds, vulcanization
accelerators, pigment dispersants and self-extinguishing polyurethane foams and to protect limestone
objects from deterioration.
Barium chloride is used in pigments, glass, dyeing, leather tanning, chlorine and sodium hydroxide
manufacture and in water softening. Barium-based dyes are widely used in inks, paints, cosmetics and
drugs.

www.epa.gov...

strontium...

Rocks, soil, dust, coal, oil, surface and underground water, air, plants, and animals all contain varying amounts of strontium. Typical concentrations in most materials are a few parts per million (ppm). Strontium ore is found in nature as the minerals celestite (SrSO4) and strontianite (SrCO3). After the strontium is extracted from strontium ore, it is concentrated into strontium carbonate or other chemical forms by a series of chemical processes. Strontium compounds, such as strontium carbonate, are used in making ceramics and glass products, pyrotechnics, paint pigments, fluorescent lights, medicines, and other products.

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

sulfur...

Sulfur is essential for many plant functions. Some of them are

A structural component of protein and peptides
Active in the conversion of inorganic N into protein
A catalyst in chlorophyll production
Promotes nodule formation in legumes
A structural component of various enzymes
A structural component of the compounds that give the characteristic odors and flavors to mustard, onion and garlic

www.spectrumanalytic.com...

So now why wouldn't we expect these to be in water and soil samples, and what exactly makes you think these things come from a chemtrail?

As for the chemical elements for Geoengineering...notice the keyword there proposed meaning it hasn't happened so that isn't a source now is it?

Not to be misconstrued as advice to ignore all science, I encourage the people who have been discouraged from posting your opinion on the topic to keep the above issues in mind when you are confronted with opposition to your beliefs and opinions.

And I encourage others to deny Ignorance when it comes to the topic of chemtrails.

Large year on year increases in the AMOUNT found in the same soil shows something is going on.
Yes it could just be pollution, but it may not.
In my research into chemtrails I found much evidence of testing biological and chemical agents on unsuspecting populations of civilians and military personnel. I find evidence of "seeding" the oceans with iron to boost algae growth as a means to suck the CO2 from the atmosphere, potentially destroying ecosystems as a result.
Just because some research doesnt get publicity does not mean it doesnt exist.

I found this video quite interesting. Not conclusive but very interesting.



Geoengineering is very much real, whether they are spraying carbon or barium or aluminium from planes YET is not irrelevant, its part of their proposed plans. They have already dumped the iron in the ocean, I wouldnt doubt that they would have covertly sprayed into the atmosphere, but the definitive proof is just not there yet. Its a lot harder to prove.

originally posted by: Petros312
1. Where's the Evidence for that?
It is a valuable tool of rhetoric when engaged in a debate to always resort to the question, "Where's the evidence for that," after your opponent makes a statement. The problem with this is that empirical evidence of a scientific type (directly or indirectly observable) is not always possible or practical for someone to attain. Debunkers know this and often use it to their advantage. However, this is not to say that certain evidence derived from research using the scientific method has no place in trying to uncover the truth. The questions are: What specific evidence is RELEVANT? What SOURCE is this scientific research from? Is the evidence CONCLUSIVE or is it only NON-REPLICATED research with no real consensus over the matter? Are there LIMITATIONS in interpreting certain data when used as evidence for something? The above questions are often ignored by individuals who see themselves as champions of the scientific method, and they place unrealistic and heavy demands on others to ignore the above questions and appraise the scientific method to the extent that they can ask, "Where's the evidence for that," whenever it becomes most advantageous for winning an argument.

The fact remains that OBJECTIVE evidence is what is needed to prove something. You can give all the subjective evidence you want until you are blue in the face, but you will never prove anything with it. If that makes you upset, too bad. That is how things work.

2. The Science of New Atheists
Despite sufficient evidence to conclude so, the basic message to ATSers from chemtrail "debunkers" appears to be that anything chemtrail believers posit may be happening in the sky is impossible to be happening, and it becomes a circular argument among debunkers: It's not happening because there's no evidence for it, and if there's no evidence for it then it's not happening. That's the same reasoning as the new atheists. Their influence is all over the Internet, and whether you believe in God or not this approach is not a good thing. It disarms people, and nobody is allowed to have an open mind unless they want to risk being called "delusional." The truth can no longer be tentative. We must come to immediate firm conclusions when direct evidence is absent. The absence of directly observable evidence becomes grounds for condemnation of both people who are concerned about so-called chemtrails as well as those who believe in God. The new atheists do not simply believe knowledge is power, which can become corrupting enough. They act as if having knowledge makes you a God. Hence, they are not simply disseminating scientific knowledge, nor are they always putting the scientific method to good use. They are spreading scientism.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of an answer or demanding evidence. The problem that chemtrail believers fall for is that when adequate evidence is presented to show that they are wrong, they ignore it and pretend like they are still correct. Being skeptical is fine, but if the evidence is presented to say that you suspicions are unwarranted, then you stop being so skeptical until further evidence can be produced that says something different. Ignoring the evidence that contradicts your world view and pretending like you are being "suspicious" is intellectually dishonest.

3. Debunkers Know the Public is Seeking Comfort and Reassurance
It should also be noted how comforting it must feel for these "debunkers" and for some who read what they post to think that in their final estimation nothing horrid is happening at all. But there isn't sufficient evidence to support that it's only "logical" to conform one's view to the available scientific evidence when the sky is filled with persistent contrails and spreading cirrus clouds at a rate that is unprecedented while there are proposals on the table by oligarchs and scientists alike to control the weather with geoengineering. You see cases presented in which the proposed nano-size elements to be used in geoengineering experiments (aluminum, barium, and strontium) are suspected as the cause of increased respiratory illnesses like asthma or pneumonia, and these cases are concomitant with reports indicating these elements are being detected at higher levels than what should be present in the soil, snow, or water. Meanwhile, it's virtually impossible to isolate the one true source of a contaminant if it exists both in nature and is also placed into the environment from a human-made source. Hence, it becomes easy to think there's really nothing to worry about.

Cloud seeding (REAL weather manipulation) and chemtrails aren't the same thing.

4. The Limitations of the Scientific Method
When someone with respiratory illness has a test done indicating a certain level of barium is present and suspected of being unusually high, then they are retested when symptoms abate and barium levels have gone down, this is not exactly proof of a cause and effect relationship. However, the barium level can still be a marker of someone who was exposed to an airborne source of barium as particulate matter, and the level that the blood contains is not what causes cellular damage to a person's respiratory system, such as the tiny alveoli of the lungs. Debunkers believe that as long as there is some way to discredit these reports then we shouldn't suspect that something in the air is causing these phenomenon. The limitations of the scientific method, i.e., not being able to isolate a factor that can come from multiple sources, works to their advantage. They over-confidently tell people we should not only forget about any cause and effect relationship; we should also forget about the correlation that exists between a) increased respiratory illnesses, b) increased levels of aluminium, barium, strontium, or sulphur type chemicals found in the soil or water, and c) the chemical elements being proposed for geoengineering experiments. No matter how much comfort you derive from their analysis, we cannot logically conclude there is no threat to the public or the environment without a) resorting to logical fallacies, and b) ignoring the limitations of the scientific approach.

You do realize that the chemtrail "conspiracy" starts with a confirmation bias right? It starts with an answer and tries to build evidence to support it. That ISN'T using the scientific method no matter how many studies you reference or use. So this above paragraph is wrong.

Not to be misconstrued as advice to ignore all science, I encourage the people who have been discouraged from posting your opinion on the topic to keep the above issues in mind when you are confronted with opposition to your beliefs and opinions.

The chemtrail conspiracy is dead in the water. There is no proof for it. If you have questions about it. Fine. There is plenty of information out there for you to research and look into. The only thing that you need to do is be honest with you research and be prepared to accept an answer that you may not like (that chemtrails don't exist).

I usually stay away from this topic.

Couldn't escape it today though. I don't like to choose a side on it, but I do watch the skies a lot. I have seen things in person that would make it quite difficult for me to completely write off the possibility of these operations.

Earlier I happened across a good read.

Figured I would share.

www.activistpost.com...

a reply to: Petros312

If you take samples of ground water and dirt to a lab and ask that it be tested, and you come back with those chemicals you mentioned, like Barium, Aluminum, Strontium, and others, why would it be necessary to INSIST that the cause is airplanes?

I doubt anyone can or would say it's impossible, but until something other than internet speculation comes about, it's not probable.

Is that the type of horrible debunker actions you rally against?

If a person goes to the doctor and finds they are dying due to barium poisoning, should that person :
A. investigate any and all sources for the barium ingestion
or
B. conclude that since some say Geo-engineering might include these chemicals, that's the source and no further investigation is needed.

The above is what was argued. Nowhere was it stated that this was not possible, it was stated that this is unlikely.

A question about this still remains unanswered.

What is the level in the bloodstream in which barium becomes a danger to the patient?

I ask this in all honesty, and with all sincerity because I simply don't know. Once we have a definitive answer to this seemingly straight forward question, then the discussion about what levels are "high" can be discussed.

a reply to: network dude

It's not about those chemicals being dangerous, it's about their use in 3D technology & how the entire sky is a hologram to prevent us from seeing the true Sky.

originally posted by: network dude

A question about this still remains unanswered.

What is the level in the bloodstream in which barium becomes a danger to the patient?

I ask this in all honesty, and with all sincerity because I simply don't know. Once we have a definitive answer to this seemingly straight forward question, then the discussion about what levels are "high" can be discussed.

According to the EPA, who I personally wouldnt trust with much, long term exposure to "high levels" of barium in the drinking water can cause "high blood pressure".
The "safe" levels are on the right hand side of the page here...
Link

2ppm or 20mg per litre in the drinking water supply is considered the maximum "safe" level by the EPA.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Thinking about that as a realistic theory, is it your belief that the entire sky, over the entire globe is a holographic image?

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Thinking about that as a realistic theory, is it your belief that the entire sky, over the entire globe is a holographic image?

To take it a step further, the constant chemspraying is all in aim of a future fake alien invasion or return of the messiah etc any number of potential global effort to sway the masses. Personally, I hope it's a real alien invasion someday.

Or the whole Sky is a hologram to hide any incoming celestial objects. Personally, I hope Nibiru is really close by now.

Accept everything, believe nothing.

a reply to: OneManArmy

2ppm or 20mg per litre in the drinking water supply is considered the maximum "safe" level by the EPA.

Which translates to blood levels of ______%?

a reply to: OneManArmy

I found all that, and even some other papers that mentioned "normal" levels. It just seems as if we know what "high" is, there should be some sort of official range used to determine "high" and "normal".

Perhaps a doctor's office who would interpret a blood test might not have been compromised by "them".

This is a tough point with discussing things in this forum. You bring peer reviewed scientific evidence to back up your statement, and it's shot down because it's from "NASA" and we know they lie about everything.

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

Accept everything, believe nothing.

I am going to respectfully accept your advice and not believe the theory that my sky is a hologram.
If it is, I'd like to see Asian porn instead of just blue sky. (given the options)

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Or the whole Sky is a hologram to hide any incoming celestial objects. Personally, I hope Nibiru is really close by now.

I keep reading somewhere that Planet X is here.

On the cool idea of the sky hologram, any idea how high the projected images begin? Are the bad planes even real?

a reply to: Petros312

Greetings and Salutations- Where to start? "Ours not to reason why..." I appreciate You taking the "time", Your most valuable asset, to try and explain where One side is coming from.. The longer I spend time here I'd opine that some argue just for the sake of arguing and then I sit and wonder why it is so important for One to try and convince someone they will never meet to come over to their side of whichever?

I must also admit that I have absolutely zero knowledge of a "New Atheist" ? different handshake? Would that be One new to Atheism or is there a new school of thought? When it becomes a "School of KNOW" it might be worth looking into but if it stays at "thought" then One 'thought' is as "good" as another thought.

namaste

P.S. thanks again.. Your pic is reminiscent of 2 weekends ago in central Flori-Duh. I'm along the flyway to Orlando and saw just a few commercial jets and they weren't leaving any trails and when the other jets were flying, the commercial jets were NOT flying. The neighbor has video of it.