In Defense of Chemtrail Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: GoShredAK
Maybe chemtrails consist of ultra finite plastic particulates designed to turn our skies into a projector screen compatable with space based projectors mounted on satellites. They're gearing up for the alien invasion deception

Just kidding everybody, would make a good story though!

It may not be a joke.

Here's a starting point:

worldexaminernews.wordpress.com... -army-research-lab-military-document/

Is everyone going to ignore the elephant in the room?

a reply to: OneManArmy

Regarding that point about barium being in jet fuel. I'm not so sure that it is. In trying to find out what quantity its in it I have found only a document about air pollution aspects of barium which says that the U.S. Navy tried barium in jet fuel as a smoke suppressant but that experiment left intolerable amounts of barium carbonate deposit adhering to the turbine blades and flow passages, very bad for the engine.

This doesn't state that barium isn't in jet fuel, but it gives a very good reason why it wouldn't be. It does however detail how barium is a smoke suppressant in Diesel fuel, so maybe these elevated levels of barium could be attributed to bus, lorry and rail traffic, which is actually much closer and easier to ingest than jet exhaust, perhaps?


www.metabunk.org...

ETA

Here is an analysis of how much of various elements is in jet exhaust;
www.tandfonline.com...

Barium is a trace element and, along with several other elements listed, there is less of it present than normally occurs in urban air. Therefore not added to jet fuel for nefarious spraying.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Very intersting document. I enjoyed that. On its own merit it's fascinating. No link to chemtrails or projecting a hologram across the entire Sky at all, but still interesting.

a reply to: Petros312

Star and flag OP

Shills tear anyone apart who approaches Chemtrail program which ironically is the most visible secret ever

a reply to: Eunuchorn
The link within the link is broken, but the PDF was interesting.

I'd love to see a demonstration.

a reply to: Petros312

What a fascinating thread. It appears the OP pulled a drive by.

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.

I don' tknow much about chemtrails but..

Well said.

Bloody very well said.

People can't get their heads around the fact that the people they are trusting to provide evidence are the very people who would cover up/manipulate the evidence.

Usually the old "Show me the evidence" line is used by the same type of poster.

Well said OP. Well fkin said!

a reply to: and14263

This is a fallacy. Scientific cover ups could only exist if the entire world's population of scientists were in on the cover up. Scientists make their careers off of proving other scientists wrong. If you post bad data in a peer reviewed journal, there will be a scientist who will overturn it eventually. It may not be immediately, but it WILL happen.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: and14263

This is a fallacy. Scientific cover ups could only exist if the entire world's population of scientists were in on the cover up. Scientists make their careers off of proving other scientists wrong. If you post bad data in a peer reviewed journal, there will be a scientist who will overturn it eventually. It may not be immediately, but it WILL happen.

I respect your opinion but in my opinion you are wrong.

I will not debate this further.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: and14263

Is it your opinion that it's a bad tactic to request some sort of verification to a wild accusation?

a reply to: and14263

Then you don't know how the peer review process works. It is that simple. To believe that there is a worldwide scientific coverup of ANY science related topic is silly. Most of the time, science that doesn't get press is just bad science. Chemtrails for instance.

If there is a "science" topic you think is being covered up by mainstream science, then you may not be as well understood in what is and isn't science. Because it is quite obvious to anyone who actually knows the scientific method why most pseudo-sciences are labeled as such.

a reply to: john666

I know right?

In the future, I think a study on the amount of posters who play the shill card who have a user name with a few numbers after it as if it was hastily created among a flurry of other names. As Arsino Hall might say, things that make you go Hmm.

a reply to: john666

Textbook conspiracy theorist drivel. Ad hominem all dissenters as shills to dismiss their arguments without actually looking at any evidence one way or the other. You probably believe that Youtube is a valid scientific source too.

Speaking of arrogance, the irony in your post is palpable seeing as how that whole post was arrogance on your part.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Eunuchorn
The link within the link is broken, but the PDF was interesting.

I'd love to see a demonstration.

Dangit, Ya it's an old link I dug up, didn't have a chance to check it too deeply on the phone. There used to be a full government report attached to it. Hidden from us deep in the void by now, I'm sure.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

while I cannot say I believe it's something being used, the information gives it more credibility than just some theory all by itself. I did see a show called future weapons where they had the ability to project the background image in front of a tank, so it's advancement was hidden by a picture of what's behind it. Sounds like that was along the lines of what your PDF was getting at. If you come up with more information, you should try to put a thread together on it. (just don't put it in this forum, or I'll be forced to attack it by the boss man Beezer.)

originally posted by: john666
Every person on this forum who is "debunking" Chemtrails is a disinformation agent.
There are no exceptions to this rule, because you can not go to a conspiracy forum and not be convinced that Chemtrails are real.
Shills are probably going to react to this post of mine with arrogance and lies, like they always do, but I am not going to react to them and neither should you.

It is very likely that maybe even as much as half of forum members are government agents.

There's a paid disinfo shill if I ever saw one. Arrogance? Check. Suppress discussion and dissenting views? Check. Sweeping statements that cannot possibly be supported by fact? Check. Attempt to coax others into just accepting their statement as fact? Check. Attempt to spread fear and mistrust within the community? Check.

Your handlers will be disappointed with you though boy. You made it obvious.

All posted in irony of course. Everyone with any intelligence knows the 'disinfo/shill' card is the last desperate act of a defeated idiot.

a reply to: waynos

www.telegraph.co.uk...

proof of chemtrails?

originally posted by: blueocean63
a reply to: waynos

www.telegraph.co.uk...

proof of chemtrails?

Well, obviously not. It's a cloud seeding service. There are lots of them. If you think think cloud seeding is chemtrails, we can discuss that, but the article is self evident what it's about.

originally posted by: blueocean63
a reply to: waynos

www.telegraph.co.uk...

proof of chemtrails?

Cloud seeding and chemtrails aren't the same thing. Cloud seeding is done above existing clouds (you know so that the clouds are actually seeded and all). You wouldn't be able to see the plain or the after effects of the seeding. Contrails (I say this because chemtrails don't exist) appear in any sky including empty skies.