Perpetuating the "chemtrail" hoax

I was wondering earlier about the origins of the chemtrail hoax (did some reading on wiki, had no idea that it's been circulating since 1996). There is no doubt that the chemtrail hoax is as popular as ever, which leads to my question for ATS: What is the incentive for people to perpetuate the chemtrail hoax? I understand the incentive behind certain hoaxes (like "free" energy, most "free" energy perpetuaters have some kind of "device" to sell), but what does anyone gain from continuing the ignorance of basic meteorology and science in chemtrailers?

Maybe it is a conspiracy by labs that chemtrailers send samples to (like the chemtrailer firepilot spoke with).
What are your thoughts, ATS?

reply to post by adeclerk


I am just wondering if you believe it when someone tells you that airplanes are not responsible for imparting any dangerous and toxic chemicals into the air?

Is it a hoax to say automobiles fill up a city with exhaust fumes and chemicals we should not be inhaling?

Who is spreading these lies?

reply to post by adeclerk


Did you get an assignment from your teacher to see how many times you can use the word 'hoax' in a paragraph?

reply to post by newcovenant


Thanks for the response, I'll humor you. The products of combustion are well known, and can be tested for (unlike "chemtrails"). That is the difference between pollution and "chemtrails", we can test for pollution (and we know what to look for) whereas these "chemtrails" are purported to be testable by the "chemtrailers", supposedly imparting elements that are already naturally present in our soil (barium and aluminum) back into the soil. Strange how the levels of these elements isn't rising, though. Where are the toxic chemicals that airplanes are spraying? Why can't we test for them? No doubt airplanes cause pollution, but there is no evidence of any "additives" in the fuel that cause "chemtrails" and are making the populace sick.

This is not a debate on the existence of "chemtrails", so I would appreciate if you could answer my question about why the "chemtrail" myth continues to be perpetuated, and whom benefits from it.

Originally posted by SaveTheWolves
reply to post by adeclerk

 

Did you get an assignment from your teacher to see how many times you can use the word 'hoax' in a paragraph?

Thanks for your response, or lack thereof. To answer your question, no I did not get any assignments about using the word hoax (besides, if I were to write a paragraph for a class, I sure as hell wouldn't mention "chemtrails", lest I sound like a nut). I would really like to know, what your opinion on why the "chemtrail" hoax continues to be perpetuated?

reply to post by adeclerk


Have you read this article? It seems to point that they are doing more harm than they have known of regardless of chemtrails or not

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thats about the jet exhaust transforming or something to that effect because of the sunlight, turning it toxic.

I think initially it was stirred up in part to sell more snake oil to hypochondriacs. One of the very earliest mentions on the internet said this. May 8th 1999 on alt.fan.art-bell

This cartilage gel that [Art Bell]'s plugging could be used for the joint ache
that chemtrail victims complained about last night...say...wait a
minute...maybe chemtrails were deployed to boost cartilage gel sales...!
No offense to chemtrail joint ache sufferers.

This is still true in many cases. But some like Michael J. Murphy, and "What in the world are they spraying" don't seem to be selling snake oil (although they promote the same health fears). They seem to genuinely believe that chemtrails are part of a much wider general conspiracy including NWO/911/Fed/Fluorine, etc. Unfortunately their chemtrail science is riddled with error, which hardly lends them credibility for any of their theories.

MJM, et al, do sell DVDs, t-shirts etc, so there could be some profit motive. I doubt they make much though.

reply to post by adeclerk


In my opinion, I still believe because I can still see.

I asked someone on another thread this... Why would a very rural place, with very little air traffic, get the same crisscross patterns in their atmosphere as say a large city with massive air traffic? See his answer in this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What I would like to know is why Chemtrails are so vehemently denied? If you are older and are a reasonably intelligent person you can see the sky and KNOW it is different. Could there be another explanation, sure. Bring the Proof and show me.

Originally posted by adeclerk
I was wondering earlier about the origins of the chemtrail hoax (did some reading on wiki, had no idea that it's been circulating since 1996). There is no doubt that the chemtrail hoax is as popular as ever, which leads to my question for ATS: What is the incentive for people to perpetuate the chemtrail hoax? I understand the incentive behind certain hoaxes (like "free" energy, most "free" energy perpetuaters have some kind of "device" to sell), but what does anyone gain from continuing the ignorance of basic meteorology and science in chemtrailers?

Maybe it is a conspiracy by labs that chemtrailers send samples to (like the chemtrailer firepilot spoke with).

What are your thoughts, ATS?

Its hard to say whether more or less believe in chemtrails now. The original sites that were big early in, like carnicom and chemtrail central, have virtually no postings about chemtrails anymore., or any postings at all for weeks at a time. The owner of Chemtrail central does not even believe in chemtrails anymore for that matter, and does not allow any more signups.

It was started around 96 or so, by Will Thomas and Len Horowitz, and of course they had books, videos and remedies for sale immediately.. They would also give each others books glowing reviews too for that mattter. Its rather ironic that chemtrails accuse skeptics of being financially motivated, when money was reason then Will and Len came up with it in the first place

And then Will linked up with Clifford Carnicom, who I have never been totally convinced was in it for the money, but he seems to not be quite sane, with his do it yourself Dentistry his does on himself, and his spitting wine in a cup and looking at it under a microscope. Cliff has fallen for hoaxs and pranks several times, including the fake mechanics letter and a DHMO claim too

Will has often asked for money, whether it was ostensibly to reimburse himself for a contrail test that never happened, or a large speaking fee which he once accepted and left everyone feeling taken. Will has made lots of wild claims, and he probably invented the "Operation Cloverleaf" term which chemtrailers have latched onto, with zero actual evidence of any such term.

Len Horowitz later teamed up with Alex Jones, but their friendship fell apart over money and Alex not endorsing Lens particular snake oil, Colloidal Silver with the 528 hz frequency of love infused it it..haha. That was pushing it too far even for Alex Jones. Len seems to have left chemtrails behind for the most part to sell his 528hz garbage to anyone who will fork it over.

Len Horowitz also has a falling out with Tony Hilder and Ted Gunderson, and Lens girlfriend has accused Tony and Ted of being satanists and government agents. Tony actually outed Lens girlfriend as being an affair on a video.

Tony Hilder has a long history of outrageous conspiracy videos, and he started the Aircrap.org site to help promote his movies, along with hiring Ted Gunderson too. Together they are trying to remarket chemtrails in their own terms, and trying to change "Chemtrails" to "Death Dumps" and "Air Auschwitz". He and G Edward Griffin made that "What in the world are they spraying" movie, but they steadfastly refuse to corrrect any of the flat out junk science in it.

reply to post by adeclerk


Sounds to me like your just trying to stir up some trouble, maybe do alittle trolling? Why else would you make this thread?

reply to post by pagan_night


Air traffic has nothing to do with whether or not a an area is rural or urban, if you live in an urban area you should expect to see less contrails because most air traffic will be flying lower/ taking off or landing at the airports. You are making the same claims that other "chemtrailers" make, read through some threads on here about the increase in air traffic over the years for an explanation as to why there are more contrails today. You seem to be confused about burden of proof, you are making the fantastic claims that the government is "chemtrailing" us with toxic substances, therefore you need to provide the evidence to support your fantastic claim.
BTW: here is an illustration of air traffic over the USA.

ETA: That is the air traffic in a single 24 hour period, mind you. Here is a link to an animation of air traffic over the US, if you're interested.

Originally posted by Nobama
reply to post by adeclerk

 

Sounds to me like your just trying to stir up some trouble, maybe do alittle trolling? Why else would you make this thread?

Actually I think how it has evolved is quite interesting, and could probably make a book. You know when Will Thomas first started chemtrails, it was not about upper level jet contrails that persisted, he acknowledged that was natural. He claims to have hundreds of photos of unmarked planes making low level trails, even under 10,000 ft.

He never could produce such photos of course, so he switched chemtrails to being about contrails persisting meaning spraying, and he manufactured that claim that real contrails can only last a few seconds. Even Carnicom had to post that he thought Will was being disingenuous about it, since contrails can persist naturally in certain conditions.

reply to post by adeclerk


I know the style you write and if I am not mistaken, you are employed in trying to create confusion among the data that exists about chemtrails. You argue in a manipulative and wrap your order with the thread. No one goes to your lies any longer, do good instead of destroying ATS with BS!
byebye zion guy

reply to post by adeclerk


Outrageous claims? Not me. I'm just asking questions. I have reasearched a lot on this subject. If I can't find an answer somewhere, I ask someone who might have a great answer for me.

Claimign something and asking questions are totally different. This is why I added the word vehemently.

reply to post by firepilot


Will Thomas? I never knew this conspiracy had a father, but it makes sense, every other crazy theory does.

Originally posted by stavis
reply to post by adeclerk

 

I know the style you write and if I am not mistaken, you are employed in trying to create confusion among the data that exists about chemtrails. You argue in a manipulative and wrap your order with the thread. No one goes to your lies any longer, do good instead of destroying ATS with BS!

byebye zion guy

I'm sorry but you seem to be mistaken. I am a student, and therefore unemployed. If you could specifically tell me what "lies" or "confusion" about "chemtrail" data I am spreading, I would be more than happy to explain each away. Otherwise, if you would like to contribute something meaningful to this thread, we would love to hear your opinion on why the hoax continues to be perpetuated.

reply to post by pagan_night


"Chemtrails" are vehemently denied because they represent a massive misunderstanding of both basic science and meteorology by their supporters, who seem to be impervious to logic, reasoning and evidence.

I did a post about the history of chemtrails a while back, trying to track the earliest verifiable mentions on the internet.

contrailscience.com...

And Jay Reynolds has an interesting page on even earlier activity

goodsky.homestead.com...

reply to post by adeclerk


who are we? byebye! NOBODY BELIVES YOUR LIES may god have mercy on your soul.

reply to post by adeclerk


I see.

I engage in conversation here on ATS to gain knowledge and "listen" to other peoples opinions. But I have to say, sometimes, there are people on here that are more into belittling people to make their case, than showing proof. Or make themselves seem more intelligent. Whatever the reason, it's rediculous.