That's what _they_ want you to think!
Wake up, sheeple!
Careful, man. There are forces that are better left undisturbed.
'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
61–70 of 77 posts
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#62I see an awful lot of derision of "conspiracy theorists" but very little actual discussion about the known factors that play in this conversation. First of all, lets state the fact that the very term conspiracy theorist was part of a post public non-acceptance of the Warren report program by the CIA to silence and ridicule the reports critics by labelling them. Then lets understand that this same technique is being used today but they have higly evolved their propoganda.
I'm one of HNs resident "conspiracy theorists", but I also highly value logical and rational thinking and evidence/citations in thos theories. The people I talk to don't think that every line in the sky is a chemtrail, rather, they are concerned and geoengineering and its unforseen side effect consequences, and dont trust those in power to be either competent or non malicious.
To then lump all the people concerned about this and to only specifically discredit chemtrails but not talk about that bigger picture is fine, but what isnt is for everyone to start ridiculing conspiracy theorists as if they are all one crazy irrational monolithic group. Great discrediting technique, but not good for intellectual discussion focused on finding truth or educating people.
I especially dont like all the people taking this chance to wax one or two sentences poetic about just how irrational theorists are, suddenly shifting and not even referencing the subject matter presented. (on a similar note, I think Hanlons razor, often invoked by those doing the ridiculing, is actually a logical fallacy on its face).
Now, to play a little devils advocate, heres a youtube link that is interesting. Notice how he doesnt say this is happening, just that he is interested in this tech. Please ignore the sensational title and the horrible videos attached by association.
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a covert experiment to manipulate climate (or has some other purpose)? I'm not saying that it is, but is it outrageous to doubt official narratives? If it were a single national airline, or even a subset of airlines, then maybe there would be cause for concern. But, a global conspiracy involving airlines, private airplanes, multiple governments, and tens of t…
Manhattan project[0] It may fail your 'for so long test' - could you define how 'so long ' is? 0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Manhattan project was circumscribed to one country on one place and didn't involved a worldwide collaboration between almost all the airlines
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#64Given the inherent implausibility of a massive global conspiracy that has such obvious effects but no coherent explanation of... anything... it seems to me that it would be more useful to study why and how people come to believe in these things. The problem is in people's heads, not the sky.
I agree, the problem is in the heads of the people who blindly trust everything they are told. Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a covert experiment to manipulate climate (or has some other purpose)? I'm not saying that it is, but is it outrageous to doubt official narratives? Since when is that scientific? Doubt is reasonable, there's no problem here. Unquestioned belief in "common sense" an…
Sorry replied to wrong comment.
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, the problem is in the heads of the people who blindly trust everything they are told. Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a covert experiment to manipulate climate (or has some other purpose)? I'm not saying that it is, but is it outrageous to doubt official narratives? Since when is that scientific? Doubt is reasonable, there's no problem here. Unquestioned belief in "common sense" an…
It's not outrageous to take the idea seriously. It is outrageous to believe it stridently without doing any research. If one reads about contrails, one finds a simple explanation for them which matches all observation. Reading the history, one will discover that, for example, they were a real problem for Allied bombers attacking Germany, which sort of implies that they aren't voluntary.
No major flight paths over me - the variation in number of planes flying daily is interesting - no contrails == blue sky. Some days 10+ planes before noon - then cloudy. Doesn't matter what time of year or day of week. Just my observations.
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not outrageous to take the idea seriously. It is outrageous to believe it stridently without doing any research. If one reads about contrails, one finds a simple explanation for them which matches all observation. Reading the history, one will discover that, for example, they were a real problem for Allied bombers attacking Germany, which sort of implies that they aren't voluntary.
No major flight paths over me - the variation in number of planes flying daily is interesting - no contrails == blue sky. Some days 10+ planes before noon - then cloudy. Doesn't matter what time of year or day of week. Just my observations.
Contrails don't always form. It depends on the temperature and humidity at altitude. It's entirely reasonable that there would be a correlation between contrails and weather, since contrails formation is heavily dependent on weather.
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manhattan project[0] It may fail your 'for so long test' - could you define how 'so long ' is? 0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Manhattan project was circumscribed to one country on one place and didn't involved a worldwide collaboration between almost all the airlines
Wikipedia disagrees in the second sentence of the link.
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a covert experiment to manipulate climate (or has some other purpose)? I'm not saying that it is, but is it outrageous to doubt official narratives? If it were a single national airline, or even a subset of airlines, then maybe there would be cause for concern. But, a global conspiracy involving airlines, private airplanes, multiple governments, and tens of t…
Manhattan project[0] It may fail your 'for so long test' - could you define how 'so long ' is? 0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
I first heard of chemtrails in the 1990s, so 20 years.
As your link points out, "By 1943, it was clear that the Soviet Union was attempting to penetrate the project". That was a year after the project started. http://www.mphpa.org/history/espionage lists "eight major spies who revealed secrets of the Manhattan Project." It wasn't a secret from the Soviets for very long.
John W. Raper published an article about Los Alamos in the Cleveland Press in 1944: 'Forbidden City - Uncle Sam’s Mystery Town Directed by “2nd Einstein”'. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-pr... . That was two years after the project started.
It was an open secret in D.C. It did, after all, require a huge number of people and money. As http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/29/narratives-of-manh... points out, the mystique of secrecy around the project is different than the actual secrecy. Quoting it:
> "In the 1940s there was something of a small industry of articles, books, and clichés regarding how secret the atomic bomb was kept. Of course, the irony is… it wasn’t really kept all that well, if you consider “keeping the secret” to involve “not letting the Soviet Union know pretty much everything about the atomic bomb.” (Which was, according to General Groves, one of the goals.)"
So, the Manhattan project was secret for about two years, under its own operational goals of what "secrecy" meant.
It was public to the world by 1945, after the bombs were first used, so no more than a few years of secrecy under that standard.
The Soviet atomic bomb was in 1949, so still less than 10 years.
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#69'The survey results show that 76 of the 77 participating scientists said they had not encountered evidence of a secret spraying program'
I just want to know what the 77th said!
Re: 'Chemtrails' not real, say atmospheric science experts
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never took the conspiracy seriously but I was decently surprised by the number of contrails visible in the sky on a clear day during my visits to the Northeast of USA. I understand it was probably a due to a combination of climate (my visits all happened to be in Winter) and the sheer density of commercial flights in that airspace, however the observation did make me feel a little empathy for those people who buy i…
Well...powering heavier-than-air flying machines by burning dead dinosaurs is about as unnatural as it gets. Civilization and all that ;) Edit: someone seems to think that unnatural = wrong? On the Internet - a place that is so un-natural that it doesn't even physically exist? What irony.
Some planes still use leaded fuel which presumably fall closest to the ground in poorer parts of the country because in many cities airports are built where land is cheapest. Certainly not the same as chemtrails but I have wondered what kind of health effects come as a result.