Sometimes at meetings about something really important like chemtrails, I get kinda wound up when I realize the attendees know almost zilch about the subject. You’d think that people would look up at the sky now and then wouldn’t you? Thanks to Post Oil for getting the conversation started.
James Hansen just published a climate study that says we’re in for a lashing from climate change much worse than scientists have previously predicted. It makes me restless listening to people thinking that writing to their Congresscritters or holding a petition is going to yield results. How many petitions are going on? Do we see anything getting better come out of them? Maybe the occasional bone is thrown in order to shut us up or give some evidence that the system is working.
Even though the successes are minuscule, disciples still buy it, still think this is how change has to come about. Well good luck with that. If that doesn’t work, what then? Must we just have to grin and bear it while our planet gets destroyed? The geoengineers are waiting for it to get so bad that we will plead with them to spray their aluminum over us to dim the heat which is going to be legendary now that we’ve probably hit the tipping point. Look up the term “Hegelian dialectic” a tactic constantly used to manipulate the unaware masses (Problem, Reaction, Solution)
Geoengineers say we may have to use this spraying if things get so bad, yet how do we know what they are spraying or if it even works for what they intimate (because they never really say it outright) And apart from spraying us with jets what else are they proposing to do about the dangerous climate situation we are currently in and have been for at least a decade? Are we talking about conserving energy till we get onto renewables? Are incentives offered to get people onto renewables? Is there the will considering we are how at the brink? Why is hemp prohibited when it can replace all the products that come from fossil fuels as well as condition the soil?
Hemp may actually be needed to remediate the soil after the chemicals are dropped on our heads by jets contaiminating the soil, the water and all living things. Whyare fossil fuels still being subsidized? Contrails didn’t happen decades ago when planes had the old technology but they’re happening today when all modern planes are fitted with contrail suppression technology such as high by-pass turbo jet fans which allow fuel to burn more efficiently and make contrails virtually impossible except in the most extreme circumstances. Those who think that those streaks in the sky are contrails must be as ignorant as planks or they want to give a pass to government because they believe that government is their friend. That’s like a religion. And it will take us all down.
The geonengineers want to play with their science by using us as guinea pigs, they think the earth is like a big labatorory or playpen for their scientific adventures. How dare they when this planet belongs to all of us? I object vehemently to chemtrails. We need to let everyone know what is being done while they look away busy with other important matters. We are the ones that have to say no to this. We are the ones that have to tell our friends and neighbors. Look up for two weeks and see it with your own eyes.
After reading this utter
After reading this utter nonsense I’m fairly certain that the other attendees aren’t alone in knowing zilch about the subject.
Allow me to make a statement that applies equally well to homeopathy.
ITS JUST WATER.
Crystal Clear
I do know we in our unique forms are just water, and an unfathomable medium it is, too. Conductive, Impressionable, Shape Shifting, Adaptable…
Whether an energetic imprint results in a snowflake or a remedy, or conveyer for heat or waves or chemicals…who’s to say utter nonsense isn’t also amazing and plausible?
http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/water-crystal.html
"who’s to say utter nonsense
“who’s to say utter nonsense isn’t also amazing and plausible?”
Science.
Which is notably absent in the link you posted. Your bullshit detector needs to be turned up a few notches.
Quick to Ridicule
Science itself is not immune to the hubris we people bring to most every endeavor. I don’t know about chemtrails, but have observed that when it comes to things like GMO’s, or over-prescribing antibiotics, science is not more impeccable, or less opportunistic than hucksters who dominate all money driven enterprise.
As a paradigm, science is wonderful in its insistence on empirical evidence. Yet as a worldview, many ‘experts’ use ‘science’ as a cudgel, thwarting much good that can come from contemplation, imagination, and intuition.
I’m well acquainted with the mockery energetic and traditional medicine has received, whether that be acupuncture, homeopathy or yoga. You can dismiss complimentary approaches, but denigrating holistic practices outright speaks of rigidity, absolutism, and lack of humility.
The Samuel Hahnemann Hospital in Philadelphia is one of the country’s leading research and teaching hospitals. It’s named after the founder of homeopathy. It’s an allopathic institution, yet it doesn’t negate the legacy and distribution of other modalities, as you do.
Science is a method.Things
Science is a method.
Things that come from contemplation, imagination and intuition are not thwarted by science, they are testable by science. When they turn out to be accurate, or at least the most accurate explanation at the time, then they are embraced and adopted by the scientific community via consensus. If they are shown to be false, then they are and should be abandoned and/or corrected/refined.
The most closely held and most firmly established scientific theory will be tossed out the window when evidence demonstrates that it is wrong.
The foundational claims of homeopathy are nonsense. I am not claiming that benefits can not be had via the placebo effect or by addressing some of the shortcomings of modern medicine by for example spending significantly more time with a patient than an actual qualified medical practitioner is usually able to.
However, water does not have memory, diluting a chemical does not make it more potent, and like does not cure like.
These are not only entirely without evidence and are contrary to everything we know about physics and chemistry, they are also demonstrably false.
If you think otherwise, theres a nobel prize waiting for the first person to demonstrate such a phenomenon, at which point the claims will become part of medicine and science. (Hint, that they have not been isn’t due to conspiracy, its because the claims are nonsense and prey on the ignorant)
I note your lack of a defense of that link full of bullshit you provided.
If you are going to defend utter nonsense by claiming “Well, Science isn’t perfect” then you have a very poor understanding of how to evaluate evidence and determine the truth of a claim and you will essentially be remarkably gullible to all manner of ridiculous BS.
You may want to heed the quote: “It pays to be open minded, but not so open your brain falls out”
LM Potency - Less is More
Inasmuch as this is a chemtrail story, I wouldn’t want to hijack that discussion. I reacted to your incredulity, and blanket conflation with homeopathy. I’m glad you seem to have done your homework on the Law of Similars, Miasms, Scales of Dilution and Succussion, Provings, Polychrests, Repertory Analysis, and other components of this 200 year old system, in place worldwide, with roots going back to antiquity.
As far as the water crystal imagery, are you claiming those are spurious images he’s posted? That his evidence and work are contrived?
That homeopathy is 200 years
That homeopathy is 200 years old, and that it has roots going back to antiquity does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that its claims are true. The number of people who believe a claim also has absolutely nothing to do with whether that claim is true.
In fact, a system of medicine that predates for example, germ theory, is more likely to be wildly incorrect than a more recent concoction. Similar to how our models of the solar system and galaxy weren’t likely to be particularly accurate prior to the invention of the telescope.
As for this water crystal responding to emotions nonsense:
I can accept that Mr. Emoto has published a number of photos of water crystals and that is about it.
Just about every other claim made in that link is utter nonsense and is not backed up by anything remotely resembling evidence and the language contains a great number of red flags that indicate that this is absurd nonsense on its face and should be dismissed as junk. I even googled him to see if there was better info. There isn’t. Its just a bunch of photos without any actual evidence for the claims being made about them. It is almost certain that he is incompetent and mistaken, or that it is all contrived.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
This fellow has not provided ANY evidence for his claims, and his claims are rather extraordinary.
A quick google of him shows he is in fact well known for pseudoscience nonsense and woo.
So yes, he’s either deluded or full of shit.
Also, some further
Also, some further information on your “Doctor” Emoto, who I will intentionally refer to as Mister.
His credentials come from Open International University in India which is a well known unaccredited “Degree Mill” which requires absolutely no coursework or curriculum. It is worth about as much as a “degree” I typed up and printed out myself at home.
He has had a brush with the James Randi educational foundation which has a standing offer of a $1 million prize to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural/paranormal phenomena. Despite bragging that they feel they deserve the prize, they have not accepted Randi’s offer to test their claims under controlled double-blind scientific conditions. Funny that.
Lastly, if ANY of his claims were true they would upend physics and chemistry and nobel prizes would be had. Given that, it is telling that none of his work has been submitted to (as far as I could find) let a lone survived peer review and has never been published in a credible scientific journal or similar publication.
In other words, its nonsense and he’s a quack.
Did you bother to look into any of this or did you just accept his claims that water reacts to emotions at face value (assuming you believe his claims, which is what I am taking from your posts)
Isn’t it rather obvious that he simply chose crystals that looked nice to represent his “positive thoughts” group and less aesthetically pleasing ones to represent his “negative thoughts” group?
Nonetheless, life cannot exist without water
and science is unable to explain that. Water is a fascinating and mysterious substance. We haven’t even scratched the surface of how to perceive it.
Science says the universe began with the big bang, which is utterly ridiculous. This universe from nothing seems highly unlikely yet the scientific community accepts this wholesale and nobody laughs! Science cannot “know” anything. It can only observe, or measure or interpret, and it has to change as new information is discovered. But it is usually reluctant to change. Rupert Sheldrake was shunned from the scientific community for his studies on morphogenesis perhaps because it is too outside of traditional science. Despite the skepticism, some scientists still think that chemtrails are contrails and smoking tobacco is good for you. Science is often relied upon automatically somewhat like religious dogma but admittedly, it does have more glamor associated to it.
Ugh, more new age woo woo and
Ugh, more new age woo woo and science denying….
Science can’t explain how life can’t exist without water? Are you serious? Umm…. chemistry?
Water is not a mysterious substance. Its a molecule with 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, its pretty straightforward. We’ve pretty much nailed down its behavior and properties.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Also, as we continue to discover forms of life that thrive in conditions that are counter-intuitive to what we assume life needs to survive, its becoming clear that assumptions like “all life needs water” likely aren’t true.
As for the big bang, I’m pretty sure you probably don’t have the slightest understanding of the big bang theory given you just tossed out the usual catch phrase about something coming from nothing. So, some remedial education for you:
The big bang theory is not an explanation for how the universe began. It is a model that describes the behavior of the universe when it was ~10^-32 seconds old through its expansion and cooling which we call cosmic inflation. Do some reading on the cosmic microwave background radiation. The big bang model has made reliable and accurate predictions and it has been tested over and over and over, while we will refine details as our technology improves, the broad strokes are essentially facts at this point. The big bang theory has pretty much been proven to be accurate.
What the big bang theory DOES NOT DEAL WITH even though the uneducated and scientifically ignorant public think it does, is how the universe began.
We do not yet know how the universe began, we only have hypotheses at this point. It is a demonstration of ignorance to talk about something coming from nothing because we do not know if there was nothing prior to the universe beginning. The whole multiverse hypothesis for example holds that our universe came from *something* which then begs the question “so where did *that* come from” and etc. etc. Secondly, what physicists mean by nothing is very different from what the layman means by nothing. If you have a volume of space that contains no energy or matter, is that nothing? Does that volume of space have a higgs field? If so, then its something, not nothing.
Catch phrases like “something from nothing” usually belie someone who has no idea what quantum mechanics is about. Quantum mechanics is really, really important to understanding how our world works and it is extremely complex and difficult stuff and almost entirely counter-intuitive. If you use the layman’s definition of nothing, then something comes from nothing pretty frequently in quantum mechanics and we’ve watched it. We know that happens.
Furthermore, if space did not ever exist independently of time, then the entire concept of “prior to the beginning of the universe” or “before” has absolutely no meaning. Causality only applies in a context where time exists and things experience time.
We cannot “see” further back than when the universe was about 400,000 years old (its 13.82 billion years old now) because it was hot enough to be opaque. Thats partly why we are building these LIGO detector experiments which detect gravity waves. It will allow us to start looking back beyond this opaque barrier and gather data that will allow us to start answering some questions that have so far eluded us.
Less than 100 years ago we did not know that there were other galaxies.
We only discovered the first exoplanet (planet outside our solar system) 24 years ago.
Not *yet* having an explanation for how the universe began does not discount science, it just means we need to keep doing more science. In the meantime, enjoy your GPS device, science denier.
It doesn’t appear that you understand the definition of “knowledge” or “knowing”. Do we *know* that the earth orbits the sun, and that both the sun and the earth rotate? How do we know that? Yup, science. If you want to get confused by the philosophical problems with absolute certainty and hard solipsism then have fun with that, they don’t really lead anywhere useful.
Rupert Sheldrake is shunned by the scientific community because he’s not doing science anymore, he’s doing pseudoscience. That is a story of a scientist who was doing productive work and then deciding to go off the rails into nonsense. He and his ideas on parapsychology are rejected because they have absolutely no evidence behind them. Its new-age woo-woo. Its not “too outside traditional science” its just not science. Its about as scientific as the claims you are making, which is to say they are utter nonsense and not worthy of consideration.
Science works on evidence, when you have no evidence, no one will listen to you and nor should they. Come back with experiments, data and evidence or admit that you were wrong and move on to something else.
99.999….% of scientists think that contrails are contrails and I am not aware of any scientist still claiming that tobacco is good for you. Do not be intentionally misleading like Chris Pratt and imply that some sizable number of scientists think chemtrails exist. That is just simply not true.
If you think science is about dogma then you don’t understand science. It is about evidence, which you rarely have or understand.
ES: "You really have no idea what you are talking about"
I agree with you. Sadly, I don’t think DW really does know what she’s talking about.
ES: “Science works on evidence, when you have no evidence, no one will listen to you and nor should they.”
Again, I agree and I’m glad for your science contributions. This kind of clarity is what is missing in these chemtrails, et al, articles.
Excellent educational videos
Excellent educational videos that are understandable without a physics degree:
Why we know the big bang theory is mostly accurate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPStj2ZuXug
The stuff we aren’t sure about (And this is why calling science dogma is nonsense)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmKLXVFJzk
Cosmic microwave background:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tCMd1ytvWg
"Why calling science dogma is nonsense"
I’ve said this before…science is probably the most self-correcting and acceptance of change than other disciplines.
Thanks for these links and others you’ve provided.
Well then we should consult you because you know everything
If you don’t marvel at water then I feel sorry for you. You cannot tell the difference between chemtrails and contrails and you are wrong and that means you endanger everyone. If I am wrong, I endanger no one. If you know so much about science, then explain it to us without so much “attitude” like you’re some god. We don’t all need to study the same things. What’s the point of knowledge if all you do is go round jabbering “you don’t know this, you don’t know that”. But you don’t even question contrails because holy bee, science tells you so.
It’s not a conversation with you, it’s a sniping contest. It doesn’t occur to you does it that information is suppressed to keep you ignorant. Soon lots of things will come out. You wouldn’t know that and you think anyone who says this is unbalanced. That kind of talk only tries to intimidate and stifle conversation. You have probably cheezed off lots of commenters over this.
Below is an article published by Frontiers in Public Health a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Mr Herndon the man who wrote this article and who has published several others has a BA in Physics from University of California and holds a PH.D as a nuclear chemists from Texas A&M. Although Mr Herndon had no trouble publisihing several other articles this one curiously was retracted after being published. This process occurs once out of every 14,000 publications. Fortunately we have access to the originally published version
http://www.nuclearplanet.com/frontiers1.pdf
Further if you are truly concerned with the public’s health as I would think a former town representative would be … why have not you demanded from local, state and the federal government to prove with soil and rainwater testing that aluminum and barium levels are going down not up.
If only you were as critical of your government as you are of your peers.
I don't know everything, I
I don’t know everything, I just very clearly know more than you, which isn’t a terribly high bar. More importantly, cognitive functions like critical thinking, evaluation and understanding of evidence, rationality, etc. are functioning over here which helps to inoculate one against bullshit and nonsense.
“Marveling at water”, k, I have no interest in new-age mystical nonsense. Go play with crystals.
“t doesn’t occur to you does it that information is suppressed to keep you ignorant. Soon lots of things will come out.”
You have no evidence that any relevent information about chemtrails or any of your other conspiracy theorist nonsense is being suppressed. It is unlikely that “soon” lots of things will come out. I’m guessing you have no evidence to back up that claim either.
“You wouldn’t know that and you think anyone who says this is unbalanced.”
No, I just think you are unbalanced. And in any case, when you claim anyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill, you don’t really have a leg to stand on here.
Ah, Herndon comes back up, I guess you didn’t read my previous takedown of his poor attempts at “science”.
His articles on chemtrails/geoengineering were retracted because they were garbage pseudoscience that should not have been published in the first place.
Having an article retracted is a very serious matter and is quite the rebuke for the author and embarrassing for the publisher as it reveals they did not properly evaluate the paper prior to publishing. Reputations can be lost and people can be fired/resign.
In both cases, Herndon submitted his “paper” to journals of very low reputation which are considered “vanity” publishers. Their standard review is extremely low or nonexistent.
His paper is likely to be retracted from Frontiers as well:
https://twitter.com/FrontiersIn/status/753853830756986880
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00155/full
Herndon has long been considered a crackpot by the scientific community. He denies the existence of plate tectonics and proposes his own theory which has zero evidence behind it. His veering off into chemtrails and conspiracy theories destroyed whatever credibility he may have been able to salvage. He may have a science degree, but he’s no longer (if he ever was) doing science. Thats why his papers are getting rejected and retracted.
He is a failure. Plain and simple. If he had any evidence for his claims, it’d be a different story.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-j-marvin-herndons-geoengineering-articles-in-current-science-india-and-ijerph.t6456/
His prior submissision of this paper was also pretty much garbage, complete with false data.
Interesting that you chemtrail loons need to cite a descredited “scientist” who relies on falsified and incorrect data in their papers, which then get submitted to low-quality journals in order for them to claim they have peer-reviewed and published papers, and then EVEN THOSE low-quality journals retract the papers.
I have not demanded that any level of government prove anything about aluminum or barium levels for the same reason I don’t demand they prove unicorns don’t exist. Secondly, why should aluminum levels be dropping? Aluminum is an extremely common element that exists in surface soils and rocks in tremendous quantities naturally. Why would soil levels drop?
Herndon's garbage retracted
http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00156/full
As expected, Herndon’s garbage paper has been retracted from Frontiers within days. So much for him getting published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Good imagery...
…science is used as a cudgel. Science is so new. Nature has been going a lot longer (a heck of a lot!) If science was really smart, it would recognize the patterns of nature and work in harmony with it. Patterns such as favoring diversity and decentralization. But we do everything the other-way-around and we think we are smart. We kill our own species and never give much of a thought to it. Science would fly if it were to work in harmony with nature rather than try to conquer it. But doesn’t our entire “civilization” work that way – we call it competition.
OH it's just water? Really?
Maybe you haven’t been looking up yourself. These are chemtrails. Do you think that with better emissions controls for cars, planes have been getting worse instead of better? Do cars leave trails of clouds on cold days? What about the EPA, why aren’t they asking about this? Do you know that all modern planes run contrail suppression technology called high-bypass turbo jet fans which minimize and almost entirely eliminate contrails in anything but the most extreme cases? No I guess you’ve not looked into it. You’re just another bug to them.
Theres a musician I've heard
Theres a musician I’ve heard about recently I think you’d really like. You should check them out. Besides their music they’ve become pretty well known for their activism on scientific issues similar to chemtrails that have very real consequences for the public. Google the rapper B.o.B.
So you don't think
it’s just water now?
Since that seems to have gone
Since that seems to have gone over your head…. B.o.B. is the rapper who recently made news for seriously claiming/believing that the earth is flat.
I was equating his level of ignorance with yours.
(And yes, chemtrails are just conspiracy theorist nonsense and show an extreme scientific illiteracy. The trails left behind aircraft in flight are basically water, hence condensation trails = contrails.)
How about you prove what you say
You want proof from me but you have no proof that the clouds are contrails. How about showing us where you get your proof from.
Nope, thats not how the
Nope, thats not how the burden of proof works.
You are claiming that what we are looking at are chemtrails, rather than simply contrails and making some rather extraordinary and ridiculous claims and assertions of conspiracy worthy of a fine multi-layered tin foil hat.
I am rejecting your claim as having absolutely no evidence and because your argument and thinking are fallacious, irrational and absurd.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim or assertion, which in this case is you.
What you are attempting to do, since your position is untenable, is to shift the burden of proof to me, which is a logical fallacy.
I.E.
“I got abducted by aliens!”
“I do not believe you”
“Oh yeah? Prove that I didn’t!”
Since you are incapable of rationally evaluating evidence and have a fundamental misunderstanding of science, I’m not sure why I should humor you and waste my time presenting evidence, when you clearly do not have the tools to evaluate *actual* good evidence.
So, as a compromise to not waste my morning, I’ll simply post a link from a pretty decent source:
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/contrail-edu/science.php
Tin Foil Hat?!!!
eschmitt, in the end, will regret his mockery when he realizes that he has left himself defenseless.
I like this a lot.
I like this a lot.
So do I
So do I
"Burden" of proof?
You think it’s a burden to say how you arrive at a conclusion? You just posted a link, is that how you arrived at your conclusion? Here’s another link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgL6b7VTxT4
This one shows that modern aircraft are fitted with contrail suppression technology and just about every aircraft today and for many years have been equipped with this technology. Your link says that the contrails happen at high altitudes but if you are a true observer (rather than a mouthpiece for your captors) you would see that these “contrails” are very low flying. It’s 3:20pm and I see them today, all over the skies. The skies would be totally blue if it weren’t for the “contrails” today. I work outdoors and track their behavior over hours and various conditions. If you look into the literature on the opposing side, which is what you owe yourself before you go spouting off as though you know, you will find you are dead wrong. I know it’s hard to believe that your wonderful government thinks you’re just a bug. But hey, why is it they’re so quiet about this subject when people are asking? Not only do they want you to be sick (there’s profit in sickness) but they want to debilitate you without your knowledge. They love that part. Ask Bernie or Hillary about chemtrails and see how they answer that one.
And what is coming out of these “contrails”? What is in those “vapors”? How do we know for sure? Soils are not checked for aluminum so we cannot see the increase of this metal. But the PH of the soil has dropped to low levels in many places stunting the growth of plants and in some places, (Hawaii) causing the bark of trees to peel off. Why doesn’t your lovely government pay attention to this? But it says that cannabis must not be grown or taken, that it is as bad as heroine? Do you think the government doesn’t know that cannabis is a healing plant? Why do they jail people for using it? Surely jail causes more upset than smoking a joint. If government doesn’t know that cannabis heals, why do we call them “leaders”? And why do they ban it anyway? Why do they ban hemp? Yet they allow aspartame and hydrofluorosilicic acid (fluoride) and even add it into our water? (It’s not the same fluoride you get in streams it’s from the pollution scrubbers of the fertilizer industry, so toxic that it cannot be dumped in the environment) I know, it sounds crazy. But the craziest thing really is to believe that the government has your best interests at heart. Once you look deeply into any subject you will find that the government has no heart.
If you consider that video a
If you consider that video a credible source then you are in dire need of remedial education.
Try this one:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-high-bypass-turbofans-do-not-make-contrails-actually-they-make-more.t3187/
I’ll pick apart your ridiculous nonsense, full of unsupported assertions strung together in an incoherent mess, when I have a few more minutes of free time.
Here's another link for ya
A Senate Report from as far back as May 1978 on weather modification. Imagine how this has advanced since then. The toxin droppers thank you for being so unaware and even defending their snuffing you out. That way you’ll never figure out what causes crops to be unproductive, sicknesses and lowered cognition to be so widespread. And voila! No lawsuits can come of it! Another perfect crime! They must be gloating. Ignorance is a beautiful thing.
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00025909/00001/1j
Cite evidence for crops being
Cite evidence for crops being unproductive due to chemtrails:
Cite evidence for levels of sickness increasing due to chemtrails:
Cite evidence for lowered cognition due to chemtrails:
(I doubt you can even cite evidence for less productive crops, higher rates of sickness and lowered cognition, LET ALONE link them to chemtrails)
Now, as to the report you linked. It does not support your claims.
That it could be POSSIBLE to spray chemicals from aircraft does not mean that it is HAPPENING.
Show evidence that it IS occurring, not that it *could* occur.
Yes, your ignorance allows you to be extraordinarily lazy in making unsupported assertions.
Higher levels of aluminum means
stunted growth of plants because that is what aluminum does in the soils. It just makes sense that crops will be affected. It’s not going to be something you’ll read in the mainstream press. They’re all mercenary owners by the usual miscreants (pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuel industry, nuclear industry, agricultural industry, etc) Aluminum is found in Alzheimer’s victims.
There is no proof of aluminum causing Alzheimer’s but are you going to wait till there is? I’m putting two and two together but you don’t have to. Even if I am wrong I think that is the most prudent and nobody gets hurt. Whereas if you ignore these “theories” it may be too late for you once the “proof” shows up.
These assailants are weakening the immune system. That’s the idea, to kill us slowly. Have you not read Agenda 21?
So in other words you are
So in other words you are pulling all of this out of your ass and you have no credible sources or evidence?
You want me to ignore my own logic and eyesight?
Trees are dying in many highly-sprayed areas. The evidence is not coming from science I can assure you. Science cannot be trusted today, there is too much money in it. My information comes from trusted informants throughout this country and others.
The sickness is called “Morgellons”. Joni Mitchell suffers from it and so do others. Sometimes it occurs where stringy-like fibrous organisms irritate the skin and debilitate the body like a flu. My evidence will not be accepted by you because you are waiting for science to tell you these things. Science in my mind, is one form of evidence but there are others that I trust and that all go together to get as true a perspective of reality as possible.
So you have no evidence.
So you have no evidence.
Morgellons is defined as a delusional disorder. So, yeah.
"This one shows that modern
“This one shows that modern aircraft are fitted with contrail suppression technology and just about every aircraft today and for many years have been equipped with this technology.”
Wrong.
While several patents regarding possible/proposed methods of suppressing contrails have been filed over the last few decades, none so far were particularly practical or effective. There is no cost-effective way to suppress contrails in commercial aircraft using current engines. Operational mitigation is weighed against increased fuel consumption. (I.E. adjusting altitude during cruise)
Your assertion that all modern aircraft are fitted with contrail suppression technology is therefore rejected. If you like, specify the particular method employed on commercial airliners (Your high-bypass turbofan type engine) today. If there are multiple approaches, describe the most common one.
“Your link says that the contrails happen at high altitudes but if you are a true observer (rather than a mouthpiece for your captors) you would see that these “contrails” are very low flying.”
Are you suggesting that you can visually determine the altitude of an aircraft?
If so, I am suggesting that you are likely to be wildly inaccurate.
Secondly, there are numerous scenarios where something resembling a contrail could be formed at lower altitudes and higher temperatures than the usual cruise altitude for commercial aircraft. (Remember, you exhaling here on the ground makes fog during much of the year…)
” But hey, why is it they’re so quiet about this subject when people are asking?”
Because most people don’t have the time and patience to deal with idiots. I would not want taxpayer money wasted responding to every moron with a keyboard.
“I know it’s hard to believe that your wonderful government thinks you’re just a bug. But hey, why is it they’re so quiet about this subject when people are asking? Not only do they want you to be sick (there’s profit in sickness) but they want to debilitate you without your knowledge.”
Unsupported assertions. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
“And what is coming out of these “contrails”? What is in those “vapors”? How do we know for sure?”
Mostly water and because no credible observation or experiment has ever shown anything other than mostly water with low levels of what one would expect from a form of combustion engine.
” Soils are not checked for aluminum so we cannot see the increase of this metal. But the PH of the soil has dropped to low levels in many places stunting the growth of plants and in some places, (Hawaii) causing the bark of trees to peel off.”
Unsupported assertion.
Why aluminum in particular? Soils are and can be tested. Pick up some soil and send it to a lab with a sufficiently large check and you can get an aluminum content of your sample.
If aluminum levels in surface soils are higher than expected over a wide geographic area, then you also need to demonstrate a causal link between those elevated levels and SPECIFICALLY your chemtrail nonsense. That means excluding a multitude of other potential sources.
None of that has been demonstrated, and no credible experiment has ever shown anything even remotely heading in that direction. Therefore, no evidence, assertion can be dismissed.
The PH and nonsense about haiwain tree bark shows a scientific illiteracy, again.
“Why doesn’t your lovely government pay attention to this? ”
For the same reason the government doesn’t pay attention to unicorns.
I’m going to mostly ignore the nonsensical rant on cannibis and flouride in order to stay on topic, but it shows the same complete ignorance and illiteracy as his chemtrail bunk. I’ll even toss in an ad hom by suggesting this fellow may have smoked a bit too much…
For someone so "skeptical"
You don’t give any evidence for what you claim. You just poopooh everything and I mean EVERYTHING. That smacks of not true skepticism but dogma.
You havn't addressed my
You havn’t addressed my points.
You are merely now attempting to shift the burden of proof.
rejected.
Gee all that work you did quoting
And now this: http://lasvegastribune.net/20050819/headline1.html
Someone is going to have egg on their face before long…
Those who defend government enjoy their hostage status. But your lovely government also imposes itself on us who abhor it. The only way your lovely government can thrive is if it forces people to go along with it. That’s an indication that even they know government is a very nasty idea.
Its rather perfect that you
Its rather perfect that you posted a dead link.
A 404 error is the perfect description of your evidence. (Meaning, like the page you intended to link to, it only exists in your mind)
Well things do get taken off especially when they're
not in congruence with the imposed narrative. Here’s the latest, Greg Hunter interviewing Dane Wigington on chemtrail assault: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJAwxY4WEqM
And how is repeating all this
And how is repeating all this nonsense in video form any sort of evidence for anything other than that some whackjobs have camera’s and a youtube account?
If I upload a video of someone swearing they were abducted by aliens, does that make it true in your world?
Maybe you haven't been aware
that the skies never used to look like this in the past. I wouldn’t doubt it, you’ve been busy licking boots…
But I have noticed and yes, of course it’s easy to tell the altitude of airplanes from being either high or low with one’s own eyes. Even a child can do it.
I’m not talking about unicorns. I’m talking about you and me being sprayed with poisons from above. Big difference. And I’m not waiting for government to tell me that they’re doing it because that will never happen. Government is notorious for experimentation on unsuspecting victims. It’s just an extrapolation but I say if they do it once or ten times without our knowledge, what’s stopping them from doing it again and again? I like to use my brain. Science helps but what we have today is selective science where selected material is studied (usually that which produces a profit down the line) while other material is dismissed (ie: placebo effect). Nonetheless, humans have been used for experimentation many times, here I’ll hand hold you and provide another link that shows this has happened many times, in case you haven’t noticed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
The video I sent you explained the technology of high-bypass turbo jet engines on modern planes. You showed zip. Maybe you think that whatever emanates from your mouth is enough. Contrails had to be eliminated in order for planes to fly without detection in enemy zones, etc. Do you really think that the technology got worse in all these years causing planes to spew clouds that last for hours? Imagine if your car did that!
It’s not nonsense about the tree bark peeling. I’m not a scientist but it doesn’t mean I can’t put two and two together. I know scientists who believe in god and the free market. They may sound scientifically literate but that doesn’t mean they are right.
I don’t know why it’s a rule that one must “stay on topic”. However it is on topic when we’re talking about what the government does to “The People”. It’s extrapolation – if government lies once let alone the squillions of times they do lie and carry out false flags (proven) then why wouldn’t they be doing it still? This is a perfectly valid question. If you have a friend that robs you once, would you allow them to rob you time and again until you have “proof” of it? But you’ll let the government get away with it. Suckering to authority…
When I exhale “fog” on a cold day it doesn’t form clouds that last for hours. Neither do cars on a cold day. The vapors dissipate quickly. Contrails in the sky do the same. They don’t last for hours and they are rare today. The clouds you see are not contrails they are chemtrails – chemical trails of toxins that are going into our soil and water and into our bodies. Perhaps you don’t see the significance of that. You’d rather question your peers than your government (that’s not to mean I don’t welcome questioning) but why not spend as much time questioning your lords and masters?
You may not want taxpayer dollars to be spent on government explaining to the public why the skies are now graffitied everywhere with “contrails” but isn’t that what government is supposed to do (you know as servants of the people?) Or is that just false advertising? You’d rather government spend taxpayer money on killing innocents abroad perhaps…
Here’s more for you to debunk on chemtrails…this one comes from the mouths of pilots, doctors, scientists, meteorologists, neurologists and biologists. Who’s the moron sitting at your keyboard?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnkWR-MaoCk
You think that water makes clouds last in the skies for hours? And you’re calling me a moron. Hmm.
I said governments don’t do routine checks on aluminum in soils. Of course we can do our own checks. They also do not monitor radiation levels in the ocean (despite Fukushima, that’s how much they care)
It happens often that government tampers with information and removes information from the internet. I have proof of this in one case for sure where but that was in another issue (on vaccines) Of course you won’t read about this in newspapers and maybe that’s why you’re having a hard time believing that these things can be done without your awareness.
You know what we have to ascertain – what the hell is being sprayed from those planes. We can argue till we’re blue in the face but what if I’m correct and you are wrong? We are being sprayed with toxins without our knowledge. Even if that weren’t true, you’d think the government would at least make a statement on this since many people are concerned. But they act as though they know nothing about it. Can we afford to have “leaders” know nothing about what We the People are concerned about? It’s not just an intellectual discussion we’re having here, we want to KNOW and we expect government to EXPLAIN! You may give them a free pass, but surely you do care about what is coming down on you and your loved ones?
High-bypass turbofan engines
High-bypass turbofan engines still burn fuel and utilize air for combustion and thus release hot, humid exhaust. Therefore they can create contrails.
Why should anyone take you seriously if you fail at comprehending that basic fact?
Sure, there are some options for reducing contrails that can be used in military applications. Elsewhere, such as commercial aircraft they are not cost-effective.
That methods are available to suppress contrails, does not mean that they are universally employed on all or even most or even many aircraft.
Therefore you are making a giant unsupported leap that modern aircraft engines do not create contrails, and thus misidentifying contrails as chemtrails.
Typical conspiracy theorist thinking. Stringing random facts and assertions together to create a false narrative.
Cite your source linking the peeling of tree bark with chemtrails.
Yes, near the ground the vapors disappear quickly because the conditions are different than at higher altitudes. Different conditions, different behavior. Same mechanism though, which is condensed water vapor or ice suspended in the air.
Yes, water vapor condensing into ice crystals can persist in the skies for hours. Yes, you are a moron.
Nothing is being sprayed from “those planes” except engine exhaust.
No, the government should not make a statement about it, as it will only legitimize crackpots such as yourself, who are best ignored to yell at their monitors in their rooms, alone, and occasionally mocked by those who aren’t screwed up in the head who might be taking a short break from work and decide to spend it by arguing with crazy people on the internet.
What a pile of schmitt
I said contrail suppression technology prevents contrails in almost all cases. They still do occur but rarely. If ice crystals last in the skies for hours, how can that happen on hot days? I see your supposed “contrails” in summer almost daily. They mist over an entirely blue sky blocking the sun. And the lines do not follow plane routes. They go all over the place. That never used to happen until a few years ago. So you’re positing the technology is getting worse?
You obviously like being a bug. That is your prerogative. I write to bring attention to things the media wants to shut out. You are essentially saying we should not question the government, that anyone who does is a moron or a nut case. Recently the movie VAXXED was banned. Why would someone want to ban information even if it is not entirely true? How do we know what is entirely true if some information is denied us? Do the banners think people are too immature to make up their own minds? This is the kind of baloney you’re dressing up as “scientific” evidence. Science cannot be trusted these days. Where money is involved, nothing can be trusted. I bet you’re probably earning money to spend your time trying to discredit inquiry. I could be wrong and I don’t have proof but your zeal certainly has the markings of it. Nowhere do you argue on the side of curious inquiry. In fact your tone is venomous towards it.
"I said contrail suppression
“I said contrail suppression technology prevents contrails in almost all cases. They still do occur but rarely.”
And you have yet to specify which method of available “contrail suppression technology” is being employed, nor have you provided ANY evidence that any significant number of aircraft are actually utilizing anything resembling “contrail suppression technology”.
“If ice crystals last in the skies for hours, how can that happen on hot days?”
It saddens me that folks like you got through the educational system with such a faulty understanding of the world…
Just because it is hot on the ground, does not mean it is not still well below zero up at cruise altitude. Heres a little research experiment for you, google the relationship between temperatures at ground level vs 20,000 and 30,000 feet.
“They mist over an entirely blue sky blocking the sun. And the lines do not follow plane routes. They go all over the place. That never used to happen until a few years ago.”
Yes, once the plane has created contrails, they can drift with atmospheric currents and winds.
You have no evidence that this “never used to happen until a few years ago” none, zero, zip, zilch. That difference exists only in your mind.
“You obviously like being a bug. That is your prerogative. I write to bring attention to things the media wants to shut out. You are essentially saying we should not question the government, that anyone who does is a moron or a nut case.”
No, do not dishonestly claim I am saying something I never said.
The only result of your writing is to reveal yourself as a crackpot.
I think that you are a moron and a nut case not because you question the government but because your ideas, arguments and justifications are laughably terrible and nonsensical and you are shockingly ignorant and incapable of forming a coherent argument or supporting your assertions.
“Recently the movie VAXXED was banned.”
No it wasn’t, it was pulled from a film festival run by a private entity who can excercise whatever standards and discretion they choose.
Get your facts straight.
“Why would someone want to ban information even if it is not entirely true? How do we know what is entirely true if some information is denied us? Do the banners think people are too immature to make up their own minds?”
Because if ignorant people see such garbage at an otherwise respectable venue they may mistake it for something more legitimate than the junk misinformation it is and that does real harm.
Its the same reason respectable education institutions do not (and should not) teach creationism. Why waste valuable time and energy presenting utter nonsense? It is especially irresponsible to present such utter nonsense as a valid and equal alternative to naturalism.
Why should your anti-vax bullshit, which has not met its burden of proof, be permitted the same airtime as information which IS justified by the evidence and HAS met its burden of proof?
The information is also, unfortunately, still available, it has merely been denied one particular platform to advertise from.
“This is the kind of baloney you’re dressing up as “scientific” evidence.”
Umm… no? That makes no sense.
” Science cannot be trusted these days.”
But ignorant idiots on the internet making shit up as they go can be? No thanks, I’ll stick with critical thinking and reasoning and the scientific method, thanks.
” I bet you’re probably earning money to spend your time trying to discredit inquiry”
Giant checks… so much money…. If I could tolerate the stupid more I could make this my full time job and be quite wealthy (Yes, I’m mocking you, you are a paranoid idiot, smoke less)
“Nowhere do you argue on the side of curious inquiry. In fact your tone is venomous towards it.”
No, I am venomous towards utter nonsense and unsupported assertions. I have no issue with curiosity, especially when it is paired with effective tools to determine what is or is not true. However in individuals such as yourself your ability to determine what is in concordance with reality is so critically damaged, curiosity quickly turns to spouting unsupported nonsense and then claiming to be victimized when everyone collectively rolls their eyes at you.
If you were legitimately mentally ill, patience and restraint would be appropriate from my end, but unless given a reason otherwise I intend to treat you as a fully functioning adult who is not meeting minimum expectations in your thinking and rather than recognizing this and putting yourself in the position of a student, you are punching above your weight and thus are getting smacked around a bit.
Read up on “Epistemology” and logic. If you are capable of understanding those, the reasons your arguments and statements are so terribly bad will become clear.
You really have no idea what is going on around you
and you don’t want to know. I wonder if you believe the official 9/11 story? Now what you seem to be arguing about is that you will not believe that chemtrails are real because the scientific community has not come out and told you so. You go by what you are told from “official” sources and those sources only. You scoff at your fellow peers rather than question authorities. You seem to subscribe to the belief that government is good.
What I’m arguing about is how can we trust government or believe anything that comes from it, when it has lied repeatedly and done the most heinous things and not only continued to cover up about it but done so right under our noses! It is made up of some of the most mentally disturbed people imaginable. And then those who they have enslaved, defend government and believe everything it says and forgives it wholesale without any demands for accountability. Because of the foundational belief that nobody would do such things.
I wonder if you know that most of the world is ruled by pedophiles? Now I’m really going to incur wrath by bringing this up! And who knows how many others will stick their heads in the sand rather than confront this? I am assuming you will believe nothing of this and that is exactly what your hijackers expect of you and the so-called “unwashed masses”. And that gives them carte blanch to continue unabated while millions suffer needlessly because the antidote to all this sickness is awareness. They know it too. That’s why it’s done below our level of consciousness.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” – Krishnamurti
There is copious evidence of satanic worship, stealing our children and doing the most heinous things to them. It is conducted by monarchies and politicians and much of high-ranking officialdom. You may think this has nothing to do with chemtrails and censure me for being “off topic”. But I continue to transmit as much information and awareness as possible because what I see is a “civilization” that has been deliberately entrained to think a certain way to further the goals of diseased minds. (I’m not suggesting violence on them though) The way to cure this disease of the mind is to shine light on the truth, on what is really happening, what has been hidden and what those who refuse to open their eyes, sanction by complicity and shelter.
This was a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia doing this, Kim Beasley, look him up. There are many more. Look up Bohemian Grove.
These rulers don’t just do chemtrails, they do a whole lot more and have been doing so for many centuries. Here, one of the survivors tells some of the things they do. There are many other videos by many other survivors (some still young children that “got away) that tell the same story. This is probably why they don’t allow women into secret societies like the FreeMasons and Skull and Bones – John Kerry, a current public official is a member of this secret society. I hope that’s not alright with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87lRjfLg2Sk
Ignore this guy
You have better things to do with your time than to argue with assholes.
He’s either a paid troll or a naive and gullible true believer.
Yes I would say he is paid to be a troll
because to spend all this time refuting every single question against his government, seems pretty telling.
I have at no point made any
I have at no point made any statement defending “my government” or any government really. So, your claim there is about as based on reality as most of the others you two make…
For example, in the case of climate change, I am extremely irritated with our and most other governments and I would argue in favor of the scientific consensus and recommendations and *against* the inaction of our government.
I pretty much only chime in when I spot instances of extreme scientific ignorance and poor reasoning or outright science-denying.
Its very sad that you need to tell yourself that I am being paid, rather than accepting that I’m just a local who has an interest in science and who is refuting you for his own reasons.
You live in a severely delusional world.
Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge.
Instead of deluding yourself into thinking those who are more knowledgeable than you are paid to refute you, maybe you should try learning from them. I’m even a teacher to boot.
“Most of the world is ruled by pedophiles.” (???)
For one person to accuse so many people of too many faults with a flight of ideas that ricochet around this July 17th comment calls into question whether or not there is indeed a mental disorder in play. I don’t mean to be unkindly here. But DWard says this about her accused, “It (government) is made up of some of the most mentally disturbed people imaginable.” Is there really a difference between the accused and their accuser?
If you took just one of the DWard comments for analysis, however, use this one: “I wonder if you know that most of the world is ruled by pedophiles?”
What kind of awareness or consciousness inside a person’s mind could say this, as if it were fact? “Most of the world is ruled by pedophiles” is pretty much the same as saying that most of the rulers of the world are pedophiles. Isn’t rulers, as undefined here, a pretty broad term? How many rulers are there and can we be told more exactly how many are pedophiles versus rulers who are not pedophiles?
I’m sorry to say, you can’t.
And, that’s the problem with this kind of incredibly discursive narrative, this discursiveness is beyond repair. Again, I’m sorry to say, while there certainly are problems with government, DWard is incapable of helping us to resolve those problems when she apparently (obviously) has problems of her own.
No healthy thinking, aware mind should ever utter the sentence “Most of the world is ruled by pedophiles.”
Pedophiles in high places
Pedophiles in high places are a lot more common than most people know.
From NPR: http://www.npr.org/2015/05/21/408407168/revelations-of-british-pedophile-ring-spur-flood-of-abuse-reports
From LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-britain-pedophile-allegations-20141223-story.html
From TIME: http://time.com/2974381/england-land-of-royals-tea-and-horrific-pedophilia-coverups/
And that’s just Britain.
From Australia: http://www.wanttoknow.info/sexabuse/australian-network
The Vatican: http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/the-vatican-stillprotectspedophilepriests.html
As is well known, there’s a lot more than this article.
And here in America, we have the Franklin scandal: http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=21
Here’s a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW9_ulzXOMQ
Then there’s Johnny Gosch, Bohemian Grove, a lot more if you want to do the research.
Right Wing sources have a new conspiracy theory: “Justice Scalia left the White House carrying “slam dunk proof” that would lead to the arrest, conviction and, of course, impeachment of a seated Supreme Court Justice, files that contained names of victims and details on sex acts, preferred “types” along with dates and places. All of this was on the seized computer and these files went “up hill” from the FBI to the Department of Justice and directly over to the White House.”
Scalia Murdered After Obama Meeting – http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/01/scalia-murdered-after-obama-meeting/
It almost seems that to get ahead in some circles, pedophilia is mandatory!
Eschmitt is a known local
Eschmitt is a known local person of good interest. Please allow me to use his phraseology: You’re an idiot if you think he’s a paid troll.
Now, concerning so-called pedophilia: I’m currently researching the topic and might even make use of some of your links. Nevertheless, with the statement as given, I repeat:
No healthy thinking, aware mind should ever utter the sentence “Most of the world is ruled by pedophiles.”
You are attacking the messenger instead of the issue
and in an extremely rude and debasing way. I don’t really understand what you’re actually saying though – that I must not say such things? And if I do you put it down to mental illness? I put that attitude to your being woefully uninformed. It’s very reminiscent too of the witchcraft trials. Why is this such a hot subject to even mention? Have you looked up the information I advised – Bohemian Grove? Thee others too – the Bildeberg Group, the English and Dutch monarchies, the BBC, the Clintons and others? These are real world big shots! Here watch this video too, seems you can throw invective in order to save your little brain from any truth trauma. But the vulnerable are not so lucky. What percentage of the Catholic Church priests would you say are pedophiles? How long did that go on in silence? I will stick by my assertion that the world is mostly ruled by pedophiles. I don’t know the number but does that really matter? Is that what you pick up from this information? It’s a substantial number, that you can be sure, and they are in the highest echalons of society. Many peons go along, most people have their price. But you’re prepared to side-step the atrocity, and argue over the exact proportion of them! I’m saying if you think chemtrails could never be done, think again ex-buddy.
People in the highest office get away with literally murder. A presidential candidate just got relieved of prosecution by the Attorney General. It goes on constantly right under our noses. But because it shakes our credulity, some people simply resort to disparaging anyone who has the gall to bring it up.
You may love your authorities, but I can guarantee, they do not love you. They would gladly stomp on your face if you were to get in their way. But the funny and beautiful thing is – the antidote is simple and effective to all of this – is is simply disclosure. Shining the light. Beware of anything secretive that is done by public officials. Beware of anything you feel you should not mention. Right now every American should be checking out the TPP. Ever heard of it? Probably not. And that’s exactly how it’s meant to be.
TPP
EVERYBODY should be aware of this disaster: The “Trans-Pacific Partnership”.
Trump is violently against it (Good for him). Bernie and Hilary are against it as well (although I think Hilary has her fingers crossed).
Obama wants it bigtime. Looks like he’s planning to get it passed during the lame duck session of Congress, after the election. (Probably on a Friday night when most of congress has gone home.)
Essentially, it’s a corporate giveaway, not of money, but of power.
Although it is called a “free trade” agreement, the TPP is not about trade. Of the TPP’s 30 chapters, only 6 deal with traditional trade issues. Most would set rules on non-trade matters that affect our daily lives: food safety, internet freedom, medicine costs, job off-shoring, financial regulation, and more: Our domestic policies would be required to comply with the TPP rules.
The final TPP text reveals that the deal would even empower foreign corporations to skirt domestic courts and directly challenge our health, environmental and other public interest policies before EXTRAJUDICIAL FOREIGN TRIBUNALS. On the basis of TPP-granted corporate privileges, corporations could attack domestic safeguards they claim undermine future expected profits. The validity of our policies would be decided by World Bank and UN tribunals comprised of three corporate lawyers, unaccountable to any electorate. When ruling against a domestic policy and in favor of a foreign corporation, the tribunals would be authorized to order unlimited amounts of compensation with our taxpayer dollars.
Thanks for explaining it
Most people have no idea what the TPP is. The TPP is one very stark example of a conspiracy because it’s all done behind the curtain out of public (and often out of Congresscritter’s) view. And the press fails to report it. That is how the public is often fooled, they haven’t a clue what is going on and then they have the arrogance to call those who try to inform them – conspiracy theorists.
Correction
I should have said the FBI Director not the Attorney General.
And I accidentally left out the link and since trying to provide it, discovered that it has now been removed from the internet. However this article may suffice although there is nothing like hearing young children speaking about what goes on:
http://google-law.blogspot.com/2015/02/whistle-blower-kids-update-as-more.html
The reason I give this information is because it is time to confront the sickness of our world. We are seeing more wars and chaos and our funding goes to support it. Turning away is equivalent to giving evil or whatever forces that needs to do this, the green light to go on. But they also give us an opportunity to stand for what is right.
Your sermons are just awful
“The reason I give this information is because it is time to confront the sickness of our world.”
Both in writing and in person you treat me as if I am a novice. It’s too bad you lack a strong knowledge of history, you would know that it isn’t just now “time to confront the sickness of our world,” you would know that generation after generation, epoch after epoch always include the good with the bad.
I became an activist when I was 18. As far as I know, you, maybe in the last 5 years. I am aware of most things you discuss, it’s just that I don’t subscribe to all of them or your views on them.
It isn’t that preaching to the choir is so bad, it’s that your sermons are just awful, and oftentimes “beyond the pale.”
There is an simple antidote to that...
stop reading my posts.
So, what you're saying is
So, what you’re saying is that anyone who governs ( or rules) any country is a pedophile? Because when you say “all rulers are pedophiles” that IS what you’re stating. So, everyone? The Clintons, President Obama, the Queen of England, Princess Stephanie, Putin, Castro- all of these people and thousands of others have been proven to be pedophiles? Do you have any sense of how ridiculous and absurd that sounds? I’m not denying that there are many pedophiles in the world and that many of them find safety in places of power. The Catholic Church immediately comes to mind. But, to issue a blanket statement that the world is ruled by pedophiles is bizarre enough to make anyone question the state of your mental health. It’s evident that you really love a nice conspiracy theory but this is even a stretch for you. It’s simply not true. There is NO evidence that every world leader is a child molester. You can put up all the links that ou want – none of them verify your wild accusation. This site gets weirder and weirder all the time!
No I am not saying that anyone who governs
a country is a pedophile. Bill Clinton – yes, he is or hangs around with them. I don’t know about Obama (I know he’s a psychopath) but definitely the Queen of England and Prince Philip and the Dutch royal family and the former Dutch Minister of Justice (isn’t that a hoot – the minister of justice!) The police are tied into the rings as well as the judiciary and agents are scattered into all facets of society from school boards to Child Protective Services. I don’t know about Castro, I wouldn’t call him a world leader. I am referring to major countries like the US, Australia, England, Europe. I’m sure it’s more widespread than that. You don’t seem too worried that children are being trafficked.
You have chosen to attack one point of my statements and distort that point by harping on something you thought I said. I didn’t say all the world I said “most”. It’s intriguing that you and many who have never even looked into this matter and have no knowledge of anything other than what you have heard in the mainstream press, call those who have researched the subject “insane”. Attacking the person rather than their argument also shows a very low level of decorum. It’s an attempt to discredit those who disagree with you and bolster your poor judgment. Not to mention a gross lack of curiosity.
It may be illuminating to know about the people who we allow to rule our lives. Awareness is often the antidote and this atrocity really needs to stop.
You don't consider Castro a
You don’t consider Castro a world leader or Cuba a major country? Interesting. Perhaps you should spend a little time studying world history. You do not offer a single piece of actual, documented proof that any of the people you mentioned above are involved in pedophilia. Instead you offer links to websites that also offer no documented proof or are shut down. How terrible it must be to live your life buried in a world of conspiracies. Is there anyone or anything you trust?
I feel sorry for you. You need some professional help.
Castro
Hey K
No offense meant, but I want to clear the air.
I’ve been to Cuba. It’s a nice place. However, it’s no more a major country than Nicaragua or Zaire.
And Castro? If you mean Fidel, he’s retired. No longer in power. The country is ruled by his brother Raul, who’s rather unassuming. I doubt that more than one American in three even knows of his existence. I’ve heard him speak. I wasn’t impressed.
As far as Legal proof of pedophilia, it’s hard to come by, primarily because the “old boy networks” are good at cover-ups.
Here’s an article from TIME magazine commenting on exactly that in Great Britain: http://time.com/2974381/england-land-of-royals-tea-and-horrific-pedophilia-coverups/
It’s definitely in the realm of “conspiracy theory”, but there are people who claim that Supreme Court Justice Scalia was murdered to cover up a story that he had been proven to be an active pedophile for years. It’s called “Damage Control”:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/01/scalia-murdered-after-obama-meeting/
I want to be clear, I have no opinion on this.
I want to point out a scandal that happened a while ago that professed widespread pedophilia within the USA: http://www.illuminati-news.com/111206a.htm
The article cites “proof” but it doesn’t supply it.
There’s smoke, but no fire.
In terms of relationships
In terms of relationships with the United States Cuba is most certainly a “Major” country and has been for many decades. Yes, I know that Fidel is retired and I mentioned him in my list of proposed pedophiles to emphasize how ridiculous that premise is. If you look hard enough you can find dubious conspiracies about pretty much anything. Show some actual proof that all of these governing officials are child molesters. Searching out conspiracies is a sad and twisted way to spend one’s life.
"Major" country
“In terms of relationships with the United States Cuba is most certainly a “Major” country and has been for many decades.”
Forgive me if I don’t understand.
Up until 1962, Cuba was an important trading partner of the US.
Then the US instituted an anti-Castro embargo (the Cubans call it a blockade).
First, all diplomatic recognition was withdrawn. We closed the embassy and brought the ambassador home.
We forbade ALL trade with Cuba, inbound and outbound and made it illegal for Americans to visit Cuba.
Last year, we reinstated diplomatic relations, but the embargo is still in effect.
Americans may now visit Cuba under certain circumstances.
For 50 years or so, Cuba was a non-entity as far as the US gov’t was concerned. The embargo hurt Cuba very seriously (they call it the Special Period). In reality, it hurt US businesses economically more than it hurt the Cubans
“I will stick by my assertion the world is mostly ruled...
…by pedophiles.”(????)
“…seems you can throw invective in order to save your little brain from any truth trauma. “
My little brain? lol !
Maybe I do have a little brain, but my mind is not so small that I could conjure up a cogent reason why the “world is mostly ruled by pedophiles.”
Rude or spot on, I cannot and will subscribe to your notion that pedophiles rule the world. The logic behind the law of averages weighs most heavily against it.
Putting things together
David Icke (Not a particularly reliable source) has the answer.
He claims that the world is (and has been for a very long time) ruled by a race of shape-shifting reptilians who worship Lucifer.
(Honest! It’s sort of a Faustian bargain.) Pedophilia is but one of the many ways they worship him.
Weird tho it may sound, he has a very large following of “true believers”.
TPP: What happens next?
It’s a bit off-topic…but what the hey!
(BBC) The text of the agreement will have to be signed and then ratified by all 12 signatories (US, Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore, Brunei, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru).
[I wonder how many pedophiles rule these countries…?]
Details of how the deal will be implemented will be argued out in individual countries’ legislatures.
In the US, it comes before Congress in the midst of a presidential election year, which is likely to turn it into a major political football within both parties.
However, Congress has granted President Obama “fast-track” authority over the deal, which only allows lawmakers to either reject it or ratify it.
Full Text of TPP: https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaty-making-process/trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/text-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership/
Hyperbole
It’s certainly hyperbole to state that “Most of the world is ruled by pedophiles.”
However, it’s entirely factual to state that in the English Speaking world, at least,there are numerous pedophiles in positions of power.
It may have something to do with the fact that there are many psychopaths/sociopaths in positions of power as well.
Take an hour to view the video on the Franklin scandal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW9_ulzXOMQ
It’s contents have been verified (Google Franklin Scandal)
Scary! (But not in a Halloween sort of way).
I'm afraid it went way beyond hyperbole...
But, it must be easy for your reduced hyperbole to state that “there are numerous pedophiles in positions of power.“ “Numerous” tells us nothing, because you can’t count “numerous.”
Moreover, pedophilia are more often individual, private incidents that you cannot ascertain if they all have to “do with the fact that there are many psychopaths/sociopaths in positions of power as well,’ or, just a couple of your neighbors.
Numerous
There are exactly 16,324,785.53 pedophiles in power.
Satisfied?
For a more accurate figure, click on the links provided above and add them up.
Whatever figure you come up with will probably be lower than the actual number. It’s an epidemic.
Putting it in another way, there are many more than there should be.
What there should be is none (zero, zilch, nada)!
Back to chemtrails
This is another off topic in this otherwise chemtrails article. It’s part of the DWard syndrome of ricocheting all over the place.
In any case, the “popular” use of the word pedophile and the use and your use of it here gives the wrong impression that it is a black and white, starkly delineated issue as in (zero, zilch, nada).
Did you know that a 21 year old man who falls in love with and makes love to a 17 year old woman is adjudged a pedophile?
You and others might think that example is okay to prosecute, but I don’t. As I said, it is not a black and white, either/ or issue.
Definitions
What I’m talking about here is a mature man (old enough to be in a position of power) taking advantage of a pre-pubescent child of either gender. This IS black and white. It can be a woman as well, but that is rare.
And by the way, the perpetrator is rarely, if ever prosecuted.
I’m also not talking about situations where a culture permits older men to marry children, tho technically that is pedophilia as well.
Mohamed’s favorite wife, Fatima was only 12 when he married her.
Pedophilia is defined as a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. The cut-off point for prepubescence is age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia. Courtesy: Wikipedia
I'm only scanning your comment
I’m only scanning your comment and it’s enough to tell me to stop my participating in a so-called pedophilia discussion that is deeply buried inside of what has turned out to be a rather useless chemtrails article. Nothing was resolved about chemtrails (despite eschmitt’s very good knowledge of contrails), and you and I won’t resolve our differences on pedophilia here either.
q
w
Yeah, not gonna bother with
Yeah, not gonna bother with this utter delusional nonsense. I thought that Dward was just really really ignorant and possibly just really damned stupid but I am wondering if Vidda is correct and theres mental illness involved here. I am less interested in an intellectual sparring match if that is indeed the case.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iFlF_8XzM8
This is a video of dward (Denise Ward) who apparently also has some sovereign citizen leanings claiming that U.S. laws and the consitution do not apply to her since she is a woman. Not a minute later she then talks about how she has constitutional rights.
I’m not sure she has the capacity to comprehend the world around her. Her rampant advocacy of cannabis weighs heavily in my mind in wondering what has gone wrong with this person’s mind.
Ok thanks
I will look him up. I think it’s great when musicians sing about something other than love all the time!
Definitions?
Photos of the differences: https://www.relfe.com/07/chemtrails_contrails_what_are.html
>>Definition of a contrail: A contrail occurs when a plane travels at a high altitude (about 30,000 ft. or more) and compresses the air into a water vapor or ice crystals through jet engines or the wing tips pushing through the air. This trail disappears after a minute or so due to evaporation, because it’s water. This is normal.
>>Definition of a chemtrail: The term “chemtrail” is a relatively new word, which appeared in the last ten years or more with the appearance of chemtrails. A chemtrail is not normal.
A chemtrail is very different from a contrail. At first a chemtrail might look a bit like a contrail. However, instead of disappearing like a contrail does, a chemtrail just keeps spreading out and forming a hazy cloud bank. These trails traverse the whole sky and stay for up to around five or even eight hours. They have been known to turn what was originally a clear blue sky into a grey haze.
It is believed chemtrails are composed at least in part by an oil based substance of unknown content that is actually being sprayed from jets on populated areas. It has also been found that some chemtrails contain unknown biological components. Many also contain metals, especially barium. (See BariumBlues.com)
No one knows why they are being sprayed, or who is doing it. All we do know that it is being done to us regularly, in many different countries, without our permission. One strange thing about chemtrails is that all though they are readily seen, few people will believe that they are not ‘normal’!
Chemtrails are often seen to be sprayed by white planes with no markings. Sometimes you will see these planes give off no contrail at all, and immediately after the same kind of plane in the same area will start to leave a thick chemtrail. At other times, distinct short gaps in chemtrails have been photographed, as though the plane ran out of chemicals and then had to start spraying with a new supply.
"A chemtrail is very
“A chemtrail is very different from a contrail.”
Yes, contrails actually exist.
“It is believed….”
By scientifically illiterate, ignorant loons.
“All we do know that it is being done to us regularly, in many different countries, without our permission. ”
I’m not saying aliens, but aliens.
” Sometimes you will see these planes give off no contrail at all, and immediately after the same kind of plane in the same area will start to leave a thick chemtrail”
I know right, its like the atmosphere has variations in temperature and humidity or something…
If you are posting this seriously, you have lost all credibility.
Me, I just love the title.
Me, I just love the title.
If you are posting this seriously, you have lost all credibility
lol !
I welcome eschmitt's perspective
eschmitt’s comments seem to have upset some ibrattleboro users, but I find his critique refreshing.
He has challenged assertions which have been presented here as fact, without any citation of evidence. Perhaps there is factual evidence for chemtrails and for homeopathy, but none has been presented here: only assertions, and a bit of pissed-offedness that not everyone would accept these unsupported assertions. (These assertions may actually be correct, but those making them have the burden of showing that this is so.)
Personally, I have had some amazing, positive experience with homeopathy, both constitutional homeopathy and acute homeopathy. Perhaps the practitioner who gave me the two hour interview to determine what constitutional remedy would be suitable for my character type, was a great listener, and gave me excellent insights and guidance which set me on a life-changing course, and the pills were placebos.
If the three tiny pills were merely a prop, the prop worked. I also have a friend who went to a constitutional homeopathic interview and treatment, and it did nothing for her.
Once when my wife had oral surgery, she took homeopathic arnica (an acute remedy). A week later when she returned to have the stitches removed; in amazement, the dentist said: “I never saw healing like this in such a short time. What did you do?” When she told him it was homeopathic arnica, he was suddenly uninterested.
Personally I also have had amazing results with homeopathic arnica, when I was bruised up after falling off a shed roof that I was working on. Homeopathic arnica, in particular, in a number of cases, seems to have gotten amazing results.
These are anecdotal accounts. They mean a lot to me, but scientists want to see double-blind studies. Instead of quarrels, I would love to see those who trust in homeopathy, and people who understand scientific thinking to have serious discussions about how to set up a fair test. No matter how silly the ideas about dilutions, etc. may seem: eschmitt’s cavalier dismissal of homeopathy, ironically parallels the unsupported assertions made by its proponents.
I am challenging both proponents of homeopathy and detractors of homeopathy to stop making assertions, and instead to devise objective tests. It is logically possible to devise a way to test homeopathy. It should be quite possible for the proponents and detractors of homeopathy to reach consensus as to a fair and objective test. A person who is thinking scientifically, must be able to tell us what they would accept as evidence that their theory has been falsified. In fact, a real scientist begs to have their theory shown to be wrong.
A lot of what I read on ibrattleboro is not in the spirit of, “show me that I am wrong.” Those proclaiming chemtrails, and 911 government coverup generally get pissed at anyone who disagrees with them. That hardly shows confidence.
It is fair to ask an advocate of homeopathy: What would you accept as evidence that falsifies the theory of homeopathy? If there are no conditions which would falsify an idea, then it is not a scientific theory: It is akin to religious faith. (I am not opposed to religious faith: It is central to my inner life, but I would never presume to tell others to accept my faith. In fact I would be reluctant to discuss it with most people or say more about it here.)
Yes, corporations, such as big pharma and big agribusiness, hire shills masquerading as scientists; and governmental watchdogs are ineffective, either because they are bought, underfunded, or undermined. But it is unworthy of a thoughtful person to cite corruption as evidence that scientific thinking is invalid. I think we can use the freedom of discussion afforded to us by ibrattleboro to take the discussion beyond unproductive quarrels.
What can be really productive would be for both sides to have a serious discussion about how best to submit their opposing ideas to fair and objective tests. There is no sound reason why those who disagree with each other should not be able to work out an agreement for testing which claims are value, and which are not.
My anecdotal experience with
My anecdotal experience with homeopathy. Two friends, one 25 and one 70, both receive breast cancer diagnosis. The 70 year old immediately follows traditional medical treatment, surgery followed by chemotherapy. The 25 year old turns to homeopathic treatment being assured that she doesn’t need surgery. She does this for a year before agreeing to traditional treatment. It was too late, the cancer had spread. This lovely young woman was gone by the time she was 27 years old. The 70 year old is now a cancer free healthy and very active 85 year old.
homeopathy for cancer?
To accept someone’s assertion that homeopathy will cure her cancer seems to me to have been an incredibly dangerous decision, and it is really sad that this young woman lost her life.
When someone has a life-threatening disease, deciding whether to pursue an alternative to surgery or other conventional treatment or to instead pursue an alternative course is a serious decision with profound consequences. I have been in that position a couple of times: first with heart problems, and lately with spinal problems. In the case of the coronary problems, I agreed to stenting, which I understood is a relatively safe procedure.
But there were complications, and the stenting triggered a massive heart attack, and I ended up in a coma for three weeks and barely survived. I agreed to the stenting under pressure, because the cardiologist warned me that I was in immediate danger if I did not get the stenting. Turns out that the opposite was true.
Had I been able to stand back and take time to do research, I would have learned of the remarkable and consistent success that Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. Dean Ornish have had in reversing heart disease with invasive treatments or drugs, and I might have made a knowledgeable decision, based on factual evidence. There is a world of difference between studying your options so that you can make a knowledgeable decision, and accepting on faith the confident assurance of some quack who tells you to put a pill under your tongue and the breast cancer will go away.
In the case of my spinal problems, 13 months ago I was sent up to the Dartmouth emergency department by a physician’s assistant, who was basically practicing medicine without proper guidance at an understaffed BMH medical practice. Before long I found myself in a hospital johnny, and was about to be admitted as a surgery patient. This time I recognized that, again, I was being pushed into a major decision by dire warnings and fear.
I questioned the surgeon thoroughly, and learned that, yes, I was in danger, but not such immediate danger that I could not go home and try “conservative treatments” (meaning chiropractic and physical therapy). After doing some testing, the surgeon did not oppose my plan, and I left with his having warned me of what the danger signs are that I should stay alert to.
It has been a struggle, but since then, with the help of a remarkable physical therapist at BMH, as well as a chiropractor, my condition has gradually improved. My current primary care physician has been trying to panic me into surgery, but when my wife and I have questioned her, it turns out that her knowledge is limited, and her mindset is to accept everything in conventional medicine on faith. Like so many MDs, she seems to understand “science” as though it is a religious faith: medical authority instead examination of the facts, and critical thinking.
To check that I was not rigidly and mistakenly ignoring my physician’s advice, I recently consulted with a neurologist and a neurosurgeon at Dartmouth Medical Center. The neurologist showed me a computer image of my MRI, and explained to me what it showed. To my amazement, her explanation contradicted what my primary care physician had been telling me. The PCP’s interpretation of the MRI was erroneous, and she was pushing me to make a major decision with potentially profound consequences based on blind acceptance of her “expertise.”
The neurosurgeon told me that surgery would likely give me mild improvement, but that it is a reasonable judgement call for me to elect not to have surgery. That was good news, because cutting bone which is flush against nerves can have dire results if things go wrong.
I am disclosing this very personal information, because I think it is important for people to understand the difference between simply accepting an assertion that homeopathy (or some other treatment) is what you need (or that surgery is what you need) vs. actually studying your options so that you can make a knowledgeable decision. Any important decision involves weighing risks against potential benefits, and considering the same for each alternative.
Thank you for sharing that,
Thank you for sharing that, very good advice. So sorry to hear you’ve had to deal with all this. And so glad to hear that things are looking sunnier than they were. Yes, I’m a strong believer in a couple more recommendations before surgery. And I think it’s fine to try homeopathic procedures…..as long as you’re not dealing with something that could be life threatening. Good luck with your road to recovery.
thank you... and correcting a typo.
Thank you, Rosa.
And I need to correct a typo. I had written:
Had I been able to stand back and take time to do research, I would have learned of the remarkable and consistent success that Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. Dean Ornish have had in reversing heart disease with invasive treatments or drugs,… It should have been “… without invasive treatments or drugs,…”
You hit it on the head that
You hit it on the head that anecdotal evidence isn’t enough for scientific determination. Too many potential variables and the placebo effect is real, well known, well documented and actually rather effective.
When someone’s experience is described as potentially being the placebo effect, I see no reason for anyone to take offense or be insulted and I’m glad that you recognize that your experience was potentially due to the placebo effect.
The thing about homeopathy is that it has utterly failed in every credible and rigorous test/study it has been subjected to in terms of medical effectiveness Theres actually quite a debate going on in the UK right now because homeopathy is supported by tax dollars, and theres a lot of pressure to eliminate that (rightfully so).
Its foundational claims of memory having water, dilution increasing potency, etc. etc. have never been demonstrated and are actually demonstrably false. They are simply nonsense.
Homeopathy, as far as science and medicine are concerned, is a giant placebo at best, and dangerous at worst. I personally rank it alongside faith healing in terms of being actively dangerous as people may seek it out instead of actual medical care and are harmed as a result. As another poster has tragically pointed out.
So, the testing and “serious discussion” you are asking for has already happened, and its time for homeopathy to go away like the debunked nonsense it is.
With regard to your experience. No one is claiming that modern medicine is by any stretch perfect, or that is practitioners are infallible. I sure as hell wish they were doing better, as the flaws and shortcomings of the system in addition to mistakes or even incompetence drives people towards these inferior alternatives where more harm is done.
And yes, even I will say that “regular” doctors often resort to handing us bottle of pills too easily, for example. I am a huge advocate of health care reform and it needs to be major. However, I don’t make an unsupported leap to being willing to toss out the scientific method in favor of pseudoscience nonsense in the process, which is what one must do to accept quackery like homeopathy.
Theres a lot to improve, but it is still the best and most reliably effective of the options out there.
Speaking about the placebo effect
We don’t study it enough. We usually shrug off the placebo affect but there is a lot to it. If we believe something, we may be able to heal ourselves. Maybe we don’t need many of the drugs or the procedures. The medical community knows practically nothing about the placebo affect and don’t seem to want to study that either. I would imagine it could open up a whole field of science. There doesn’t seem to be the curiosity, which I like to think science is based on. But someone makes the decision to omit those studies and other areas deemed unworthy of pursuit. My suspicion is science is steeped in profiteering much like drug salesmen.
"The medical community knows
“The medical community knows practically nothing about the placebo affect and don’t seem to want to study that either.”
You are absolutely, utterly and completely wrong.
We have studied the placebo effect rather extensively and will continue to study it.
Thats why the medical and scientific community recognizes it as a definable thing that exists.
Yes we know it exists but
how does it work? How do our beliefs affect our healing? Why does it work in some situations and not in others? If it works in some situations, how can we get it to work in all situations? We know very little about this. But we know it exists. That’s not enough since the medical establishment has noticed the placebo effect for decades now.
I've noticed you're always attacking
but don’t offer your own perspective.
The placebo effect has only recently come into the medical community’s field of interest. Earlier, it was simply brushed off in the trials as irrelevant even though the percentage was significant. Ah the medical establishment. That’s another can of worms. But I won’t go into it. My hope was to get people to notice chemtrails because the word was not heard. Eventually the truth will come out.
Why hasn't the placebo effect been studied
to discover how it can be expanded to an even larger percentage?
You don't understand what the
You don’t understand what the placebo effect is, do you?
I repeat, it has been extensively studied, it is currently being extensively studied, it will continue to be extensively studied.
It is a psychological phenomenon, thus its very complicated and far more difficult to isolate than “Does potential blood pressure drug X affect blood pressure?”.
“The placebo effect has only recently come into the medical community’s field of interest. Earlier, it was simply brushed off in the trials as irrelevant even though the percentage was significant”
This is pure fabricated nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Stroking Anecdotal Pedals
In no way did Spinoza display any “bit of pissed-offedness that not everyone would accept” his comments. He is calm in his statements and replies, and certainly a Brights, as one of our brilliant writers.
The main “pissed-offedness” on this page is from eschmitt, not Spinoza.
Eschmitt, in fact, another Brights, has a fascinating profile. I agree with not only the substance of his science, but his understanding of it. His keen comments however are laced with putdowns and he clearly demonstrates an impatience and anger out of context to the claims of DWard’s original article and subsequent comments. He speaks of credibility, which I think he carries in good measure, but his anger doesn’t lend a supportive role. Nevertheless, I think his science is well worth reading.
The SB-K = Rosa anecdotal lovematch is trying to the point of unreadability of their claims and experiences. The penchant for American’s to place their anecdotal pedals on public display as examples for others to follow is a bit overbearing at times. They are often singular experiences, and not necessarily a right path to follow by a spectrum of other people’s experiences.
This business about SK-B or anyone claiming the chemtrails/9/11 conspiracy theorist “making (those assertions) have the burden of showing that this is so,” and, that they get “pissed off” when challenged, is unsubstantiated in the written record here.
Did comments on homeopathy really have to setoff such a lengthy and laborious dissertation about how the people who comment on homeopathy should set fair test, like double-blind studies, etc, just to play at science on this page?
Sk-B, your erudito donnish is showing. You make me crave concision.
A verbose appeal for conciseness :-)
Typical Vidda.
At least I know you read the last sentence :~)
…
I am not at all pissed off. I
I am not at all pissed off.
I simply entertained myself by mocking ridiculous nonsense, and those posts that contained something other than conspiracy theorist nonsense, I took the time to address them without mockery.
Don’t conflate disdain with anger.
I hope never to be impatient with earnest ignorance. I am however quite impatient with willful ignorance or those who I consider to be so far detached from reality that rather than attempting to bring them back it is best to attempt to contain the damage and stop them from spreading the stupid to others.
Ridiculous ideas and arguments should be mocked. Not every statement is worthy of the same consideration, and while people should be granted a minimum of respect as a default until they give a reason to revoke it, ideas should not be given such latitude and must stand or fall on their merits.
Good on you eschmitt. There
Good on you eschmitt. There is a serious under representation of sanity on ibrattleboro. It’s nice to see someone make sense.
To be honest though… I will be the first to admit; our government, & private entities have done some horrible things using covert experimental programs. Things that aren’t conspiracy theory. Things that are factual & are declassified. The nuclear tests in the 50s & 60s that were beyond foolish. The direct poisoning of populations with agent orange. The poisoning of bootleg liquor to scare people from drinking. The release of contagions on small scales to model the potential fallout of real epidemics. All of these are horrible. All of these did happen. All of these have something undeniable in common that 911, chemtrails, & other conspiracies don’t offer.
Each of these, as horrible as they are, have actual obvious reasons for being conducted. Every one of these has a rational scientific benefit, and even arguably a social benefit in a perverse way. There’s several chemtrail theories with no obvious end goal. It’s a theory searching for a reason for being. It’s a good xfiles episode, but for every theory on chemtrails, there’s a ton of better ways to do what the theory suggests.
Our government can do bad stuff. They do do bad stuff. Theories like this draw attention away from the things that are happening, and worse; these theories help make people disregard real societal problems that do have answers.
Question the government. Just don’t make yourself into a joke while you do it.
Absolutely.The trouble is
Absolutely. I agree.
I do like Hanlon’s razor for that stuff: “Never attribute malice to what can be adequately described by stupidity”.
The nuclear tests in the 50’s in particular seem to fit that mold… When I read about them wanting to detonate nukes in the atmosphere to see what would happen…. oi. Glad they didn’t.
The trouble is that, just because such things have happened in the past, does not mean that conspiracy theorist loons get to claim the same thing is happening with whatever their pet theory is without any demonstration that it has.
Its like a guy breaks into a house 10 years ago, and finally got caught and convicted, and then proceeding to blame every single burglary on that individual regardless of any evidence that they had actually done it again. Conspiracy theorists go so far as to blame the fellow even when they forgot where they left their keys…
Conspiracy theories and theorists usually don’t understand that they are mocked in large part because their argument has absolutely no coherence, is usually internally contradictory and is usually a case of special pleading at its base.
File This Under Hanlon's Razor
But what they did do at the nuclear power plant near where I grew up out West was occasionally release junk into the air which then floated over the dairy herds which grazed nearby. Those dairy herds were the source of all the milk in the region that children drank. Oddly enough a lot kids in my area had really odd thyroid conditions and cancers. Which also finally explained my overactive thyroid condition as a child to me when they finally admitted having done this a few years ago. They didn’t think that steam was dangerous I guess or that it would just float up into the universe and disappear.
Guess What?
That “junk” wasn’t dangerous and you are no different than the original poster.
Well actually this has been
Well actually this has been substantiated and admitted to by the Federal Government and the Energy Commission. This plant was built in the 1940s before it was known how dangerous it was to release iodine and the practice was stopped. No reason to hurl insults, it’s just factual information actually acknowledge by the AEC and the government. From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/12/us/us-admits-peril-of-40-s-emissions-at-a-bomb-plant.html?pagewanted=all
My mistake
for thinking you knew the difference between a nuclear power plant and weapons plant.
I apologize.
Well actually while Hanford
Well actually while Hanford originally was a nuclear weapons plant it did function for a period of time as a power plant also or at least a portion of it. But my point wasn’t whether it was a weapons or power plant, my point was that the example fit neatly under the definition of Hanloms Razor. This was not done from malice but from stupidity….or if you prefer lack of knowledge and inability to predict what would happen. I know you’re sensitive about criticisms of nuclear power but my personal belief is that is you think it might be dangerous then it’s probably best to assume that it is, in fact, dangerous. Re: Is it a power plant or a weapons plant: ” The last reactor, N Reactor, continued to operate as a dual-purpose reactor, being both a power reactor used to feed the civilian electrical grid via the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) and a plutonium production reactor for nuclear weapons. N Reactor operated until 1987.” But yes, at the time the iodine was released, Hanford functioned strictly as a weapons plant. Oddly enough my relatives who worked and lived nearby also have a high percentage of leukemias and multiple lympoma disease while the rest of the family has none. (Read oddly with sarcasm please)
I say that is pure folly. What if you are wrong?
Ok we can hold to our opinion but surely we must also look at them from the perspective of asking ourselves “what if I am wrong about this”? We must assess the damage that would be incurred should our beliefs be wrong and not just on the rightness of our opinions. We surely have to admit that we are not perfect and that we are capable of saying something wrong either by accident or lack of relevant knowledge.
We are all trying to decipher this magical existence. Sometimes we just have to “take a stab” at making an educated guess and use simple generalizations that help help us to recognize important things quicker (if we become pedantic, imagine how many computations we would be having to make when we talk) If we wait for science, we may be waiting too long. Some things do not require science: you can cross the street without being guided by science. The more we use an ability, the more it expands. We need to start expanding our ability to discern. And I don’t mean wines.
By attributing what could be malice to stupidity, taking the scenario that you are wrong, you could very well be putting yourself in great danger and most likely others too.
It does depend on what we’re talking about. If it’s towards your spouse, or family and friend circle, then yes, attributing it to stupidity may be more sensible (depending on the company you keep). But if it’s the government and multinationals, then you’d definitely be better served by erring on the side of attributing it all to malice. Not only is there ample evidence for this but it happens right under our noses every day. And every unconscious belief we hold is being preyed upon. Those who cannot see it by now will probably not be going on the imminent grand excursion – our evolution to the next cycle!
No, evidence is
No, evidence is better.
Existence isn’t magical, and the educated guess is that chemtrails are utter bunk. Please work on the educated portion of the educated guess so you can stop believing in such utter nonsense at every turn.
You are paranoid beyond any reasonable and/or rational justification. Ease up on the cannabis.
Peer review
joust: There is some hyperbole and contradictions in your statement. There are claims made that are not scientific, and may not stand up to closer scrutiny.
eschmitt - along with your now confirmed facts let's not forget
DDT, the Gulf Of Tonkin, Kent State, Operation Paperclip, MK Ultra, the Monsanto Protection Act, Monsanto – PCB’s, Napalm, Agent Orange, Dupont and C8, Tobacco, Cell Phones, The invasion of Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, CIA and Al Quada, ISIS and other terrorists links. These coverups and dozens more — all began as conspiracy theories.
This certainly is no joke — more like a nightmare.
Are you implying that an
Are you implying that an extensive list could not be made of conspiracy theories over the years that turned out to be utterly and completely false?
Now, most of your list there is absurd. But lets take the Gulf of Tonkin as an example.
Lets say I accept that as an example of some degree of misinformation/coverup/conspiracy.
Because we now have one example of a coverup/conspiracy, does that automatically validate or lend credibility to other accusations of coverup/conspiracy? To use my burglar example, does his having broken into one home, mean that he can be reasonably convicted of breaking into a second house without any evidence connecting him to the second burglary?
The answer is no. We may have rational cause to be more suspicious, but that is not nearly sufficient.
For example.
I saw Elvis walking past my window this morning. It couldn’t have been an impersonator, it WAS Elvis. I googled it and found lots of other people who have also seen Elvis after his supposed death. Therefore Elvis’ death was a hoax, he is still alive and the government is attempting to suppress this knowledge for some unknown motive.
Now lets pretend I made an extensive website and numerous youtube videos containing poor quality photos of someone who looks a lot like Elvis timestamped after his supposed death. 50,000 people watch my video. I spend 1,000 hours on my website.
When challenged, I point out that the government has lied to us before, and I point to the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an example.
How do we determine the truth of my claim? What happens when we apply that same method to your claims?
Absolute not. I agree whole
Absolute not. I agree whole heartedily . Bring your doubts, your suspicions, your skeptism and challenge the facts. Let reason, logic and the preponderance of evidence be your guide to the truth.
Amen eschmit! Thank you so much! Challenge everything and decide for yourself what is your truth and what is it that you believe.
I am not saying I know only that this is how the facts line up for me. So Mr and Mrs John Q Public do some thinking, some exploration and decide for yourself.
Emphasis?
There’s a little something off key here. “Bring your doubts… to challenge the facts.” Challenging someone’s assertions or claims is not the same as challenging “facts.”
And, “decide for yourself what is your truth and what is it that you believe” is a curious phrase to address to someone with scientific habit of mind like eschmitt. There is an emphasis on “your (escmitt’s) truth or facts.” I don’t think he employs logic as a tactic of what is truth or fact according to eschmitt, nor would I think he thinks in terms of (believe) belief.
Well, that just flew
Well, that just flew completely over your head.
The point is the majority of what I’ve seen from you so far fails utterly under even minimal scrutiny.
When it is demonstrated to me that I am wrong about something, I generally stop saying the thing that is wrong and instead try to say the thing that is more or preferably most correct.
I also try not to say things that I don’t have a reasonable and rational basis for saying.
Apparently you have a different approach. (Your way sucks).
Reader's Note:
This eschmitt’s reply is his reply to ChrisPratt’s comment title “Absolute not. I agree whole..” on the previous page. (This article has gone into 2 pages!)
Some of these tiered comments get lost somewhere down the line…
lol!
Very cute. Next you'll be defending the people who believed
the doctors who told them smoking was good for their health so they kept on smoking. Even a kid knew it couldn’t possibly be good for you.
Science is still dependent on this species, this violent and reckless species we call humankind. We are extremely prone to error even if we are right in many things we make monumental and serious errors in other things. Like letting CEO’s salaries not be tied to anything (such as the rise of their employees incomes). We seem to be satisfied with so little and are happy to prance around like royalty – while our fellows elsewhere on other soils are being bombed, which is what you’re paying for, right now while you read this on your computer.
You've got that backwards. I
You’ve got that backwards. I side with the evidence.
When you cite crackpots and liars like Herndon you are the one relying on the “doctors who said smoking was good” even though the evidence was against them.
The evidence is the evidence and it trumps any claims to authority by anyone with letters after their name.
Let's look at your approach another way...
Just say you had a friend that lied to you in a big way (such as the monumental lie of the Golf of Tonkin) and that lie caused some people in your family to die or be very misplaced (as happened to the fighters re Vietnam). Say your friend told you you could invest in his company or something of that ilk and you told your sick aunt to invest her full life savings in this company. She trusted you and put her money where you advised but the company went bust and lost everything causing your aunt to be homeless and die and you to lose your money too. And say that friend came back and asked you to invest in another of his companies after that. Would you believe anything that friend had to say after such a debacle? I assume you’re going to say “no” you wouldn’t trust ANYTHING your friend had to say after just one instance. Yet when it comes to government, you’re willing to keep on giving the them a free pass, just in case they are not lying “this time”. This says something about YOU. It says that you have a different standard for those you consider authorities over you to the trust you put in yourself and your peers. It says you accept your hostage status, that you don’t think you’re capable of making your own decisions and need some authority to tell you how to live, set laws for you and everyone and you’re quite happy to comply with them even if those laws are damaging to others and yourself.
It shows you suffer from a condition I call “classism” where you put your status on the bottom rung on a hierarchical ladder, giving power which resides in you to those you consider above you. You would do whatever they say, follow their order to walk right into the box cars. You give leeway to people whom you deem superior to yourself and your peers. You let them get away with anything even killing populations, because your questioning doesn’t cover government. And so you give government consent to swindle you and kill your fellows. The source of this comes from self-abhorrence. Just my opinion. Science isn’t the only filter for viewing the world.
I can have zero trust in what
I can have zero trust in what the “Gub’mint” says to me.
Doesn’t mean I have to accept your crackpot conspiracy theorist bullshit, especially when its demonstrably nonsense and you have zero evidence.
It's not just what I say
There’s a dissonance. You attack your peers before your overlords. Stockholm Syndrome.
I attack nonsense. You have
I attack nonsense.
You have absolutely no idea what I do (or don’t do) outside this forum. Therefore, much like the rest of your claims, you have absolutely no basis on which to make that statement.
You're leaving something out of the equation
Like everything, government evolves. Control mechanisms evolve. Why trust that the government would not spray chemicals over your head after they do the horrible things you agree they do? If a friend did that to you I bet you wouldn’t be quibbling about whether or not they’d do worse to you. I believe you enjoy being a hostage to government. You cannot see a world where people govern themselves and are not under any force to do the right thing. Government does more wrong things than ordinary people. However it’s ordinary people who succumb to authority that will do anything their overlords desire. They’re mercenary just like the elite. That’s the mechanism – money. It makes penny-pinching glutinous hoarders out of most people.
"Why trust that the
“Why trust that the government would not spray chemicals over your head after they do the horrible things you agree they do?”
Because you have not met even the most minimal concept of a burden of proof.
And because in your world anyone could make anything up they wanted and you’d beleive them (and apparently do) because the gub’mint is “ebil!”
How anyone can continue to trust
governments that do this to people is unfathomable. Maybe it’s an experiment to see how much suffering and horror the peasants will withstand. Just tag on a lame excuse, it will be swallowed. Alas.
Fellow enlightened creatures out of the void and the deep
Ah, I see we have a long way to go.
Too much to do, and too little time to do it, eh?
Well, my fellow enlightened creatures out of the void and the deep? What have you to say to account for yourselves?
Twisted mental wreckage
DW: “My hope was to get people to notice chemtrails because the word was not heard.”
Oh yeah? Where the hell have you been for the past twenty years?
This chemtrails article and its author remind me of a Rockies plane crash with twisted mental wreckage strewn across the mountainside.
However, we do need our entertainment…
The people I have asked have not heard of it
I’m not suggesting the word had never been heard before. You really try to misconstrue my meaning. I’m saying most average joes do not recognize the word.
This is a video of an ex military woman who found out what government is really about and is now a whistleblower:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAxXyMAmBMs
https://www.metabunk.org/kris
https://www.metabunk.org/kristen-meghan-former-us-air-force-whistle-blower.t1066/
https://www.metabunk.org/jim-babb-kristen-meghan-chemtrails-debate-at-porcfest.t3889/
She’s full of shit, basically.
She’s been showing up on a lot of conspiracy theorist media talking about everything from chemtrails to ebola, claiming to be an expert and a whistleblower. Her understanding of the subject matter when questioned is extremely poor, she’s likely a troubled woman engaging in attention-seeking behavior and the conspiracy theorist community isn’t exactly renowned for its ability to vet people and ascertain their actual level of expertise…
questioning you
To DW:
Since I too think that there are times when you do not know what you’re talking, I really don’t have your meaning to misconstrue. I do not write for you and your written words are all we have to go on. It is astonishing how off-base you really are, not only about your original topic of chemtrails and other conspiracies you point to, but you judge people who question your opinions in ways that are entirely insubstantial, wrongfully using a plethora of our intentions for questioning you.
The human side
Since I know Denise and Chris, I’d like people to know that both are intelligent, sociable and generous to others. In company, both have a great sense of humor and are really fun to be with. Both are also relatively new to the activist scene and are idealistic to a fault. Nevertheless, they are sincerely concerned with the many problems humanity is facing and have a strong desire to do something about it.
Why isn't it simple?
I am perhaps the least sophisticated of all who are commenting here on the topic of the chemtrail… (and with no desire to become more sophisticated on the topic), however, it seems to me that proving or disproving their existence is somewhat simple; since these trails appear to linger rather than disperse, (ergo, the assumption it must be a”chemtrail” as opposed to the contrail ) the utilization of science would start with collecting a sample at the source. Has this ever been done? How do we know that these chemicals are “dropped on our heads by jets contaiminating the soil, the water and all living things”. Am I to believe that it’s impossible to test for this “contamination”?
While I can look up and see what’s being described as something sinister and dangerous (at least, that’s what’s being implied), why would anyone be so bothered by any one person who does not believe this imagined threat, that they’d go on to devote what appears to be hours and hours of debate, while at the same time,clearly ignoring the argument of proof, especially when offering such proof would to me, seem a very simple matter of collecting and then testing a sample for every known substance proven to be a danger to life? What is the desired outcome to this debate? That’s more the mystery to me than the so-called “chemtrail”!
Meanwhile, let me say I’ve enjoyed reading every single comment and that eschmitt has become my newest iBrattleboro hero/ine. Thanks, eschmitt.. I haven’t enjoyed catching up with news on iBrattleboro this much in a very long time! 🙂