It's a possibility. Are we to ignore all possibilities on the premise that if we look at one we have to accept them all?
What in the world are they spraying? (Spoiler: Nothing)
- Thread starter Ecstasio
- Start date
Not sure really. Probably should get back to work!
9/11 inside job. Chemtrails. Faked moon landings. Vaccines cause autism. It's all boring to me. Boring because it makes absolutely no sense, no one can present a coherent argument, and actually the truth is a lot more interesting than this fiction.
Don't ignore all of them. Just the stupid and obviously implausible ones. Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Is it the lack of info though? There certainly is no lack of information about cloud seeding, no lack of info about what causes contrails, enough info about the increased amount of air craft flying, etc.
That's where a handy thing called "evidence" comes into play.
If you have evidence for a theory, maybe believe it. If you don't, you have no reason to believe it.
Imagination can lead you to look for evidence but it doesn't compensate for a lack of it.
Not but using the logic that if you can imagine it, then it must be taken seriously and even that if you can imagine it that it must be real, well it really is not an argument in favor of something or any sort of proof. Theses ideas get look down upon not because people lack open minds but because there isn't any sort of proof behind them.
Evidence, schemvidence.
Me too! But I think you could look harder than you do if you really do care about entertaining a coherent argument. There are lots out there, by professionals in their field. You don't have to agree with them but it is respectful to acknowledge the possibility. Unless of course we are talking about gnomes and fairies for which there isn't even a shred of evidence. All those other points you mention above, they all have some very well formed arguments.
What is obviously implausible about government or corporate experiments? And pogue, you can do much better than ask me a ridiculous question like that. You know you can.
Well, have not seen one yet that can back up their claims about chemtrails with anything approaching sound science. So please provide the links, I am sure many here would love to read them. Remember though, we are not talking about what if's the chemtrail conspiracy theories state all this is ALREADY happening and they claim to be able to prove it.
I assume you picked the word proof very carefully. There is little proof of much. You're asking for evidence, of which there is enough to ask questions and form theories. I didn't mean to imply the logic that if it can be imagined then it can be true. Although, there is a case for that really, if we go down the existential route. But that's not what we're discussing here. We are discussing the possibility that at some point there was a clandestine program to release something into the atmosphere for some reason. The reasons are usually the centre of debate, not the possibility of the actual act taking place. If that makes sense?
Provide a link for people to dissect or kindly do one.
I did pick the words proof and evidence very carefully because they are exactly the right words to use.
No people are actually stating this is ALREADY HAPPENING, so it is not a matter of can you imagine it, it is a matter of saying show us the proof, give us some evidence that it is happening, evidence that can not easily be disproven. They are very specific about the type of stuff being sprayed (weather control even going so far as pointing to specific weather events caused by the weather control, mind control drugs, stuff to intentionally induce cancer, etc etc etc). These are the things that we are arguing against here.
Government/corporate experiments on a massive scale - which involves recruiting/dosing participants who have not been consented - without any kind of regulatory or ethical approval would be extremely implausible. If you're going to convince anyone this is happening you've got one hell of a burden of proof. Over to you.
Well I can't argue that. Nobody at this moment in time would be able to provide the sort of hard evidence you are looking for.
IF there is truth to this particular conspiracy, how can we expect it to be proven one way or another when the entire theory is based on secret government or corporate experiments or research? All of the information, IF it exists, would be classified. We would need to wait 50 or so years until it could be proven.
My argument is that looking back at history, knowing that in the past governments have engaged in weather modification programs by releasing materials like silver iodide to seed clouds (http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/19680002906_1968002906.pdf) or to inhibit movement of enemy troops (http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/star/images/239/2390601002C.pdf), it is not unreasonable to assume that they would then take this one step, perhaps two or three steps further?
Somewhere here (I haven't time to find it but if you really want me to I will) is proof that the US had weather modification ops in Vietnam: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v01
Now again, you want evidence to prove that there is a depopulation agenda or something along those lines, I'm sorry but that is impossible. What we can do is look at history and look at people's current experiences and try to piece together a plausible picture of the present.
Please see above links. Again, what is obviously implausible about government or corporate experiments on a massive scale? Do you not know how Monsanto product test their seeds, fertilisers and weed killers? Do you not know how new drugs are tested on populations before approval for the market?
It is absolutely plausible that governments and corporations sometimes operate outside of the any regulatory or ethical scrutiny. I can't understand how it could be implausible, truly baffling.
Yes as I said cloud seeding to try and make it rain is real we all know that, that is not the type of massive weather modification that the chemtrail theorists go on about though.
Given the number of leaks government attempts at cover ups have had over the years, sorry the whole "I can't prove it because it is a government secret" is just a cop out, especially based on your earlier post talking about the people who studied it and performed their own experiments.
In essence you are either trying to debate just for the sake of debating which is a waste of time or you actually are experiencing your cognitive dissonance.
Last edited:
I do. I'm not sure you do. Hence you don't seem to understand how wildly implausible your suggestions are.
Pogue, I don't know what line of work you are involved in but I suggest you employ some caution in making such claims.
Yet again, what is obviously implausible about government or corporate experiments on a massive scale?
Well i don't know of any programs so either no one is doing cloud seeding or it is kept low profile.
(Actually there was one news report on Australian tv I saw) they were complaining that the cloud seeding was done when it was known an hurricane was due and it caused carnage if i remember correctly!
He said "literally" - as in completely by the book, not as an abstract idea.
He works in an industry that does some of the things you claim as conspiracies.
It really isn't a waste of time. I learn a lot in the process. A lot about other people, a lot about the theories put forward, a lot about the arguments against these theories, a lot about how cognitive dissonance really works.
Yes as I said cloud seeding to try and make it rain is real we all know that, that is not the type of massive weather modification that the chemtrail theorists go on about though.
Given the number of leaks government attempts at cover ups have had over the years, sorry the whole "I can't prove it because it is a government secret" is just a cop out, especially based on your earlier post talking about the people who studied it and performed their own experiments.
In essence you are either trying to debate just for the sake of debating which is a waste of time or you actually are experiencing your cognitive dissonance.
But to try and clarify a little bit; 15 years or so ago I remember people taking water, soil and air samples after a supposed 'fly-over', and showing levels of certain metals and substances that had been allegedly released from an airplane. Some of these people were scientists of different fields, others just regular observers. I'm not saying one way or another, but they were serious and they had serious concerns and they provided evidence of what they deemed to be anomalous. And from that they would postulate. People who are honestly looking for answers do not deserve some of the aggressive dismissals that they get.
It's not a cop out though. It's a point of fact; there would be no hard evidence other than individual observations. But I don't understand why when some actual evidence is provided it is completely ignored. Instead people focus on a semantic discrepancy or something along those lines.
What is obviously implausible is that the regulatory scrutiny they are subjected to makes carrying out the experiments you suggest an insane risk to take. What do you know that I don't?
Can they not answer for themselves?
Aha, not every country on this planet shares the same regulatory laws that prohibit certain corporations from going beyond regulatory scrutiny. Hence corporations will have subsidiary company somewhere that is able to go around and beyond regulatory scrutiny.
Next you will ask me for evidence to prove that corporations have subsidiary companies used for bypassing certain regulations, right??
Yes Hurricane's have been known to cause carnage. Wait people were not actually trying to blame hurricane's carnage on the cloud seeding were they?
Well since you're clearly in the wrong here anyone can point to it. Or would you suggest to employ some caution here?
Of course and that's why the news report was about the cloud seeding making it worse and therefore badly planned/timed.
Being outnumbered is not the same as being in the wrong. Yes I would suggest you employ some caution
Yes that gets pointed to a lot, except one important part is left out. Nobody ever provides data on what the levels were before the so-called "flyovers" Which then means they have no proof that the jets dispersed anything other than the normal pollutants you would find in jet engine exhaust. It's an important bit of information that they always seem to leave out of these reports.
So you were right to ignore the word "literally" which changed the whole equation and you basically answered the wrong hypothetical?Being outnumbered is not the same as being in the wrong. Yes I would suggest you employ some caution
Just trying to spare you from the inevitable. Don't mind me.
Well, yes. This isn't a criminal trial so we'll leave the burden of proof to you.Next you will ask me for evidence to prove that corporations have subsidiary companies used for bypassing certain regulations, right??
I have read of some other instances where cloud seeding was blamed for causing all sorts of damage, but it seems unlikely since cloud seeding would not cause huge amounts of rain. In fact there are studies now that suggest it is not a very effective solution at all at most causing minor changes in precipitation over very small areas. Other's disagree of course, it is a difficult thing to prove, since you can not really know if it would have rained or not without the seeding. Seeding can't make it rain if there is not already a good amount of moisture in the air. It would be unlikely to increase the damage caused by a hurricane in a measurable amount or even at all.Of course and that's why the news report was about the cloud seeding making it worse and therefore badly planned/timed.
Even the claims of it causing some famous flood in England is not generally accepted since the rain at the time was not just limited to within the area of cloud seeding, nor was the flooding, in fact it rained quite a lot over a large portion of the UK at the time.
Last edited:
There are plenty who believe it's advanced to the point where it is useful to counteract weather shifts caused by climate change. Big business these days apparently.
http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-cloud-seeding-india/
Still doesn't mean you can just casually decide to spray a few chemicals and magically it rains like some divs seem to think. Nor does it have anything at all to do with poisoning, drugging or controlling people.
Anyone who advances theories and can't be arsed actually suggesting plausible motive, opportunity and means for chemtrails is a fecking knob and should be given a lovely cosy white jacket to wear for a while.
Interesting, a lot in the article also talks about the difficulty of saying with any certainty how much the cloud seeding has actually caused in terms of precipitation and the difficulty in replicating results because of the many differences from cloud to cloud.
Still a long way to go before it reaches the weather modification/control levels that some people assign to it.
Side note: A lot of the hippies at Woodstock (well maybe not a lot, maybe just a few) still claim the US Army seeded the clouds to make it rain on the event.
I always love it when pseudo-psychology is brought into these debates. I also enjoy it when someone claims not to believe these theories, yet always come round to "well they have a point". Most amusing.
But hey, let's pretend that a well educated man can't also be an absolute crank. For example, in that recent post from one, why is he hinting at everything? If he had any real idea or proof, why just leave it up to our imaginations? Click baiting is a relatively modern thing with the internet, but baiting a response and attention from people is a centuries old practice.
I do love a good conspiracy though. Sadly, this is well down the list of interesting ones
But hey, let's pretend that a well educated man can't also be an absolute crank. For example, in that recent post from one, why is he hinting at everything? If he had any real idea or proof, why just leave it up to our imaginations? Click baiting is a relatively modern thing with the internet, but baiting a response and attention from people is a centuries old practice.
I do love a good conspiracy though. Sadly, this is well down the list of interesting ones
Okay, I was wrong. I didn't notice, "literally."
https://coto2.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/1968-macdonald-how-to-wreck-the-planet.pdfI always love it when pseudo-psychology is brought into these debates. I also enjoy it when someone claims not to believe these theories, yet always come round to "well they have a point". Most amusing.
But hey, let's pretend that a well educated man can't also be an absolute crank. For example, in that recent post from one, why is he hinting at everything? If he had any real idea or proof, why just leave it up to our imaginations? Click baiting is a relatively modern thing with the internet, but baiting a response and attention from people is a centuries old practice.
I do love a good conspiracy though. Sadly, this is well down the list of interesting ones
"Professor MacDonald is associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles. His researches have embraced a remarkable diversity of natural phenomena and his professional interests are further extended by his participation in national science policy-making. He is a member of President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee.
Among future means of obtaining national objectives by force, one possibility hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of his planet. When achieved, this power over his environment will provide man with a new force capable of doing great and indiscriminate damage. Our present primitive understanding of deliberate environmental change makes it difficult to imagine a world in which geophysical warfare is practised. Such a world might be one in which nuclear weapons were effectively banned and the weapons of mass destruction were those of environmental catastrophe. Alternatively, I can envisage a world of nuclear stability resulting from parity in such weapons, rendered unstable by the development by one nation of an advanced technology capable of modifying the Earth’s environment. Or geophysical weapons may be part of each nation’s armoury. As I will argue, these weapons are peculiarly suited for covert or secret wars.
Substantial progress within the environmental sciences is slowly overcoming the gap between fact and fiction regarding manipulations of the Earth’s physical environment. As these manipulations become possible, history shows that attempts may be made to use them in support of national ambitions."
Why don't you all actually read the information presented to you?
@JustAFan considering we know that governments have indeed experimented with weather modification in the past and most likely continue to do so today, perhaps we can look beyond the lack of scientific rigour in these experiments.
@Dwazza I wont shy away from providing evidence, if you wont shy away from reading it.
@Redlambs not being interesting to you cannot invalidate the theory. Can I get this straight though, you are actually claiming categorically that there is no such thing as weather modification by any government or any corporation, ever??
Not any more. Thanks a lot John Lewis.
So he's not saying that it's happening, nor even that it's currently possible, just that it will be? fecking headline news that. When somebody solves the Navier-Stokes equations I'll start to worry.