Fake conspiracies

[Lila]

It's not about privilege, it's about it being physically impossible to hide that kind of equipment from someone who crawls over and works on literally every inch of the plane.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear you UntoldGlory but what makes you think you get to see ALL planes ever out there?

 

[UntoldGlory]

I don't. But I get to see a very specific plane (as in the exact same tail number) that has featured heavily in many of the claims of chemtrails. And if a supposed "expert" in the subject is pointing to that specific plane and saying that it is definitive proof that chemtrails are in use, then their whole argument is invalid because they obviously have no idea what they're talking about. I can also look at the pictures of equipment that people hold up as "proof" of chemtrails, and know for a fact what it actually is.

 

[FollowingHim]

To me that's very interesting because surely if all conspiracies were by default a fallacy then why are we even trying to figure it out?

Which is my exact point. There are real conspiracies. But the easiest way to distract people from them is to invent fake conspiracies that seem even bigger. So we have to be incredibly discerning. The more willing we are to question the status quo, the more we realise that some conspiracies are true - and the more susceptible we become to even more interesting fake conspiracies. And looking into this diverts a massive amount of time and energy that could be used productively elsewhere.

 

[UntoldGlory]

What you have there Samuel is a Head/Nail statement. Very accurately and succinctly stated.

 

[Lila]

..if a supposed "expert" in the subject is pointing to that specific plane and saying that it is definitive proof that chemtrails are in use...

I have never been worried about the exact model of plane that is used for spraying chemtrails. Is it therefore weird, should I feel bad I wasn't occupying myself with specific plane models?
There surely are several ways to look at one thing from different angles, the question is which one does shed light maybe on some other "secrets" hidden therein?

 

[Lila]

...There are real conspiracies. But the easiest way to distract people from them is to invent fake conspiracies.... looking into this diverts a massive amount of time and energy that could be used productively elsewhere...

Interesting concern. Cover ups hide from people things that help the overall picture make more sense than without it. One can spend indefinite amount of time becoming fascinated with something new OR wisely invest a limited time to go down the rabbit hole. Your fear to get mislead comes across stronger than trust in the Truth I would hope a believer has. Let me put it this way: seemingly, you raise red flags for others to really watch out to a degree that one may rather not look into something at all (which doesn't equal for sure coming out the wrong side of things eventually) and I thought that wasn't necessary.

So where do you draw the line then what's bad time investment vs better time investment?

 

[FollowingHim]

This takes great discernment. Lila, I must say I have looked into many conspiracies very carefully. Some I have concluded are likely correct, others likely fake.

The 9/11 building collapses for instance - there are extremely serious engineering considerations there, it has been mathematically shown in many different ways that those collapses were unlikely to occur from an aircraft crash, especially the additional building that collapsed without even being hit. This conspiracy makes real, scientific sense. Who caused it and why is a bigger question with less clear answers, but the fact that there is something fishy going on is extremely obvious.

Vaccines also, there is very real scientific evidence that they either don't do much good, or are actually harmful. This can be shown even from official government statistics on disease incidence. There is clearly a real issue here of some form. Again, the reasons behind it (which could range from simple incompetence to a deep conspiracy to depopulate the planet) are more debatable, but the fact that there is an issue is obvious from basic science, so this is worth spending time looking into. Furthermore it affects actual real-world decisions (do I vaccinate my kids, if so at what ages and with which ones), and I have the power to actually do something about it, so it is worth even more time investment.

Chemtrails on the other hand don't work from a basic engineering standpoint, as Daniel and I have pointed out. So I use my discernment and see that this is a stupid idea from the start, it would never work effectively, and invest less time looking into it and speculating that "well maybe all the experts are wrong and it really is a real conspiracy despite everyone with any knowledge of it saying that it wouldn't work".

I am not afraid of being misled. I have a careful, enquiring mind, and enjoy looking into such matters. But I also have a real life and only limited time to devote to many different things, so have to be extremely discerning.

My fear is rather that others will be so distracted by the idea that the government might be spraying toxins at them from the air that they neglect to consider the toxins they're actually injecting into their own kids, because they put their time into chasing a chemtrail rabbit rather than investigating vaccines. For just one example of misplaced time.

Or that Christians will get so distracted by the conspiracies going around that they'll neglect to simply read scripture and base their decisions on that.

 

[mystic]

Years ago I read some ideas in Joshua Meyrowitz's No Sense of Place that really stuck with me. Subtitled "The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior", the book lays a foundation for understanding the current breakdown of consensus about what constitutes fact, authority, etc. and the resulting geometric increase of conspiracy-theory culture.

You can't have your Facebook and coherence too.

The topic also reminds me of a couple segments from the radio program This American Life:

• Episode 338, Act One: What Part Of "Bomb" Don't You Understand? — The survivor of a terrible event encounters the dark side of the Web.
• Episode 370, Act One: Shots in the Dark — Which side you choose on an issue may come down to this: How much is it your nature to trust societal systems?

[Edit: No Sense of Place was published in 1985, several years before the advent of the Web, so "electronic media" in the subtitle refers to older technologies. Yet the author still anticipates perfectly the increase of intra-societal mistrust and conflict we've seen in the Web era. Truly prescient.]

 

[Lila]

...Chemtrails on the other hand don't work from a basic engineering standpoint, as Daniel and I have pointed out. So I use my discernment and see that this is a stupid idea from the start, it would never work effectively...
.... Christians will get so distracted by the conspiracies going around that they'll neglect to simply read scripture and base their decisions on that.

I love the confidence that you yourself won't be mislead. Please note you raising red flags the way you just did again may actually deter OTHERS who may have been considering looking into chemtrails which is in fact very real (unlike you calling it stupid!). I really don't get people that look at a very plain issue from a point of view that so excludes the end result: the "messed up" sky, trails which take hours end on to even dissolve. That is NOT regular plane exhaust whether you like it or not.
You wanna tell yourself that just because UntoldGlory has first hand access to planes which makes you both feel it wouldn't be technically possible you rather conclude that it's not real instead? Well, just look up the sky!

We are not even talking detailed conspiracies and yet there seems to be a real block:
Whether it's about believing that Yahweh's Instructions (Torah) is abolished, believing that Yahweh created a heliocentric globe Earth, or believing that Shabbat is from Evening to Evening it's about us having a PRECONCEIVED idea that we don't dare to question and don't put it to the test.

When we don't want to test something we won't put in the necessary time and effort to find the truth. So we just read the information we come across just to disprove the new information that tries to attack our world-view. We try to defend our views and we don't really want to understand it.

THAT I call distraction from real things because if one walks in the Spirit then you calling it distraction when looking into a "conspiracy" doesn't tie up, surely, that believer walking in the Truth would be led out of the deception should it really be one?

 

[Eristhophanes]

I kind of like all the references to smallpox.

Every time you hear a reference to smallpox, such as the idea that the smallpox virus is going to be weaponized and turned loose to kill people, look closely at who is doing it. Because it's not true. The fact is, I only know of one person who has ever come close to "proving" the vector of transmission for smallpox, Dr. Charles A.R. Campbell. Never heard of him, right? After I read this I did some serious searching for something that would prove the vector of transmission of smallpox and it isn't there.

It is common to find assertions on what the vector of transmission is or could be, but if you follow it back they all turn out to be someone's opinion. The reason is that we already supposedly had a cure so there was no point in researching the disease, much less the vector of transmission. Seriously. No research. Except for one guy: Dr. Campbell. You'll find it buried in part III of the book "Bats, Mosquitoes and Dollars" published in 1925.

http://soilandhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/0302hsted/030212campbell/campbelltoc.htm

(Be gentle, they have a slow server)

By modern standards, what Dr. Campbell did in furtherance of his research was at the very least unethical, possibly criminal at that time. You'll understand if you read it, that today he would be considered the equivalent of Dr. Mengele of Nazi fame.

When you read in popular literature about the amazing WHO vaccination program after WWII that "wiped out" smallpox, keep in mind that those vaccination teams also had sanitation teams alongside them and they sprayed the hell out of everything with this great new chemical called DDT. And the smallpox disease died out. Amazing how well that vaccine worked, isn't it!

Now, if the anopheles mosquito transmits malaria, the aedes mosquito transmits yellow fever, dengue and other pathogens, and the bedbug transmits smallpox, what about HIV? Remarkably, some studies were rigged to prove that mosquitoes could not transmit HIV but given the available data, it is highly probable such an infection vector exists. In light of which the resurgence of bedbugs should scare the daylights out of anyone with a brain. But the NIH says insects can't transmit HIV!

 

[FollowingHim]

Lila, I am not confident I will not be deceived but everyone else might be. Rather, you stated that I had a "fear to get misled", so I responded by pointing out that I am not scared of being deceived, so am not scared of looking into conspiracies. Fear is not a factor here, I am one of the most unemotional people around, just ask my wife!

And Lila, when you state confidently "That is NOT regular plane exhaust whether you like it or not." - why do you state this? Daniel and myself have already pointed out clearly why these trails stay around for a long time - they're ice crystals. Why do you think that is not normal? What scientific fact do you wish to draw our attention to that we have overlooked? I have no interest in arguments, in stating opinions on one side or the other. I am simply interested in unemotive, scientific truth. If you wish to discuss it on that level I'm in, if not then I'll leave you to your opinions.

When we don't want to test something we won't put in the necessary time and effort to find the truth. So we just read the information we come across just to disprove the new information that tries to attack our world-view. We try to defend our views and we don't really want to understand it.

I thoroughly agree that is a very serious problem. I see it all the time, and just despair. I'm watching it happen right now and just shaking my head. We can all see this as an issue in others but at the same time cannot see it as an issue in ourselves. Matthew 7:3-5

 

[Lila]

... if anopheles mosquito transmits malaria, the aedes mosquito transmits yellow fever, dengue and other pathogens, and the bedbug transmits smallpox, what about HIV? ...

To me it doesn't matter what transmits what, there sure are some worrying scenarios either way (by the way I personally encountered bed bugs which I knew nothing off prior to that) what matters to me is: there is a cure/ prevention for all of the issues listed and that's what matters.

 

[Lila]

....you stated that I had a "fear to get misled", so I responded by pointing out that I am not scared of being deceived, so am not scared of looking into conspiracies...

What I meant was you scar off others with raising red flags upfront to that effect. You may have an insight into one matter but not automatically into everything else as well and those that do not differentiate the two may therefore be scared off by you. Makes sense?

And Lila, when you state confidently "That is NOT regular plane exhaust whether you like it or not." - why do you state this? Daniel and myself have already pointed out clearly why these trails stay around for a long time - they're ice crystals.

Who told you that? I go by what I see with my bare eyes. Many times I simply followed a plane in the sky that happened to release a trail that wouldn't go away. The plane didn't release the same trail all the way through which I found bizarre.

Why do you think that is not normal? What scientific fact do you wish to draw our attention to that we have overlooked?

I guess it starts with believing that perhaps some part of so called science has been created in order to cover up some serious agendas. If you don't like that then of course you won't accept whatever comes as a consequence thereof. There is no official science for chemtrails, that's why it's called conspiracy because they are not going to officially admit that they are spraying some nasty stuff.

I don't know if you are a scientist or why do you pay so much value to a science which even disproved the existence of God at some point. But as per one of your previous comments:

...9/11....Who caused it and why is a bigger question with less clear answers, but the fact that there is something fishy going on is extremely obvious.

So what good is it or rather what use is it to you personally to notice something fishy and yet draw no conclusions? There are several conclusion that c o u l d be drawn even out of that event but do you choose to rather sit on the fence (just a question)?

 

[UntoldGlory]

Seeing a plane only leaving a trail sometimes is a valid reason to wonder and begin questioning. However it is easily explained. Much like the ocean, the sky is not one homogeneous mass when it comes to temperature, wind speed, humidity, or barometric pressure. Add to that the fact that aircraft engines (even those on the same plane) are not always at the same thrust or temperature, and it becomes easy to see the reason why a visual vapor trail may seem to start and stop, or even why two different planes may pass through roughly the same space and one leave a trail and one not.

Please bear in mind that being open to new ideas and possibilities must be a two way street. Those of us who do not believe chemtrails are credible are not blindly accepting of every "fact" taught in a school or put into a report. We just don't believe that because *some* conspiracies contain truth that they *all* do. Conversely, just because *some* science may contain falsehood or be does not mean it *all* does. We must also strive to ensure that we do not take an argument against a particular idea as an attack on us personally.

 

[Eristhophanes]

... if anopheles mosquito transmits malaria, the aedes mosquito transmits yellow fever, dengue and other pathogens, and the bedbug transmits smallpox, what about HIV? ...

To me it doesn't matter what transmits what, there sure are some worrying scenarios either way (by the way I personally encountered bed bugs which I knew nothing off prior to that) what matters to me is: there is a cure/ prevention for all of the issues listed and that's what matters.

Mizz Lila. It's like this. In order to preserve the narrative of "Vaccines Work!" (which for the most part is simply not true) it's necessary to keep certain information hidden or to actively lie about it. Perhaps I should not have used smallpox as an example, because a better example is polio. The polio vaccine is usually presented as the centerpiece in the arguments for vaccines. Not so much argument nowadays because we have the ability to prove that polio wasn't prevented by the polio vaccine but rather the polio vaccine changed the way the polio virus acted on the human body.

However, unlike smallpox (for which no known cure has ever been proven) polio did have a cure. You've just never heard of it. The reason is that Dr. Fred Klenner was a small-town doctor in Reidsville North Carolina and he published his findings a few years prior to Jonas Salk's discovery during the time when there was a huge race on for a vaccine. In case you didn't know, vaccines are the holy grail of the pharmaceutical industry because of government mandates.

Dr. Klenner cured polio with massive doses of intravenous Sodium Ascorbate (vitamin C titrated with sodium hydroxide). Guess what? You can't patent a vitamin. Klenner published his findings literally YEARS before Salk got his vaccine to market and the medical establishment ignored Klenner''s discovery, effectively covering up a cure for polio.

Sometimes the thing that is being covered up will hurt you and there's no cure when you've been hurt.

An example is those baby-nursing devices you women have that us men find so fascinating and the impact of the narrative on women's breasts. Even if there were no other reason, I would hate feminism because of what feminism has done to women's breasts.

When a woman get's pregnant some interesting changes occur immediately. In fact, one of the first signs of pregnancy is typically a slight swelling of the breasts, most noticeable when the woman likes bras that are well-fitted and suddenly don't fit any more. I could provide standard lecture 329 on cellular changes in the breast tissue due to pregnancy as type one and two lobules convert to type four lobules, but most would find that boring. Suffice to say that terminating a pregnancy via abortion leaves a lot of delicate cell growth in an interrupted state where it is extremely vulnerable to damage. Which results in what is not so commonly known as "ABC" or "Abortion Breast Cancer." This is hotly denied by proponents of Molech worship but Daling's study found several things:

Dr. Janet Daling, an abortion supporter, and her colleagues at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center were commissioned by the National Cancer Institute to conduct a study to determine if induced abortion raises breast cancer risk. Daling identified 3 high risk groups and reported these findings:

1) Women under the age of 18 or over the age of 29 who obtained induced abortions have more than a twofold increase in risk.

2) Women with a family history of breast cancer who procured an abortion were found to have statistically significant risk increases of 80 percent.

3) Teenagers with a family history of the disease who procured abortions before the age of 18 were found to have incalculably high risk. All 12 women in Daling's study with this background were diagnosed with breast cancer by the age of 45. [Daling et al. (1994) J Natl Cancer Inst 86:505-14.]

The thing is, that's only half the story. It's actually worse than that because the only reason this particular information is publicized is because of the issue with abortion. The truth is, the longer a woman waits to have a child the higher her risk for breast cancer is. One Harvard study reported that each year a woman postpones her first full-term pregnancy increases her breast cancer risk by 3.5%. [Trichopolous D, Hsieh Cc, MacMahon B, Lin T, et al. Age at Any Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. International J Cancer (1983) 31:701-704]

The current narrative sold to women by feminism is to waste their most fertile years (their 20's) playing, getting an education and pursuing career and only thinking about marriage and having children by the time they're in their 30's. Among the medical community nobody questions the increased risk of breast cancer that occurs when a woman delays having children because it's so well documented. But nobody mentions it because it conflicts with the feminist narrative of "You Go Gurl!" and "YOLO!"

And to magnify the perversity of it all, women submit to an annual "exam" that consists of placing their breasts on a cold, flat plate and then having them mashed as if a truck had run over them while getting bombarded with radiation. But your trusted medical professional won't tell you that all you have to do is get knocked up young (hopefully after getting married), have the baby and then breastfeed for at least 6 months. Do that JUST ONCE while young (before you're 20) and your chances of getting breast cancer go right back to what a woman's chances of getting breast cancer were a hundred years ago- practically zero.

This is why men need to be more diligent than ever to give women's breasts as much attention as possible. All that's left at this point is find the cancer before it's gone too far.

 

[torahlovesalvation]

I believe the "official" statement for cemtrails is geoengineering to deflect solar radiation back into space. Meanwhile, barium and aluminum on the nano scale haze the air around us. Not to mention the flakes and fibers.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[golden2seal]

I, was about to ask the experts on here, why, when looked at up close, does the trails appear to come from multiple points on the tail of the plane rather than the engines?

Me,

 

[Lila]

Mizz Lila. It's like this. In order to preserve the narrative of "Vaccines Work!" (which for the most part is simply not true) it's necessary to keep certain information hidden or to actively lie about it.

I wasn't disputing at all what you wrote, all I meant was I personally don't have such a detailed insight into it myself and yet I am certain the medical establishment has been put in place in order to officially excuse several hidden agendas which are indeed harmful to one's health hence the necessity to keep the eyes and ears open and not just go with whatever they tell you.

Apart from that I personally wouldn't dread cancer,that indeed is curable (obviously not via mainstream conventional so called cures). Breast scans are sure harmful. So are contraceptive pills or the vaccine allegedly against cervix cancer handed out regularly to women (at least here in Europe). Either way, everything is thoroughly covered by mainstream to make sure everyone's mind is at peace when considering any of the options. Which is bad for obvious reasons.

 

[Lila]

I, was about to ask the experts on here, why, when looked at up close, does the trails appear to come from multiple points on the tail of the plane rather than the engines?

Very good question, indeed!

 

[FollowingHim]

I, was about to ask the experts on here, why, when looked at up close, does the trails appear to come from multiple points on the tail of the plane rather than the engines?

Me,

Because it is water, it leaves the engines as steam (invisible gas), and is not visible until it condenses into liquid water droplets, which may then freeze into ice. Look at a boiling kettle. The steam coming out of the spout is invisible at the spout (because steam is an invisible gas, you can't see steam), but becomes visible as a cloud of water droplets about an inch above the spout - once it has condensed into tiny water droplets that you can actually see.

If you look carefully at a plane you'll see nothing coming out of the engines (because it's steam), but somewhere near the tail it condenses into visible water - but looking carefully you'll see that there is one line of cloud coming from a point behind each engine. If the plane has two engines there will be two lines, if four there will be four lines, that all then merge together as they mix. You may need to use binoculars. If it was something being sprayed from the tail it would not appear in the locations of the engines somewhere out beside the tail, but rather would originate at the tail as a single line.

Remember all engines produce steam, that's why on a frosty morning there are clouds of "steam" (actully water droplets) coming out the exhaust pipe of your car, but you don't see this during the daytime - you only see it when it's cold enough for the water to condense and become visible. When your car drives through cold air you see it, when it drives through hot air you don't. Same for an aeroplane flying through warm or cold air - sometimes the water appears and sometimes it remains as invisible gas.

I believe the "official" statement for cemtrails is geoengineering to deflect solar radiation back into space. Meanwhile, barium and aluminum on the nano scale haze the air around us. Not to mention the flakes and fibers.

That's a little more plausible than trying to directly spray chemicals to affect the population, because it gives a reason to actually spray something into the stratosphere. But plausible doesn't mean correct, since the trails we see are completely consistent with the basic physics of water vapour, there's no reason to think there is anything more to them.