5 ms·

I agree, the problem is in the heads of the people who blindly trust everything they are told. Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a cove

I agree, the problem is in the heads of the people who blindly trust everything they are told. Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a covert experiment to manipulate climate (or has some other purpose)? I'm not saying that it is, but is it outrageous to doubt official narratives? Since when is that scientific? Doubt is reasonable, there's no problem here. Unquestioned belief in "common sense" and what authority figures say is not. A lot of people have a lot to gain by leading the public to believe certain things. Isn't it too naive to assume that you are always being told the truth, when some stakes are so high?

alistairSH 10y ago
Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a covert experiment to manipulate climate (or has some other purpose)? I'm not saying that it is, but is it outrageous to doubt official narratives? If it were a single national airline, or even a subset of airlines, then maybe there would be cause for concern. But, a global conspiracy involving airlines, private airplanes, multiple governments, and tens of thousands of employees? That is patently ridiculous. Has anything on that scale ever been kept secret for long?
- mytddu 10y ago
  The extent of NSA surveillance was known to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people before Edward Snowden clued the general public in.
- TranceMan 10y ago
  Manhattan project[0] It may fail your 'for so long test' - could you define how 'so long ' is? 0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
  - Oletros 10y ago
    Manhattan project was circumscribed to one country on one place and didn't involved a worldwide collaboration between almost all the airlines
    - TranceMan 10y ago
      Wikipedia disagrees in the second sentence of the link.
  - dalke 10y ago
    I first heard of chemtrails in the 1990s, so 20 years. As your link points out, "By 1943, it was clear that the Soviet Union was attempting to penetrate the project". That was a year after the project started. http://www.mphpa.org/history/espionage http://www.mphpa.org/history/espionage lists "eight major spies who revealed secrets of the Manhattan Project." It wasn't a secret from the Soviets for very long. John W. Raper published an article about Los Alamos in the Cleveland Press in 1944: 'Forbidden City - Uncle Sam’s Mystery Town Directed by “2nd Einstein”'. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-project-leaks/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-pr... . That was two years after the project started. It was an open secret in D.C. It did, after all, require a huge number of people and money. As http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/29/narratives-of-manhattan-project-secrecy/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/29/narratives-of-manh... points out, the mystique of secrecy around the project is different than the actual secrecy. Quoting it: > "In the 1940s there was something of a small industry of articles, books, and clichés regarding how secret the atomic bomb was kept. Of course, the irony is… it wasn’t really kept all that well, if you consider “keeping the secret” to involve “not letting the Soviet Union know pretty much everything about the atomic bomb.” (Which was, according to General Groves, one of the goals.)" So, the Manhattan project was secret for about two years, under its own operational goals of what "secrecy" meant. It was public to the world by 1945, after the bombs were first used, so no more than a few years of secrecy under that standard. The Soviet atomic bomb was in 1949, so still less than 10 years.
- WayneBro 10y ago
  I don't care about these theories because there's nothing much I can do about them. However, I see plenty of so-called "skeptics" that don't question anything and they're always ready to just swallow the official story without even putting much thought into it. Anyway - who said it has to be "all airlines"? Does it have to be 1 vs all? Couldn't it just be some percentage? In Operation Mockingbird [1], the CIA found that infiltrating just 25% of media outlets was enough to sway public opinion. That's the type of operation that is obviously still ongoing too.
mikeash 10y ago
It's not outrageous to take the idea seriously. It is outrageous to believe it stridently without doing any research. If one reads about contrails, one finds a simple explanation for them which matches all observation. Reading the history, one will discover that, for example, they were a real problem for Allied bombers attacking Germany, which sort of implies that they aren't voluntary.
- TranceMan 10y ago
  No major flight paths over me - the variation in number of planes flying daily is interesting - no contrails == blue sky. Some days 10+ planes before noon - then cloudy. Doesn't matter what time of year or day of week. Just my observations.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Contrails don't always form. It depends on the temperature and humidity at altitude. It's entirely reasonable that there would be a correlation between contrails and weather, since contrails formation is heavily dependent on weather.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Oletros 10y ago
Perhaps it is outrageous believing in a conspiracy where almost all the airlines in the world are part of it without having a single leak
TranceMan 10y ago
Sorry replied to wrong comment.

alistairSH 10y ago

Why is it so outrageous to assume that chemtrails might be a covert experiment to manipulate climate (or has some other purpose)? I'm not saying that it is, but is it outrageous to doubt official narratives? If it were a single national airline, or even a subset of airlines, then maybe there would be cause for concern. But, a global conspiracy involving airlines, private airplanes, multiple governments, and tens of thousands of employees? That is patently ridiculous. Has anything on that scale ever been kept secret for long?

mytddu 10y ago
The extent of NSA surveillance was known to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people before Edward Snowden clued the general public in.
TranceMan 10y ago
Manhattan project[0] It may fail your 'for so long test' - could you define how 'so long ' is? 0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
- Oletros 10y ago
  Manhattan project was circumscribed to one country on one place and didn't involved a worldwide collaboration between almost all the airlines
  - TranceMan 10y ago
    Wikipedia disagrees in the second sentence of the link.
- dalke 10y ago
  I first heard of chemtrails in the 1990s, so 20 years. As your link points out, "By 1943, it was clear that the Soviet Union was attempting to penetrate the project". That was a year after the project started. http://www.mphpa.org/history/espionage http://www.mphpa.org/history/espionage lists "eight major spies who revealed secrets of the Manhattan Project." It wasn't a secret from the Soviets for very long. John W. Raper published an article about Los Alamos in the Cleveland Press in 1944: 'Forbidden City - Uncle Sam’s Mystery Town Directed by “2nd Einstein”'. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-project-leaks/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-pr... . That was two years after the project started. It was an open secret in D.C. It did, after all, require a huge number of people and money. As http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/29/narratives-of-manhattan-project-secrecy/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/29/narratives-of-manh... points out, the mystique of secrecy around the project is different than the actual secrecy. Quoting it: > "In the 1940s there was something of a small industry of articles, books, and clichés regarding how secret the atomic bomb was kept. Of course, the irony is… it wasn’t really kept all that well, if you consider “keeping the secret” to involve “not letting the Soviet Union know pretty much everything about the atomic bomb.” (Which was, according to General Groves, one of the goals.)" So, the Manhattan project was secret for about two years, under its own operational goals of what "secrecy" meant. It was public to the world by 1945, after the bombs were first used, so no more than a few years of secrecy under that standard. The Soviet atomic bomb was in 1949, so still less than 10 years.
WayneBro 10y ago
I don't care about these theories because there's nothing much I can do about them. However, I see plenty of so-called "skeptics" that don't question anything and they're always ready to just swallow the official story without even putting much thought into it. Anyway - who said it has to be "all airlines"? Does it have to be 1 vs all? Couldn't it just be some percentage? In Operation Mockingbird [1], the CIA found that infiltrating just 25% of media outlets was enough to sway public opinion. That's the type of operation that is obviously still ongoing too.

mikeash 10y ago

It's not outrageous to take the idea seriously. It is outrageous to believe it stridently without doing any research. If one reads about contrails, one finds a simple explanation for them which matches all observation. Reading the history, one will discover that, for example, they were a real problem for Allied bombers attacking Germany, which sort of implies that they aren't voluntary.

TranceMan 10y ago
No major flight paths over me - the variation in number of planes flying daily is interesting - no contrails == blue sky. Some days 10+ planes before noon - then cloudy. Doesn't matter what time of year or day of week. Just my observations.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Contrails don't always form. It depends on the temperature and humidity at altitude. It's entirely reasonable that there would be a correlation between contrails and weather, since contrails formation is heavily dependent on weather.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Oletros 10y ago

Perhaps it is outrageous believing in a conspiracy where almost all the airlines in the world are part of it without having a single leak

TranceMan 10y ago

Sorry replied to wrong comment.