4 ms·

I didn't elaborate on my train of thought because it's a three-point train of thought. No offense. "conspiracy theory" is widely understood to be a derisive te

I didn't elaborate on my train of thought because it's a three-point train of thought. No offense. "conspiracy theory" is widely understood to be a derisive term the CIA had to invent after they shot Kennedy. Here's a contrail next to a chemtrail on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kcTvqiMNl8 My comment is not erratic. Saying my comment is erratic is like saying you're afraid of loud noises. My comment does not have "spurious" relation to the article. My comment has a holistic big-picture relation to the article.

MrLeap 8y ago
No offense taken. To be honest, HN is often very receptive to controversial ideas, but there's certain unwritten shibboleths. You break one by effectively saying "I think chem-trails are to blame" without more foundation. That sentence in isolation is like a hand-grenade. It's pretty much exclusively divisive. Maybe try acknowledging people's skepticism, list a few reasons why you personally believe in it, and bring it around to something a little more focused on the article (your picture was too big, it's hard to follow). I bet something like that wouldn't get dismantled like this was.
- LukeB42 8y ago
  I agree now that the basis for chemtrails could have done with being established in my initial post. For some reason I assumed other HN users had had similar experiences I've had with seeing them right next to contrails in real life. Wasn't intending to produce entertainment to consume. Just wanted to provoke serious, thoughtful discussion of the likelihood that these phenomena are related.
  - MrLeap 8y ago
    I value perspectives like yours specifically because they are different than mine. I hope you stick around. My only other suggested shibboleth is to try and avoid barbs in your posts. "I didn't elaborate on my train of thought because it's a three-point train of thought. No offense." is a subtle jab at my intelligence. I am not offended, especially since people are dog-piling you, and that sucks to be on the receiving end. However, subtle insults like that'll get you in trouble here.
    - LukeB42 8y ago
      Thanks. "[quoted text] is a subtle jab at my intelligence." -- No it's not. It just means the initial post was very simple and wasn't intended for readers who're in denial when experiencing reality.
      - MrLeap 8y ago
        Jeez man. I'd like to remind you that I live on the same planet you do. I'm slave to the same physics and I go through similar struggles. If I am skeptical of something you believe, that does not mean I am in denial. I hope you can figure out how to navigate this place, because if you want to have a polite discussion about chem trails, lizard people, flat earth theory, who shot JFK, drop bears, the gold standard or whatever else, a polite version of you could really spark great discussion here. I hope beyond hope to experience THAT reality. I believe in you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
astrodust 8y ago
There's absolutely no scientific basis at all for chemtrails. If these were real the cost would be staggering in terms of equipment, supplies, and of course, unbelievable amounts of hush money paid out every single day to keep a lid on the conspiracy. Just as there's things too big to fail, there's conspiracies too grandiose to be real. They'd collapse under their own weight. Do you honestly think in an age where terabytes of data can be stolen by insiders and outsiders alike that something as massive as chemtrails can be kept under wraps?
- LukeB42 8y ago
  Here's some empirical evidence of chemtrails, in case this is the first of its kind that you've ever received I also suggest paying attention to the sky in your local neighbourhood at around 6am and 6pm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFL4ogRm3yc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFL4ogRm3yc Saying "conspiracies too grandiose to be real" may be akin to saying "organization too grandiose to be real" when only talking about one program within a multi billion dollar black budget. That said there are indeed grandiose conspiracies that do make chemtrails look simple by comparison: https://i.imgur.com/SbCArRO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/SbCArRO.jpg
  - astrodust 8y ago
    That "empirical evidence" is a load of garbage. Contrails occur differently at different altitudes due to temperature gradients. Anyone who's been up in a small plane or who's climbed a mountain knows this. Planes are also "stacked" at different altitudes (flight level) to simplify controller operations, anyone who's casually observed local airport activity knows this. You really need to read up because this YouTube junk is poisoning your ability to think rationally. Now multi-billion? No. For chemtrails to be real it's a multi-trillion dollar undertaking. Nothing in aviation is cheap. Everything is unbelievably expensive. In order to produce "chemtrails" that have the same volume as contrails you would need to have an equivalent amount of whatever loaded into tanks as there is fuel. Do you have any idea how much fuel is loaded into a passenger plane? It's tons. A 787 contains around 33,000 gallons of fuel, or about 162 tonnes. Now you're telling me they have to sneak on another ~160 tons of chemtrail stuff somehow without anyone noticing? And why? For what? Who benefits?

MrLeap 8y ago

No offense taken. To be honest, HN is often very receptive to controversial ideas, but there's certain unwritten shibboleths. You break one by effectively saying "I think chem-trails are to blame" without more foundation. That sentence in isolation is like a hand-grenade. It's pretty much exclusively divisive. Maybe try acknowledging people's skepticism, list a few reasons why you personally believe in it, and bring it around to something a little more focused on the article (your picture was too big, it's hard to follow). I bet something like that wouldn't get dismantled like this was.

LukeB42 8y ago
I agree now that the basis for chemtrails could have done with being established in my initial post. For some reason I assumed other HN users had had similar experiences I've had with seeing them right next to contrails in real life. Wasn't intending to produce entertainment to consume. Just wanted to provoke serious, thoughtful discussion of the likelihood that these phenomena are related.
- MrLeap 8y ago
  I value perspectives like yours specifically because they are different than mine. I hope you stick around. My only other suggested shibboleth is to try and avoid barbs in your posts. "I didn't elaborate on my train of thought because it's a three-point train of thought. No offense." is a subtle jab at my intelligence. I am not offended, especially since people are dog-piling you, and that sucks to be on the receiving end. However, subtle insults like that'll get you in trouble here.
  - LukeB42 8y ago
    Thanks. "[quoted text] is a subtle jab at my intelligence." -- No it's not. It just means the initial post was very simple and wasn't intended for readers who're in denial when experiencing reality.
    - MrLeap 8y ago
      Jeez man. I'd like to remind you that I live on the same planet you do. I'm slave to the same physics and I go through similar struggles. If I am skeptical of something you believe, that does not mean I am in denial. I hope you can figure out how to navigate this place, because if you want to have a polite discussion about chem trails, lizard people, flat earth theory, who shot JFK, drop bears, the gold standard or whatever else, a polite version of you could really spark great discussion here. I hope beyond hope to experience THAT reality. I believe in you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

astrodust 8y ago

There's absolutely no scientific basis at all for chemtrails. If these were real the cost would be staggering in terms of equipment, supplies, and of course, unbelievable amounts of hush money paid out every single day to keep a lid on the conspiracy. Just as there's things too big to fail, there's conspiracies too grandiose to be real. They'd collapse under their own weight. Do you honestly think in an age where terabytes of data can be stolen by insiders and outsiders alike that something as massive as chemtrails can be kept under wraps?

LukeB42 8y ago
Here's some empirical evidence of chemtrails, in case this is the first of its kind that you've ever received I also suggest paying attention to the sky in your local neighbourhood at around 6am and 6pm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFL4ogRm3yc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFL4ogRm3yc Saying "conspiracies too grandiose to be real" may be akin to saying "organization too grandiose to be real" when only talking about one program within a multi billion dollar black budget. That said there are indeed grandiose conspiracies that do make chemtrails look simple by comparison: https://i.imgur.com/SbCArRO.jpg https://i.imgur.com/SbCArRO.jpg
- astrodust 8y ago
  That "empirical evidence" is a load of garbage. Contrails occur differently at different altitudes due to temperature gradients. Anyone who's been up in a small plane or who's climbed a mountain knows this. Planes are also "stacked" at different altitudes (flight level) to simplify controller operations, anyone who's casually observed local airport activity knows this. You really need to read up because this YouTube junk is poisoning your ability to think rationally. Now multi-billion? No. For chemtrails to be real it's a multi-trillion dollar undertaking. Nothing in aviation is cheap. Everything is unbelievably expensive. In order to produce "chemtrails" that have the same volume as contrails you would need to have an equivalent amount of whatever loaded into tanks as there is fuel. Do you have any idea how much fuel is loaded into a passenger plane? It's tons. A 787 contains around 33,000 gallons of fuel, or about 162 tonnes. Now you're telling me they have to sneak on another ~160 tons of chemtrail stuff somehow without anyone noticing? And why? For what? Who benefits?