Poll . . .What makes people who believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy tick. . ?. . Choo

[George B]

The most recent results. . . .ContrailScience on top. . . .GLP on bottom. . . .seems both agree on number 3, 5, & 9 with major disagreement on 6, 7,8,10, 11 & 12 . . .

View Poll Results: What makes people who believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy . . . Tick?

They are primarily intuitive thinkers not concrete thinkers 00%
1) They are primarily intuitive thinkers not concrete thinkers **3.4% (3)


They have a proper view of reality and understand the truth ( 1) 7.69%
2) They have a proper view of reality and understand the truth **23.6% (21)

They distrust the government and other authorities (6) 50%
3) They distrust the government and other authorities **5.6% (5)


They understand history and know similar acts have happened and will happen again (0) 0%
4) They understand history and know similar acts have happened and will happen again **1.1% (1)

They are easily misled by rumor and supposition (7) 58.33%
5) They are easily mislead by rumor and supposition **5.6% (5)


They have collected adequate evidence to support their belief (0) 0%
6) They have collected adequate evidence to support their belief **11.2% (10)


They lack critical thinking skills (6) 50%
7) They lack critical thinking skills **0% (0)

They combine logic with intuition to form the closest match with reality (0) 0%
8) They combine logic with intuition to form the closest match with reality **6.7% (6)

They are conspiracy junkies . . . believe almost anything (7) 58.33%
9) They are conspiracy junkies . . . believe almost anything **9.0% (8)

They understand deceit and human behavior and some conspiracies are real (0) 0%
10) They understand deceit and human behavior and some conspiracies are real**7.9% (7)

They have no concept of atmospheric science and contrail formation principles (7) 58.33%
11) They*have no concept of atmospheric science and contrail formation principles **15.7% (14)

They understand enough science to make an informed and valued decision on what they believe (0) 0%
12) They understand enough science to make an informed and valued decision on what they believe . . . **10.1% (9)


Non-Blank Votes: 89

[Noble1965]

Really. . . Noble got baned on GLP. . . I wonder why?????

Because I told the mod who was giving me crap to ban me...and told him it was the best thing he could have done for me...because the temptation was too great to waste my time on a bunch of morons who just can't understand simple and basic science. That's why.

If you were suggesting that it was a behavioral thing...then you must be wondering how 90% of the people on that site are allowed to remain.

BTW...I can still post...if I actually wanted to...But, I think I'm better off staying away from that virtual asylum.

[Noble1965]

The same forum you were thrown off from for your abusive and intimidating behaviour.

And here is one of the 18 now....

Hummer? VT? Roxy? Could be any ONE of those "people"...

[George B]

The individuals on Contrail Science think the Chemtrail Conspiracy people . . . .
have no concept of atmospheric science and contrail formation principles (7) 58.33%
are easily misled by rumor and supposition (7) 58.33%,
are conspiracy junkies . . . believe almost anything (7) 58.33%,
distrust the government and other authorities (6) 50% and
lack critical thinking skills (6) 50%.

GLP people think Chemtrail Conspiracy people . . .
have a proper view of reality and understand the truth **23.6% (21)
but have no concept of atmospheric science and contrail formation principles **15.7% (14); however,
have collected adequate evidence to support their belief **11.2% (10) and
understand enough science to make an informed and valued decision on what they believe . . . **10.1% (9) , but . . .
are conspiracy junkies . . . believe almost anything **9.0% (8)

Non-Blank Votes: 89

[Spongebob]

6) Lack evidence...

[Noble1965]

The individuals on Contrail Science think the Chemtrail Conspiracy people . . . .
have no concept of atmospheric science and contrail formation principles (7) 58.33%
are easily misled by rumor and supposition (7) 58.33%,
are conspiracy junkies . . . believe almost anything (7) 58.33%,
distrust the government and other authorities (6) 50% and
lack critical thinking skills (6) 50%.

GLP people think Chemtrail Conspiracy people . . .
have a proper view of reality and understand the truth **23.6% (21)
but have no concept of atmospheric science and contrail formation principles **15.7% (14); however,
have collected adequate evidence to support their belief **11.2% (10) and
understand enough science to make an informed and valued decision on what they believe . . . **10.1% (9) , but . . .
are conspiracy junkies . . . believe almost anything **9.0% (8)

Non-Blank Votes: 89

So, what knowledge do you come away with? That "chemtrail advocates" believe they have a proper perspective despite an obvious lack of education in these subjects? Tell us something we didn't already know!

[George B]

So, what knowledge do you come away with? That "chemtrail advocates" believe they have a proper perspective despite an obvious lack of education in these subjects? Tell us something we didn't already know!

I made no prior assumptions about the results . . .however, from the preliminary results seems the GLP participants are somewhat realistic . . . They seem to have telegraphed that they do not have hard evidence to prove to anyone, except themselves, that CHEMTRAILs exist in some form. . . . And that they are interested in conspiracies . . .

[Noble1965]

I made no prior assumptions about the results . . .however, from the preliminary results seems the GLP participants are somewhat realistic . . . They seem to have telegraphed that they do not have hard evidence to prove to anyone, except themselves, that CHEMTRAILs exist in some form. . . . And that they are interested in conspiracies . . .

Really?! Imagine that....

[George B]

Really?! Imagine that....

Which in no way makes their beliefs invalid. . . .

[George B]

Most recent totals on the reasons for CHEMTRAILs from GLP. . ..

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . **36.4% (833)
No, I do not . . . **23.5% (537)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas **17.7% (404)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. **10.5% (240)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines **6.3% (143)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. **5.7% (130)
Blank (View Results) (412)

Non-Blank Votes: 2287


POLL: CHEMTRAILs are what???
4) CHEMTRAILs are persistent trails, contrails are not persistent **51.5% (202)
2) all trails in the sky are contrails, CHEMTRAILs don't exist **19.9% (78)
3) some trails in the sky are CHEMTRAILs but*most trails are contrails **14.8% (58)
1) all trails in the sky are CHEMTRAILs, contrails are a subset of contrails **6.6% (26)
5) CHEMTRAILs nor contrails need be visible, visibility is coincidental* **5.4% (21)
6) CHEMTRAILs are very rare but are occasionally seen **1.8% (7)
Blank (View Results) (108)
Non-Blank Votes: 392


POLL: The single best Evidence CHEMTRAILs Exist *. . . *
8) Visual Observations and various environmental testing* **38.3% (59)
1) Patents. . .*Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming &*Method of modifying weather, etc **19.5% (30)
6) Desire to reduce population *. . .Ga Guidestones, CFR, Club of Rome* **13.6% (21)
12) Motivation by*threats: Solar Storms, EMP, global warming, Weather wars &*UN treaty against weather wars* **7.8% (12)
4) Human experimentation by US government and TPTB . . . Church Committee, Norwood papers, MK Ultra **5.8% (9)
9) US code and laws allowing Chemical & Biological warfare agents on citizens until 1997 **3.9% (6)
7) Various Whistleblowers. . . Project Cloverleaf, etc. **3.2% (5)
3) Scientific Research, recommendations & Symposia*Public announcements by Science Czar Holderin, Bill Gates, etc **1.9% (3)
5) Secret weapons systems developed in complete secrecy ie Manhattan Project, etc.* **1.9% (3)
11) Airline industry & IPCC's lack of mitigation efforts to reduce persistent contrails **1.9% (3)
10) Supreme court cases dismissing liability of government for human experimentation damages **1.3% (2)
2) History of exact behavior. . . *zinc cadmium sulfide from A C-119 Flying Boxcar in 1950 - 1960s **0.6% (1)
Blank (View Results) (120)

Non-Blank Votes: 154


POLL: Your number one reason CHEMTRAILs EXIST. . . .
1) Geo-engineering. . . .promote global dimming to slow global warming **20.7% (17)
6) Fertility and population reduction, soft kill experimentation or operations **19.5% (16)
4) Solar Storm, sun spots or EMP mitigation efforts* **15.9% (13)
2) Weather modification. . . Increase or decrease rain, snow, intensity of storms, etc. Peaceful **9.8% (8)
10) Media to visually block or hinder viewing celestial events, objects **8.5% (7)
5) Mind or mood control. . . .population behavioral modification **7.3% (6)
7) Biochemical, chemical or radiation weapons testing or operations **6.1% (5)
9) Media used to detect, enhance or neutralize weapons (i.e. HAARP) **6.1% (5)
3) Weather war experimentation or operations or defense from or countermeasures to same **2.4% (2)
8) Media to enhance communications or over the horizon visualization . . . Holographic Media. . . Operation Blue Beam. . **2.4% (2)
12) Wide area neutralization of biochemical attack immunizations, etc. **1.2% (1)
11) Riot control or crowd management experimentation, operations **0% (0)
Blank (View Results) (22)

Non-Blank Votes: 82

[Noble1965]

Which in no way makes their beliefs invalid. . . .

Nor is there anything to validate their beliefs.

[Noble1965]

Most recent totals on the reasons for CHEMTRAILs from GLP. . ..

So?

[George B]

It is for your information . . . Simple

[Noble1965]

It is for your information . . . Simple

Gee, Thanks...I guess.

[Spongebob]

What "information" ?

I don`t see this going anywhere...

[Noble1965]

What "information" ?

I don`t see this going anywhere...

Yeah, the "information" that conspiracy theorists believe they are right about "chemtrails".

Wow, fascinating.

One would normally have to visit GLP to find such "information".

Thanks George!

[tryblinking]

Here is what I can gather so far from this thread, and others in the same vein. With continued reference to these polls, George seems to be supporting his belief that most people on GLP (or the average equivalent) believe as he does; i.e. that there is enough 'evidence' to convince him and his piers, but not to convince skeptics, such as those on Contrailscience or Metabunk (or again the average equivalent).

He also uses these polls to conclude that this difference in belief stems from different 'ways of thinking' or 'ways of evaluating evidence', and not simply a willingness to draw certain and factual conclusions about reality from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence.

Furthermore, it appears that he makes allowance for both of these 'ways' to be equally valid, and not mutually exclusive, regardless of the case in point where they result in opposing conclusions.

If I have this wrong, please correct me. I've only interpreted what I have read in your posts, and mean no offense. I've simply tried to state the way your position currently appears, as clearly as possible.

[George B]

Here is what I can gather so far from this thread, and others in the same vein. With continued reference to these polls, George seems to be supporting his belief that most people on GLP (or the average equivalent) believe as he does; i.e. that there is enough 'evidence' to convince him and his piers, but not to convince skeptics, such as those on Contrailscience or Metabunk (or again the average equivalent).

He also uses these polls to conclude that this difference in belief stems from different 'ways of thinking' or 'ways of evaluating evidence', and not simply a willingness draw certain and factual conclusions about reality from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence.

Furthermore, it appears that he makes allowance for both of these 'ways' to be equally valid, and not mutually exclusive, regardless of the case in point where they result in opposing conclusions.

If I have this wrong, please correct me. I've only interpreted what I have read in your posts, and mean no offense. I've simply tried to state the way your position currently appears, as clearly as possible.

You hit the nail right on the Proverbial head
. . . excellent analysis !!!!!!

[tryblinking]

preverbal = existing before the development of speech
proverbial = well known / widely referred to

As I appear to be on a roll, I'll assume you meant the latter. I'll also choose not to take those 6 exclamation marks sarcastically.
I know what you're trying to say, and you're welcome.

[George B]

http://www.web-us.com/brain/right_le...cteristics.htm

[tryblinking]

well, by those definitions, I am at once both and neither, as I suspect are most of the people on this forum.

[George B]

preverbal = existing before the development of speech
proverbial = well known / widely referred to

As I appear to be on a roll, I'll assume you meant the latter. I'll also choose not to take those 6 exclamation marks sarcastically.
I know what you're trying to say, and you're welcome.

Sorry, about that my spell checker changed the word on me . . . and editing it takes so long on this Forum I couldn't get back in time to change it while I was posting the graph . . .

[George B]

well, by those definitions, I am at once both and neither, as I suspect are most of the people on this forum.

No one fits exactly into any one group . . . there are grades and extremes . . . for example how would you respond to this poll . . .

Are you a Conspiracy nut Poll? . . . You are if you believe all these Conspiracies are real. . .

1. I believe at least (6) are real or less . . . Skeptic
2. I believe at least (12) are real. . . Enthusiast
3. I believe at least (18) are real. . . GLP Mainstream
4. I believe at least (24) are real. . . Next GLP MOD
5. I believe at least (30) are real. . . Consider Meds
6. I believe in all 30 and more. . . Tin Foil Hat Award

The (30) conspiracies are listed below . . .

The greatest Conspiracies . . . History's greatest conspiracy theories
[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

1) 11 September 2001 WTC Attack . . .
2) The assassination of John F Kennedy . . .
3) A flying saucer crashed at Roswell in 1947 . . .
4) Nasa faked the moon landings. . .
5) The Illuminati and the New World Order . . .
6) The Jesus conspiracy - novel (The Da Vinci Code) . . .
7) Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered . . .
8) Elvis Presley faked his own death . . .
9) Operation Northwoods - A genuine conspiracy involving a plan by the Joint Chiefs of Staff . . .
10) MK-ULTRA - The code name for a covert mind-control and chemical interrogation research program . . . [
11) North American Union . . .
12) Shakespeare was somebody else . . .]
13) The disappearance of Shergar (race horse) On February 8, 1983 . . .
14) Paul is dead - “Paul is dead” replaced by a look-alike and sound-
alike. McCartney’s death . . .
15) The July 7, 2005 Tube bombings (London) . . .
16) The Moscow apartment bombings
17) Black or unmarked helicopters
18) Harold Wilson (British Labor Party Leader)
was a Soviet agent
19) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
20) The peak oil conspiracy
21) Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen
22) The Philadelphia Experiment - the US Navy destroyer Eldridge was
rendered invisible
23) Pan Am Flight 103 - Lockerbie in southern Scotland
24) Fluoridation - Fluoride is commonly added to drinking water
25) The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
26) Plastic coffins and concentration camps - Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema)
27) HAARP - Alaska, is the Pentagon's High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program [
28) The Aids virus was created in a laboratory
29) Global warming is a hoax
30) Chemtrails.

[tryblinking]

As a list yours varies wildly in specificity. I assume the overriding theme for each number is '[insert event] is/was achieved intentionally for nefarious purposes'. I also suspect some if not most on that list could be used as a simple sanity test, precluded from choice by virtue of being fictional or physically impossible.

1. I believe at least (6) are real or less . . . Skeptic

as I believe 'less than 6' are 'real', possibly even zero. Clearly that has no bearing on the fact that intuition and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

[George B]

As a list yours varies wildly in specificity. I assume the overriding theme for each number is '[insert event] is/was achieved intentionally for nefarious purposes'. I also suspect some if not most on that list could be used as a simple sanity test, precluded from choice by virtue of being fictional or physically impossible.
as I believe 'less than 6' are 'real', possibly even zero. Clearly that has no bearing on the fact that intuition and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

I can say with almost complete confidence that most everyone who posts on this Forum except for myself and possibly ' lee h oswald ' would vote just as you have and on GLP the results are . . . .

POLL: Are you a Conspiracy nut Poll? . . Choose one response. . .
2. I believe at least (12) are real. . . Enthusiast	28.4% (71)
1. I believe at least (6) are real or less . . . Skeptic	23.6% (59)
3. I believe at least (18) are real. . . GLP Mainstream	22.0% (55)
6. I believe in all 30 and more. . . Tin Foil Hat Award	15.2% (38)
4. I believe at least (24) are real. . . Next GLP MOD	8.0% (20)
5. I believe at least (30) are real. . . Consider Meds	2.8% (7)
Blank (View Results)	(38)
Non-Blank Votes: 250

[George B]

. . . . as I believe 'less than 6' are 'real', possibly even zero. Clearly that has no bearing on the fact that intuition and rationality are not mutually exclusive.

I never said that intuition and rationality are mutually exclusive . . . however, I do believe people rely on intuition more when there is insufficient evidence, in their opinion, and will use it to choose between two or more alternatives to explain something . . . you feel the pre-existing explanations for persistent contrails is sufficient to explain their presence in the sky . . . others feel the above mentioned explanations are not adequate, are incomplete, or in error . . . I personally don't think the explanations are in error . . . I believe they, persistent contrails and the resulting cirrus cloud banks, are being used as a global dimming experiment by the policy makers . . .

[tryblinking]

I think most of the regular posters on this forum are explicitly unwilling to draw certain and factual conclusions about reality from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence.

Not only that, but more importantly - in fact most importantly - I think most here would agree that it is unarguably wrong to do otherwise.

[George B]

I think most of the regular posters on this forum are explicitly unwilling to draw certain and factual conclusions about reality from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence.

Not only that, but more importantly - in fact most importantly - I think most here would agree that it is unarguably wrong to do otherwise.

Then you must lead a very sheltered life . . . most people are required on a routine basis to make decisions without adequate information or even with information they know is incomplete, suspect, altered or falsified . . . what investment to make, like which candidate to vote for, which vehicle to purchase, who to marry, which door to take, which career to choose, what job to accept, who to believe in a trial, which treatment to accept for a possibly terminal disease, where to send the kids to school, paper or plastic . . .

[tryblinking]

The crucial point you've glossed over there is that in each of those decisions, no one would claim to be drawing certain and factual conclusions about reality from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence. They decide, knowing their information is incomplete, and that there is a chance they have chosen poorly.

It is the core of the scientific method to accept and even welcome the possibility that you are wrong. In my experience, those who promote the 'chemtrail' hoax most prominently, are those whose livelihoods depend on people's unwavering certainty that it is true. Failing to disclose the obvious and unavoidable uncertainty in conclusions formed from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence is an undeniable and intentional lie of omission.

Also, please refrain from voicing your shaky inferences concerning what life I must have lead.

[Pete Tar]

what may be missing from your consideration george, is that people who are skeptical may be so on a precautionary principle, because they are aware of just how much a person is capable of self-deception, and the FEELING of intuition is of course one of the main ways this self-deception would manifest.
the brain's skill in constructing realities to believe in and operate from is well covered now by scienctific investigation, and skeptics would be aware of this perhaps more so than others.
plus they may have had personal experience of self-delusion in the past and so know exactly how FEELING something to be true can be so wrong, and they may be extra cautious in questioning what they think they know.
it is often the case that the more you want something to be true, the more a theory of reality fits with your desires for the world to be a certain way, the less it actually is.
(of course sometimes they do line up, but such is to be expected in an infinitely random universe)

[George B]

The crucial point you've glossed over there is that in each of those decisions, no one would claim to be drawing certain and factual conclusions about reality from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence. They decide, knowing their information is incomplete, and that there is a chance they have chosen poorly.

It is the core of the scientific method to accept and even welcome the possibility that you are wrong. In my experience, those who promote the 'chemtrail' hoax most prominently, are those whose livelihoods depend on people's unwavering certainty that it is true. Failing to disclose the obvious and unavoidable uncertainty in conclusions formed from inconclusive or circumstantial evidence is an undeniable and intentional lie of omission.

Also, please refrain from voicing your shaky inferences concerning what life I must have lead.

I don't speak for the people you are referring to . . . I fully admit I may be wrong about the entire issue of Intentional Aerial Injection of Aerosols into the Atmosphere . . . however, the point I am making is that outside of a well controlled experimental construct . . . certifiable, reliable data is not possible. . . all of us must take the information we have at hand and from opinions, make decisions and take actions . . . I feel the community on this Forum wants to fit every question into a test tube and analyze it . . . in almost all cases in real life that is not possible . . . you rely on the consensus of the mainstream thought as your starting point and are biased by it . . . just like you say those in the conspiracy groups are biased by their suppositions . . . since our position is counter to yours and yours position is the prevailing thought . . . you demand evidence to prove our case which you nor we can provide . . .

[George B]

what may be missing from your consideration george, is that people who are skeptical may be so on a precautionary principle, because they are aware of just how much a person is capable of self-deception, and the FEELING of intuition is of course one of the main ways this self-deception would manifest.
the brain's skill in constructing realities to believe in and operate from is well covered now by scienctific investigation, and skeptics would be aware of this perhaps more so than others.
plus they may have had personal experience of self-delusion in the past and so know exactly how FEELING something to be true can be so wrong, and they may be extra cautious in questioning what they think they know.
it is often the case that the more you want something to be true, the more a theory of reality fits with your desires for the world to be a certain way, the less it actually is.
(of course sometimes they do line up, but such is to be expected in an infinitely random universe)

Yes, self-deception is a given . . . and yes once someone has taken a position on an issue it is possible one is biased by that point of view and seeks to validate or justify their position . . . seeing through colored glasses that filter out the things that would otherwise discourage their position . . . with that said . . . prevailing mainstream consensus also does the same thing . . . it is hard to be objective when swimming upstream would make one a target for ridicule and attack . . . Thus I point out that the people risking their credibility in support of an unpopular position and who have nothing to gain for their grief still do so . . . Why? Because they want to rebel . . . ? They want to be the devil's advocate . . . ? Or simply they have weighed the evidence, allowed for human nature, reviewed their experience and decided it is a plausible possibility that some type of Injecting Program is ongoing . . .

[tryblinking]

Two great TED talks (1 & 2) by Michael Shermer for you to digest.

[George B]

Two great TED talks (1 & 2) by Michael Shermer for you to digest.

I saw that series being advertised on the second Science Channel network. . . Will take a look if possible. . . However, seems they present just as many speculative pieces as many of their kindred networks. . . .History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic & SyFy. . . .

[George B]

POLL: Are you a Conspiracy nut Poll? . . Choose one response. . .
2. I believe at least (12) are real. . . Enthusiast 28.4% (71)
1. I believe at least (6) are real or less . . . Skeptic 23.6% (59)
3. I believe at least (18) are real. . . GLP Mainstream 22.0% (55)
6. I believe in all 30 and more. . . Tin Foil Hat Award 15.2% (38)
4. I believe at least (24) are real. . . Next GLP MOD 8.0% (20)
5. I believe at least (30) are real. . . Consider Meds 2.8% (7)
Blank (View Results) (38)
Non-Blank Votes: 250

Funny coincidence the percentage of Skeptics in the above Poll is a very close match to the percentage of debunkers in this Poll. . . .

POLL: Do you believe in Chemtrails?
Yes, and they are all over the sky . . . **36.3% (838)
No, I do not . . . **23.7% (546)
Yes, the TPTB is trying to crowd control, and other agendas **17.6% (407)
Yes, they include cloud seeding, Chaff, insecticides, etc. **10.4% (241)
Yes, but most are persistent trails from High Efficiency Jet Engines **6.2% (144)
Yes, but they are rare . . . experimental geo-engineering, etc. **5.7% (132)
Blank (View Results) (419)

Non-Blank Votes: 2308

[Spongebob]

Two great TED talks (1 & 2) by Michael Shermer for you to digest.

Thanks for the links!

[tryblinking]

I saw that series being advertised on the second Science Channel network. . . Will take a look if possible. . . However, seems they present just as many speculative pieces as many of their kindred networks. . . .History Channel, Discovery, National Geographic & SyFy. . . .

Yes, what you've got there George is the Genetic Fallacy. Also, TED talks are excerpts from the TED conference, not any 'TV network', which you might know if you had taken the time to watch one.