George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No, "chemtrails" is one of THOUSANDS of conspiracy theories. Don't limit that number by your list.
In no way am I arguing that point. . . .
No, "chemtrails" is one of THOUSANDS of conspiracy theories. Don't limit that number by your list.
You have just listed several issues and positions that are almost always raised by debunkers of CHEMTRAILs. . . I know that you feel strongly about what you have said and feel you are dead on correct in everything you posted. . . I am attempting to explain why you see you are correct and why I feel I am correct . . . There are basic reasons for this. . .
I found that I recognized at least 18 of the conspiracies had merit to me . . So I was in the mainstream of the GLP voters. . . Remember CHEMTRAILs is only one of 30 conspiracies. . .
I know that in my career I was known as someone who was not easily fooled and never took the first review of something as the reality of a situation. . . I was a fixer one sent to investigate, analyze and implement changes that had to work. . . So why would I believe CHEMTRAILs exist. . . .?
George,
Please have a look at my common sense approach to how your people could narrow the field:
14 Years of Chemtrails, Comments and Suggestions( now its 15 years):
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/100-14-Years-of-Chemtrails-Comments-and-Suggestions
Will you take my suggestion?
If you want help, I can show you how.
So you say...
I don't know why you require so little evidence to accept the "chemtrail" urban legend as reality.
Just because you find merit in 18 of 30 conspiracies...doesn't mean the 18 are truth. I'm curious...would you like to share the 18 at some point? Maybe not here...but on the thread. I'd LOVE to know which have merit...to you.
I would like to demonstrate to you. . . . why IMO people like myself are advocates . . . As I stated earlier . . . Two years ago I had no opinion. . . But after being relegated the duty, more or less, to argue that the Chemtrail conspiracy was true I found myself on that side of the ledger. . .
Those "conspiracies" have varying levels of evidence to support them. Some, much more than "chemtrails", others no where near...
Also, the wording of the poll is a bit odd...the skeptic choice is the ONLY choice which allows less than 6...which includes ZERO!
It's the choice I picked....for just that reason.
That seems a little odd.
It suggests the evidence is inconclusive to you. But you were "forced" to take the chemtrail side? What forced you? A sense of balance?
Why is nobody arguing the case for robot cats? Or
chemspots.
Surely (unless you are lawyer) you advocate something because you believe it?
Several of the choices refer to real events, it's unclear from the poll what the actual "conspiracy" was. You can assume some, but MK-ULTRA was a real conspiracy, so I'd probably say 1. Although given the overall tone, I'd suspect that far more was being read into MK-ULTRA, and say 0, to be on the safe side.
Why believe CHEMTRAILs exist. . . .
First. . . .when people first become aware of the concept . . .they may have never thought about it before. . . .but can see in the skies persistent trails periodically and sometimes note that they can go horizon to horizon and eventually fill the sky with haze and they seem to alter the sky . . . A visceral, primeval response to a possible threat. . . What the heck is that !!!! . . . I don't remember that when I was growing up, etc. (Yes. . . .I know they have been there before; however, I don't think in the numbers or frequency)
Second, they ask someone or go to the Internet, papers, TV, etc to try to figure it
out or at least find out what others think. . .what a shock. . . What to think. . . What is bunk, and what is good info . . .?
I was attempting to get a group of people to use a Forum to fully and rationally debate a controversial topic. . . As a public service. . . CHEMTRAILs was chosen at random and I said I was willing to take either side. . . I ended up with the Chemtrail Advocate side. . . was not familiar with CHEMTRAILs at all before that time except as a rumor . . . I really had no strong interest in it before. . .
In my experience . . . Your response is very representative of Chemtrail debunkers. . . . I would eventually like to explain why . . . In an unbiased and thoughtful manner. . .
I was attempting to get a group of people to use a Forum to fully and rationally debate a controversial topic. . . As a public service. . . CHEMTRAILs was chosen at random and I said I was willing to take either side. . . I ended up with the Chemtrail Advocate side. . . was not familiar with CHEMTRAILs at all before that time except as a rumor . . . I really had no strong interest in it before. . .
It seems fairly clear why. Give me a clue.
That is the exact issue I would like to dissect and explain. . . How can two groups of people see the world so differently. . . .
Do you think if you argued the other side you would have reached the same conclusion? Or are you still simply playing devils advocate even now? Do you actually believe in chemtrails?
Some people are just paranoid of all things they don't understand, which is probably a natural byproduct of our evolution. Michael Shermer would would call these evolutionary instincts "patternicity" (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise) and "agenticity" (the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency).
To paraphrase his example: Our caveman ancestor, Og, walks past some brush. Og hears something rustling in the brush. Does Og assume the sound is just the wind? Or does Og assume it's a meat eating predator looking for a meal? To avoid winning the Darwin Award, Og must assume the unknown source of the sound is a dangerous predator with the intent to do harm.
We may still be battle this Darwinian survival instinct today.
Let me start by saying it has something to do with biodiversity. . . Like eye color . . .there are major groups, brown, blue, green but some grey and other rare combinations. . . These are dictated by genetic laws of dominance, recessive, co-dominance etc. . . .
Neural processing and thought patterns are also dictated by genetics as well as training, experience, instinct, etc.. . .
Using myself as an example I will try to explain further . . .
I am always the devils advocate. . . .it has been a long history of mine. . . However, I do believe there is some type of Aerosol Injection Program ongoing and smaller experimental and rogue programs on occasion. . .
I am going have to leave here soon and be gone most of the day. . . .however, let me say that I have found I process information and come to conclusions possibly quite differently than say the perdominant group of thinkers here. . . and I belong to a particular group of neural processors that populate the planet. . . .
And what do you believe about the trails that people point to and call "chemtrails"?
On a different note - how would you assess the film "What in the World are they Spraying" in terms of accuracy, and coincidence with your beliefs.
I know that in my career I was known as someone who was not easily fooled and never took the first review of something as the reality of a situation. . . I was a fixer one sent to investigate, analyze and implement changes that had to work. . . So why would I believe CHEMTRAILs exist. . . .?
And what do you believe about the trails that people point to and call "chemtrails"?
On a different note - how would you assess the film "What in the World are they Spraying" in terms of accuracy, and coincidence with your beliefs.
We have discussed before how conspiracy theories have come to thrive in the recent decade. My personal list contains the following points (quoted from my 'contrailscience' comment):
- The human brain is predisposed to connect dots – independent of reality
- Most conspiracy theories explain accidents away – a big plan (even an evil one) is better than chaos
- The rise of the Internet made it easy to spread bunk – and conspiracy bunk is exciting
- People tend to pick Internet sources that reinforce their opinions and believes
- Believers find it attractive to be part of a “knowing elite” and shield themselves against reasoning
- Media tend to overamplify fringe views – for the sake of balance or to stir up controversy
Consider that your belief that you are not easily fooled might not be the asset that you seem to be suggesting.
Because eventually when you ARE fooled, then you'd be reluctant to change your mind - after all you were right before, so you MUST be right now.
You'd get stuck.
One quick response. . . The majority of what people point to are persistent trails from high efficiency jet engines on long haul routes. . . .
Reasonable response. . . .however, in this case I don't feel I have been fooled. . . Unless I fooled myself. . . .
What I was beginning to see more clearly is there are different ways people process data, evidence, knowledge and form opinions and beliefs. . . So I looked at myself and tried to analyze my process and belief structure. . .
Am I missing something here?
I have been following this from the start, expecting somewhere along the way to be presented with GeorgeB`s proof of chemtrails.
All I have witnessed is George slowly but surely admitting that he "knows" chemtrails are "real" because he "feels" it.
What actual "evidence" that contrails are chemtrails has GeorgeB presented?
The human brain is hardwired to find patterns. We can see patterns even where none exists. This is why gamblers perceive a slot machine is "hot" (It's due to hit the jackpot) when it hasn't paid out in a while. If i rolled six dice and they all came up 5s, a gambler would believe the odds are against the next roll coming up all 5s AGAIN. Patterns where none exist.
It's such a primal feeling that it's hard to shake, even though your left brain known it to be totally false.
At the roulette tables in Vegas they have electronic boards that show the previous 20 numbers that came up. Some people look at these and try to figure out from those numbers what numbers are more likely to come up - or if there are more odd than even numbers, or red/black.
Which you claim are also "chemtrails".One quick response. . . The majority of what people point to are persistent trails from high efficiency jet engines on long haul routes. . . .
I was attempting to get a group of people to use a Forum to fully and rationally debate a controversial topic. . . As a public service. . . CHEMTRAILs was chosen at random and I said I was willing to take either side. . . I ended up with the Chemtrail Advocate side. . . was not familiar with CHEMTRAILs at all before that time except as a rumor . . . I really had no strong interest in it before. . .
At the roulette tables in Vegas they have electronic boards that show the previous 20 numbers that came up. Some people look at these and try to figure out from those numbers what numbers are more likely to come up - or if there are more odd than even numbers, or red/black.
I suspect that there are people who know that it's random, but still feel that previous numbers have an influence on the future numbers. It's such a primal feeling that it's hard to shake, even though your left brain knowns it to be totally false.
I don't think this is necessarily due to genetic variations - more likely nurture than nature - but there are certainly difference in the intensity of this false pattern seeking between individuals.