I am a Chemtrail Advocate . . . I believe there is an Aerosol Injection Program

[George B]

AIC has shown a steady increase since the 1950s. They were reporting on this back in 1980:

​
Based on this paper:
http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/ISWSCR-236.pdf

Interesting I did have a copy of this paper by the way . . . it was when I was researching vortex action on trail formation . . . which goes to show persistent trail formation and AIC are a rather complex issue . . . sounds like the size of the engines and even airframe, weather fronts, etc. has an effect as well . . .

 

[George B]

I have found the exact quote I have been looking for . . . if I had read it before I must have forgotten it or just missed it completely. . . it sums up what I have been trying to express for two years . . . it is a realization that it would be very easy to help reduce localized regional heating problems with little or no impact on commercial air traffic . . . And tell the public that Trails can be your friend . . .

"

Solutions? In principle, it may be possible to selectively Minimize the creation of late afternoon contrail-Induced cloudiness that will persist during the night, when they would have a net warming Effect, while intentionally increasing the formation of contrails early in the day, generating a Daytime cooling. Current research is focused on Accurately predicting the times and locations At which contrails are likely to persist for long periods of time and spread over wide areas as Contrail-induced cirrus. Such information could Help mitigate the negative effects of aviation on Regional and global climate by incorporating it Into operational air traffic control and routing Systems." David.P.Duda@nasa.gov

http://wwwpm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Duda.Controller.09.pdf ​

 

[Noble1965]

I have found the exact quote I have been looking for . . . if I had read it before I must have forgotten it or just missed it completely. . . it sums up what I have been trying to express for two years . . . it is a realization that it would be very easy to help reduce localized regional heating problems with little or no impact on commercial air traffic . . . An tell the public that Trails can be your friend . . .

"

Solutions? In principle, it may be possible to selectively Minimize the creation of late afternoon contrail-Induced cloudiness that will persist during the night, when they would have a net warming Effect, while intentionally increasing the formation of contrails early in the day, generating a Daytime cooling. Current research is focused on Accurately predicting the times and locations At which contrails are likely to persist for long periods of time and spread over wide areas as Contrail-induced cirrus. Such information could Help mitigate the negative effects of aviation on Regional and global climate by incorporating it Into operational air traffic control and routing Systems." David.P.Duda@nasa.gov

http://wwwpm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Duda.Controller.09.pdf ​

This is in reference to the visible trails...only...correct?

Which are STILL contrails....not "chemtrails".

Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

 

[George B]

1) I don't CARE about proving such things.

2) LOTS of things are done all around us by private companies, the military...average citizens, that no one has knowledge about...or given consent to. So? Some of the most hazardous chemicals in history used to be available to home owner to do with what they please. And some of these things ended up en storm drains...or were overused on properties. Some people pour engine oil into sewers/storm drains without your approval or consent...why aren't you complaining about that?!

I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your argument...and how absurd arguments along similar lines can be created. Just because I think your arguments are absurd...that doesn't mean I'm trying to be insulting...just honest.

3) I happen to think secrecy is a good thing, as far as national security goes. It's a shame that a few have been sacrificed over the years for the greater good...in MANY ways.

People have had to die to change automobile designs...does that mean they were INTENTIONALLY sacrificed so we could learn better ways to accomplish things? Should they have been warned that if they drove these cars that they might die? Do automobile manufactures need your consent before they make a change? Do you think we should be sharing information about military airplanes or strategies with all the people so "they" can have consent?

Again, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your argument...and how absurd arguments along similar lines can be created. Just because I think your arguments are absurd...that doesn't mean I'm trying to be insulting...just honest.

None of these things are evidence that "they" are purposely injecting aerosols into the atmosphere.

"I don't CARE about proving such things." . . . I do however . . .

"People have had to die to change automobile designs...does that mean they were INTENTIONALLY sacrificed so we could learn better ways to accomplish things? " . . . That is the basis for Tort Law and damages awarded for wrong doing by businesses . .

" I happen to think secrecy is a good thing, as far as national security goes. It's a shame that a few have been sacrificed over the years for the greater good..." . . . Then why was Congress so worked up about the Zinc Cadmium Sulfide and other experiments?

 

[George B]

This is in reference to the visible trails...only...correct?

Which are STILL contrails....not "chemtrails".

Unless you have evidence to the contrary.

However, that is what most people who believe in Chemtrails see and call Chemtrails . . . That is a very important issue I am trying to address . . . and I think my approach will educate more Chemtrail Advocates than what you have been doing . . .

 

[Noble1965]

"I don't CARE about proving such things." . . . I do however . . .

"People have had to die to change automobile designs...does that mean they were INTENTIONALLY sacrificed so we could learn better ways to accomplish things? " . . . That is the basis for Tort Law and damages awarded for wrong doing by businesses . .

" I happen to think secrecy is a good thing, as far as national security goes. It's a shame that a few have been sacrificed over the years for the greater good..." . . . Then why was Congress so worked up about the Zinc Cadmium Sulfide and other experiments?

Go ahead and prove...or disprove such things. It won't show that "chemtrails" exist.

Right, but the public didn't have to be informed about any changes in design. Nor did they have to approve...

Congress was worked up because AFTER the fact, it was discovered that the "benign" chemicals were not benign. Had they known, they wouldn't have allowed the release in the first place. Which probably led to changes in the laws over time.

None of this is evidence of "chemtrails".

 

[Mick West]

I have found the exact quote I have been looking for . . . if I had read it before I must have forgotten it or just missed it completely. . . it sums up what I have been trying to express for two years . . . it is a realization that it would be very easy to help reduce localized regional heating problems with little or no impact on commercial air traffic . . . And tell the public that Trails can be your friend . . .

"

Solutions? In principle, it may be possible to selectively Minimize the creation of late afternoon contrail-Induced cloudiness that will persist during the night, when they would have a net warming Effect, while intentionally increasing the formation of contrails early in the day, generating a Daytime cooling. Current research is focused on Accurately predicting the times and locations At which contrails are likely to persist for long periods of time and spread over wide areas as Contrail-induced cirrus. Such information could Help mitigate the negative effects of aviation on Regional and global climate by incorporating it Into operational air traffic control and routing Systems." David.P.Duda@nasa.gov

http://wwwpm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/Duda.Controller.09.pdf ​

"Very easy"?

How is it very easy? We can't accurately predict contrail formation with any resolution, and we can barely route air traffic around itself. The NextGen system that might allow it is still barely nascent.

And what is this evidence OF anyway? The daytime contrails would actually be greater in number under Duda's suggestion. Are you suggesting it has already secretly been implemented?

 

[Noble1965]

However, that is what most people who believe in Chemtrails see and call Chemtrails . . . That is a very important issue I am trying to address . . . and I think my approach will educate more Chemtrail Advocates than what you have been doing . . .

To be honest...It's the claim that the visible trails are anything more than contrails which bothers me.

Go ahead...believe what you want about the "invisible chemtrails" all you want. We are all entitled to our beliefs...even if it accuses people unnecessarily.

I don't agree that you have helped people understand contrails...at all.

I haven't claimed to...nor do I want to. I KNOW those who believe such things are going to continue, no matter what I do about it. As I have written...at LEAST 100 times in just your threads alone...i'm not here for the believers. I'm here for those who may just be starting out. I'm here to suggest that they don't google "chemtrails" and accept everything found...as truth. They need to research persistent contrails also.

I LOVE the claim that you seem to be making...that you have actually helped others to understand the trails in the sky. I challenge that statement....because I don't think you are in any position to help anyone "learn" about contrails. Personally, I think you have contributed to the ignorance of many.

 

[George B]

Go ahead and prove...or disprove such things. It won't show that "chemtrails" exist.

Right, but the public didn't have to be informed about any changes in design. Nor did they have to approve...

Congress was worked up because AFTER the fact, it was discovered that the "benign" chemicals were not benign. Had they known, they wouldn't have allowed the release in the first place. Which probably led to changes in the laws over time.

None of this is evidence of "chemtrails".

"Go ahead and prove...or disprove such things. It won't show that "chemtrails" exist." . . .well it is a beginning . . . I can accept that . . .


"Right, but the public didn't have to be informed about any changes in design. Nor did they have to approve..." . . . maybe if they had the auto companies would not have had to paid such high damages to the people injured . . . the federal government usually pays nothing when they hurt people . . . that just might be part of the problem . . .

"Congress was worked up because AFTER the fact, it was discovered that the "benign" chemicals were not benign. Had they known, they wouldn't have allowed the release in the first place. Which probably led to changes in the laws over time." . . . So you think if Congress had known they would have not approved the release of 'things' over the Midwest . . .? So now other 'things' cannot be dispersed because in 1994 they were upset . . . ? Hmmmmm . . . you have a much better opinion of Congress than I . . .

 

[Noble1965]

"Go ahead and prove...or disprove such things. It won't show that "chemtrails" exist." . . .well it is a beginning . . . I can accept that . . .


"Right, but the public didn't have to be informed about any changes in design. Nor did they have to approve..." . . . maybe if they had the auto companies would not have had to paid such high damages to the people injured . . . the federal government usually pays nothing when they hurt people . . . that just might be part of the problem . . .

"Congress was worked up because AFTER the fact, it was discovered that the "benign" chemicals were not benign. Had they known, they wouldn't have allowed the release in the first place. Which probably led to changes in the laws over time." . . . So you think if Congress had known they would have not approved the release of 'things' over the Midwest . . .? So now other 'things' cannot be dispersed because in 1994 they were upset . . . ? Hmmmmm . . . you have a much better opinion of Congress than I . . .

Oh George...everything with you is a "maybe"...you accept as truth...only because you want to.

 

[Mick West]

New question George: how much success have you had in A) Advocating chemtrails, B) Educating chemtrailers about persistent contrails?

 

[George B]

"Very easy"?

How is it very easy? We can't accurately predict contrail formation with any resolution, and we can barely route air traffic around itself. The NextGen system that might allow it is still barely nascent.

And what is this evidence OF anyway? The daytime contrails would actually be greater in number under Duda's suggestion. Are you suggesting it has already secretly been implemented?

I mean Easy as simple in concept but possibly difficult in operation . . . would be limiting flights during the times which would carry persistent trails and AIC into the dark hours as much as is reasonable. . . then increase early daytime flights . . . same volume as now . . . seems the flights during the night via schedules are pretty slim already . . . I don't know could it have already been implemented . . . if so why would they not crow about helping global warming etc . . . except that would be an admission that they are a cause of some of it . . .

 

[George B]

New question George: how much success have you had in A) Advocating chemtrails, B) Educating chemtrailers about persistent contrails?

A) Advocating chemtrails . . . It has been hard but I think I have made many people think about the issues . . . I have also educated myself and feel the journey is not complete by any measure . . .

B) Interesting question . . . when I started to tell Advocates that what most, if not all, of what they were seeing was Persistent Trails from Long Haul Aircraft with High Efficiency Engines . . . some were angry and upset and called me a Government Shill, etc. . . . however, I think many now have accepted and included this in their concept . . .

 

[Noble1965]

A) Advocating chemtrails . . . It has been hard but I think I have made many people think about the issues . . . I have also educated myself and feel the journey is not complete by any measure . . .

B) Interesting question . . . when I started to tell Advocates that what most, if not all, of what they were seeing was Persistent Trails from Long Haul Aircraft with High Efficiency Engines . . . some were angry and upset and called me a Government Shill, etc. . . . however, I think many now have accepted and included this in their concept . . .

Evidence?

 

[George B]

Got to run now . . . it has been real today . . . see you when I get back . . .

 

[MikeC]

Then you tell me what evidence you will accept. . .

Evidence that actually relates to chemtrails existing now - I don't think it is rocket science - spraying stuff in the 1950's or 1960's is not actually evidence that someone is spraying stuff in the 2000's!!!

It's not even a matter of me "accepting" the evidence - just of it being relevant to the issue that exists!

 

[Noble1965]

Just an FYI...

I was challenged to discuss this subject with Michael J Murphy on GLPVC on the 24th April for a live chat.

I'm uninterested considering the way he has responded to me through emails.

But, If anyone here is interested, I may tune in to listen.

Personally, I think anyone who would dare to be on the "they are contrails" side of the issue during a GLPVC would be wasting their time. They wouldn't get a word in edgewise.

Anyone up for the challenge?

 

[Mick West]

How did he respond to you?

 

[Noble1965]

How did he respond to you?

Suggested that I was a liar....very short...and to the point. Basically dismissed me. And I hadn't even been rude to him...yet.

Thanks for "debolding" my last post. I didn't know how to fix it...

 

[Jay Reynolds]

B) Interesting question . . . when I started to tell Advocates that what most, if not all, of what they were seeing was Persistent Trails from Long Haul Aircraft with High Efficiency Engines . . . some were angry and upset and called me a Government Shill, etc. . .

That is something I never thought would occur...........

 

[firepilot]

Just an FYI...

I was challenged to discuss this subject with Michael J Murphy on GLPVC on the 24th April for a live chat.

I'm uninterested considering the way he has responded to me through emails.

But, If anyone here is interested, I may tune in to listen.

Personally, I think anyone who would dare to be on the "they are contrails" side of the issue during a GLPVC would be wasting their time. They wouldn't get a word in edgewise.

Anyone up for the challenge?

Actually I think it needs to be done, someone should provide an opposing view. And it would not be hard at all, with a few simple questions, to completely debunk him. Such as...

What is the amount of the earths crust by %, that is Aluminum in some form?

Has Aluminum ore been mined in Hawaii since the 1950s?

 

[PCWilliams]

That is something I never thought would occur...........

I've been tossed off forums for simply questioning the existence of chemtrails. It's a religion.

 

[JFDee]

Here is a little personal request to all sides.

I am following the discussion with interest, but the enjoyment of reading is diminished by having to scroll through never ending full quotes of previous posts.

It is also a bit hard to figure out what specific point of the quote is discussed in the reply. This can even lead to misunderstandings.

May I suggest you try to edit the quotes, even if it takes a moment longer?
If you reply to an older posting, there is always its number you can refer to.

Thank you.

 

[George B]

Evidence?

My evidence is my opinion of two years of discussion on GLP. . . Opinion . . . That is it. . .

 

[George B]

Evidence that actually relates to chemtrails existing now - I don't think it is rocket science - spraying stuff in the 1950's or 1960's is not actually evidence that someone is spraying stuff in the 2000's!!!

It's not even a matter of me "accepting" the evidence - just of it being relevant to the issue that exists!

The relevant evidence to present spraying is the most difficult to get. . . .Why?

1) The existence of increased levels of suspicious substances in an open system such as the atmosphere and biosphere is a daunting task . . . Millions and or billions of sources of contamination from natural and manmade sources. . . the background noise is incredible . . .

2) If an Injection Program exists it is a covert operation by definition . . . Otherwise it would have been announced already. . . Thus the persons and institutions involved are doing everything to suppress the evidence, including making operational decisions to confuse and cover evidence within the normal operations of aviation including what substances to use and the concentrations to minimize detection. . . .

3) An attempt to accomplish 'in situ' sampling is complicated by many factors . . .
A. The cost and cooperation of competent experts (who the world would accept) who would not want their professional reputation connected in any way to such a venture
B. Selection of the Trails to sample. . . The probability of selecting the right one
would be like trying to find a needle in an ocean. . . And if the institutions responsible were aware of the attempts. . . Which would be most likely . . . They would just suspend operations for that location and time. . . .

I am sorry. . . .if you require such information it won't be available until the people doing the process decide to announce their activities and even then some debunkers will think the announcement is a just a HOAX. . . .

 

[George B]

That is something I never thought would occur...........

While there a few are very hardcore advocates who are not going to listen to anything most are reasonable people who are frightened, angered and disillusioned by their government and the world situation. . . they are searching for answers to a crazy world full of dangers and deceit. . . Who to believe, what to believe, what sources of information is trustworthy . . . Things everyone struggles with. . .

Much of the issue is the emotional response to the marked up skies . . . I think some of that is just primeval instinctive fight or flight response. . . The skies indicated much of what people had to do to survive. . . .find cover, hunt for food, avoid predators, start a fire, climb a tree until the sun comes up, plant crops, harvest crops. . . We have been dominated by the hints received from the skies. . .

 

[PCWilliams]

... most are reasonable people who are frightened, angered and disillusioned by their government and the world situation. . . they are searching for answers to a crazy world full of dangers and deceit. . . Who to believe, what to believe, what sources of information is trustworthy . . .

Fear and a sense of not being in control are two factors that spawn superstitious behavior/thinking. The more people feel they are not in control the harder the human brain strives to find "cause and effect" - even where none exists - in an attempt to regain a sense of control. Human nature.

 

[Noble1965]

My evidence is my opinion of two years of discussion on GLP. . . Opinion . . . That is it. . .

That's not evidence...it's opinion. One thing is not the same as the other.
I think this is where you are getting confused.

 

[Noble1965]

The skies indicated much of what people had to do to survive. . . .find cover, hunt for food, avoid predators, start a fire, climb a tree until the sun comes up, plant crops, harvest crops. . . We have been dominated by the hints received from the skies. . .

So, why do they fight so hard against the explanation that the trails are contrails!? Anyone who suggests such a thing is automatically a "shill"/ "government liar" just for posting the truth as the science/aviation communities understand it. And often times are kicked off websites or censored. Something ese is going on...and it looks a LOT like paranoia...to me.

 

[PCWilliams]

So, why do they fight so hard against the explanation that the trails are contrails!? Anyone who suggests such a thing is automatically a "shill"/ "government liar" just for posting the truth as the science/aviation communities understand it. And often times are kicked off websites or censored. Something ese is going on...and it looks a LOT like paranoia...to me.

I would guess, for most, it's because they have a larger issue with not trusting the government. Chemtrails is simply a cog in the don't-trust-government wheel. For others, the bigger issue might be environmentalism. And, of course, you have those who see money to be made off of DVDs and speaking tours.

 

[Mick West]

Many people believe in chemtrails because they think that they have clear and irrefutable proof of their existence. Those are the "just look up" people. They are easy to debunk (but not always easy to convince), as their evidence is bogus, so can be directly addressed (e.g. contrails can persist and spread, soil is 7% aluminum naturally, etc..).

George is a "don't trust the government", and a "connect the dots" guy. He's got no actual evidence that anything is happening, yet still thinks that it probably is.

"Connect the dots" guys are very difficult to debunk, as they just cherry pick a large number of dots, and each dot is usually something that is half true, but of dubious relevance. By itself, each dot of evidence is essentially meaningless, and it's relevance as evidence is a matter of opinion, and so debunking becomes tedious argument. Even if you fully debunk one dot, it's simply discarded - there are plenty more.

"Connect the dots" guy think he's won because he has the most dots. But "robot cats" guy has an equally valid claim to victory.

Debunking is not about picking one side of an argument. Debunking is not advocacy. Debunking is about identifying what is wrong with a claim. While each individual dot can be tossed back and forth to no end, what's is wrong with "connect the dots" is not so much the dots, it's the conclusion that the dots reveal a hidden picture. Really the dots are simply picked to fit a picture.

Pick a different picture, any picture, and you can pick dots that fit it.

 

[PCWilliams]

"Connect the dots" guy think he's won because he has the most dots.

That's when i get back to the basics ... contrails can be tested, what is overflying your house can be discovered (Note date, time, location and file a FOIA with the FAA), those closest to the phenomenon (pilots, ATCers, aircraft mechanics/fuelers) are accessible. These are the dots the believers need to bring forth. Arguing peripheral evidence when more direct evidence is available is immediately suspect.

My $0.02



P.S. I think i'm this way because i spent 25 years in an environment where uncertainties like "could be", "should be", "looks like", "i think", "might be", "i'm pretty sure", "I assume", and the like, could get people killed.

 

[George B]

So, why do they fight so hard against the explanation that the trails are contrails!? Anyone who suggests such a thing is automatically a "shill"/ "government liar" just for posting the truth as the science/aviation communities understand it. And often times are kicked off websites or censored. Something ese is going on...and it looks a LOT like paranoia...to me.

I think it has to do with other information not directly related to Trails in the sky . . . .like the Nothwoods Project Papers, the Georgia Guidestones, Church Committee Hearings, MK-ULTRA, Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, on and on. . . .there is no trust in government or big business at any level. . . . Seems CHEMTRAILs are just as reasonable as any other conspiracy . . . And not only that I see the Trails in the sky. . . and someone smarter than me called them CHEMTRAILs. . . .

 

[Mick West]

I think it has to do with other information not directly related to Trails in the sky . . . .like the Nothwoods Project Papers, the Georgia Guidestones, Church Committee Hearings, MK-ULTRA, Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, on and on. . . .there is no trust in government or big business at any level. . . . Seems CHEMTRAILs are just as reasonable as any other conspiracy . . . And not only that I see the Trails in the sky. . . and someone smarter than me called them CHEMTRAILs. . . .

If it's just as reasonable, then why pick this one in particular?

And I thought you thought the trails in the sky were contrails?

And where do you stand on robot spy cats?

 

[George B]

Many people believe in chemtrails because they think that they have clear and irrefutable proof of their existence. Those are the "just look up" people. They are easy to debunk (but not always easy to convince), as their evidence is bogus, so can be directly addressed (e.g. contrails can persist and spread, soil is 7% aluminum naturally, etc..).

George is a "don't trust the government", and a "connect the dots" guy. He's got no actual evidence that anything is happening, yet still thinks that it probably is.

"Connect the dots" guys are very difficult to debunk, as they just cherry pick a large number of dots, and each dot is usually something that is half true, but of dubious relevance. By itself, each dot of evidence is essentially meaningless, and it's relevance as evidence is a matter of opinion, and so debunking becomes tedious argument. Even if you fully debunk one dot, it's simply discarded - there are plenty more.

"Connect the dots" guy think he's won because he has the most dots. But "robot cats" guy has an equally valid claim to victory.

Debunking is not about picking one side of an argument. Debunking is not advocacy. Debunking is about identifying what is wrong with a claim. While each individual dot can be tossed back and forth to no end, what's is wrong with "connect the dots" is not so much the dots, it's the conclusion that the dots reveal a hidden picture. Really the dots are simply picked to fit a picture.

Pick a different picture, any picture, and you can pick dots that fit it.

I don't think you are way off on a good part of your analysis . . . However, I would like to add the following. . . Though I am a trained, educated, and experienced person in one or more areas of science . . . However, I do not process information the same way many classical scientists do . . . I have always used and continue to use intuition once I have reached a certain point in investigation. . . .because I was rewarded highly for my performance. . . .I never changed my process. . . I am not trying to say this works for anyone except me. . . But either I have been very lucky and my hunches have been very good or there is something in my intuitive nature that allows me to succeed. . .

My hunch, intuition, inference is based on the available limited evidence and I have as much confidence in this statement as anything else I have in my life. . . I believe there is some type of covert aerosol injection process ongoing. . . .

 

[Mick West]

Intuition is frequently wrong.

 

[Noble1965]

My hunch, intuition, inference is based on the available limited evidence and I have as much confidence in this statement as anything else I have in my life. . . I believe there is some type of covert aerosol injection process ongoing. . . .

And that's all there is...a "hunch" based on intuition...because there certainly isn't any actual evidence to support the claims of "chemtrails".

Seems to me that you have convinced yourself that since YOU (someone who has been rewarded for his intuition in the past) "believe" it...it must be true. I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggested you may be fooling yourself in this matter.

I still see no evidence to support the claim that there is a "covert aerosol injection process" happening. And I think the accusation is disgusting, and is being used to spread hate and distrust.

Shame shame shame...

 

[George B]

Intuition is frequently wrong.

And it sometimes (and educated guess) is correct and In My experience it has been correct many more times than wrong . . Sorry I have to run. . . I will check back in later. . .

 

[Noble1965]

And it sometimes (and educated guess) is correct and In My experience it has been correct many more times than wrong . . Sorry I have to run. . . I will check back in later. . .

Hmmm...based on this "chemtrail" thing...I wonder how many thing you were rewarded for getting "right" in the past...but you actually got wrong.

Of course, we'll never know....

Then again, we don't even know if you have EVER had success with your intuition in the past. it's just a claim. I guess YOU know if it's the truth, but convincing me is going to be tough, considering your beliefs about this subject.

George, could you give us an example of how your powers of intuition have saved the day in the past? I'm not asking you to be specific...Just a general idea.

 

[SR1419]

SO...thats it?

13 pages of discussion....and all George has is a "hunch"?

He admits that the vast majority (if not all) the persistent trails people see and Believe are "chemtrails" are simply contrails...

He says his "hunch" is based on "available limited evidence" ...and yet there is NO actual evidence that anything is being "sprayed"...his evidence amounts to previous actions by various entities that have caused him to be mistrustful of the government...and his faith in his own intuition.

curious.