Flynn
Member
I went looking for the inception fifteen years ago and this is what I found:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/evolution.html
What happened to Part III ? The links seem to be all broken or dead now.
I went looking for the inception fifteen years ago and this is what I found:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/evolution.html
You know what, I was going to add the word "emotional" to my post because it absolutely plays a part in the whole CTer mindset
Part III is yet to be written. I have plenty of material collected over 15+ years to write a book someday, and more happens the longer I wait!What happened to Part III ? The links seem to be all broken or dead now.
I went looking for the inception fifteen years ago and this is what I found:
http://goodsky.homestead.com/files/evolution.html
Part III is yet to be written. I have plenty of material collected over 15+ years to write a book someday, and more happens the longer I wait!
There is no better test of a person's integrity than their behavior after they have been shown to be wrong about something
I thought that perhaps this was a famous quote. But I Googled it, and this site is the only place it comes up. Stated perfectly! I agree whole-heartedly. I'm not sure if it necessarily applies to CTs, because I think there is something much more complex going on in their minds when they encounter information that doesn't fit with their world view. But I do see it in the business world - people are encountered with information that proves their position wrong and they twist that information or the situation around to try to make it look like they were in the right all along. I lose trust in people like that and if it's in my power to stop working with them, I will.
Actually it is a paraphrase of a quote by Marvin Williams: "There is no better test of a man's integrity than his behavior when he is wrong."
Googling it was a good start, within the image results of that search you would have found the original quote and its attribution.
I think that for being effective in discussions it is very important to adopt a 'politeness strategy' similar to the one imposed here. There are things like sarcasm or ridicule which will achieve the opposite of the intended effect and are therefore to be avoided.But, I'm not giving up
Chemtrails, I know they don't exist because as a Flight Service Specialist for 27 years I've had the training and experience in weather and aviation to know how contrails form and sometimes under the right conditions, persist and even spread out to form cirrus cloud. Over the last month or so I have been posting in the Twitter realm, trying to show by various means that the above is true and chemtrails do not exist. Well as you might imagine, I've been met with some pretty nasty language, everything from troll to shill, to brain dead, paid government disinformation agent, been told that I'm banned, to shut the f up, and on and on. It seems the more I try to convince them of the real truth, they become more entrenched in their belief that it's deadly chemicals, geo-engineering or whatever else they can dream up. They will absolutely will not even entertain the possibility that they may be wrong. I've posted satellite pics of current water vapour maps that can show where contrails are likely to form, and even more important, where they are NOT likely to form, and have circled these areas. I've also posted maps of USA showing all the planes currently in the air to give some idea of how many planes cross our skies, and also hi level aeronautical charts showing all the intersecting airways over a busy airport, which explains the "crosshatch" pattern commonly shown to "prove" that "they" are trying to kill us with multiple chemtrails.
But, I'm not giving up, even if I only get through to a few, then I feel that I've done something positive. It just pains me to read the fear that is being spread by this nonsense.
If anyone is interested in following my tweets, my twitter handle is @dannodotcomm
Regards,
Dan Page
They can be quite repetitive, as people tend to have the same misconceptions year after year. But it's interesting trying to get through to people in different ways.And yes I've been following Micks tweets for the past month.
I feel your frustration mate, not just over chemtrails but a lot of fave CT subjects as well; 9-11, false flags, nwo etc. I have come to realise that a lot are beyond help, they are so wrapped in their beliefs that the is very little that will get through. But what keeps me going is the thought that others who are curious about various CT concepts and reading up on the subject may read something posted in places like this and not fall down the rabbit hole in the first place.Chemtrails, I know they don't exist because as a Flight Service Specialist for 27 years I've had the training and experience in weather and aviation to know how contrails form and sometimes under the right conditions, persist and even spread out to form cirrus cloud. Over the last month or so I have been posting in the Twitter realm, trying to show by various means that the above is true and chemtrails do not exist. Well as you might imagine, I've been met with some pretty nasty language, everything from troll to shill, to brain dead, paid government disinformation agent, been told that I'm banned, to shut the f up, and on and on. It seems the more I try to convince them of the real truth, they become more entrenched in their belief that it's deadly chemicals, geo-engineering or whatever else they can dream up. They will absolutely will not even entertain the possibility that they may be wrong. I've posted satellite pics of current water vapour maps that can show where contrails are likely to form, and even more important, where they are NOT likely to form, and have circled these areas. I've also posted maps of USA showing all the planes currently in the air to give some idea of how many planes cross our skies, and also hi level aeronautical charts showing all the intersecting airways over a busy airport, which explains the "crosshatch" pattern commonly shown to "prove" that "they" are trying to kill us with multiple chemtrails.
But, I'm not giving up, even if I only get through to a few, then I feel that I've done something positive. It just pains me to read the fear that is being spread by this nonsense.
If anyone is interested in following my tweets, my twitter handle is @dannodotcomm
Regards,
Dan Page
interestingly this phenomena was known quite a while ago
Cardinal Wosley (1470 - 1530) is supposed to have remarked regarding Henry V111
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out."
There seems to be a new idea evolving with the chemmies, at least one (chase truth) on Twitter who is saying that any aircraft that produces a trail of ANY length, is spewing poison. And a woman has posted a video showing 6 jets in the sky, 5 with very short contrails, and 1 with no contrail and she is saying that 5 are spewing poison, while the one is ok. And the sky is otherwise clear blue. I find it difficult to even address these beliefs, how many things that are just wrong with their "theory".
I haven't noticed the too high to be seen from the ground nonsense before. SO a trail would be too high to see from the ground at about 40,000ft and yet at the right times we can see satellites in Geostationary orbit. or meteors burning up in the atmosphere? hmmmmmmThis person has clearly swallowed the "high-bypass jet engines cannot make contrails" idea, originated by Russ Tanner and Jack Baran. I have had this repeated to me as "fact" countless times.
As Russ Tanner claims here:
at least one (chase truth) on Twitter who is saying that any aircraft that produces a trail of ANY length, is spewing poison.
http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6859&an=317#Post6859If you see a short, non-persistent trail being emitted from any large jet, it's a new non-persistent chemtrail.
How Persistent Aerosol Plumes are Being Changed to Short Non-Persistent Plumes To Fool the Public
These upgrades in equipment are already occurring. Non-persistent chemtrails are now appearing all over the world.
People are being conned into believing that the new short, non-persistent chemtrails are harmless contrails.
Then he went to claiming that NO visible trails still equals "chemtrails".In April 2010, chemtrails suddenly changed from large persistent plumes to very short, non-persistent plumes; the kind of plumes that some people believe are "contrails".
http://globalskywatch.com/stories/m...l-information/plumes-change.html#.VieaZNKrQ1JNon-Persistent Chemtrails Change To "No-Trails"
So lets have a re-cap here.
Long persistent trail = chemical spraying
Short non-persistent trail = chemical spraying
No trails at all = chemical spraying
Cloudy and overcast skies = proof of spraying
Clear blue skies = proof of spraying
They certainly have all bases covered then
Also:
- Don't remember sky being like this = proof of geoengineering
- Old photos of sky being like this = proof of geoengineering in old photos
Also:
- Don't remember sky being like this = proof of geoengineering
- Old photos of sky being like this = proof of geoengineering in old photos
I think this can describe many debunkers. Many are beyond help I so far they will never change their view.I feel your frustration mate, not just over chemtrails but a lot of fave CT subjects as well; 9-11, false flags, nwo etc. I have come to realise that a lot are beyond help, they are so wrapped in their beliefs that the is very little that will get through. But what keeps me going is the thought that others who are curious about various CT concepts and reading up on the subject may read something posted in places like this and not fall down the rabbit hole in the first place.
yup, John Constable captured these 'un-natural' clouds over Sailsbury in 1831Right...proof geoengineering was going on loooong before they thought.
Just going to keep on trying, got strong headwinds, so may have to increase the power a notch.
This type of questioning is considered undesirable and is strongly discouraged in chemtrail groups. I tried that a few times myself, but as soon as I asked a question like e.g. what causes the gap between the engine and the trail, I was quickly identified as a troll whose goal is to raise doubts and thereby weaken the movement, and I was immediately banned. The people in the chemtrail groups are already selected; anyone who asked questions has already been banned, so you won't find people interested in discussing questions.The hard core believers are not going to be swayed, but there is a chance that someone new to this may question the "theory" if others are also questioning. So that is what my course of action will be for the next while. Ask how, why, what, where, when? Why no-one is talking about filling tanks in airplanes with chemicals other than fuel. Or if it's in the fuel then how can the engines run with those contaminants in it? I have asked some of these questions and for the most part, no answers have been forthcoming, short of one who said it's not in the fuel and supplied a picture of the tanks in the airplane used for pre-certification tests. Told him that and he hasn't yet come back with anything logical. Just going to keep on trying, got strong headwinds, so may have to increase the power a notch.
Why no-one is talking about filling tanks in airplanes with chemicals other than fuel.
Seriously Whitebeard, don't you know ANYTHING?yup, John Constable captured these 'un-natural' clouds over Sailsbury in 1831
JWM Turner painted this 'chemical' pink sunset in 1840
And Thomas Gainsborough painted these 'heavily seeded' clouds in about 1765
All of which begs the question, if the Wright Brothers didn't get off the ground til 1903, How the hell were they spraying back then?
maybe ? a better tactic @Dan Page et al can try, if they are so motivated, is to not post on the chemtrail pages but go to the "shares" and if permissions allow post questions on thier profile links.. this would also act as a deterant for their friends who might see the post and start thinking "chemtrails?, oh no!".This type of questioning is considered undesirable and is strongly discouraged in chemtrail groups. I tried that a few times myself, but as soon as I asked a question like e.g. what causes the gap between the engine and the trail, I was quickly identified as a troll whose goal is to raise doubts and thereby weaken the movement, and I was immediately banned. The people in the chemtrail groups are already selected; anyone who asked questions has already been banned, so you won't find people interested in discussing questions.
You'll notice there are no actual photos from that time period showing what the sky REALLY looked like back then.
I rest my case