For example, is there room to not be sure of stories from the NY Times when their sources are in intelligence agencies? Can I just not be sure who really blew up the Nordstream pipeline?
Was there room to not be sure about the origins of COVID? Cause I remember being called a racist conspiracy theorist for even suggesting that maybe, just maybe it came from a lab.
And I just wonder why there is no option in the JFK poll to just say, "I'm not sure."
Overall, epistemic humility looks a lot better than to be so sure of something, whether it's the official mainstream narrative or an against-the-narrative conspiracy theory, and then later being found to be wrong (if we can even be sure of that).
While living in a commune in San Francisco, I knew a man named Charley Tripp. That was his real name. I saw his driver's license. He was not exactly a member of the house, but was frequently there overnight. He slept in a closet under a pile of clothing or under a table with boxes piled around it to hide himself in case the house was raided.
He often complained that if he asked directions on the street everyone deliberately gave him wrong directions because they were all in on the plot. Bus drivers took the long way around just to frustrate him. Telephone operators intentionally gave him wrong numbers. If he saw a new family moving in on the same street he thought the FBI was moving people into the neighborhood to keep an eye on him. If he saw someone putting a TV antenna on a roof it was a disguised parabolic microphone to listen in on his conversations.
If he saw Pacific Gas And Electric employees digging up a street, that was the Mafia in disguise. He was being followed by the FBI, the CIA, the KGB, and a mysterious organization known only as ''Them''. Once, he came into the house and told us that as he came up the street he looked back and saw a UFO hovering at the corner watching him. When he saw that we were smiling, he drew himself up in a very dignified manner and indignantly said, ''Well, maybe you people like having your minds controlled by a machine, but I don't!''
The psychiatrist at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic told us they got about 3 phone calls a week about him.
Then we found out he was right. He really WAS being followed! The San Francisco Police Department wrongly thought his name was a code word for a drug dealer and they really were shadowing him. He had picked up on it that he was being followed, but was making wild guesses as to who it was that was following him.
Then he was not seen for several months. One day I saw him on Market Street. He was much better dressed than I had ever seen him, clean shaven, with a haircut, and carrying a briefcase. We talked for awhile and he showed no signs of paranoia,. so I asked, ''What about all those people who were following you?''. He answered, ''Oh, I just got tired of all that.'' Apparently he had just snapped out of it.
When last heard of he was back in his native Missouri writing country music for a living.
So the moral of this story is that paranoids can have real enemies too.
Robert Bendiner wrote a great history of the 1930s, with a chapter on the far-left movements of the period, and how they splintered in the face of all kinds of paranoia.
My favorite bits:
1. The guy at the Trotskyist meeting yells, "Very well, Comrade Schachtman, we will seize power without you!"
2. The protesters outside some party's offices, run by Mr. and Mrs. Fields, who carried signs that read: "Mr. and Mrs. Fields are no longer Fieldites."
The FBI runs drugs into African-American neighborhoods to destabilize them and prevent political organizing.
The CIA smuggles drugs to fund illegal programs like starting Evangelical Protestant churches in Latin America to undermine the influence of Left-wing Roman Catholic clergy.
The CIA illegally donates millions of dollars to right-wing parties in every country in Europe to help them win elections.
The Army hires journalists to plant favorable stories in the news media, deceiving the public.
Every police car in America carries a "throw-down gun", an unregistered cheap handgun with one shot fired, to throw down next to a body of someone they have shot to prove they killed him in self-defense.
The FBI taps phones of members of Congress to get information to blackmail them into passing laws the FBI wants passed.
Local police forces are often pressured into following orders from Federal agencies, despite the lack of Federal legal authority to give them orders.
The Forest Service conspires with Earth First! leaders to divert potential environmental activism into "harmless" channels like civil disobedience instead of more effective actions like sabotage.
The Bureau of Printing and Engraving adds cocaine to the ink used in printing paper money to give the police legal grounds to sieze any stash of banknotes the find.
The American prison system has been privatized and the prison companies spend millions each year on lobbying and campaign contributions to get as many laws passed as possible, with the longest possible sentences for every offense, to get more prisoners.
A researcher who found a mistake in the method of DNA identification, proving the method ineffective, was threatened by the FBI to keep him from publishing his data.
Fingerprinting is a hoax. Each year, for the past 100 years, thousands of people all over the world, are convicted on a basis of fingerprint evidence, but there is not a single peer-reviewed scientific study to show that no two people have identical prints. The claim that fingerprints are positive identification rests entirely on folklore, not science.
Government documents dealing with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln are still classified. There are reasons to suspect they reveal the involvement of the British Secret Service, and the U.S. government fears damage to the Anglo-American alliance if the American public found out, even at this late date.
Could it be that someone is trying to distract attention from real conspiracies and prevent them from being taken seriously by spreading deliberate rubbish about nonsensical false conspiracies around to discredit anyone who claims to have uncovered a conspiracy?
In modern society, most people experience every day meeting people who disagree with them on political or religious issues. Unlike tribal villagers, few people today go through life without meeting those who hold differing opinions on important issues. People today work side by side with holders of religious beliefs that would have lead to bloodshed in past centuries. Nobody today becomes enraged at meeting an atheist, a Jew, or a Moslem. Nobody today would want to kill someone for rejecting Christ.
Yet this person I met yesterday was emotionally infuriated at my rejecting his belief in military weather control. He refused to listen to my reasoning. He was worked up to a degree that not only calls his sanity into question, but leads one to suspect that if he was in a position to to do so, he would have had me burned at the stake for heresy.
And I cannot help feeling that, if this sort of attitude continues to become more and more common, it is very important to find out why.
Cloudseeding has been around since 1946. It does not work. It is based on a mistaken theory of raindrop formation that works in a lab but not under outdoor conditions. The scientists refuse to give up despite lack of success because they are so convinced of their theory. Most scientists will always ignore evidence if it conflicts with a theory. And most politicians will follow the advice of scientists no matter how obvious it is that science is wrong.
''Chemtrails'' are a misidentification of the toxicity and stagnation of the atmosphere left in the wake of a plane transporting some radioactive cargo. This is wrongly thought to be due to some chemicals being sprayed out of the plane by people who do not recognize the effect radioactivity has on atmospheric motion.
''Geoenginerering'' is a crackpot proposal made by irresponsible scientists who hope to get grants to study its feasability. They believe, ( or claim for grant-getting purposes to believe ) that the global climate is getting warmer and deploying more pollution in the upper atmosphere to block sunlight would help prevent that from happening. So far no actual project has been done, but some paranoid conspiracy theorists have jumped the gun on these insane research proposals and think it is already underway.
The Bureau Of Reclamation spent over $100,000,000 on seeding over 20 years before Congress stopped their funding because they could not show any evidence that it worked. The same thing happened in Australia, where the CSIRO spent a similar amount for the same time before giving it up.
But many small private companies still do it for local governments and ski resorts, farmers, and other customers. The largest, Atmospherics, Inc., based in Fresno, Ca, makes around $6,000,000 a year. The second largest company, North American Weather Services, In Salt Lake City, does nearly as well.
The Pentagon Papers case showed the CIA had tried to bog down Viet Cong supply trails by seeding clouds over North Viet Nam. It had no effect. The U.S. Navy had a project called ''Stormfury'' in the Carribean trying to make hurricanes drop their moisture over water instead of on land. It did not work, but Guatemala sued them for a drought.
Many 3rd World governments hire American cloudseeders because of the poor education of many officials in those countries and the good reputation of America for being on the cutting edge of new technologies.
There is a real conspiracy, all right, but it is private companies, not the government, and they are selling fake weather control serves to ignorant backward countries where poorly educated officials do not know enough science to see they cannot deliver.
Cloudseeding is a fraud. The U.S. and other advanced countries tested it out and gave it up because it could not be proved to work. But companies like Atmospherics, Inc. still market this failed and disproven technology to backward countries like Indonesia and others where they can still find customers. And a shady Russian outfit convincedd the Mexican government to put money into an electrical method of rainmaking that also does not work. Then, a few years later, the same group turned up in Barain, now incorporated in Switzerland, and claimed to have demonstrated their electrical rainmaking technology there. They cited a supposedly favorable report by the Max Plank Institute in Germany. The scientist they cited denied ever having heard of them. But the world media which had published their initial articles on the "success" in Barain failed to publish this follow-up story.
All modern methods of precipitation enhancement, including all alleged electromagnetic methods, rely on the condensation nucleus theory. And that theory is wrong.
If you hold a glass microscope slide in rain and catch raindrops on it, then look at them under a microscope, you do not see a dust particle in each raindrop, as the theory of condensation nuclei would predict. If you fly a small plane through a cloud containing billions of raindrops, your windshield does not get dirty. If the cloud contained a dust particle inside every raindrop, the windshield of the airplane would become streaked with dirt.
The whole industry of cloudseeding has not been able to demonstrate any results from seeding clouds in over 60 years of trying. They continue to clain they can produce rain on the basis of their theory that it should work, therefore they think it MUST be working, regardless of the total lack of evidence. That is faith, not science.
Each new cloudseeding article adds nothing to the known facts of how the atmosphere functions. It simply adds to the long list of publications by meteorologists and other mechanistic scientists who try to come up with some explanation for whatever the atmosphere does by way of the current theories of how the atmosphere works.
Claiming a cause-and-effect relationship between air pollution in one place and rain in another is not an observation; it is an attempt at an explanation of an observation. The observation is that rain fell, not that pollution from fires in Asia caused it.
Science should be based on observations, not theories. And propounding theoretical explanations for something is not what should be considered a scientific publication. Nothing in this article reports a new observation or proposes any way to test the hypothesis. A scientific article should do one or the other.
The first time I ran into a hard core global warming fanatic was at an environmentalist conference. There were workshops on all kinds of topics, and I attended one on global warming given by a member of a Seattle-based group called the Atmospheric Allience. I asked too many of the wrong questions and the person giving the workshop accused me of being in the pay of the oil industry.
Since I knew that was not true, the accusation did nothing to persuade me that she was right on the subject of global warming either. It seems to me that a scientific argument should rest on scientific data, not the possible connections or economic inerests of the person raising the questions.
But a few days ago, I ran into the exact opposite situation. I got into a conversation with a physicist about global warming, and after a few questions aimed at discovering how much math I knew, he declared my opinions were not worthy of consideration because I did not know enough math to understand the issues.
Now, I fully agree I know next to nothing of the type of math used by physicists. But I maintain that a knowledge of math is not important in understanding the motions of the atmosphere. This is heresy to a physicist, of course.
But the theoretical understanding of the atmosphere by conventional science rests on a set of assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the atmosphere is what they call a heat engine. By that is meant that the difference in temperature between different locations in the atmosphere is the basic underlying cause of the motion of the air masses.
The theory of greenhouse gasses heating up the earth and causing changes in the climate is based entirely upon the assumption that this heat engine theory is true. The extra heat alleged to be caused by greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases is thought to explain such diverse events as increases in frequency of storms, increases in severity of storms, increases in number of tornados, and increase in severe, long-lasting droughts.
Now that last should give anyone some pause. A drought that lasts a long time indicates an atmosphere that is doing less moving, not more. If the atmosphere were moving more rapidly from being warmer, one would expect a drought would be over sooner, as the hot dry air mass moved on to some other place or broke up.
But that is just my non-mathamatical mind speaking. Perhaps someone who knows the math involved would understand why warmer air can produce BOTH more fast-moving storms AND long stays of an air mass in a single location.
But I do not think there is any conspiracy. I think most scientists are simply stupid and have no idea what happens in the real world.
Sounds like you've been looking into cloud seeding(aka money laundering) for quite some time. I imagine that geoengineering most likely entails HAARP tech, or more advanced EMF/DEW formats. As one Pentagon rep stated in a video (can't recall the title), the Military has tech that is 400 years ahead of the rest of the serf class's tech access. pax
There is a long and complex history to the current Chemtrails Theory. It includes the dispersal of radioactive dust from aircraft over Northern New Mexico by the Los Alamos Laboratory during the 50s and 60s to test out the effects of fallout on public health, the unfounded rumor circulating in the Midwest among farmers in the 70s to the effect that the government, on behalf of the banks, was seeding clouds to make them drop their rain over the Far West instead of reaching the Midwest so farmers would go bankrupt and the banks could take their land, and statements by Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!, who used to like to rile his audiences in the 80s by saying there are too many people on this planet and most of them should be recycled back into the food chain where they belong.
The Wise-Use movement, a fake grass-roots front group for extractive industries, grabbed onto this and publicized the bogus claim that the "radical environmentalists" were out to kill off much of the human race. They also used anti-government feelings among rural Westerners to push the idea that the Federal Government was dominated by "radical environmentalists", a term they used to describe any efforts at environmental protection, no matter how moderate.
The result was a rash of thriller novels about radical environmentalist terrorists trying to cause a nuclear plant to have a meltdown to kill millions of people to save the earth from overpopulation. They were always defeated in the nick of time by the heroic FBI agent who salvaged the status quo.
Now you can find all these elements woven together into a metanarrative that claims the United States Government is controlled by radical environmentalists who want to depopulate the planet because they are concerned about overpopulation. So they are claimed to be spraying toxic chemicals indiscriminately into the atmosphere to kill millions of innocent people at random.
So far, it does not seem to be working too well.
Fact is, there really ARE far too many people on this planet, and we really DO need to get the population down to what the earth can support. But the American government is not concerned about overpopulation and is not trying to do anything about it. On the contrary, they encourage population growth for short-term economic reasons.
I know a lot of "radical environmentalists". All of them agree there are too many people on earth, but I have never met one who actually wanted to kill off the excess. What environmentalists mean when they say "reduce the population", is to encourage voluntary use of birth control.
Another aspect of the "chemtrails" theory is the claim that there is a connection to weather control. This got started in the 70s by a retired Army officer named Tomas Beardon, who made a mint on the far-right lecture circuit by his claims that the Soviet Union was using some electromagnetic technology to control the weather over North America .
Aside from making money, his probable agenda was to get public opinion behind research on weather control by the U.S. Army. The failed attempt by the CIA to seed clouds in Viet Nam to bog down Viet Cong supply trains made the military planers want more funding for research on the subject, and Bearden probably was part of the Pentagons' public-relations sales pitch.
The Office of Naval Research did have a small cloudseeding research program at China Lake, California, which was cancelled and all its' reports declassified in 1978 after the U.S. signed a treaty, the United Nations Convention on Environmental Modification As A Weapon Of War, which outlawed military use of weather control, including any research on the subject.
There was also a program of seeding hurricanes in the Caribbean. That was discontinued also.
The chemtrails proponents have woven these elements into their narrative also. They usually invoke a boondgogle in Alaska known as Project HAARP. They seem to think the mere mention of weather control as a possible application of the type of technology covered in the patent for the equipment being used in this phony project is equal to proof it actually works and is being used.
I have had quite a bit to do with patent applications, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that when you write the application, you include every possible use that can be imagined, no matter how far-fetched, just in case someday, somehow, in some remotely unlikely way, the technology might be usefulin that way. That is so if the unlikely does happen, your patent will cover it.
The mention of weather control in the patent for the HAARP antenna array does not in any way indicate that HAARP has any existing weather control function.
But the chemtrail enthusiasts have latched onto the idea of electronic weather control and worked it into their chemtrail picture in the form of particles of various materials being dispersed in the upper atmosphere to reflect energy beamed up from the ground to somehow affect the weather.
Lately, they have also added in the idea that the U.S. Government (!) is secretly so worried about global warming that it is trying to offset the effects by seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective materials to block sunlight from hitting the earth. They usually cite a purely speculative suggestion to this effect by Edward Teller ( who should have won a Lex Luthor Award for Worlds' Maddest Scientist) as if the mere suggestion that it MIGHT be done is proof that it IS being done.
But there simply is nothing to any of it except the misguided thinking of people who do not understand enough about how the atmosphere works to know that what they think they are seeing is not possible.
In my opinion, what we are seeing here is an example of a sociological phenomena; a distrust of government, and a feeling of helplessness against the Powers-That-Be, that combine to make a large number of people feel a need to blame the all-powerful government for everything that goes wrong, even bad weather.
Combine that with the submerged curiosity of a small child who never did find out, and therefore at some deep level as an adult still wonders, what Daddy and Mommy were doing behind closed doors, and you end up with a theory that resonates with a large number of people in this crazy, mixed-up world.
I would like to point out that I have had this debate many times already, with many different chemtrail proponents, and there is not much you can say on it that I have not heard already. So far, nothing I have had presented to me by advocates of the chemtrail hypothesis has been convincing. I remain, as always, open to NEW evidence, but so far, I have not seen any.
And until I do, I will continue to urge that the time and effort being wasted on this bogus nonsense would be better spent working on REAL environmental issues. The environmental movement needs all the energy it can get, and this sort of diversion into wooly fantasy-land is not helping solve the very important problems of our time
I do not have any way of knowing what the U.S. government might want. But I would not be at all surprised to find out that at least some people are thinking that this chemtrail hoax is a good distraction to get at least some potential environmental activists distracted from opposition to real activities that really do do damage to the environment. Like building nuclear power plants, for example.
But I also think there is a world of difference between a grant-raising proposal that claims some far-fetched project like weather control or building solar-power stations in orbit to beam electricity down to earth, or dispensing chaff in the upper atmosphere to block incoming sunlight is possible, and such a program actually being underway.
Grantsmanship is what scientists do for a living. They get funding for "feasibility studies" and "research" by claiming things are possible as a long-term result of their research. They habitually tell the funding agencies that they will deliver pie in the sky. The mention of something on some website means only that a grant proposal was written, not that a massive project is underway.
If there was a project of that sort, on the scale that is claimed by the chemtrail buffs, show me the Congressional appropriation for it. Show me the Congressional Record of the debate on the issue. Show me the press release about it
But do not expect me to believe there could be such a project without any public debate, without any appropriation, without any public-relations office handing out press releases about it.
And, most especially, do not expect me to believe that such a top-secret, illegal, and politically-unacceptable program could be mentioned on a publicly-accessible miltitary website. Classified material would not be posted on the internet.
I find the whole chemtrail topic fascinating. But it is a topic in the social sciences, not the physical sciences. The issue in the chemtrail story is why do people who see something in the sky that they do not understand think up these stories? And why do other people, who did not see anything strange in the sky, believe them?
And what is the relationship between this story and the very similar phenomena of people believing stories about the resurrection of a dead man, or a shining woman who appeared to some children in Portugal, or beings from another planet that have taken someone for a ride in a spaceship?
There is something very important going on here. But it is not going on in the skies. It is going on in the minds of people. And the sooner we learn to understand it, the better off we shall be.
I created a conspiracy theory mad libs thing a while ago, complete with "religious conspiracy theory," "banking conspiracy theory," and "aliens/lizard people conspiracy theory" modules... I should dig that out, I could probably start my own cable show with that kind of asset.
term 'conspiracy theory' is said to have been invented by the CIA.... remember reading that yeaars ago but haven't checked to see if the internet might have suppressed that report... now is that idea itself a conspiracy theory?
what sort of feelings come up in a person who labels something 'conspiracy theory?' just it approach an organism in some people? or something that just makes a person feel superior and righteous?
so saying the Talmud says such and such when you have a pdf copy that says that is so... is just a conspiracy theory so facts can be just ignored if a person gets joy from labeling stuff 'conspiracy theory?'
Some folks still believe Obama cared about America and upheld his constitutional oath to the office of POTUS. So there's another conspiracy theory in plain sight.
Your book is really part of the conspiracy to deflect people from the truth! By re-labelling actual plots as 'conspiracies', you think people will ignore what is REALLY going on...
Joking aside... There must be a grain of truth or some kind of claim to connect a conspiracy to the real world. It usually only takes a high-school level of science or psychology to find the errors. Unfortunately, most people prefer not to use their knowledge or depend on 'authorities' to determine how they think about the world around them.
Another technique is to make the terms so vague that almost everyone will agree.
Election fraud? All elections have some amount of fraud, but did that fraud change the result?
Global Warming to Climate Change. Climate always changes. Nobody can dispute that humans have changed the climate, but to what extent? Compared to the previous Ice Ages? How much warming is anthropogenic? Is there an ideal temperature? Up here in Canada, I would welcome a few more degrees of warmth...
I’m not a believer of conspiracy theories, but I a big fan. I’m especially impressed by “spurious links” —most recent one I’ve seen: Person A followed Person B on social media, therefore Person A is in league with Person B.
I don't believe in "theories" when it comes down to historically accurate accounts of conspiracies in plain sight. Peeps just gotta understand that a conspiracy is just another word for a "business plan."
I wonder, is there room to just not be sure?
For example, is there room to not be sure of stories from the NY Times when their sources are in intelligence agencies? Can I just not be sure who really blew up the Nordstream pipeline?
Was there room to not be sure about the origins of COVID? Cause I remember being called a racist conspiracy theorist for even suggesting that maybe, just maybe it came from a lab.
And I just wonder why there is no option in the JFK poll to just say, "I'm not sure."
Overall, epistemic humility looks a lot better than to be so sure of something, whether it's the official mainstream narrative or an against-the-narrative conspiracy theory, and then later being found to be wrong (if we can even be sure of that).
While living in a commune in San Francisco, I knew a man named Charley Tripp. That was his real name. I saw his driver's license. He was not exactly a member of the house, but was frequently there overnight. He slept in a closet under a pile of clothing or under a table with boxes piled around it to hide himself in case the house was raided.
He often complained that if he asked directions on the street everyone deliberately gave him wrong directions because they were all in on the plot. Bus drivers took the long way around just to frustrate him. Telephone operators intentionally gave him wrong numbers. If he saw a new family moving in on the same street he thought the FBI was moving people into the neighborhood to keep an eye on him. If he saw someone putting a TV antenna on a roof it was a disguised parabolic microphone to listen in on his conversations.
If he saw Pacific Gas And Electric employees digging up a street, that was the Mafia in disguise. He was being followed by the FBI, the CIA, the KGB, and a mysterious organization known only as ''Them''. Once, he came into the house and told us that as he came up the street he looked back and saw a UFO hovering at the corner watching him. When he saw that we were smiling, he drew himself up in a very dignified manner and indignantly said, ''Well, maybe you people like having your minds controlled by a machine, but I don't!''
The psychiatrist at the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic told us they got about 3 phone calls a week about him.
Then we found out he was right. He really WAS being followed! The San Francisco Police Department wrongly thought his name was a code word for a drug dealer and they really were shadowing him. He had picked up on it that he was being followed, but was making wild guesses as to who it was that was following him.
Then he was not seen for several months. One day I saw him on Market Street. He was much better dressed than I had ever seen him, clean shaven, with a haircut, and carrying a briefcase. We talked for awhile and he showed no signs of paranoia,. so I asked, ''What about all those people who were following you?''. He answered, ''Oh, I just got tired of all that.'' Apparently he had just snapped out of it.
When last heard of he was back in his native Missouri writing country music for a living.
So the moral of this story is that paranoids can have real enemies too.
A friend of mine once said that. "Even paranoids have real enemies."
Besides, the behavior of paranoids engenders that reaction, positive and negative.
Friends, relatives, and co-workers of paranoid people worry about them.
People who are less concerned and see them as sources of amusement play tricks on them, playing into their fears.
Robert Anton Wilson had a correlary to that. "Of COURSE paranoids have enemies! Who'd want to be friends with those assholes?"
Agree heartily.
Robert Bendiner wrote a great history of the 1930s, with a chapter on the far-left movements of the period, and how they splintered in the face of all kinds of paranoia.
My favorite bits:
1. The guy at the Trotskyist meeting yells, "Very well, Comrade Schachtman, we will seize power without you!"
2. The protesters outside some party's offices, run by Mr. and Mrs. Fields, who carried signs that read: "Mr. and Mrs. Fields are no longer Fieldites."
Okaaaaay...
Real conspiracies do exist.
The FBI runs drugs into African-American neighborhoods to destabilize them and prevent political organizing.
The CIA smuggles drugs to fund illegal programs like starting Evangelical Protestant churches in Latin America to undermine the influence of Left-wing Roman Catholic clergy.
The CIA illegally donates millions of dollars to right-wing parties in every country in Europe to help them win elections.
The Army hires journalists to plant favorable stories in the news media, deceiving the public.
Every police car in America carries a "throw-down gun", an unregistered cheap handgun with one shot fired, to throw down next to a body of someone they have shot to prove they killed him in self-defense.
The FBI taps phones of members of Congress to get information to blackmail them into passing laws the FBI wants passed.
Local police forces are often pressured into following orders from Federal agencies, despite the lack of Federal legal authority to give them orders.
The Forest Service conspires with Earth First! leaders to divert potential environmental activism into "harmless" channels like civil disobedience instead of more effective actions like sabotage.
The Bureau of Printing and Engraving adds cocaine to the ink used in printing paper money to give the police legal grounds to sieze any stash of banknotes the find.
The American prison system has been privatized and the prison companies spend millions each year on lobbying and campaign contributions to get as many laws passed as possible, with the longest possible sentences for every offense, to get more prisoners.
A researcher who found a mistake in the method of DNA identification, proving the method ineffective, was threatened by the FBI to keep him from publishing his data.
Fingerprinting is a hoax. Each year, for the past 100 years, thousands of people all over the world, are convicted on a basis of fingerprint evidence, but there is not a single peer-reviewed scientific study to show that no two people have identical prints. The claim that fingerprints are positive identification rests entirely on folklore, not science.
Government documents dealing with the assassination of Abraham Lincoln are still classified. There are reasons to suspect they reveal the involvement of the British Secret Service, and the U.S. government fears damage to the Anglo-American alliance if the American public found out, even at this late date.
Could it be that someone is trying to distract attention from real conspiracies and prevent them from being taken seriously by spreading deliberate rubbish about nonsensical false conspiracies around to discredit anyone who claims to have uncovered a conspiracy?
Ditto: a conspiracy is just a business plan. Follow the money to find a motive-works every time.
In modern society, most people experience every day meeting people who disagree with them on political or religious issues. Unlike tribal villagers, few people today go through life without meeting those who hold differing opinions on important issues. People today work side by side with holders of religious beliefs that would have lead to bloodshed in past centuries. Nobody today becomes enraged at meeting an atheist, a Jew, or a Moslem. Nobody today would want to kill someone for rejecting Christ.
Yet this person I met yesterday was emotionally infuriated at my rejecting his belief in military weather control. He refused to listen to my reasoning. He was worked up to a degree that not only calls his sanity into question, but leads one to suspect that if he was in a position to to do so, he would have had me burned at the stake for heresy.
And I cannot help feeling that, if this sort of attitude continues to become more and more common, it is very important to find out why.
Maybe geoengineering ain't a military program. Perhaps it's just dem aliens. https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/chemtrails-chapter-7-toxic-af-cloud?publication_id=1865725&post_id=136005832&isFreemail=true&r=rfbj&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
You are conflating three different subjects.
Cloudseeding has been around since 1946. It does not work. It is based on a mistaken theory of raindrop formation that works in a lab but not under outdoor conditions. The scientists refuse to give up despite lack of success because they are so convinced of their theory. Most scientists will always ignore evidence if it conflicts with a theory. And most politicians will follow the advice of scientists no matter how obvious it is that science is wrong.
''Chemtrails'' are a misidentification of the toxicity and stagnation of the atmosphere left in the wake of a plane transporting some radioactive cargo. This is wrongly thought to be due to some chemicals being sprayed out of the plane by people who do not recognize the effect radioactivity has on atmospheric motion.
''Geoenginerering'' is a crackpot proposal made by irresponsible scientists who hope to get grants to study its feasability. They believe, ( or claim for grant-getting purposes to believe ) that the global climate is getting warmer and deploying more pollution in the upper atmosphere to block sunlight would help prevent that from happening. So far no actual project has been done, but some paranoid conspiracy theorists have jumped the gun on these insane research proposals and think it is already underway.
Since cloud seeding doesn't work, you'd think the govt might stop using taxpayer dollars to fund such a waste of time. On another note re the dynamics of faux reporters and the apropos paranoia some sensitive souls encounter as a normal response to authority icons within the Fourth Estate: https://sharylattkisson.com/2024/05/when-beat-reporters-act-like-they-work-for-the-agency-theyre-supposed-to-cover/
The Bureau Of Reclamation spent over $100,000,000 on seeding over 20 years before Congress stopped their funding because they could not show any evidence that it worked. The same thing happened in Australia, where the CSIRO spent a similar amount for the same time before giving it up.
But many small private companies still do it for local governments and ski resorts, farmers, and other customers. The largest, Atmospherics, Inc., based in Fresno, Ca, makes around $6,000,000 a year. The second largest company, North American Weather Services, In Salt Lake City, does nearly as well.
The Pentagon Papers case showed the CIA had tried to bog down Viet Cong supply trails by seeding clouds over North Viet Nam. It had no effect. The U.S. Navy had a project called ''Stormfury'' in the Carribean trying to make hurricanes drop their moisture over water instead of on land. It did not work, but Guatemala sued them for a drought.
Many 3rd World governments hire American cloudseeders because of the poor education of many officials in those countries and the good reputation of America for being on the cutting edge of new technologies.
There is a real conspiracy, all right, but it is private companies, not the government, and they are selling fake weather control serves to ignorant backward countries where poorly educated officials do not know enough science to see they cannot deliver.
Cloudseeding is a fraud. The U.S. and other advanced countries tested it out and gave it up because it could not be proved to work. But companies like Atmospherics, Inc. still market this failed and disproven technology to backward countries like Indonesia and others where they can still find customers. And a shady Russian outfit convincedd the Mexican government to put money into an electrical method of rainmaking that also does not work. Then, a few years later, the same group turned up in Barain, now incorporated in Switzerland, and claimed to have demonstrated their electrical rainmaking technology there. They cited a supposedly favorable report by the Max Plank Institute in Germany. The scientist they cited denied ever having heard of them. But the world media which had published their initial articles on the "success" in Barain failed to publish this follow-up story.
All modern methods of precipitation enhancement, including all alleged electromagnetic methods, rely on the condensation nucleus theory. And that theory is wrong.
If you hold a glass microscope slide in rain and catch raindrops on it, then look at them under a microscope, you do not see a dust particle in each raindrop, as the theory of condensation nuclei would predict. If you fly a small plane through a cloud containing billions of raindrops, your windshield does not get dirty. If the cloud contained a dust particle inside every raindrop, the windshield of the airplane would become streaked with dirt.
The whole industry of cloudseeding has not been able to demonstrate any results from seeding clouds in over 60 years of trying. They continue to clain they can produce rain on the basis of their theory that it should work, therefore they think it MUST be working, regardless of the total lack of evidence. That is faith, not science.
Each new cloudseeding article adds nothing to the known facts of how the atmosphere functions. It simply adds to the long list of publications by meteorologists and other mechanistic scientists who try to come up with some explanation for whatever the atmosphere does by way of the current theories of how the atmosphere works.
Claiming a cause-and-effect relationship between air pollution in one place and rain in another is not an observation; it is an attempt at an explanation of an observation. The observation is that rain fell, not that pollution from fires in Asia caused it.
Science should be based on observations, not theories. And propounding theoretical explanations for something is not what should be considered a scientific publication. Nothing in this article reports a new observation or proposes any way to test the hypothesis. A scientific article should do one or the other.
The first time I ran into a hard core global warming fanatic was at an environmentalist conference. There were workshops on all kinds of topics, and I attended one on global warming given by a member of a Seattle-based group called the Atmospheric Allience. I asked too many of the wrong questions and the person giving the workshop accused me of being in the pay of the oil industry.
Since I knew that was not true, the accusation did nothing to persuade me that she was right on the subject of global warming either. It seems to me that a scientific argument should rest on scientific data, not the possible connections or economic inerests of the person raising the questions.
But a few days ago, I ran into the exact opposite situation. I got into a conversation with a physicist about global warming, and after a few questions aimed at discovering how much math I knew, he declared my opinions were not worthy of consideration because I did not know enough math to understand the issues.
Now, I fully agree I know next to nothing of the type of math used by physicists. But I maintain that a knowledge of math is not important in understanding the motions of the atmosphere. This is heresy to a physicist, of course.
But the theoretical understanding of the atmosphere by conventional science rests on a set of assumptions. One of those assumptions is that the atmosphere is what they call a heat engine. By that is meant that the difference in temperature between different locations in the atmosphere is the basic underlying cause of the motion of the air masses.
The theory of greenhouse gasses heating up the earth and causing changes in the climate is based entirely upon the assumption that this heat engine theory is true. The extra heat alleged to be caused by greenhouse effect from greenhouse gases is thought to explain such diverse events as increases in frequency of storms, increases in severity of storms, increases in number of tornados, and increase in severe, long-lasting droughts.
Now that last should give anyone some pause. A drought that lasts a long time indicates an atmosphere that is doing less moving, not more. If the atmosphere were moving more rapidly from being warmer, one would expect a drought would be over sooner, as the hot dry air mass moved on to some other place or broke up.
But that is just my non-mathamatical mind speaking. Perhaps someone who knows the math involved would understand why warmer air can produce BOTH more fast-moving storms AND long stays of an air mass in a single location.
But I do not think there is any conspiracy. I think most scientists are simply stupid and have no idea what happens in the real world.
Sounds like you've been looking into cloud seeding(aka money laundering) for quite some time. I imagine that geoengineering most likely entails HAARP tech, or more advanced EMF/DEW formats. As one Pentagon rep stated in a video (can't recall the title), the Military has tech that is 400 years ahead of the rest of the serf class's tech access. pax
There is a long and complex history to the current Chemtrails Theory. It includes the dispersal of radioactive dust from aircraft over Northern New Mexico by the Los Alamos Laboratory during the 50s and 60s to test out the effects of fallout on public health, the unfounded rumor circulating in the Midwest among farmers in the 70s to the effect that the government, on behalf of the banks, was seeding clouds to make them drop their rain over the Far West instead of reaching the Midwest so farmers would go bankrupt and the banks could take their land, and statements by Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First!, who used to like to rile his audiences in the 80s by saying there are too many people on this planet and most of them should be recycled back into the food chain where they belong.
The Wise-Use movement, a fake grass-roots front group for extractive industries, grabbed onto this and publicized the bogus claim that the "radical environmentalists" were out to kill off much of the human race. They also used anti-government feelings among rural Westerners to push the idea that the Federal Government was dominated by "radical environmentalists", a term they used to describe any efforts at environmental protection, no matter how moderate.
The result was a rash of thriller novels about radical environmentalist terrorists trying to cause a nuclear plant to have a meltdown to kill millions of people to save the earth from overpopulation. They were always defeated in the nick of time by the heroic FBI agent who salvaged the status quo.
Now you can find all these elements woven together into a metanarrative that claims the United States Government is controlled by radical environmentalists who want to depopulate the planet because they are concerned about overpopulation. So they are claimed to be spraying toxic chemicals indiscriminately into the atmosphere to kill millions of innocent people at random.
So far, it does not seem to be working too well.
Fact is, there really ARE far too many people on this planet, and we really DO need to get the population down to what the earth can support. But the American government is not concerned about overpopulation and is not trying to do anything about it. On the contrary, they encourage population growth for short-term economic reasons.
I know a lot of "radical environmentalists". All of them agree there are too many people on earth, but I have never met one who actually wanted to kill off the excess. What environmentalists mean when they say "reduce the population", is to encourage voluntary use of birth control.
Another aspect of the "chemtrails" theory is the claim that there is a connection to weather control. This got started in the 70s by a retired Army officer named Tomas Beardon, who made a mint on the far-right lecture circuit by his claims that the Soviet Union was using some electromagnetic technology to control the weather over North America .
Aside from making money, his probable agenda was to get public opinion behind research on weather control by the U.S. Army. The failed attempt by the CIA to seed clouds in Viet Nam to bog down Viet Cong supply trains made the military planers want more funding for research on the subject, and Bearden probably was part of the Pentagons' public-relations sales pitch.
The Office of Naval Research did have a small cloudseeding research program at China Lake, California, which was cancelled and all its' reports declassified in 1978 after the U.S. signed a treaty, the United Nations Convention on Environmental Modification As A Weapon Of War, which outlawed military use of weather control, including any research on the subject.
There was also a program of seeding hurricanes in the Caribbean. That was discontinued also.
The chemtrails proponents have woven these elements into their narrative also. They usually invoke a boondgogle in Alaska known as Project HAARP. They seem to think the mere mention of weather control as a possible application of the type of technology covered in the patent for the equipment being used in this phony project is equal to proof it actually works and is being used.
I have had quite a bit to do with patent applications, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that when you write the application, you include every possible use that can be imagined, no matter how far-fetched, just in case someday, somehow, in some remotely unlikely way, the technology might be usefulin that way. That is so if the unlikely does happen, your patent will cover it.
The mention of weather control in the patent for the HAARP antenna array does not in any way indicate that HAARP has any existing weather control function.
But the chemtrail enthusiasts have latched onto the idea of electronic weather control and worked it into their chemtrail picture in the form of particles of various materials being dispersed in the upper atmosphere to reflect energy beamed up from the ground to somehow affect the weather.
Lately, they have also added in the idea that the U.S. Government (!) is secretly so worried about global warming that it is trying to offset the effects by seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective materials to block sunlight from hitting the earth. They usually cite a purely speculative suggestion to this effect by Edward Teller ( who should have won a Lex Luthor Award for Worlds' Maddest Scientist) as if the mere suggestion that it MIGHT be done is proof that it IS being done.
But there simply is nothing to any of it except the misguided thinking of people who do not understand enough about how the atmosphere works to know that what they think they are seeing is not possible.
In my opinion, what we are seeing here is an example of a sociological phenomena; a distrust of government, and a feeling of helplessness against the Powers-That-Be, that combine to make a large number of people feel a need to blame the all-powerful government for everything that goes wrong, even bad weather.
Combine that with the submerged curiosity of a small child who never did find out, and therefore at some deep level as an adult still wonders, what Daddy and Mommy were doing behind closed doors, and you end up with a theory that resonates with a large number of people in this crazy, mixed-up world.
I would like to point out that I have had this debate many times already, with many different chemtrail proponents, and there is not much you can say on it that I have not heard already. So far, nothing I have had presented to me by advocates of the chemtrail hypothesis has been convincing. I remain, as always, open to NEW evidence, but so far, I have not seen any.
And until I do, I will continue to urge that the time and effort being wasted on this bogus nonsense would be better spent working on REAL environmental issues. The environmental movement needs all the energy it can get, and this sort of diversion into wooly fantasy-land is not helping solve the very important problems of our time
I do not have any way of knowing what the U.S. government might want. But I would not be at all surprised to find out that at least some people are thinking that this chemtrail hoax is a good distraction to get at least some potential environmental activists distracted from opposition to real activities that really do do damage to the environment. Like building nuclear power plants, for example.
But I also think there is a world of difference between a grant-raising proposal that claims some far-fetched project like weather control or building solar-power stations in orbit to beam electricity down to earth, or dispensing chaff in the upper atmosphere to block incoming sunlight is possible, and such a program actually being underway.
Grantsmanship is what scientists do for a living. They get funding for "feasibility studies" and "research" by claiming things are possible as a long-term result of their research. They habitually tell the funding agencies that they will deliver pie in the sky. The mention of something on some website means only that a grant proposal was written, not that a massive project is underway.
If there was a project of that sort, on the scale that is claimed by the chemtrail buffs, show me the Congressional appropriation for it. Show me the Congressional Record of the debate on the issue. Show me the press release about it
But do not expect me to believe there could be such a project without any public debate, without any appropriation, without any public-relations office handing out press releases about it.
And, most especially, do not expect me to believe that such a top-secret, illegal, and politically-unacceptable program could be mentioned on a publicly-accessible miltitary website. Classified material would not be posted on the internet.
I find the whole chemtrail topic fascinating. But it is a topic in the social sciences, not the physical sciences. The issue in the chemtrail story is why do people who see something in the sky that they do not understand think up these stories? And why do other people, who did not see anything strange in the sky, believe them?
And what is the relationship between this story and the very similar phenomena of people believing stories about the resurrection of a dead man, or a shining woman who appeared to some children in Portugal, or beings from another planet that have taken someone for a ride in a spaceship?
There is something very important going on here. But it is not going on in the skies. It is going on in the minds of people. And the sooner we learn to understand it, the better off we shall be.
I created a conspiracy theory mad libs thing a while ago, complete with "religious conspiracy theory," "banking conspiracy theory," and "aliens/lizard people conspiracy theory" modules... I should dig that out, I could probably start my own cable show with that kind of asset.
You'd do rather well.
term 'conspiracy theory' is said to have been invented by the CIA.... remember reading that yeaars ago but haven't checked to see if the internet might have suppressed that report... now is that idea itself a conspiracy theory?
This is how you do it, folks.
Don't forget...at some point, you have to bring in the Jews in good conspiracy theories. It always heats up the pot.
what sort of feelings come up in a person who labels something 'conspiracy theory?' just it approach an organism in some people? or something that just makes a person feel superior and righteous?
so saying the Talmud says such and such when you have a pdf copy that says that is so... is just a conspiracy theory so facts can be just ignored if a person gets joy from labeling stuff 'conspiracy theory?'
I agree. These are all forms of ad hominem attacks. "Conspiracy theorist" "Anti-Semite". Take your pick.
A common propaganda technique is to launch an ad hominem attack that is based on begging the question.
For example,
1. If the ICJ says that it is plausible that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, Netenyahu calls the ICJ "antisemitic".
2. In 2020, anyone who suggested that COVID came from a lab was called a "racist" and a "conspiracy theorist."
3. If you doubt *any* part of the climate change narrative, you are called a "climate denier" or a "science denier".
And on... and on... and on....
well said
You sound a little anti-Semitic.
lol.... that name calling does a great job of not having to answer anyone's argument
oh a name caller.... feeling self-righteous today?
Nice use of a picture of Alex Jones as your paradigmatic "conspiracy generator". 😉🙂
Bookmarked for later perusals ...
Some folks still believe Obama cared about America and upheld his constitutional oath to the office of POTUS. So there's another conspiracy theory in plain sight.
Your book is really part of the conspiracy to deflect people from the truth! By re-labelling actual plots as 'conspiracies', you think people will ignore what is REALLY going on...
Joking aside... There must be a grain of truth or some kind of claim to connect a conspiracy to the real world. It usually only takes a high-school level of science or psychology to find the errors. Unfortunately, most people prefer not to use their knowledge or depend on 'authorities' to determine how they think about the world around them.
Another technique is to make the terms so vague that almost everyone will agree.
Election fraud? All elections have some amount of fraud, but did that fraud change the result?
Global Warming to Climate Change. Climate always changes. Nobody can dispute that humans have changed the climate, but to what extent? Compared to the previous Ice Ages? How much warming is anthropogenic? Is there an ideal temperature? Up here in Canada, I would welcome a few more degrees of warmth...
Great post.
And what about being the truth-teller who is accused of spouting a conspiracy theory? Is there a way "in seconds" to shoot them down as well?
I’m not a believer of conspiracy theories, but I a big fan. I’m especially impressed by “spurious links” —most recent one I’ve seen: Person A followed Person B on social media, therefore Person A is in league with Person B.
I don't believe in "theories" when it comes down to historically accurate accounts of conspiracies in plain sight. Peeps just gotta understand that a conspiracy is just another word for a "business plan."