Silently Sprayed

[raboonthebaboon]

i would love to see those papers of which you speak though

[knell]

genuinely interested to know your thoughts? cos based on your posts in this thread, you really didn't get it

it was really interesting! to me, there's nothing to "get", it seemed like he was just opening people's minds to the fact that there may be more than meets the eye, kinda like a reality based version of the book Sum.

it reminds me of a philosophy teacher i once had, who would lay out ideas in a similar style.

that's all well and good but if i see a theory, i look into it, i spend way more time than i should researching it, and then i put my point of view out there. i take nothing at face value, and i can be swayed one way or another depending on what i read/see. i don't care if anyone agrees with me.

i dont know everything, and neither do you, Wilson, or particle physicists. that was the point of the book, in my opinion.

i would love to see those papers of which you speak though

this! please please make a thread when you get them, i would love to have a read

[raboonthebaboon]

i dont know everything, and neither do you, Wilson, or particle physicists. that was the point of the book, in my opinion.

well exactly, though i would say (as would wilson) anything as opposed to everything
so how can you be so sure that no planes in the vast expanse of our atmosphere are spraying nothing that is suspect?

[knell]

so how can you be so sure that no planes in the vast expanse of our atmosphere are spraying nothing that is suspect?

not "sure" really, it's just that all available evidence points to the contrary, and the people/websites claiming it have some of the most shaky ideas of what science really is.

if there is some spraying going on, i guarantee you that none of those websites are accurate in their reasons how/why. after spending hours reading them yesterday and the day before, the difference between them and anything scientific is monumental.

i mean, ffs, an aerosol would leave no ground-visible trail coming out of a plane, and certainly wouldn't "linger"... so if they ARE spraying...

you wouldnt be able to see it.

scared yet?

[raboonthebaboon]

so how can you be so sure that no planes in the vast expanse of our atmosphere are spraying nothing that is suspect?

not "sure" really, it's just that all available evidence points to the contrary, and the people/websites claiming it have some of the most shaky ideas of what science really is.

if there is some spraying going on, i guarantee you that none of those websites are accurate in their reasons how/why. after spending hours reading them yesterday and the day before, the difference between them and anything scientific is monumental.

i mean, ffs, an aerosol would leave no ground-visible trail coming out of a plane, and certainly wouldn't "linger"... so if they ARE spraying...

you wouldnt be able to see it.

scared yet?

validation of evidence is incredibly tricky, you can't honestly say you know everything about the context and motives of the experiments/papers you have listed, who sponsored them, why, etc etc etc
i'm trying to live my life by the statement "i don't believe in anything"
you can't guarantee me anything either

though i'd never actually thought about the clear aerosols i'll admit, though that doesn't mean anything really
you just can't be sure
anyways, i'm sure we'll all know the truth soon enough

[knell]

validation of evidence is incredibly tricky, you can't honestly say you know everything about the context and motives of the experiments/papers you have listed, who sponsored them, why, etc etc etc

true, but i tend to migrate towards reliable things... it's not like these people post up their articles and everyone goes "oh well that's nice", theres hundreds of scientists (who it would be a stretch to say are "sponsored") pouring over the details and repeating them. that's how science works. i dont see any theorists doing any of that, although they love to direct me to youtube videos.

i'm trying to live my life by the statement "i don't believe in anything"

keeping an open mind is always essential

though i'd never actually thought about the clear aerosols i'll admit, though that doesn't mean anything really

yes it does mean something. it means that if the government wanted to leave such blatant evidence of their "spraying", they would have to add smoke or something to leave their trails. and saying that they can mix chemicals in with contrails is fine, but you then have to treat all contrails as equals. that means stop posting pictures of persistent contrails as "evidence"

[kidshuffle]

Alchemy is actually pretty cool.

Although its pretty much also apparently more like Religion and Science mixed all into one.

strongly disagree, religion doesn't come into it at all

religion does borrow a lot from alchemy though, take a look at all the alchemical imagery etc in the vatican for example

Yeah, Religion was really the wrong word. "Spirituality/Circle of life" are about the only alternative I can think of off the top of my head. Will post when I get them though.

[raboonthebaboon]

Alchemy is actually pretty cool.

Although its pretty much also apparently more like Religion and Science mixed all into one.

strongly disagree, religion doesn't come into it at all

religion does borrow a lot from alchemy though, take a look at all the alchemical imagery etc in the vatican for example

Yeah, Religion was really the wrong word. "Spirituality/Circle of life" are about the only alternative I can think of off the top of my head. Will post when I get them though.

could you pm them to me as well please, probably will miss thread

[kidshuffle]

Course. On this account, or one of your others?

[bigfootspartan]

validation of evidence is incredibly tricky, you can't honestly say you know everything about the context and motives of the experiments/papers you have listed, who sponsored them, why, etc etc etc
i'm trying to live my life by the statement "i don't believe in anything"
you can't guarantee me anything either

though i'd never actually thought about the clear aerosols i'll admit, though that doesn't mean anything really
you just can't be sure
anyways, i'm sure we'll all know the truth soon enough

I wasn't going to do too much talking here, but whenever people post shit like this it gets my goat.

Anyone who has done any research can tell you that it's ridiculously hard to get published, especially in a reputable journal such as PNAS, Nature, JI, NEJM, etc.

First, you think of a problem/phenomenon, and postulate an explanation. My 2 year old nephew can get this part, however, this is where conspiracy theorists stop.

For the rest of the scientific world, we then do experiments. Some of which are easy, some of which are stupidly hard (crossing mice to get a knockout mouse can take years... I can make a youtube video in 30 minutes...). Following this, we analyze the data. Again, this can either take months (especially if the experiment didn't go as you expected) or hours.

Then we sit at our desks and write up what we found. Up until this point, yes, personal bias can get in the way.

However, once everything gets written up it gets checked by your principal investigator (PI). Then, it gets sent to a journal (let's say Nature, just for fun). They then send it to many different peers who have similar degrees and conduct similar research. Those peers (whom you have no contact with, as the lab proposing the paper) then spend days looking over the paper, trying to find illogical problems, personal bias, etc. Usually they'll find something wrong and send it back. You make revisions, then send it back to the journal. Then they peer review it once again.

Now if you believe that all of the peer reviewers involved in this process have the same personal bias, given that they have no direct contact with the lab proposing the paper, I can see how you believe that the government has a master plan to give us all Alzheimer's through contrails.

*Just as a caveat to that, it doesn't necessarily mean that a paper is worth it's weight in gold just because it got published. One example that comes to mind is Medawar's paper in 1948. In his paper he had an n=5, of which 2 died. He then did the statistics on the 3 surviving mice. It passed, probably because it was 1948 at the time, but there's no way those statistics hold any water if you consider all 5 mice. And 5 is a pretty piss poor number to start with anyways. In the end he got a Nobel prize for it, but I still think his paper was a piss poor piece of research.

** So I guess the moral of the story is: If it's published then we can assume that the peer reviewers did their job, theres no reason not too. Just because it's published and the abstract looks good, doesn't mean the research actually has any relevance.

/end rant

[raboonthebaboon]

@ kidshuffle, this one, it's the only one i use
cheers

[capo ultra]

Thomas Malthus Eugenics are alive and kicking
Nutrients and vitamins extract from edible goods
Legislate, sick populations - a higher rate of mortality
Food code (as it's known) Codex Alimentarius

Thin the herd, thin the herd, the great cull is coming down...

Develop virus market cure - exploit the panic
Contaminate by guile and stealth - a quick strum of the harp
Depopulate initiate - pharmaceutical companies
All fall down, all fall down, Codex Alimentarius

Thin the herd, thin the herd, the great cull is coming down...

Most of us must die...

Instigate wars in population density centres
Maintain population below 500 million

Immunise, irradiate, deregulate all toxins
Monsanto feed, Monsanto seed - all the bees are dying
Depopulation in every nation, follow the food code
All fall down, all fall down, Codex Alimentarius

Thin the herd, thin the herd, the great cull is coming down...

[seckle]

Keep in mind, it's important to discuss conspiracies like this in the open, where everyone can read evidence from both sides, and make up their mind for themselves. Insults only get people worked up.

conspiracists want you worked up. never ever forget that. the insults, antagonizing, condescension, assumptions... its all part of the theatre for them. make up your mind for yourself, not what a handful of people in here need to show you in bait videos or fear and doom soaked original research.

[knell]

yeah that's true, but when i wrote that i was reminding all the non-conspiracists that just calling people idiots for believing in chemtrails is just as counter-productive to the discussion.

[borrowed]

Productive discussion about chemtrails you say?

[wormcode]

Off topic but related
I thought this was funny: http://www.cracked.com/article_18854_th ... feeds.html

#3. Billy Corgan is Almost Glenn Beck

[ed teach]

Did any of you read this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Superfreakonomi ... 071399990X

Chapter 4 had something along these lines, but instead they suggested using some giant floating hose-pipes to pump sulphuric ozone stuff directly into the atmosphere with the intention of slowing the effects of C02 build up. It got debunked pretty soon after, but it does make you think about how it could be possible to install a public motive for that kind of plan.

Like if it was purely commercial/military, but a voting & taxpaying majority were fooled into thinking it was a necessity for the good of all mankind, and actually supported the proposal. Anyway, fully sure we can do this type of shit now. Just about establishing a motive to justify it. Reminds me a little of the background story from Highlander 2.

Another slightly more worrying theory is that the massive over-production and consumption of crude oil may be leading to accelerated plate tectonic instability, due to the leeching and removal of the planets' natural buffer zones. Also it would serve no current commercial interest to action any research into this theory, so the evidence may be somewhat lacking.

[ed teach]

[silence]Brrrrap?[/silence]

[noam]

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/e/3/a/e3a80eabf4 ... id=1406368

sayn doe

[lloydnoise]

validation of evidence is incredibly tricky, you can't honestly say you know everything about the context and motives of the experiments/papers you have listed, who sponsored them, why, etc etc etc
i'm trying to live my life by the statement "i don't believe in anything"
you can't guarantee me anything either

though i'd never actually thought about the clear aerosols i'll admit, though that doesn't mean anything really
you just can't be sure
anyways, i'm sure we'll all know the truth soon enough

I wasn't going to do too much talking here, but whenever people post shit like this it gets my goat.

Anyone who has done any research can tell you that it's ridiculously hard to get published, especially in a reputable journal such as PNAS, Nature, JI, NEJM, etc.

First, you think of a problem/phenomenon, and postulate an explanation. My 2 year old nephew can get this part, however, this is where conspiracy theorists stop.

For the rest of the scientific world, we then do experiments. Some of which are easy, some of which are stupidly hard (crossing mice to get a knockout mouse can take years... I can make a youtube video in 30 minutes...). Following this, we analyze the data. Again, this can either take months (especially if the experiment didn't go as you expected) or hours.

Then we sit at our desks and write up what we found. Up until this point, yes, personal bias can get in the way.

However, once everything gets written up it gets checked by your principal investigator (PI). Then, it gets sent to a journal (let's say Nature, just for fun). They then send it to many different peers who have similar degrees and conduct similar research. Those peers (whom you have no contact with, as the lab proposing the paper) then spend days looking over the paper, trying to find illogical problems, personal bias, etc. Usually they'll find something wrong and send it back. You make revisions, then send it back to the journal. Then they peer review it once again.

Now if you believe that all of the peer reviewers involved in this process have the same personal bias, given that they have no direct contact with the lab proposing the paper, I can see how you believe that the government has a master plan to give us all Alzheimer's through contrails.

*Just as a caveat to that, it doesn't necessarily mean that a paper is worth it's weight in gold just because it got published. One example that comes to mind is Medawar's paper in 1948. In his paper he had an n=5, of which 2 died. He then did the statistics on the 3 surviving mice. It passed, probably because it was 1948 at the time, but there's no way those statistics hold any water if you consider all 5 mice. And 5 is a pretty piss poor number to start with anyways. In the end he got a Nobel prize for it, but I still think his paper was a piss poor piece of research.

** So I guess the moral of the story is: If it's published then we can assume that the peer reviewers did their job, theres no reason not too. Just because it's published and the abstract looks good, doesn't mean the research actually has any relevance.

/end rant

baboon, do you believe in anything AT ALL? Surely you have no opinions on anything? Why get involved?