Introducing “The Conspirators”

Introducing the newest series from Skeptoid Media, The Conspirators. It’s our first foray into animation and into comedy, and we really hope you’ll enjoy it.

It features some voices you’ll recognize, such as Brian Keith Dalton (aka Mr. Deity), Maynard, Blythe Renay, Emery Emery in a breakout role, and of course Your Humble Servant. The show reveals the inner workings of the Illuminati of the New World Order.

This series is funded on Patreon, so whether you’re already a Patreon user or not, you can contribute really quickly and easily. If enough people like the show, we’d love to continue making them. This first episode was already used in a college classroom in a unit on conspiracy theories within its very first week, so don’t knock its potential. Please become a supporter, you won’t regret it.

I hope you like it!

About Brian Dunning

Science writer Brian Dunning is the host and producer of Skeptoid.
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories, Cool Stuff, TV & Media. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Introducing “The Conspirators”

  1. Mitchell says:

    Love it.

    Keep up coming

  2. Bill Morgan says:

    A very amateur video. Here is something better.

    What in the World Are They Spraying?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEUg8uLoZNY

    • Stuart Herring says:

      Bill, I daresay you couldn’t produce an animated presentation of this quality. (If you can, go right ahead; amaze us. If not, you have no business deriding it as “amateur”.)

      What in the world are they spraying? Well, carbon dioxide; water vapor; some nitrogen oxides; soot; and a few other molecules that are the partial-combustion products of jet fuel burning in air.
      You want to claim that instead they’re dumping Evil Mind-Control Chemicals, to dupe the Sheeple into accepting the New World Order’s One World Government? Send people into the stratosphere, then, following the jets, to collect actual samples wherewith to test your claim. Or, more easily, sneak people into the aircraft on the ground to collect samples before they are dispersed. THEN, with proof in hand, come here and show everyone how wrong they’ve been.
      (If you can’t come up with independently verifiable evidence, though, you’ll have to just shut up and go away. Over to you…)

      • Bill Morgan says:

        Stuart, The Answers to your questions are in the 1 hr. 37 min. video. Obviously you did not take the time to watch it. Bill

        • Stuart Herring says:

          Do you mean, then, that the video shows that people have, using the proper scientific method, actually sampled the chemistry of the contrails, and/or produced samples from the alleged spray tanks on the ground? Because in the first ten minutes or so, there was no indication that any such evidence had been gathered. This would have been such an important point that they would have introduced it early on, I should think. (But maybe the presentation was just *ahem* a very amateur video…not worth 97 minutes of my time. Feel free to provide an “executive summary” of the crucial points, instead of the overly repetitive version in the video. If your cause is worthy, it will be worth the effort to make it more accessible to the public.)

          You and the rest of the “chemtrail crowd” are making a rather extraordinary claim—for which you must, fairly, provide extraordinary evidence. If you do not, you risk being dismissed as fools who should not try to waste the time of more careful thinkers.

          Let’s do something scientific, hey? One little calculation, involving generous (and over-generous) estimates.
          Assume a Boeing 747-8I, whose entire cargo mass is some water solution of ready-to-spray chemicals. (This is already unrealistically in your favor, since such commercial aircraft actually carry a lot of quite ordinary, believable freight.) This mass is about 233 000 kg. Assume that the density of the solution is about 1.2 kg/L; this gives 194 000 L of stuff.
          These aircraft typically fly in the stratosphere, at about 11 000 m altitude. By watching the trails, I see that they expand considerably before dissipating. I’ve not measured them, but for the purposes of this demonstration I’ll take the spread to be 50× the wingspan, or about 3400 m. Since the engine exhaust tubes are symmetric (cylinders), we get cylindric clouds behind them.
          Now assume a transcontinental flight, San Diego to Bangor; about 6900 km, spraying all the way. This means a set of four clouds with a total volume of 2.5E14 m³. Since the emission is 194 m³, the concentration—while still at 11 km altitude—is 7.7E-13. Round it up to 1E-12 — 1 part per trillion.
          Now let the spray drift down to Earth, diffusing into the surrounding air en route. Imagine that it only spreads out to cover a 5-kilometer-wide footprint. This drops the concentration to about 1/9 of the above. You get a “dose” on the ground of 0.1 ppt…which sounds negligible, at least to this physicist. Remember, this calculation was done with assumptions that were heavily—excessively—weighted in YOUR favor, and it still came out as very difficult to believe.

          Your carefully considered (and carefully calculated) ideas in response are invited.

    • Peter May says:

      The determined conspiracy theorist will never be deterred by anything as trivial as
      science.

      Keep up your wonderful work Brian, wonderful animation, but a bit to complex I fear for the
      mind of conspiracy theorist.

      • Macky says:

        “The determined conspiracy theorist will never be deterred by anything as trivial as science.”

        Neither will the determined conspiracy basher acting under the banner of “skepticism” and “critical analysis”.

        Genuinely concerned people like Bill raise the questions that should be the role of genuine skeptics, not as per who actually are the perps of the latest conspiracy theory, but the close examination of Officialdom’s versions of the truth, often debunked by history, and in particular by their own official files, both current and de-classified.

        That so-called skeptics are not even willing to acknowledge said official govt files on Skeptoid demonstrates what I have often observed on Skeptoid, at least as far as a FEW pertinent subjects are concerned.

        Skeptoid has proven not only by its articles on these few matters, but by ignoring solid evidence against govt official stories that it is a site merely for conspiracy theory bashing, nothing else, and the above admittedly amusing vid has moved Skeptoid on even further into the area of a visual comedy carnival.

        • Bill Morgan says:

          Macky, completely agree with your comments. I’m currently reading Jeb and The Bush Crime Family by Roger Stone and Saint John Hunt. The authors show how Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and Neil Bush have committed felony crimes for the last 75 years. For example, George H. W. Bush was the bag man for the White House Plumbers Group. He diverted $700,000 from donations to the Republican Party to the Plumbers Group with Nixon’s approval. That was an illegal act and is a felony. Yet, the Justice Dept. refused to prosecute. Why, because the moneyed establishment power structure that operates behind the scenes protects the Bush Family. Can’t have a future President being charged with a crime. That wouldn’t be prudent.

          But of course Skeptics will refuse to believe this and just call it a conspiracy theory. Skeptics can not bring themselves to believe that there is a shadow government of Billionaires that pull the strings of power from behind the curtain. They can’t grasp that. Too much for their minds to handle. They prefer a world where there are no conspiracies. They feel safer that way. And of course there are some Skeptics that are front men for one of the Intelligent Agencies. Bill

          • Macky says:

            What I can’t get over is that the few contentious issues/investigations from at least Kennedy to 9-11 have all been supplied with an FD-302 FBI form which is blatantly fraudulent and certainly police-state in the way it can be altered but still held to be legal, with no right of redress by the “interviewee”.

            Yet no so-called skeptic on Skeptoid ever mentions it.

            Worse still, Brian himself has his own personal down-home FBI FD-302 experience which he roundly criticized here http://www.briandunning.com/straight.html but which later he writes articles holding the US govt official story to be true, that were in fact supported by thousands of said FD-302 forms, without even mentioning it in his articles.

            Something certainly doesn’t add up here, and on these few contentious issues in which I directly disagree with Skeptoid’s overall support of the US govt “Standard Model”, I cannot understand how Brian can rationalize his position on said US govt stories given his previous criticism (rightly) of FBI “interview” processes.

            And how so-called skeptics can continue to support a US govt myth (9-11) when so much US govt evidence is directly against it, is beyond me.

            Skeptoid demonstrates that in the area of American pseudo-history, it certainly is not a site for science and critical analysis, and with the addition now of video, (admittedly amusing) now cements itself squarely as a conspiracy theory bashing comedy carnival.

          • Bill Morgan says:

            Great research Macky! You have shown that Brian himself admits that his FBI 302 report contains false information which he is not allowed to correct. Yet, he uses Government Reports as being truthful and accurate when debunking “conspiracy theories”. Some real duplicity here!

            Here is a simple truth. Politicians lie. Politicians are elected to Government offices. Once in power, they don’t stop lying. They continue to lie. Look at Bill, Hillary, George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc. Liers, Liers, Liers! Bill

          • Macky says:

            Bill
            ” That was an illegal act and is a felony. Yet, the Justice Dept. refused to prosecute. Why, because the moneyed establishment power structure that operates behind the scenes protects the Bush Family.”

            The Law only applies to the ordinary man in the street, not the Powers That Be, whoever and wherever they are.
            Now and then a sacrificial lamb is offered up in order to get rid of him/her and as a show for the People, that said Law applies even to the highest, but generally the PTB get away with murder, drug dealing, war mongering and most notably, treason.

            That of course does not apply only to the US, but because the US is the world’s mover and shaker, at least in the “western” countries, it comes under more scrutiny, therefore more exposure per case.

            So-called skeptics should be utilizing their intelligence on these numerous matters, not essentially wasting their time on wholesale derision of conspiracy theories.

            While they laugh and point the finger at some of the more extreme CT’s, the US govt continues to promote and encourage its own outlandish conspiracy theories, such as 19 unidentified alleged Islamic hijackers taking over aircraft with box cutters and flying them into 3 out of 4 tiny targets at high speed on the very first try, the very first time they were on said aircraft types’ flight decks.

            If it wasn’t so tragic, it would be high comedy in its own right.

          • Bill Morgan says:

            Go Macky. Completely agree. Some of the so called Skeptics are just unaware of how Deep Politics works. Like George Soros giving $5 to $10 million to organizations who’s sole purpose is to destroy Trump. Soros has a net worth of $25 Billion. So $5 to $10 million is pocket change to him. But some of the so called Skeptics are actually deep cover agents for agencies like CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. Their job is to discredit anyone who is researching and writing about False Flag Operations, Black Ops, Covert Ops, etc. and exposing the real truth. These people have sold their souls to the Devil metaphorically speaking. They are Front Men disguised at researchers. They will even deny that False Flag Operations are carried out by Governments. They label everything as a “conspiracy theory” that contradicts the Government’s official version of events. Sad, very sad.

          • My job is to discredit what? The only payments I am aware of between myself and the government are the ones I just sent in to them today 🙂
            No one says that false flags don’t happen… they do. It is much easier for you to argue the absurd notion that we are claiming that they don’t happen ever; as opposed to the reality of each individual case and the merits of such a claim. Conspiracy theories all share similar problems: anomaly hunting, inferred evidence by absence, and a all powerful suppression of the truth. Yet the all powerful disinformation engine somehow can’t even stop random commentators such as yourself, or entire websites and books “dedicated to the truth” from pointing out their mistakes. That is why it is called a conspiracy theory.

          • Macky says:

            Whatever viewpoints are held on events such as 9-11 and TWA 800 etc, there remains confusion between the ordered questioning of the Official Story (or Standard Model as Skeptoid puts it), and conspiracy theories as to who actually done the deed, among CTer’s and skeptics. That has been borne out by some skeptics’ derisive comments re my evidence and assertions that show that Fl77 was not the way the US govt would have us believe, at least as to who the alleged perpetrators were.

            There are many hundreds of professionals from all walks of life questioning the US govt version of 9-11 for example. From what I have read, very few of them allege any perps, rather concentrating on the great holes in the US govt story, with much of their own specialized evidence against it.

            Unfortunately, Skeptoid’s treatment of these few contentious issues has been negligent in its own departments, that of science and critical analysis, concentrating on the conspiracy theories themselves instead of the actual events i.e the US govt versions.

            This has engendered a mindset among many who have the audacity to call themselves skeptics (certainly not all) which has resulted in kneejerk derision and personal attacks, and it is Skeptoid’s manner with which it has dealt with said contentious issues which has done a great disservice to its own mandate. The ignoring of solid evidence has only amplified this disservice.

            Lately, another issue popped up which I was unaware of, the FD-302 forms, and it is these that completely demolishes the Skeptoid position on these few subjects, namely that under FD-302 procedure the FBI can make up any legally binding and unalterable story it wants, from an alleged “interview”.
            That Brian himself posted his own harrowing FD-302 experience some time before he wrote his articles on said contentious issues, all of them supplied by FD-302, strongly implies Skeptoid as a site NOT for critical analysis on 9-11, JFK, TWA 800 etc whatever, but a promoter of the US govt Official Story no matter what.
            While a degree of humour is quite proper and welcome among us all, Skeptoid seems to have abandoned some time ago its mandate for evidenced opinion and assertion (whatever the viewpoint) and has become a CT-bashing party animal now complete with its first video, admittedly amusing.

            To be fair, Skeptoid has allowed most of my posts to stay up, which has been a good sign that Skeptoid is not entirely a site only for one man’s opinion and anything against simply deleted, but with comments now having been scrubbed from the old Skeptoid, this blog is all that is left for any skeptical discussion at all on important issues which are affecting us all, and will for a long time to come.

          • Mudguts says:

            Thanks for pointing out you have more than doubts about the conspiracists hoo-haa. Finally admitted that nasty monster doubt after @4 years is probably “main stream” bunk. The Al Qaeda mob did it after all..

            Now lets work on these words that you are confused about.

            The first being “opinion” when trying to write “view”. First exercise would be to close your eyes and type it out starting with a “v”. Keeps your eyes closed.. Spelling check won’t grab it..

            Try it one day… We may make it all the way up to “evidence”

          • Macky says:

            As you should know if you have paid any attention whatsoever to my posts on various issues such as 9-11, TWA 800, etc, I have NEVER promoted any conspiracy theory whatsoever (except the US govt’s), and your continued implications of me being some kind of conspiracist despite some 4 years of my postings displays a mindset that demonstrates that no matter what evidence is presented to you, Henk van der Gaast (Mudguts) will merely keep on with said mindset firmly embedded, it seems forever.

            US govt’s OWN files have shown (to those that are actually interested in said subjects) that the US govt versions of their stories have proven that the FBI’s investigations have been flawed, incompetent, subversive, and based on an FD-302 FBI form which is “police state” in its possible applications, and that the alleged culprits of 9-11 for example have never been proven to have planned and carried out the terrorist attacks that have been used for what amounts to a continuous war in the Middle East, with all its strategic advantages to the US, both military and economic.

            As always right from the start, I am willing to change my views on the receipt of better evidence than mine, but so far not only have several “skeptics” been unable to debate constructively on various aspects of said issues on the basis of critical analysis, but the important US govt agency evidence that I presented 2 years ago has been ignored by both Skeptoid and supporters of the Official Story.

            In addition, those such as yourself who should know better have engaged in nothing but personal disparaging attacks and diversions, in the glaring absence of constructive argument and supporting evidence for your position.

            You have done Skeptoid no favours by your meandering posts. Critical analysis and evidenced supported conclusions backed by science are totally lacking in anything you’ve ever said re 9-11 and the other issues, and it is a pity that your undoubtedly competent scientific training and ability has never been put to good use on Skeptoid.

          • Mudguts says:

            Dear me..

  3. Stuart Herring says:

    Edited to add—
    Suppose that the alleged spraying is done over a much shorter route (say, San Diego to Los Angeles, about 200 km). The concentration at the ground, using the rest of the previous assumptions, goes up to about 30× the first value—to 30 ppt, or 0.03 ppb. Still negligible.
    (Before you jump in and say, “Ah, but the effects are carefully designed to be cumulative!”, you must be prepared, again, to offer hard evidence for any such claim. Go for it!)

    • mudguts says:

      Stuart, you dont need to edit as the conspiracists made it up.. if they actually knew the what the toxins were the worst case scenario could be simply calculated.

      Thats the problems with reports that are derivative on derivative in the conspiramedia.

      I am quite happy to work with cyanide as the model (as clearly Stuart is too)… But.. We can “fudge it” for um.. thiomersal.. or any delivery agent conspiracists select (but they have to give a reference to it). Its just not that hard to work out the dose to ground

      So guys.. no more hopeful whinge media.. out with your pencils and paper and give us an estimate. If that’s hard.. give us the ones in the blog domain..

      Not really worried if its ricin.. even homeopathic chicken flu..

  4. richard1941 says:

    This is really really good stuff. I would truly love to become a member of the illuminatti, but they are so masterful at stealth that I can’t find out where to apply.

    I was, however, telepathically instructed to tell you that all that chemtrail conspiracy is nonsense. The real stuff is in the fluoride they use in the water system. When local islands of awareness appear, as in Flint, Michigan, they switch to lead.

    • Bill Morgan says:

      It’s easy to find the Illuminati. Apply through any of their sister organizations.

      Skull and Bones Society
      Council on Foreign Relations
      Trilateral Commission
      Bilderberg Group
      Free Masons
      Club of Rome
      Knights of Malta

      In David Rockefeller’s book ‘Memoirs’ he admits he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States and create a new world order. Here is the direct quote from his book, page 405.

      Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure, One World if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. David Rockefeller

      We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries. David Rockefeller to the Trilateral Commission in 1991.

  5. richard1941 says:

    An undesireable side effect of the fluoride, of course, is what it does to our sacred bodily fluids. This has the effect of decreasing the supply of future soldiers and future soldier factories.

  6. Macky says:

    Just like the Chemtrail article in the main Skeptoid, a blanket “world-wide” conspiracy with the usual extreme CT’s thrown in, and a few “technical” reasons why it should be treated with humour and derision.
    A video extension of the same old CT-bashing agenda of Skeptoid and it’s so-called skeptics.

    On the old Skeptoid, I debunked Brian’s illogical and outrageous assertion that chemtrail spraying would need to be a world-wide conspiracy with thousands of personnel involved.

    There have been selective spraying on populations over the years, an area of Auckland for one, which our govt refused to reveal all the spray ingredients.

    In the US, MKUltra should demonstrate to anyone with half a brain to think, that our govts are quite happy to use their own citizens for long-standing and extensive criminal experiments that cause much harm and even death. There have been other outrageous and serious experiments that did cause deaths of US citizens and the evidence is mainstream, which goes to show that those that continually spend their time and efforts deriding conspiracy theories under the banner of skepticism and intelligent critical analysis are indeed engaging in diversionary attacks designed to lead supporters away from plain facts that may be quite possible, whether proven or not.

    There is no need to spray populations from airliners. It can be done from small crop-duster aircraft or helicopters over select areas according to whatever experiment is required for the PTB’s. Whether that is actually happening or not, it is entirely a possibility.

    Only a few people need to be in on the deal, and it certainly does not need to be a world-wide conspiracy. The “skeptics” that pile into their wholesale derision and contempt for those that promote outlandish CT’s are missing the point that at any time (at least in US) the military/whoever can and will spray populations at their will.

    It is written in law that they are legally allowed to do this, and here is the evidence https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1520a
    Section b effectively counteracts section a, and the rest are easily got around legally.

    Not that the US govt needs to have legal permission to do anything it wants on its own citizens, or any others around the world.

    The chemtrail question is yet another important matter that Skeptoid and its Official Story supporters would do well to spend their time and intellect on solid research into the implications of aerial spraying, instead of engaging in frivolous derision of admittedly extreme CT’s under the guise of critical analysis, science, and skepticism.

    • Delighted to, if anyone ever presents a claim specific enough to be testable.

      • Bill Morgan says:

        Chemtrails – The Proof 35 min. Actual pictures inside the planes of chemical tanks and video showing chemicals comeing out through nozzles attached to the wings, not the engines.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5VP64V6L2s

        • Stuart Herring says:

          Strange, isn’t it, that the aircraft wings easily visible through the windows at airports show no such nozzles?

          And, who is to say that the photos are indeed what you are claiming? What unbiased, authoritative source(s) can you honestly and reliably present?

          • Bill Morgan says:

            Stuart,

            Obviously you did not take the time to view the 35 min. video. The planes spraying Chemtrails are being flown out of Military Airports, not Commercial Airports. Any Top Secret Government program is going to be kept secret under a need to know basis. Outsiders are not going to be allowed on secret military bases to snoop around and ask questions of military personnel.

            This time try reading this article before you comment. Millions were in germ war tests.
            Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials

            http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

            Of course the Government says this spraying did not harm anyone. But there have been many birth defects in the areas sprayed. The Government does not want to admit any liability. And the Government will not comment on any ongoing programs today.

          • mudguts says:

            I can see you are coming up with the problem of facing Macky’s endless stories regarding his hobby of unverifiable conspiracism.

            Firstly, his stroy of his experience with newzealand chemtrails was lifted from Rense. Now that he cant see the archives only means he cant see them so he can deny them.

            Secondly, he specially pleaded the chemtrails as his own personal unusual ones.. They hang around in the sky for a whole day. All the rest of the contrails he alludes to must just be contrails. The special pleading chemtrails hang out the back of unspecified aircraft like a long tube of piffle.

            A dose to ground on the spray long tube of piffle cannot be calculated by simple volumetric means. In fact, Macky has pleaded for a special case spiritualist energy. This means you have ignored the energetic field from these long tubes of piffle.

            But now he has claimed that scientists can calculate the massic effects and hopefully the in herent woofle energy associated with the long tubes of piffle.

            We are all waiting for Macky’s special pleading Journal Article so we can practice some profound ad hominem and make sure the said scientists get “disappeared” just like we evil skeptics do in our spare time.

            Always remember how we rendered Joe Blogs after he assassinated Pres Kennedy and made it look like Lee Oswald?

            Thats right.. Skeptics stared with the phantom agents..

            “You shouldn’t have shot him. Guns are our last resort. Always remember we are phantom agents”.

            So we separate the comment left for you and the comment left for Macky…

            Macky; Journal Article. If its not published it hasn’t been done.

            Extend that to all conspiracism/spiritualism. Journal Articles.. We’d like to read them. We would hate to be accused of conspiracist/spiritualist style ad hominem and claim mongering.

            A line of evidence is a thousand “five paragraph” posts of claim.

          • mudguts says:

            Could people please read Bills “evidence”.

            I’d like to see how it relates to chemtrails raining poison down on us.

            I didnt.

            Bill, a short note.. I will never download a conspiracist youtube. The reason being, it will immediately flood my youtube opening screen with really “tard” conspiracist youtubes. Takes me hours to weed them out manually.

            You may say.. well open up a new account so I can look at youtube conspiracist idiocy.

            No, not going to happen. That’s your viewing/entertainment

          • Bill Morgan says:

            Here are facts and evidence that you refuse to read, since you have a closed mind.

            This time try reading this article before you comment. Millions were in germ warfare tests.
            Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret for decades.

            http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

          • mudguts says:

            Ive read the article Bill.. Where is the bit that fuels you claims past antivax style nonsense

          • Bill Morgan says:

            You must be brain dead. Can you even read?

            “Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials. The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
            A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain’s biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.”

        • mudguts says:

          Apart from the brain dead bit (no not yet and its a pity you cant evaluate that from what you read..)

          Is that it? is that the bit (unrelated to chemtrails) that is so important to you??

          Wouldn’t you think that ;

          ________________________________________________________
          Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials. The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.
          A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain’s biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.
          _____________________________________________________

          would have had a bit more veracity in the article?..
          1) Much of Britain (1square meter or from Wales to Calais?.. White cliffs to Edinburgh?.. or just on a test plot behind Cambridge?) Whats that supposed to mean?
          2) what bacteria? Stuff in the sewers, sinks, streets and field ? I am afraid that every Briton has more than a trillion micro-organisms .. whats it supposed to mean?
          3) Documents (traceability and dates for profound operations)

          so .. You immediately abandoned the chemtrail bit.. so its not important enough to argue yesterday.. you have lost the right to try and re- use it.

          Now all that’s left is to finish off the debunking of your reallyrealleyreally important bit.. The deliberate government infection of much of (or part of, or a locality of or an acre of or a test yard of.. or the handkerchief that HRH Charles sneezed on) Britain

          Off you go.. maybe you will ask yourself if this is a real article for a start.. Then .. has the article been so overblown its useless for reportage.. ESPECIALLY to the bit that you found important that you are now stuck with ..

          Times
          dates
          methodology
          results
          effect on population over background disease rates
          confounding factors

          Look it the same stuff we ask of Brian’s Auckland Correspondent Conspiracist whilst we are apparently deriding his weekly gospel of “never dun researched in the annals of squealing like a (misinformed but) stuck pig”.

          I think its all associated with retirement Bill.. Get a better History channel ..

          I am dead sure everyone who reads skeptoid could come up with a far more evil plot to rule the world than the conspiracy hobbyists can.

          Were I doing atmospheric modelling so as to elucidate local atmospheric events I would not have thought that other people were thinking I was there to spray them stupid.

          Clearly somebody did and beat me to it.. Maybe it was a case of the wrong homeopathic mix.. or etheric dissolving hydrogen bonds. They certainly didnt drop quadrillions of acupuncture needles.

          You dont live in Auckland do you?.. because then you may have a case… same location but only half the dose as your neighbour (this in itself would be a science worthy trial)..

          You see.. Until you find out what the guardian writer is actually writing about and have ascertained that he isnt barking, mildly barking, barking or slavering (as the media do on a daily basis) that report is zilch to me.. and to you.

          Bet you wish that you didn’t start off with the “brain dead” bit when you could have mined your vocabulary thimble a bit harder. ..

          • Macky says:

            “Look it the same stuff we ask of Brian’s Auckland Correspondent Conspiracist whilst we are apparently deriding his weekly gospel of “never dun researched in the annals of squealing like a (misinformed but) stuck pig”.”

            I am not a conspiracist, Henk, despite your repetitive assertion.
            As to the rest of your paragraph, what are you talking about ?

      • Macky says:

        What would you like, Brian ?

        Lab-tested evidence brought to a science journal article (confirmed by other scientists and widely acknowledged in the mainstream news media) that specifically blamed an aerial spray as the sole cause of disease(s) in a significant number of people proven to have lived beneath the spray area, accounting for wind-drift on the day(s) etc, with the govt and its health departments admitting and confirming without reservation that indeed the people being sprayed are now suffering specifically from said spray, and that they planned it all ?

        And if this imaginary miraculous event actually happened, what would convince you from a testable point of view that they were telling the truth ?
        Would you obtain samples yourself and test them to your satisfaction ? Or would you rely on testimony from others ?

        From a critical analysis viewpoint, on what grounds, and who would you believe to be telling the truth if you were not able to conduct the tests yourself ?

        • mudguts says:

          Would be nice if you presented the actual journal article..

          Given that the debunking you try is so inneffectual

          • mudguts says:

            Hmm.. no reply.. no Journal article no evidence..

            PS .. Ive been on a plane where they had “chemical tanks” just sitting on the hold..

            But they were Oil tanks as.. Connies burn a lot of oil..

            No Journal article.. the work hasnt been done at all..

            Enough with this fantasising Macky.. 4 years of claim and no evidence plus another two on your puns/jokes and rants/Strandpulling only indicates..

            You like your hobby a bit too much..

            Thought of lawn bowls?

            At least the mainstream media non evidence is a bit better than your anachronistic coffee table spiritualist book..

            Just as lost it appears

          • Macky says:

            I asked Brain what he would like, including a science journal, not that there is such an article.

            Back to your nap Henk…

        • mudguts says:

          Just as long as you dont wheedle it in to your personal history later..

          We’d hate to have the acupuncture brain stem victim who was a little bit sad become a scientist who was sprayed by an aircraft full of French pyschiatrists spraying extract of kung fu book..

          • Macky says:

            Brian asked for a testable example of chemtrail activity.

            How he was going to perform the tests I do not know as yet.

            So I post links to copies of govt documents that PROVE that the main issues of the chemtrail thing has happened in the past :

            1) Populations have been sprayed from the air
            2) Sometimes covertly (and sometimes not)
            3) Questionable ingredients (to human health) have been contained in the spray

            Will you ever address anything properly that others post without meandering off into your asinine musings, Henk van der Gaast (mudguts) ?

        • mudguts says:

          Hmm.. better evaluate those killer government documents you unearthed in a blog post from someone else.

        • mudguts says:

          er no.. they wouldnt..

          • Macky says:

            What do you want then ? A carefully constructed scientific test confirmed by many other authoritative scientists, and published in your precious journals ?

            The underlying theme of Brian’s chemtrail article and the video, is that it never happens because high-altitude spraying is not effective to the ground.

            Stuart Herring and myself had an ordered discussion on that very matter, and if you had followed the posts you would see that I am not arguing the high-altitude thing, but criticizing Brian’s overall treatment of the subject in the first place.

            Those links I provided show clearly that spraying of populations with harmful substances has taken place and the so-called skeptics would do well, after all the humour has died down, to start employing their intellect on the whole question of aerial spraying, not focusing on the high altitude aspect and dismissing the whole subject as conspiracy theory extremism on that alone.

    • Stuart Herring says:

      “…and a few “technical” reasons why it should be treated with humour and derision.”
      —Anything as poorly supported (and poorly supportable) as this, but fervently presented as if it were true, is going to be derided by skeptical thinkers. You know this, or you should.

      “…Skeptoid and it’s so-called skeptics.”
      —That’s “its”, not “it’s”. Get your grammar, as well as your science, straight. (If it was your elementary school that instructed you so poorly in your native tongue, please complain to them for us. If it was just your own laziness that led to this sloppiness, please apologize to us directly.)

      “There is no need to spray populations from airliners. It can be done from small crop-duster aircraft or helicopters over select areas according to whatever experiment is required for the PTB’s.”
      —Not only CAN it be done effectively from low-flying aircraft—it MUST be done that way, or the chemicals quickly become too dilute to affect people. See my analysis above, about spraying from the stratosphere.

      “…at any time (at least in US) the military/whoever can and will spray populations at their will.”
      —But even the Evil Government/Illuminati must bow to simple physics. Yet again I point out that any population-affecting spraying must be done near the ground. Therefore high-altitude spraying would not be done—and is not being done.

      “…engaging in frivolous derision of admittedly extreme CT’s under the guise of critical analysis, science, and skepticism.”
      —Please note that my own scientific analysis of possible at-the-ground concentrations, based on simple solid geometry, was not frivolous; nor was it (meant to be) derisive. I merely pointed out that, even under conditions that were impossibly generous to the chemtrail notion, it couldn’t work. Simple physics.

      “may be quite possible” … “entirely a possibility”
      —These characterizations are too vague. How do you KNOW that it’s even a possibility at all, much less a “quite possible” thing? It’s easy to make such statements, but it can be much harder to support them. Go for it.

      One more question: Why do you wish, and so fervently, to believe that the chemtrail idea is true? What got you started on this line of thought, and why do you cling to it? Enquiring minds truly want to know!

      • Macky says:

        Stuart
        I do not necessarily believe that the more extreme chemtrail ideas are true. I point out that in Skeptoid’s original chemtrail article, there are illogical arguments, one of which I debunked (re the world-wide thing). Whether you agree with my debunking or not I am happy to discuss.

        I do not see any minor grammatical error as detracting from the meaning of what I was saying, and your insinuation of laziness is only yet another mere ad hominem attack.

        “…or the chemicals quickly become too dilute to affect people.”
        Since the whole chemtrail thing is up for speculation on such sites as Skeptoid’s, there is no reason to believe that possible high-level spraying is not taking place for other purposes. Climate control has been suggested. There may be others.

        Stuart, I certainly am not saying that your analysis is/was frivolous or derisive. I made a general comment reflecting Skeptoid’s treatment of quite serious subjects over the years, along with many “skeptics” piling in with their derisive remarks, usually devoid of any critical analysis.
        One of Skeptoid’s themes through the years has been to treat outlandish and extreme CT’s with humour and of course there is nothing wrong with a bit of fun. But I have suggested possibilities of actual chemtrail laying in the sky (along with other serious witnesses) in the original chemtrail article (once again we can’t refer to it because the comments have been deleted).

        ““may be quite possible” … “entirely a possibility”’
        Of course they are vague. But they are seriously true. And they are backed up with Auckland’s own chemtrail laying (low-level as you say) history, where people underneath the path were becoming unwell. The NZ govt held out for quite a while refusing to reveal all the components of the spray.
        It’s perfectly possible for covert (the ingredients) spraying of select populations and easily carried out, even with full public knowledge of the spraying.
        The American history of unauthorized experiments on US citizens also presents the possibility of US govt-sanctioned acts against its own people at any time, without any necessity to be specific about said possibility.

        There have been a large number of sightings that have been of long-lasting duration and of unusual patterns over populated areas around the world. NZ has its share of such sightings, trails being laid (whatever they are) well outside normal flight paths sometimes in criss-cross patterns for no apparent reason.

        “One more question: Why do you wish, and so fervently, to believe that the chemtrail idea is true?”
        I do not wish to believe the “chemtrail idea” is true. I assume you mean the wide-spread higher-altitude assertions of some conspiracy theorists.
        I do know from personal observations (only a couple) that I described in the old Chemtrail article in many posts, in answer to sensible enquiries, that trails quite unlike contrails were laid, and these trails lasted for a very long time, far longer than one would expect contrails to last.
        There were at least three other posters who provided Skeptoid with explicit sightings that were certainly not normal commercial flights, if we are to believe them. There have been numerous accounts of blue sky having trails laid in it, only for said trails to spread out and eventually dull the whole sky.

        How much observational and photographic evidence do you “skeptics” want before you are convinced that such trails deserve some serious investigation, whether those trails are as the conspiracy theorists say or not ?

        • Macky says:

          BTW, just as a counter in case I’m accused of being a chemtrail CT enthusiast, there are photos of the insides of aircraft with tanks in place of seats etc.
          I believe those tanks to be water-ballast tanks used in COG/passenger movements experiments, by and large.
          The large amount of temporary computer equipment also observed tends to support my view.

          • mudguts says:

            No we have to get this bit right… You are accused of being a conspiracist who thinks Computed Tomography is a valid way of researching blog articles.

        • Stuart Herring says:

          Bill Morgan:
          “The planes spraying Chemtrails are being flown out of Military Airports, not Commercial Airports.”
          —The contrails that we see, around the world, are too numerous for military aircraft to be (entirely) responsible. Also, if you track a conventional airliner from its airport, you’ll see contrails when it gets high enough (if the local atmospheric conditions are right). Since contrails are so common, they either reflect a conspiracy of staggering scope—and literally incredible secrecy, or…they’re just ordinary phenomena, with nothing for you to worry about.

          “Millions were in germ war tests. Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials.”
          —Reprehensible as this is, it still does not address the notion of spraying things from the stratosphere—which, I continue to point out, would be an extravagantly useless endeavor.

          I have a question for you, when you answer this question for me: what is the approximate temperature of the material at the time of release from the wing nozzles?

          ====================================
          Macky:
          “I do not see any minor grammatical error as detracting from the meaning of what I was saying, and your insinuation of laziness is only yet another mere ad hominem attack.”
          —No. An ad hominem attack denounces the opponent’s *character* instead of his argument. I neither know nor care about your character, here. But if you allow yourself to be, shall we say instead, careless (rather than lazy) with even the small elements of the language with which you try to present arguments, what shall we conclude about your intellectual rigor with respect to larger issues?

          “…there is no reason to believe that possible high-level spraying is not taking place for other purposes.”
          —No reason? How about the ineffectuality of applying chemicals from the stratosphere, as detailed above?
          And, you continue to claim the ossibility of things without supporting your claim. How do you KNOW that such is possible? Cite sources!

          “Climate control has been suggested. There may be others.”
          —And there may not be. Merely repeating vague notions (“possibly”, “maybe”, etc.) convinces no one, especially when you do not offer support for your speculations.
          Besides, climate adjustments are more easily attempted down here in the climate, with installations that are truly large—such as fossil-fueled power plants, and innumerable automobiles.

          “Of course [my suppositions] are vague. But they are seriously true.”
          —Once again, you claim truth without supplying sufficient evidence.

          “It’s perfectly possible for covert (the ingredients) spraying of select populations and easily carried out, even with full public knowledge of the spraying.”
          —Yes indeed, but only at low altitudes.

          “There have been a large number of sightings that have been of long-lasting duration and of unusual patterns over populated areas around the world.”
          —The long-lasting nature of some contrail clouds is, of itself, not evidence of Something That Is Not Right. (Define “long-lasting”. Compared to what?)
          —What makes a contrail pattern unusual? By whose criteria?
          —They occur over populated areas because that’s where (large) airports have to be. Many flights into and out of airports = many contrails nearby. Unavoidable.

          “…trails being laid (whatever they are) well outside normal flight paths sometimes in criss-cross patterns for no apparent reason.”
          —How much do you know about what the normal flight paths are? (And consider that various ordinary reasons exist for deviations from usual paths. Weather problems in other areas, for example.)
          —Aircraft fly many different routes, often close together in time as well as in space. This could easily (and innocuously) make criss-cross patterns.
          —“No apparent reason”? Not apparent to you, clearly, but your ignorance of possible reasons is no support for a claim of Something Unusual.

          “I do know from personal observations (only a couple) … that trails quite unlike contrails were laid, and these trails lasted for a very long time, far longer than one would expect contrails to last.”
          —Only a couple of observations, eh? Not much to go on.
          How do you know that these were quite unlike contrails? (How much do you know about the meteorology and physics of the stratosphere?)
          How do you know how long a contrail should last, so as to be able to say that some lasted too long for believability?

          “There have been numerous accounts of blue sky having trails laid in it, only for said trails to spread out and eventually dull the whole sky.”
          —How big is “the whole sky”—just your local area (a few tens of kilometers across)? And, so what? Vapors can spread widely, at times, without connoting anything malevolent.

          “…such trails deserve some serious investigation, whether those trails are as the conspiracy theorists say or not”
          —Begin the investigation, then. Provide funding for the collection and analysis of samples of the claimed substances. Good luck!

          • Stuart Herring says:

            oops—left a typo. In paragraph 2, I meant to say “…claim the possibility of things…”, not “the ossibility”.

          • Macky says:

            Stuart
            “No. An ad hominem attack denounces the opponent’s *character* instead of his argument.”
            Ad hominem is ANY attack of a personal nature on someone, instead of the argument. Your fixation on a minor grammatical error is rather petty, I feel.

            The whole point of chemtrail laying in essence is what I have posted above:
            1) Populations have been sprayed from the air
            2) Sometimes covertly (and sometimes not)
            3) Questionable ingredients (to human health) have been contained in the spray

            whether it from a high altitude or lower. The evidence has been presented in my links that there have been covert deliberate spraying of populations with sprays that have contained substances that are known to be harmful to human health.

            I have never argued that stratospheric spraying is effectual for spraying populations on the ground. But how do you know there is not some other purpose e.g. atmosphere testing etc going on that requires high-altitude dispersion, and that in fact is what some sightings are? I have also NOT asserted that that may be necessarily any CT or of harm to those below.

            ““Climate control has been suggested. There may be others.”
            —And there may not be. Merely repeating vague notions (“possibly”, “maybe”, etc.) convinces no one,…”
            Of what ?

            ““Of course [my suppositions] are vague. But they are seriously true.”
            —Once again, you claim truth without supplying sufficient evidence.”
            There is no need to be specific about vague notions that imply govt misbehavior on civilians. The evidence is widespread and mainstream.
            That of course does not mean that it is actually happening, but it IS a possibility at any time given the large amount of criminal behavior of the govt and its agencies and military. No question. The history speaks for itself.

            “—The long-lasting nature of some contrail clouds is, of itself, not evidence of Something That Is Not Right. (Define “long-lasting”. Compared to what?)”
            Of course. Only that it’s worthy of investigation by skeptics.
            Long-lasting in my opinion is that which I saw. The first sighting of 5 parallel and discoloured lines of trails of equal length as I drove over the top of a southern hill lasted at least one and a half hours later still in well-discernible pattern, after which I was indoors.
            The second issuing directly from what appeared to be a C-130’s fuselage, not exhausts, lasted for well past the time I have seen actual contrails last.

            ” —What makes a contrail pattern unusual? By whose criteria?”
            By its unusual colours, outside normal flight paths, issuing directly from the fuselage instead of wingtips or engines astern of the aircraft. By my criteria. Of many observations of contrails over the years, both low-level and high altitude.

            “—How much do you know about what the normal flight paths are?”
            Quite a lot. I live near an airport and our house is under one of the flight paths. I track aircraft on Flightradar and Planefinder fairly often and they pretty much stick to about 4-5 flight paths in and out of Auckland Airport. The occasional military aircraft or helicopter is seen flying overhead on none of those flight paths. (That was one of my unusual sightings.)

            “This could easily (and innocuously) make criss-cross patterns.” Not in an orderly and well-spaced criss-cross pattern. Nor orderly parallel and equal-length lines. Where that photo was taken is over an area that would never have those fight paths for normal air traffic.

            “How do you know how long a contrail should last, so as to be able to say that some lasted too long for believability?”
            As contrails yes. Two sightings. I have sighted quite a few high-level contrails over the years, from time to time, and they have lasted as perceivable trails anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour. None have lasted longer than that without spreading and distorting beyond immediate recognition i.e. I knew they were contrails because I saw them from the beginning.

            “Vapors can spread widely, at times, without connoting anything malevolent.”
            I’ve never said they were necessarily malevolent. They were unusual.

            ” —Begin the investigation, then. Provide funding for the collection and analysis of samples of the claimed substances.”
            I have no funding for such, because families overseas receive most of my income (after bills). Is that okay ?

  7. Stuart Herring says:

    Macky:
    “Ad hominem is ANY attack of a personal nature on someone, instead of the argument. Your fixation on a minor grammatical error is rather petty, I feel.”
    —I was attacking, if you wish to think of it that way, your seeming inability to use the language properly. That is, in at least a minor way, a flaw in your argumentation—NOT in your character.

    “The whole point of chemtrail laying in essence is what I have posted above:
    1) Populations have been sprayed from the air…”
    —Covertly or not; questionable ingredients or not; populations have been sprayed…from low altitudes, not stratospheric altitudes. The high altitudes are the issue with the chemtrail notion; please stop repeating the irrelevant information about low altitudes.

    “whether it from a high altitude or lower.”
    —No. From high altitude it is functionally impossible, so you can’t lump these together.

    “But how do you know there is not some other purpose e.g. atmosphere testing etc going on that requires high-altitude dispersion, and that in fact is what some sightings are?”
    —I can’t utterly rule out such things. (That’s why I said “functionally impossible”, rather than simply “impossible”.)
    But may I introduce you to William of Ockham? (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor .)

    ‘Merely repeating vague notions (“possibly”, “maybe”, etc.) convinces no one,…’
    “Of what ?”
    —Don’t be disingenuous, now. Vagueness instead of accuracy convinces no one…of the validity or worthiness of your claims. (If you present insufficient support for your side, don’t expect to persuade people.)

    “That of course does not mean that it is actually happening, but it IS a possibility at any time given the large amount of criminal behavior of the govt and its agencies and military.”
    —See above, about functional impossibility.

    “Only that it’s worthy of investigation by skeptics.”
    —But you are making the claim, so you have the burden of proof. Skeptics will investigate what you proffer, but you must first proffer something that looks as though it might have merit.

    “Long-lasting in my opinion is that which I saw.”
    —Which MIGHT just mean that your observations had not yet included all the possible cloud variations. I don’t know, but neither do you (certainly) know. More evidence!

    “The second issuing directly from what appeared to be a C-130’s fuselage, not exhausts, lasted for well past the time I have seen actual contrails last.”
    —Again, might this be just additional data points to plot on a normal graph? Do think about it.

    “By its unusual colours, outside normal flight paths, issuing directly from the fuselage instead of wingtips or engines astern of the aircraft.”
    —If the aircraft were at stratospheric altitudes, I doubt that you could distinguish the exit point of the vapors. Unless you were tracking it with a telescope; were you?

    “The occasional military aircraft or helicopter is seen flying overhead on none of those flight paths. (That was one of my unusual sightings.)”
    —Please bear in mind that military flight paths are often not correlated with civilian paths—even when the aircraft are doing nothing remarkable.

    “Where that photo was taken is over an area that would never have those fight paths for normal air traffic.”
    —So there was abnormal traffic. Still no incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing. (Note, again, that I am not claiming that the military folks would or could never do such things as you suppose. But you’re making the claim, so you must support it.)

    “I have no funding for [investigations], because families overseas receive most of my income (after bills). Is that okay?”
    —Obviously it’s okay; good luck with the finances. But are there others, with deeper pockets, whom you could enlist?
    I would be fascinated (and perhaps appalled) by hard evidence here; please do what you can to help.

    • Macky says:

      Stuart
      “That is, in at least a minor way, a flaw in your argumentation…”
      Okay so shall be also include your omission here “oops—left a typo. In paragraph 2, I meant to say “…claim the possibility of things…”, not “the ossibility”.” ?

      “The high altitudes are the issue with the chemtrail notion; please stop repeating the irrelevant information about low altitudes.”
      –No they are NOT. The issue’s are whether it happens at all, via Skeptoid’s original article, the CT-bashing, and the over-the-top video on here, admittedly amusing.
      The high-altitude thing is only a Skeptoid argument about how chem-spraying of populations cannot happen from a high altitude, with the implication that ANY spraying is only yet another CT. That is the main thrust of many Skeptoids articles, and which I continue to caution Skeptoid about.

      “No. From high altitude it is functionally impossible, so you can’t lump these together.”
      —Nothing is “functionally impossible” given the rapid rate of scientific improvements. I’m happy to agree that so far there is no evidence it is happening from a high altitude.

      “‘Merely repeating vague notions (“possibly”, “maybe”, etc.) convinces no one,…’
      “Of what ?”
      —Don’t be disingenuous, now.”
      —-What do you mean ? You’ve seen multiple instances of govt misbehavior over decades of US history and pseudo-history. There’s plenty for you to read without me being specific.
      On the other hand I am not saying anything specific is going on at the moment, but anyone with an ounce of sense of American/British history should realize that at any time, something untoward may be happening, that at any time there is that possibility. How much evidence of misbehavior do you need ? I’ve posted the links to a British section of misbehavior. MKUltra ? Unethical Human Experiments In the US ?

      ” “Only that it’s worthy of investigation by skeptics.”
      —But you are making the claim,….”
      —What claim ? I am criticizing Brian’s thrust of his Skeptoid article and video that implies that nothing is happening. Nor have I asserted that something actually is happening, only that it could be, given our govts’ propensity for covert abuse of its citizens, both actual and potential, well documented.
      I and three other posters to Skeptoid wrote about our sightings of unusual aerial phenomena. None of us proposed any CT whatsoever.

      “—If the aircraft were at stratospheric altitudes, I doubt that you could distinguish the exit point of the vapors. Unless you were tracking it with a telescope; were you?”
      —Binoculars.
      The thick (white in this case vapour billowed directly out of the C-130’s back door with no gap between the fuselage and the vapour, as is usual with engines. There was no other vapour issuing from wingtips or engines.
      That’s unusual.

      “—Please bear in mind that military flight paths are often not correlated with civilian paths..”
      Correct. There was nothing unusual about the flight path of this obviously military aircraft.

      “—So there was abnormal traffic. Still no incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing. (Note, again, that I am not claiming that the military folks would or could never do such things as you suppose. But you’re making the claim, so you must support it.) ”
      —–I am not making any claim of wrongdoing. I am making the claim that the 5 parallel trails were unusual and certainly did not look like, or act, like contrails. The trail out the back of the C-130 was unusual. I don’t know what it was doing.

      “I would be fascinated (and perhaps appalled) by hard evidence here;..”
      Of what ? Wrongdoing ? I’ve never asserted that. High-altitude ? I’ve accepted that it’s not currently (known) possible. Conspiracy theory ? I’ve made none.
      My criticisms are as above, and I believe Skeptoid and its skeptics, while having a bit of fun now and then, pay attention to what MAY be going on around them and devote a bit more of their intellect to finding out what is actually going on, even to dispel misgivings, instead of wholesale over-the-top CT bashing etc.

      Is Skeptoid a scientific skeptical site devoted to critical analysis, or a site devoted to the derision and conversion to Skeptoid’s own definitions of what a CT actually is, and the “observations” of what CT’ers are supposed to be and do ?
      Said above has often been the bulk of articles instead of actually addressing the subject itself.

      • Stuart Herring says:

        “Okay so shall be [sic] also include your omission here “oops—left a typo. In paragraph 2, I meant to say “…claim the possibility of things…”, not “the ossibility”.” ?”
        —Only if you want to appear foolish. I, unlike you, found and corrected a small error that was (I believe) precipitated by a dodgy keyboard. The difference here is that I truly knew that a small slip had occurred, whereas you were (seemingly) unaware of your error—and have yet to acknowledge it.

        “The high-altitude thing is only a Skeptoid argument about how chem-spraying of populations cannot happen from a high altitude, with the implication that ANY spraying is only yet another CT. That is the main thrust of many Skeptoids articles, and which I continue to caution Skeptoid about.”
        —I am not familiar with the other Skeptoid articles on this subject. The implication of the current item (the animated video) is, in my perception, focused only on the high-altitude (chemtrail) notion. THAT is the only thing that I am being skeptical about, here, if only on grounds of (in)feasibility.

        “I’m happy to agree that so far there is no evidence it is happening from a high altitude.”
        —Nor could it so happen. Even the Illuminati would not proceed with such gross inefficiency.

        “There’s plenty for you to read without me being specific.”
        —To adapt a slang phrase, “Links or it didn’t happen.” You still have the burden of proof, so nonspecific statements are not good enough.

        “at any time, something untoward may be happening, that at any time there is that possibility.”
        —But only at low altitudes (such as the 400-500 feet mentioned in the declassified document you showed us). As I said, I am concentrating only on the high-altitude notion.

        “The thick (white in this case vapour billowed directly out of the C-130’s back door with no gap between the fuselage and the vapour, as is usual with engines. There was no other vapour issuing from wingtips or engines.
        That’s unusual.”
        —Unusual indeed; thanks for the data. Still, if that were a test (or an active program), the effects from high altitude would be negligible.

        “I believe Skeptoid and its skeptics, while having a bit of fun now and then, [should] pay attention to what MAY be going on around them and devote a bit more of their intellect to finding out what is actually going on,”
        —Whilst keeping in mind the difference between what MAY be happening and what CANNOT be happening. Let us ALL stay aware of crucial differences!

        • Macky says:

          “The difference here is that I truly knew that a small slip had occurred, whereas you were (seemingly) unaware of your error—and have yet to acknowledge it.”
          —I was aware of it immediately you pointed it out. Thank you. Slips happen all the time, for various reasons, yours included.
          That slip was not serious enough to have distorted the meaning of what I am trying to convey. Is it a major issue with you ?

          “—I am not familiar with the other Skeptoid articles on this subject.”
          —–I’ve mentioned the original Skeptoid chemtrail article in my posts, and why. It may be timely for you to read it so you can bring yourself up with the play. My first post on this thread says it all. I am not focusing on high-altitude tests, it the tone and implications of Skeptoid’s treatment of chemtrails and CT’s in general. I thought you realized that, especially after my clarifying comments on high-altitude spraying.

          “—Nor could it so happen.”
          Currently, it seems not. I’ll take your word for it.

          “Even the Illuminati would not proceed with such gross inefficiency.”
          IF the Illuminati exist at all, you cannot possibly presume what they would or would not do, unless you are a member yourself.
          Are you ?

          “—To adapt a slang phrase, “Links or it didn’t happen.” You still have the burden of proof, so nonspecific statements are not good enough.”
          —-Not good enough for what ?
          The links for the British spraying are above in another post of mine.
          The links for US govt misbehavior can simply be found by googling MKUltra and/or “unethical human experimentation in the united states”, as I have already said.
          They provide sufficient evidence for widespread US govt criminal and unethical covert misbehavior towards US (and possibly others) citizens. Given the extensive nature of even just those two subjects, there is no reason to trust the US govt that those type of experiments are no longer possible, or happening.
          They may not be, but any sightings of unusual aerial phenomena (or any other) should be noted and investigated if sufficiently numerous, by concerned skeptics and scientists, not wasting their efforts on wholesale derision of CT’s with the implication that it is not/does not happen.
          That sort of thing creates a mindset which I have warned Skeptoid about for many years, a mindset evidenced by many Skeptoid official story supporters over the years with their knee-jerk reactions and name-calling towards solid evidence against what are in fact their unevidenced beliefs i.e. US govt Official Stories that have no independent evidence for them.

          “—But only at low altitudes (such as the 400-500 feet mentioned in the declassified document you showed us). As I said, I am concentrating only on the high-altitude notion.”
          —–I continue to point out to you that I am not. I have made it perfectly clear right from my first post what my focus is regarding my comments. Perhaps you are “arguing” with the wrong person on the high/low altitude thing ?

          “—Unusual indeed; thanks for the data. Still, if that were a test (or an active program), the effects from high altitude would be negligible.”
          Neither you or I know what they were doing. The effects from high altitude may be just the thing they were looking for e.g. negligible effects on the ground as you say, or tests at that altitude for other reasons.

          “—Whilst keeping in mind the difference between what MAY be happening and what CANNOT be happening. Let us ALL stay aware of crucial differences!”
          Certainly. And keep our debates/discussions focused on the same thing(s).

          • Stuart Herring says:

            “That slip was not serious enough to have distorted the meaning of what I am trying to convey. Is it a major issue with you ?”
            —No; it’s just that there is so much error in the world already…we should all strive to consciously (and conscientiously) reduce it.

            “IF the Illuminati exist at all, you cannot possibly presume what they would or would not do, unless you are a member yourself.
            Are you ?”
            [grin] Not at all, sir. What I meant was: IF they exist (of which I have grave doubts), I shouldn’t think that they would be so foolish as to employ such a grossly inefficient technique.

            “Perhaps you are “arguing” with the wrong person on the high/low altitude thing ?”
            —Perhaps; sorry, if so.

            “And keep our debates/discussions focused on the same thing(s).”
            —Fair enough, sir.

  8. mudguts says:

    Oh cool….we have gone from standing under the chemtrails to now just worrying about sneaky governments in the future..

    Close down the air travel industry.. Macky is onto them..

    Or has he lowered the contrail chemtrail debate to low altitude spraying? That isnt chemtrails..

    All the rest was the usual complaining about the derision towards Computed Tomographers..

    Thats in nearly every post.. The complaining bit I mean…

  9. mudguts says:

    I suppose this is the best spot for it.. Seeing conspiracists support medicine belonging in the ancient cosmos of foolery

    Death Notice

    http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/quack_busters_leader_william_jarvis_dies_at_eighty

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *