Chemtrails: Need sources to defend

[Miss Peregrine]

I need to find internet articles defending chemtrails that are credible. If you believe in them and have a website with scientific facts can you share them with me? You can PM me if you don't want to share here. I don't want this to be a thread to ridicule anyone.

 

Thank you!

[maize]

OK, so I approached this question as if I were required to present the pro side for the existence of chemtrails in a debate competition.

 

The only thing I could come up with from any reputable scientific source was this:

 

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011/meta#erlaa34f6s3

 

 

In which 76 of the 77 scientists surveyed affirmed that they have encountered zero evidence and the 77th mentioned having encountered higher than expected levels of barium.

 

I'd have to work hard to turn that 1 out of 77 with even potentially slightly circumstantially relevant data into a debate argument.

Edited February 11, 2018 by maize

[Miss Peregrine]

OK, so I approached this question as if I were required to present the pro side for the existence of chemtrails in a debate competition.

 

 

That's exactly what I have to do.

 

Thank you.

[creekland]

That's exactly what I have to do.

 

Thank you.

 

Whoever picked that topic leaves me wondering.  I always thought debates were things that could go either way based upon real evidence.

[Miss Peregrine]

Whoever picked that topic leaves me wondering.  I always thought debates were things that could go either way based upon real evidence.

 

I should clarify. We have to find 5 sources defending and 5 debunking. My professor said there would be plenty on both sides. The best I have come up with so far is that the government has conducted secret experiments on people so it can't be ruled out. 

 

I don't know how we're going to defend.

[kiwik]

Wish I had listened to the insulation installers unrequested lecture more carefully. I can't see anything convincing from NZ.

Edited February 11, 2018 by kiwik

[creekland]

I should clarify. We have to find 5 sources defending and 5 debunking. My professor said there would be plenty on both sides. The best I have come up with so far is that the government has conducted secret experiments on people so it can't be ruled out. 

 

I don't know how we're going to defend.

 

That's scary.  :ohmy:

[poppy]

I should clarify. We have to find 5 sources defending and 5 debunking. My professor said there would be plenty on both sides. The best I have come up with so far is that the government has conducted secret experiments on people so it can't be ruled out. 

 

I don't know how we're going to defend.

 

 

Your professor is bananas.

[Ailaena]

I should clarify. We have to find 5 sources defending and 5 debunking. My professor said there would be plenty on both sides. The best I have come up with so far is that the government has conducted secret experiments on people so it can't be ruled out.

 

I don't know how we're going to defend.

 

Hopefully, that’s part of the assignment - to discover that actual credible sources on some topics are nil. Alternativeky, maybe you’re thinking about it too hard and he doesn’t care if they are legitimate, sound, scientifically researched resources?

[Miss Peregrine]

Hopefully, that’s part of the assignment - to discover that actual credible sources on some topics are nil. Alternativeky, maybe you’re thinking about it too hard and he doesn’t care if they are legitimate, sound, scientifically researched resources?

We have to run it through the criteria we've learned about in deciding whether a website is credible. We won't be making a judgment on the actual material.

 

 

 

Your second part: She said we cannot submit them unless they fit the criteria for a credible source.  She also said we have to turn in 5 so. . . .  arg!

Edited February 11, 2018 by Miss Peregrine

[creekland]

Hopefully, that’s part of the assignment - to discover that actual credible sources on some topics are nil. Alternativeky, maybe you’re thinking about it too hard and he doesn’t care if they are legitimate, sound, scientifically researched resources?

 

Your first thought I hope is true.  It would actually help make sense of this assignment.

 

Your second thought is what is literally scary coming from a professor (or any teacher).

[Farrar]

Not all issues have two sides.

[creekland]

I read this the other day. Maybe it could be helpful?

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42195511

 

If I believed everything I heard from a young, not even 10 year old, lad/lass I'd probably still think there were dragons or dinosaurs out there if I looked hard enough, but hey, it's on the internet, so that must make it true.  :lol:

 

From that (quite good newsy) article:

 

"I was actually on a website. It was a very young girl, she wasn't even ten years old. She talked about the spraying going on in our skies and the fact she was so sad because she didn't want to go outside and the skies were no longer blue and we were being sprayed. Why would such a young child be sharing this information if it wasn't truthful?"

[Paige]

We have to run it through the criteria we've learned about in deciding whether a website is credible. We won't be making a judgment on the actual material.

 

 

 

Your second part: She said we cannot submit them unless they fit the criteria for a credible source.  She also said we have to turn in 5 so. . . .  arg!

 

If this is an IRL class, I'd stop by during office hours and tell the professor I was having a hard time finding reputable sources and ask for suggestions or advice. Even if the professor doesn't give me any actual sources, which if that's the assignment I wouldn't expect her to, it would really help to gauge her position on the subject before I started writing. 

[KungFuPanda]

ðŸ¿

[Miss Peregrine]

If this is an IRL class, I'd stop by during office hours and tell the professor I was having a hard time finding reputable sources and ask for suggestions or advice. Even if the professor doesn't give me any actual sources, which if that's the assignment I wouldn't expect her to, it would really help to gauge her position on the subject before I started writing. 

 

 

I already know her position. She is definitely on the pro-science side.  The theme of the class is critical thinking re fake news, hoaxes, conspiracy theories, etc. 

 

I think I found some sites that will work. They are not saying what the defenders think they are saying but the site itself is credible.(.edu address, relevant sources, authors with credentials) That might be where she is going with this.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Miss Peregrine

[EKS]

Did you look at the Wikipedia references?

[maize]

This topic reminds me of a Facebook thread I encountered not long ago in which someone wanted to know the validity of the claim on an anti-vax site that the CDC admitted on their website that vaccines cause cancer. The evidence was a screenshot of a vaccine information insert for an older DTaP vaccine that listed "autism" in a section for reported adverse events that had not been shown to be caused by the vaccine.

 

It was on the CDC website so you can claim it is scientifically valid no matter how you have to twist it to make it fit your belief...

[MedicMom]

If I believed everything I heard from a young, not even 10 year old, lad/lass I'd probably still think there were dragons or dinosaurs out there if I looked hard enough, but hey, it's on the internet, so that must make it true. :lol:

 

From that (quite good newsy) article:

 

"I was actually on a website. It was a very young girl, she wasn't even ten years old. She talked about the spraying going on in our skies and the fact she was so sad because she didn't want to go outside and the skies were no longer blue and we were being sprayed. Why would such a young child be sharing this information if it wasn't truthful?"

My young child shared with me tonight that after I fall asleep she flies through the stars on her pet unicorn that comes to life.

[Tap]

No help but a few thoughts.

 

 

Either the professor didn't check for sources and just assumed you would be able to stumble across a few sites that were vettable......

 

Or is this uncomfortable feeling part of what the professor wants you to experience?  

You are give a topic, by a person on some form of power over you, and you are told to find documentation to support thier cause/topic.  How far will you bend and distort the legitimate criterion, to fulfill the requirement?  Will you just say.....I couldn't find any sources that you find reliable (within the parameters you were taught), and hold true to your belief (and take the potential lower grade) or will you contort and defend websites that you don't believe to fulfil the task you have been given?

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Tap

[Erica in OR]

A recent video with additional sources from the American Chemical Society:

 

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/reactions/videos/2018/chemtrails.html

 

Erica in OR

[gardenmom5]

Whoever picked that topic leaves me wondering.  I always thought debates were things that could go either way based upon real evidence.

 

my experience with forensics in school - be given a topic,  do pro/con research on said topic. at debate, you are told which side you will argue.  you don't get to choose, and your grade is based upon the case you make.

 

 

 

 

Not all issues have two sides.

 

many do - but that doesn't mean both sides are sane and rational.

[Miss Peregrine]

No help but a few thoughts.

 

 

Either the professor didn't check for sources and just assumed you would be able to stumble across a few sites that were vettable......

 

Or is this uncomfortable feeling part of what the professor wants you to experience?  

You are give a topic, by a person on some form of power over you, and you are told to find documentation to support thier cause/topic.  How far will you bend and distort the legitimate criterion, to fulfill the requirement?  Will you just say.....I couldn't find any sources that you find reliable (within the parameters you were taught), and hold true to your belief (and take the potential lower grade) or will you contort and defend websites that you don't believe to fulfil the task you have been given?

She said she just finished up the same assignment with another class.

 

The only "credible" sites I can find used by the defenders are not actually saying what they claim they are saying, so I am leaning toward your interpretation of the assignment.

[kiwik]

OK. If she has just done it with another class my research would include finding someone from that class and interviewing them. The professor seems to be playing games with you - so research the professor.

[Sandwalker]

There's a lot of discussion in England about chemtrails. I just googled 'chemtrails Britain' and got a lot of results (lots of which look ridiculous, but some may be usable?) There are a zillion YouTubes on it, maybe some may of them give sources.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZaJEMsSwM

There are related videos listed underneath this ^ one.

 

https://www.chemtrailsprojectuk.com/

 

https://www.chemtrailsprojectuk.com/take-action/directive/

 

http://www.scottishchemtrails.com/?m=1

Edited February 11, 2018 by Sandwalker

[Joules]

A couple of "papers" that might help.  Check the references for more possibilities:

Increase of aluminum particles in the environment due to chemtrails during the period of autumn 2012 to summer 2015 within Lahore, Pakistan

http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/geo_scheme_16/16Z_2011_Geoengineering_by_Ananda_Global_Research_July_30_2010.pdf

 

One of the government patents that provides fodder:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=5003186&OS=5003186&RS=5003186

( How it's used is explained here http://www.dldewey.com/columns/chemtrails.htm )

 

 

It's not perfect, but if you use scholar.google.com, you'll get more results with an academic bent.  Maybe you can pull 5 references from those.

 

Good Luck!!

Edited February 11, 2018 by Joules

[Laura Corin]

There's a lot of discussion in England about chemtrails. I just googled 'chemtrails Britain' and got a lot of results (lots of which look ridiculous, but some may be usable?) There are a zillion YouTubes on it, maybe some may of them give sources.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZaJEMsSwM

There are related videos listed underneath this ^ one.

 

https://www.chemtrailsprojectuk.com/

 

https://www.chemtrailsprojectuk.com/take-action/directive/

 

http://www.scottishchemtrails.com/?m=1

Good grief.

[creekland]

My young child shared with me tonight that after I fall asleep she flies through the stars on her pet unicorn that comes to life.

 

Now I want to come to your house at night!  That sounds really cool!!!

 

my experience with forensics in school - be given a topic,  do pro/con research on said topic. at debate, you are told which side you will argue.  you don't get to choose, and your grade is based upon the case you make.

 

This is what I'm used to as well, but there have always been arguments for both sides that one can fall back on even if one side isn't "loved" as much as another.  This topic would be akin to trying to argue that mercury is a good cure for various ailments scientifically. (It's natural, several ancient folks used it so it has a history to it, etc.  Any scientific study?  Well, uh...)

Edited February 11, 2018 by creekland

[bolt.]

The point of the assignment might be on the other half of the research.

 

On the one hand: sure, you are finding that pro-chemtrails sources don't meet the criteria for reliability very well. Ok then. On the other hand: what about the available anti-chemtrails sources? Are they managing to rise to the level of reliability that is expected? What if they don't? How then did you reach your conclusion that the theory is junk? Probably simply because it sounds unreasonable. (Ta-da: confirmation bias in action... are you due for a lesson on confirmation bias?)

Edited February 11, 2018 by bolt.

[creekland]

Why is this "Australia is not a country!" story that I heard about yesterday coming to mind???

 

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/02/10/08/00/student-fails-assignment-after-professor-claims-australia-is-not-a-country

 

FWIW, in that case, the professor lost their job and the student got their money back for the course.

[Farrar]

my experience with forensics in school - be given a topic,  do pro/con research on said topic. at debate, you are told which side you will argue.  you don't get to choose, and your grade is based upon the case you make.

 

 

 

 

 

many do - but that doesn't mean both sides are sane and rational.

 

I strongly believe that only debates that have two sane and rational sides should be up for actual debate in a serious academic classroom or at a debate tournament. The ability to find pros and cons for both sides is a good skill. But one is is obviously disadvantaged if it has zero evidence beyond being a conspiracy theory.

 

I honestly think this desire to make everything have these two legitimate sides is a massive failing of education, media, and critical thinking in our society right now.

 

Perhaps teenagers need to be made to understand what's "fake news" and what isn't, but in the case of a college course... this is just absurd. Unless the point of the assignment turns out to have been to realize there aren't legitimate sources for everything (and I'd love to know if that turns out to be it) then this professor is encouraging some really screwed up thinking - not just about chemtrails, but about the world. Not every issue has two legitimate sides.

 

ETA: I just realized the class is about "fake news" and hoaxes. So yeah, that's my guess for that purpose of the assignment too.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Farrar

[Word Nerd]

I would focus on finding legitimate primary sources that chemtrail proponents have used/spun to support their conspiracy. A source itself can be credible based on the parameters you’ve been given even if it doesn’t actually support the pro side’s claims. I hope you’ll make a follow-up post when the professor explains her purpose for giving this bizarre assignment.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Word Nerd

[gardenmom5]

I strongly believe that only debates that have two sane and rational sides should be up for actual debate in a serious academic classroom or at a debate tournament. The ability to find pros and cons for both sides is a good skill. But one is is obviously disadvantaged if it has zero evidence beyond being a conspiracy theory.

 

I honestly think this desire to make everything have these two legitimate sides is a massive failing of education, media, and critical thinking in our society right now.

 

Perhaps teenagers need to be made to understand what's "fake news" and what isn't, but in the case of a college course... this is just absurd. Unless the point of the assignment turns out to have been to realize there aren't legitimate sources for everything (and I'd love to know if that turns out to be it) then this professor is encouraging some really screwed up thinking - not just about chemtrails, but about the world. Not every issue has two legitimate sides.

 

ETA: I just realized the class is about "fake news" and hoaxes. So yeah, that's my guess for that purpose of the assignment too.

 

 

I'd like more study on why some people seem more susceptible to hoaxes.  I've read something about people  who are more socially isolated, I don't know.

my brother - who I had thought rational (even if a jerk) - is starting to fall for this stuff.  and he keeps sending me stuff, most of which is easily debunked.  like the cern scientists who were on the run from men in black helicopters because they opened a doorway into another dimension ("the story" gives you the names.  go search the names, what's that more websites with the same story because in reality, it's someone's really bad wip sci-fi?   he couldn't be bothered to do that. ) . . .  or the guy who called into a legit local radio station (don't know how he made it past the screeners) and claimed the war in Iraq was about "an alien artifact" that was found and the American's wanted possession. . . . (someone had been watching too much stargate.)

 

but yeah - if they have to go to legitimate websites to find info and can't - but it's good training to have to go search credible websites.   my brother is a bsee - and he can't be bothered to look it up?  

 

my girls did their critical thinking class in high school with IB- TOK.   but they were looking up different angles of reputable sources on legit subjects (re: schools of thought on psychology), and asking the questions those sources left out.   when my oldest took her "mandatory critical thinking class" in college - taught by a very agendized left-wing prof (who probably couldn't make it outside academia), she was asking questions that exposed the holes in every 'argument'  the woman made, and she couldn't answer.   dd finally got a "you're brilliant, but you're wasting your talents" comment and wanted to know what it meant.  Honey - she's ticked you don't want to be her protégé.  "no, I want someone intelligent".   - she had far more respect for (most of) her own dept profs.

[gardenmom5]

Now I want to come to your house at night!  That sounds really cool!!!

 

 

This is what I'm used to as well, but there have always been arguments for both sides that one can fall back on even if one side isn't "loved" as much as another.  This topic would be akin to trying to argue that mercury is a good cure for various ailments scientifically. (It's natural, several ancient folks used it so it has a history to it, etc.  Any scientific study?  Well, uh...)

 

 

I had said the other side isn't always rational.

 

I'm aware the first emporer of china thought mercury would extend his life, so he drank it every day.  painful death.

his burial mound has been discovered - but it does have very high levels of mercury so they haven't even tried to start excavating.

 

and just an aside - which really really infuriated me when I found out . . . some HFCS contains mercury.   caustic soda is used to extract the sugar from corn.   (I did go searching for info on the subject.  some manufacturers are becoming more aware, and changing - but there's no way to know what is tainted, and what isn't.)

some sources of caustic soda contain mercury.   supposedly the levels are down to fda standard when they're done - but I had given dudeling some pop to drink prior to a blood draw.  he was drinking it during the draw.  his mercury level on that blood draw was the equivalent of drinking the mercury out of an old glass thermometer.  his dr was absolutely freaking out trying to determine where he was being exposed.

 

though i question the fda enforcing of standards . . . just read an article about a woman who fed her dogs a can of wet dog food - they were exposed to a euthanasia drug IN  the food that came from animals that had been slaughtered with it.  those animals are not supposed to ever be in the food chain.  one of her dogs died. . . . the fda didn't care enough to enforce, the lab tested several batches of different brands of dog food.  the one she used (gravy train wet), came up positive half the time. - other's were clear.

[Miss Peregrine]

The point of the assignment might be on the other half of the research.

 

On the one hand: sure, you are finding that pro-chemtrails sources don't meet the criteria for reliability very well. Ok then. On the other hand: what about the available anti-chemtrails sources? Are they managing to rise to the level of reliability that is expected? What if they don't? How then did you reach your conclusion that the theory is junk? Probably simply because it sounds unreasonable. (Ta-da: confirmation bias in action... are you due for a lesson on confirmation bias?)

That was our first paper. ;)

[Miss Peregrine]

I would focus on finding legitimate primary sources that chemtrail proponents have used/spun to support their conspiracy. A source itself can be credible based on the parameters you’ve been given even if it doesn’t actually support the pro side’s claims. I hope you’ll make a follow-up post when the professor explains her purpose for giving this bizarre assignment.

That's pretty much what I did. The US code website, a government article on aerosols(which is taking about more of the flu vaccine end of things), Operation Sea Spray.

[Miss Peregrine]

I strongly believe that only debates that have two sane and rational sides should be up for actual debate in a serious academic classroom or at a debate tournament. The ability to find pros and cons for both sides is a good skill. But one is is obviously disadvantaged if it has zero evidence beyond being a conspiracy theory.

 

I honestly think this desire to make everything have these two legitimate sides is a massive failing of education, media, and critical thinking in our society right now.

 

Perhaps teenagers need to be made to understand what's "fake news" and what isn't, but in the case of a college course... this is just absurd. Unless the point of the assignment turns out to have been to realize there aren't legitimate sources for everything (and I'd love to know if that turns out to be it) then this professor is encouraging some really screwed up thinking - not just about chemtrails, but about the world. Not every issue has two legitimate sides.

 

ETA: I just realized the class is about "fake news" and hoaxes. So yeah, that's my guess for that purpose of the assignment too.

This is freshman comp. So far I don't get the impression that we going to making everything equal. We've been working on identifying cognitive biases, why people believe conspiracy theories, etc.

[gardenmom5]

 

Farrar, on 11 Feb 2018 - 08:01 AM, said:

I strongly believe that only debates that have two sane and rational sides should be up for actual debate in a serious academic classroom or at a debate tournament. The ability to find pros and cons for both sides is a good skill. But one is is obviously disadvantaged if it has zero evidence beyond being a conspiracy theory.

 

otoh- when people don't believe in irrational things -e.g. chemtrails  (which is a misnomer - it's condensation trails), you can have sane and rational debate subjects.  in the meantime - there are many people who do.  and I was slammed by a strong believer in "chem trails" when I said it was condensation - not chemical - trails.

[Miss Peregrine]

otoh- when people don't believe in irrational things -e.g. chemtrails  (which is a misnomer - it's condensation trails), you can have sane and rational debate subjects.  in the meantime - there are many people who do.  and I was slammed by a strong believer in "chem trails" when I said it was condensation - not chemical - trails.

 

 

We were given the task of specifically excluding proof of contrails. And now there is a movement to call chemtrails 'persistent contrails.'

[Farrar]

otoh- when people don't believe in irrational things -e.g. chemtrails  (which is a misnomer - it's condensation trails), you can have sane and rational debate subjects.  in the meantime - there are many people who do.  and I was slammed by a strong believer in "chem trails" when I said it was condensation - not chemical - trails.

 

To me, you can have a calm and reasonable discussion with someone who believes that something with zero evidence is true. It's not a debate though. There's nothing to debate.

 

One of the tactics I see from people who want to debate things that have zero credible evidence is that they move the debate so that it becomes about something else. Like, what's a good source in the first place. Or, why someone lied about something unrelated. Or, whether the government kept secrets about something else. So then you find yourself talking about things that do have evidence on both sides. But it's all fallacies to connect it back to the original thing. And it's a distraction technique. I think they even believe the circles they twist themselves into.

[JoJosMom]

My young child shared with me tonight that after I fall asleep she flies through the stars on her pet unicorn that comes to life.

 

No fair! How come she gets a unicorn and I don't???

 

 

OP, how desperate are you for sources? Where I live (rural and small), Facebook is a primary source of news. There's a couple of people who bombard all the local pages with chem trail stuff and anti-vaxx stuff. It's pseudo-science at it's best. But kinda heavy on the pseudo part. I'll post them if you want to take a look, but I don't know that they could be called credible.

[Miss Peregrine]

No fair! How come she gets a unicorn and I don't???

 

 

OP, how desperate are you for sources? Where I live (rural and small), Facebook is a primary source of news. There's a couple of people who bombard all the local pages with chem trail stuff and anti-vaxx stuff. It's pseudo-science at it's best. But kinda heavy on the pseudo part. I'll post them if you want to take a look, but I don't know that they could be called credible.

Thanks, I ended up with more than 5. We have to weed through them and decide which can pass (?) our criteria filter. 

 

I will update after we see how it turns out. 

[JoJosMom]

Thanks, I ended up with more than 5. We have to weed through them and decide which can pass (?) our criteria filter. 

 

I will update after we see how it turns out. 

 

Oh, YAY. I started looking. Five minutes in and my eyes were bleeding. :blink:

[Miss Peregrine]

Changing the search terms gave me a little better result.

[creekland]

Changing the search terms gave me a little better result.

 

What'd you search for?

[Miss Peregrine]

What'd you search for?

Covert geoegineering.

[JoJosMom]

Covert geoegineering.

The blog that they link to a lot is called geoengineering watch.

[gardenmom5]

We were given the task of specifically excluding proof of contrails. And now there is a movement to call chemtrails 'persistent contrails.'

 

oh good grief.   :svengo: 

 

 

To me, you can have a calm and reasonable discussion with someone who believes that something with zero evidence is true. It's not a debate though. There's nothing to debate.

 

One of the tactics I see from people who want to debate things that have zero credible evidence is that they move the debate so that it becomes about something else. Like, what's a good source in the first place. Or, why someone lied about something unrelated. Or, whether the government kept secrets about something else. So then you find yourself talking about things that do have evidence on both sides. But it's all fallacies to connect it back to the original thing. And it's a distraction technique. I think they even believe the circles they twist themselves into.

 

 

i see the tactic in many places.  can't win the argument - change the argument.  and yes - they can get very circular.

 

my brother buys into some of the more insane conspiracy theories - mostly, it's not worth it to me to try and teach the muddy pig to sing. . . . .

[Mergath]

Am I the only one who's a little disappointed that no one jumped in to tell us why chemtrails are totally real and we're all being brainwashed or poisoned or whatever?  :lol:

[itsheresomewhere]

Am I the only one who's a little disappointed that no one jumped in to tell us why chemtrails are totally real and we're all being brainwashed or poisoned or whatever? :lol:

Lol. I was thinking the same thing. Even had my popcorn ready.