socrates
Joined: 11 May 2007 Posts: 1007
|
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:01 pm Post subject: Arizona Skywatch |
|
|
{on edit: I changed the title from "Arizona Skywatch Is A Disinformation Website." I don't think it is a disinformation website. However, I do think they are linking to and promoting some very dubious materials. That's not ok.}
I'm not saying they are run by disinfo agents. Yet, it doesn't matter if they are paid fakes or useful idiots, the result is the same. Places like that give newbies and fence-sitters every reason not to believe good evidence mixed in with bad.
http://arizonaskywatch.com/
On their homepage is their "Phoenix Air Particulates Lab Report." I am not saying one way or another what those numbers mean. Maybe that is good proof of aluminum and barium fallout from chemtrails. If other potential sources can be taken out of the equation, if it can be proven that fallout from chemtrails are not possibly from factories or whatnot, then all the more power to them.
But there are other things at their website which give me reason to question their credibility.
Right on that front page, the reader is introduced to their debunking of climate change and man-made global warming.
We don't even have to go into details about global warming. The sheer truth is that the vast majority of scientists believe it is real. Most people believe that we need to change our ways so the planet can start to heal. By shoving this global warming debunking in our faces, they are giving people the opportunity to disregard chemtrails as just another urban legend promoted by paranoid bloggers.
Arizona Skywatch has tons of links debunking global warming and climate change.
One can go to their forum and see that there isn't much activity. What they will see are tons of threads started on strange animal deaths. If they are paid fakes, this is how the idea of depopulation gets planted. Everyone who tries to figure out chemtrails is going to come across crazy links. In fact, most websites pertaining to chemtrails are rubbish.
Hey, let the reader decide. I'm not scared.
Here are a few links from Arizona Skywatch.
Two below a link to Cpellatt's nice website is a link to a kooky place called Xiandos.
I have often wondered if a nutjob named Carolyn Palit was created to blur the lines between her tinfoil with Cpellatt's level-headed research and analysis. When you click on the link for Xiando, an article by the fruitcake is front and center.
Here are some excerpts.
From that article, one can read some commentary on the Kucinich bill draft which included the word chemtrails. It was written by Lorie Kramer of Chemtrail Tracking USA. By the way, Chemtrail Tracking USA doesn't make their posts visible to the public. I'm not gonna sign up to find out what's in there. I am assuming it is more of the same from the mainstream{kooksville} chemtrail news network.
Here's an excerpt.
This forum figured out what happened, how that word got included. I'm not gonna reinvent the wheel, but basically a cointelpro-like spook named Carol Rosin hijacked the peace in space movement. The beauty of this forum is that it does care how chemtrails are presented. People look disingenuous if they argue that the Kucinich thing is solid proof of chemtrails without telling the whole story. Why haven't the forum "chemmies" debunked this? Why was it left to Jay Reynolds to explain this one? That chemtrails got into the draft of a bill is awesome.
This is a two in one bonanza. The word chemtrails did make it into the Congressional archives. The bonus is that a dumbass spook was behind it. That shows that an insidious effort was made to portray chemtrails as a hoax. Why didn't Kramer mention the part about the extra-terrestrial space weapons?
Back then it was more obvious that chemtrails are real. Back then, people could say, "Check out the sky. Does that look strange?"
That's why an extensive script was developed. Will Thomas, Mark Steadham, Aubuchont, Chem11, Deborah, Swampgas, Jay Reynolds, Ed Snell et al became the main characters. The dark side brewed this thing like tea.
Let the reader decide.
|
|