Welcome
Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

Suggestions Thread

technical stuff, ideas, etc.

Suggestions Thread

Unread postby socrates » Mon May 28, 2007 11:40 am

Since this place is so raw, how 'bout we use this thread to hash out ideas. It can be opinionated. I don't want anyone to feel like they are walking on eggshells.

1) A Diversion Bin- ok, sounds good, yeah, who needs censorship, hidden threads, deleted posts, etc.. So if through bad luck or whatnot, if a troll gets in, and then they deliberately make posts that disrupt a good thread, then we could move such postings to the bin, and provide a link to such postings. Unless something is too graphic or illegal, yes, let's move it and not delete it. I do believe in the free speech. I do not believe in fake "believers" or pseudo-skeptic fanatics.

2) I find that fake "debunkers" and "believers" tend to equally mess up chemtrail awareness. It is human to want to respond to such people. I want this to be a place where we don't have to worry about either type of paid troll or useful idiot. I am tired of spending so much time on chemtrail forum fakes.

3) It would be nice to prove that all aircraft are not involved. Quality is more important than quantity. So if Entropian Artifact and others could get photos and videos that clearly show that the aircraft are unmarked and/or of military nature, then to me, that means bingo.

4)For disclosure purposes, I met Entropian at an obscure website the last year. We do not need a million people posting here. What we do need are sincere, real people, who are as dedicated as any of us at getting to the bottom of the chemtrails. Perhaps Entropian could get in contact with Skywatch, the prolific youtube filmmaker who is also from England. He also has written quite often that these planes are not commercial.

Those are just a few thoughts I am having. That I am tired of getting bogged down with fake "debunkers" and "believers". It shouldn't be so difficult to present the "best evidence" possible. Unfortunately, it is a very time consuming activity to track links down to their original sources. Things do seem to be scrubbed and/or hidden. On the chemtrail thread I met Entropian on, I recently went back and realized that there were bad links already, and more disturbing to myself, I had actually used souces that might make me look like some woohoo. But I'll stop rambling for now. I'm just saying that I do not want to be seen as someone just saying fake this, fake that all the time. I just want to be a small part of a real community of thoughtful individuals more than curious about what is going on in the skies.

So one suggestion I have is let's try to prove that all aircraft are not involved. Sorry if I come up with these slogans like Frankensteinian atmospheric shenanigans. I am just sick of the deliberate activities going on above us. If we can prove that they are deliberate, and to be honest, I think it has already been proven as such, but if we can get a humble body of info here articulating that, then as May41970 has said before, anyone new or curious about this will at least be able to see that some of us are trying to be logical. The point is, if this can be shown to not be a crazy internet hoax, then new people will be more likely to keep looking up to see what we are talking about. They are more likely to be able to dodge all the noise and gain skills needed in order to find the nuggets.

{on edit- no longer a sticky thread.}
Last edited by socrates on Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Entropian Artifact » Mon May 28, 2007 1:30 pm

Lots of suggestions in your suggestions post. I'm going to have to take them one at a time. It's a productive sort of day isn't it?

Socrates said
“Since this place is so raw, how 'bout we use this thread to hash out ideas. It can be opinionated. I don't want anyone to feel like they are walking on eggshells.”.


Sounds good. So here are some initial thoughts about how I'd be interested to see the forum develop.

As we know, there are far too many sites out there which are crafted to mislead and conceal. Your recent posts on this topic help demonstrate that pretty clearly I feel, and that's valid. Against that, we have to consider what is most likely to help newcomers get to grips with the topic – and I think those very sites of disinformation might be a good place to get some pointers – though there has never been a really decent site or forum addressing the aerosol issue in my opinion. But that's a good thing as it means there is an opportunity presenting itself.

For me, the bottom line is that people have to be left to decide for themselves. As a consumer in the search for truth I will naturally gravitate to the sources which provide me with evidence in a form I can understand, backed by supplementary links to solid more academic/scientific research material. Perhaps a website, backed by this forum, might be a more appropriate arrangement, but for now, let's assume we're talking about the forum. For me this is a key factor: the structure needs to make key data readily available to those who seek it. Personal opinions are fine of course, but without evidence it is nothing.

What does this mean in practice? In the context of a forum I think it might mean well-crafted sticky threads in a specific area dedicated, at least as far as is practicable, to evidential research. It'll mean locking those designated threads I guess, with some sort of control over additions or retractions. I don't know, I'm just throwing the idea out there for discussion.

But let's suppose we create a concise (ie one page) thread dedicated to linking to, or taking short quotes from, say, the various testimonies of the pilots and groundcrew that have emerged over the years? Now as you know, as with everything else, we have seen examples where fakes have been planted to muddy the waters, but that's OK, we have to reference that too. In all areas I feel we just have to trust the reader to come to their own decision – and if I were a novice (aren't we all?) I think I'd like to be presented with some of the examples of BS clearly flagged to make me better able to recognise it in the future. That's one thread.

Here's another. A key aerosol pics thread. This one would contain, say a couple of dozen killer snaps of absolutely undeniably in-your-face aerosols, ie grids, Xs where you can see all four ends and curves especially.

Maybe a key short vids/gifs section or thread to go with it. I've seen one or two excellent little animations showing key elements of the spraying in operation (planes taking off spraying aerosols, reinforcing earlier trails and time exposures showing trails expanding etc).

A key light refraction effects thread. I have collected several fine examples of upside down rainbows, sun dogs, simultaneous aquamarine and pink clouds and a host of other weird stuff! Again, there's no need for hundreds, just a couple of dozen. Maybe links to some informative data about colour spectrum analysis too, so people can find out more about what the colours in the sky might mean.

A key haze effects picture thread. Not sure about this one, mainly because it's rather dull! But if it were linked to some of that research discussing correlations between observable haze and respiratory disorders it might be useful. I have a feeling Carnicom links to it, or maybe it's actually on there.

An aircraft pics tread showing as many liveries as we can, along with locational data (maybe combine with pilots and aircrew section). This will allow people to get a better idea of what to look for in their area – although I realise this would include at least seven variants just in my area, including the weirdest looking plane I ever saw – but that's another story and I don't have any pics so it's useless here.

An aerosol components thread. I'm sure you'd agree with me that we appear to be dealing with a number of quite different “preparations” (ie in the aerosol mix) and that we are quite possibly dealing with more than one programme (by which I mean take your pic from global dimming, CO2 control, weather modification etc, etc.). It seems to me this is a weak area for us, but that shouldn't deter us from trying to tackle it. While some of the evidence may be a little sketchy it seems to me that there is quite a body of it – and again, some choice cuts presented in a clear manner would be useful to the skeptic.

A key “pretty” effects thread. One of the things which cuts me to the core is when I hear people remarking how lovely sunset is – mainly because I sometimes have to agree! So let's, as best we can, celebrate what's probably the only “good” thing to arise from this mess.

An “orthodox” thread linking to some of the more patronizing official explanations, so visitors can get a “fair and balanced” view (lol).

There's probably a whole lot more I could add to this list, but I'll see what reaction this gets first. I wouldn't want you to think that I. . . well you know. Like I said, I want to get to the truth, but most of all I want others to get there too.
Entropian Artifact
 

Unread postby socrates » Mon May 28, 2007 2:55 pm

Thanks for the nice posts. I see what you are getting at. For people who have looked through Chemtrail Central or the other forums myself and May have been discussing, then of course the social-psychological approach we have taken is probably something up their alley. Yet, you are quite correct that chemtrail awareness should be about presenting this story in such a way as to not alienate anybody. I would be very appreciative of any threads you start based on the categories you have named. In a way, this overall objective of spreading chemtrail awareness can only be accomplished by how you describe. If someone is trying to figure out chemtrails, and by chance, they end up here, then our best bet to motivate, perhaps inspire the newbie, is to have clear cut categories of threads and possibly as stickies as you advised.

So they show up and see perhaps sticky threads:
*** Chemtrail videos and photographs
*** Aerosol Reports
*** geoengineering/hard science
*** Military Involvement- "owning the weather"
*** Chemtrails in the Media

So, if we had threads as such, the reader could have good choices more likely to help them with their journey along the internet trying to figure out chemtrails.

I don't think I would be into locking threads as such. I would like members here to be able to comment, i.e., put a human touch on what is being posted. Of course, it is the reader who needs to decide. One reason I was able to make a lot of posts at Gastronamus Cafe was because I felt it was a safe haven for me to post my chemtrail findings. I am hopeful that even though I was let down by that other site, that people will trust that I am going to allow anyone who wants to, to produce quality threads without fear of there being a gatekeeper.

I am just some nobody from Massachusetts. I am hopeful that many real people are out there who do not post on the internet because of what seems to be, pardon the following kook idea, ...it seems to be that a cointelpro-like operation is in full effect on the internet. It stinks that one can't even mention cointelpro without getting some tinfoil by association label, but that's how it feels from my view.

I realize that it takes a lot of time to make good posts. I had a family situation the last few years where I was able to make an incredible # of chemtrail posts. I am sorry I keep writing the word I in this one.

I realize that chemtrails are one of the most difficult things to write about. We might not need a million members, but 10, or 50, or 500 real people would get the job done. If that happens, great. If not, we do what we can do, because we are aware and perhaps feel it is a responsibility to speak out.

This is not about "socrates". I promise everyone that.

If it's not too much trouble, I would love to see this turn into a 100th monkey kind of website. I would very much appreciate it if you can put up the videos and photos, start new threads.

So if it's not about me, then it means it is about all of us, the members, the lurkers, those who somehow learn of this place and realize that it is open to anyone who wants to present their stuff without any fear of this being a controlled atmosphere.

It's tough not to get burnt out on this. Hopefully, there is fresh blood out there who will find this "haven" and help us "veterans" get our second winds.

So with the idea of the 100th monkey, none of us can predict who might end up being the one whose hack at the chemtrail tree will cause it to fall.

We can only do as individuals what we are good at. My goal is to find people who can help us all get to the truth. It's like what happened with JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. He made sure he had a wide variety of perspectives from which to pick. Good thing he listened to his brother Robert and went the route of the dove.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Entropian Artifact » Mon May 28, 2007 7:51 pm

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It raises an issue I have to bring up sooner or later.

“Chemtrails”. I don't like the word. I don't use it and I don't think it's a useful concept. If it wasn't given to us by the establishment then they would have created it to make us look silly. What, exactly, is a chemtrail? It's a vague, meaningless word offering nothing but scary overtones. As one noted investigator Rosalind Peterson (I think it was) said recently, chemtrails don't exist. NASA has said so. To talk about them condemns the speaker at the outset. That's not good. Aerosol operations might not be the ideal term, but it's more in line with the language the big boys use and it suggests and allows for a variety of forms rather than implying the use of a single deadly toxin like the word “chemtrails” seems to. It's not good and I think we should try to minimise the use of the C word!

This has an influence on how I see two of the “reference” thread headings of course, but I'd like to throw another idea in there too. If I'm trying to get to the bottom of what I'm seeing above my head I want to be able to see what other rational people consider to be a bone-fide contrails as opposed to examples of aerosol use. (This is why some disinfo pages post ambiguous pictures and claim them to be cast-iron examples of contrails). I also want to see a number of reputable “definitions” of a contrail – and a link to that web page where you can type in the all the relevant data and see whether contrails could feasibly form or not. If you like I'll try to write a short piece to help newcomers get to grips with measuring altitude by calibrating their camera by taking pictures of known objects at known distances and assigning known values to individual pixel lengths. It's not entirely reliable, by any means, especially if your camera or your car mileometer is rubbish like mine, but it's good enough for most novices to prove for themselves that these spray planes are usually nowhere near 30 or 40 thousand feet. Sure they'll come across detractors who say it's junk science, and I guess in truth it is (a little), but again, that's not the point. By the time they get that far, having taking measurements and having already allowed huge margins of error and so on, they'll be far more likely to be able to hold their ground against the onslaught of nay-sayers – and at least in terms of re-recruiting that individual back into the fold of ignorance the onus will be on the nay-sayers to come up with some good contrary evidence. But that comes later.

Something like “Contrails vs aerosol operations – how to tell the difference” would be gentler and more useful. I don't know about you, but most people really don't WANT to believe in this horror, so will be looking for any reason to dismiss the “herald of scary things” as a nutter. A heading like “Chemtrail videos and photographs” would be enough for some to run home to Dan Rather for a sugar fix. Tread carefully, one step at a time, like they do.

Aerosol reports? Hmm. Yes, but different from the above. I think it's good to have people reporting major operations, but it's only of limited use really. You know, unsupported claims of “loads of chemtrails here today”, leaving the way open to rants about not knowing the altitude or the temperature, blah blah blah. I realise I did just that earlier in the evening, but it was in the context of a wider discussion and it wasn't my main point.

I like to play a little game instead, which I almost described in that earlier post. Having watched the AOs long enough to have a fairly good understanding of some aspects of what's going on I can usually predict, with about 95% accuracy, whether the weather in 24-48hrs will be a whiteout or rainy, by observing the spray patterns and intensity. I don't do it every day of course. Not only would that make me a dreadful bore, but I always wait until is am pretty certain before saying anything so as to maintain (and sometimes regain) a little credibility – and even then I sometimes go for a cop-out whiteout OR rainy prediction. Maybe once or twice a month. If you've not tried it before its worth a go. Run it through yourself a few times until you get good at it. It isn't hard and the non-believers are always impressed – especially when the local weather forecast gets it wrong. It's like an ongoing quality control check on reliability and testability of my own understanding too!

Geoengineering/hard science. Oh dear, here we go again! I'm being dragged from a casual interest in mysterious white lines in the sky towards geoengineering in one fell swoop. “Oh my God. You mean, like , like a Genesis terra-forming project or something? Should I make a hat?” Give 'em chance to keep up! You're pushing in the right direction for sure but if you push some of them over it'll slow the others. You know it makes sense. Prepare the ground and plant the seed. It'll grow. Tug the plant towards the light and it might snap off.

I don't know. It's quite late here so I'll need to think about it but I think putting geo-engineering and hard science in the same sentence might not be an ideal solution.

Same with military involvement too. As a skeptic I'm not looking to be told my military is making me sick straight out. I want to know who owns these planes and I want to know where they take off and land so I can show others. Pics of aircraft is the key point here I think. A thread with the best, clear examples we can find. I have a pretty good white/red/red example, but my “professional aerosol investigators kit” only comprises a bottom-end digital camera and a pair of binos, so good close-up shots require masterful juggling and a steady hand.

That said, docs like the “Owning the weather by 2025” have a place, but alongside other “Examples and indications contained in the official record”, such as the recent mentions in the British Parliament and more historical data such as the RAF weather modification experiment over Hampshire which led to the death of 35 people in 1952, rather than as some explicit and yet vague “it's the military” type approach. Let the truth take care of their conclusions.

Same with chemtrails in the media. Again, as a skeptic, I'm not prepared to accept that just yet. However, having looked through the examples of CT vs AO in the earlier thread I might be prepared to look at the later media related evidence with a more open mind. The blatantly AO pics first perhaps, then the “enhanced” ones, like the Miller ad, then the ambiguous ones like Microsoft and Netflix to highlight the blurring of the edges. I might write some sort of psychological piece to go with it - to flesh out the whole predictive programming, subliminal conditioning arena for those who want to know more. In my experience most people don't have a clue about this, but many are quick to recognize it once they've been talked through it – and as you are no doubt aware, it's a portal which tends to shed light on a host of other things at the same time.

One final thought for this evening (as it's late here). Faith in the ability of your students to learn for themselves is just as important as your belief in your ability to teach them something. It was only after I left teaching that I realised how important that was. You have to put the fruit on the table and let them eat, offering guidance only when appropriate, not as a matter of course. No matter how attractive the apple might look I'm always going turn away if someone tries to force it into my mouth.
Entropian Artifact
 

Unread postby socrates » Tue May 29, 2007 2:25 am

[quote="Entropian Artifact"]
“Chemtrails”. I don't like the word. I don't use it and I don't think it's a useful concept....


I just changed the front page, the "chemtrails are real; chemtrail forums are not" is now "tampering with the skies." To me it is kind of like the "N" word debate. If someone is part of the discriminated group, can't they take control of the word? I totally agree with yourself and Rosalind Peterson, but on the otherhand, I am not afraid to call myself a "chemmie", just as a Dave Chapelle might use the "N" word. It has always made sense to me that people in the race or group are the only ones who are allowed to make jokes about themselves. Maybe this is twisted of me in a way.

holmestead.ca/chemtrails/spring-05.html

Spring 2005 - Topic #3: Was it in 1997 that Will Thomas is credited with coining the term "chemtrails"? Well, not to take the wind out of his sails, but it appears that the folks at the United States Air Force Academy beat him to it by quite a few years.

There were courses, starting in Spring 1990, presented by the USAFA Department of Chemistry, with the intriguing title of "Chemtrails". The image below is from the title page of the Fall 1991 course policies and laboratory manual and was found in the Library of Kent State University.

It appears that this course was related solely to the chemistry of traditional condensation trails and that this use of Chemtrails was simply a "catchy" coined term used in the title of the courses - so don't take this too seriously! But one has to wonder...

Image


screenshot



The above is a partial listing from another US reference, or depository, library where the actual course material may be available.

In addition it appears that there was a book published - or one of the courses was presented in book form. The book is titled, you guessed: "Chemtrails" and is ISBN: 0840378246 by USAF Staff and published by: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, May 1992. It is a paperback of 224 pages.

Some have questioned how the word "chemtrails" came to appear in the Bill by Congressman Kucinich, D-Ohio - HR 2977, the Space Preservation Act of 2001. As you see above, it appears that in certain circles in the United States Air Force, it was a term well known before that time.


If I'm trying to get to the bottom of what I'm seeing above my head I want to be able to see what other rational people consider to be a bone-fide contrails as opposed to examples of aerosol use. (This is why some disinfo pages post ambiguous pictures and claim them to be cast-iron examples of contrails). I also want to see a number of reputable “definitions” of a contrail – and a link to that web page where you can type in the all the relevant data and see whether contrails could feasibly form or not. If you like I'll try to write a short piece to help newcomers get to grips with measuring altitude by calibrating their camera by taking pictures of known objects at known distances and assigning known values to individual pixel lengths....

Something like “Contrails vs aerosol operations – how to tell the difference” would be gentler and more useful. I don't know about you, but most people really don't WANT to believe in this horror, so will be looking for any reason to dismiss the “herald of scary things” as a nutter. A heading like “Chemtrail videos and photographs” would be enough for some to run home to Dan Rather for a sugar fix. Tread carefully, one step at a time, like they do.


I would be very appreciative of anything you can do to help people along their individual path on this one topic. I believe that the number one goal of the astroturfers is for people to think that everything coming out of aircraft are "contrails." My idea of a "persistent contrail" would be of some stick high up in the sky, that neither spreads out, nor does it dissipate quickly. It just is what it is until it melts or blows away, etc.. I'm not sure if you ran across the old CTC thread involving alcon777 and innocent bystander, but there seemed to be a deliberate attempt by low level astroturfers to confuse chemtrails with contrails. It is a great idea to have a thread which explains with examples what contrails and persistent contrails look like. The fake "debunkers" are preying on human defense mechanisms which wish to maintain an equilibrium. Yes, we need to be able to explain to the novice why one trail is a contrail and the other is something else.



Aerosol reports? Hmm. Yes, but different from the above. I think it's good to have people reporting major operations, but it's only of limited use really. You know, unsupported claims of “loads of chemtrails here today”, leaving the way open to rants about not knowing the altitude or the temperature, blah blah blah. I realise I did just that earlier in the evening, but it was in the context of a wider discussion and it wasn't my main point.


Yeah, I was thinking that too. Maybe aerosol reports should just be something that we find a way to sprinkle into threads. Maybe "Aerosol Reports" at Chemtrail Central is part of the psy-op, that, hey look at how these "believers" keep saying the same stuff but never explain the difference between a chemtrail and a contrail. Gee, look at this guy Visual Ray Wizard. He says he can wipe out chemtrails with his mind. Now why don't the "chemmies" call him out for that? Look at weatherman714 who speaks of his billion dollar formulas he is blackmailing the usaf with? Why aren't the other posters calling him out, why are they taking him seriously? These are the questions the newbies will ask when they visit the major boards, and they will be handed some cheap excuses to go into denial over the aerosol operations.

I like to play a little game instead, which I almost described in that earlier post. Having watched the AOs long enough to have a fairly good understanding of some aspects of what's going on I can usually predict, with about 95% accuracy, whether the weather in 24-48hrs will be a whiteout or rainy, by observing the spray patterns and intensity....


I can relate to this. I can actually feel it in the air before even looking up to see. Yes, after a while we pick up skills. And yes, if you're gonna say a trail is fishy, at least wait a bit to see if it isn't really a contrail. Sometimes I look at different forecasts, the 7 day ones, and I look for the weather icons. If there are sunny days coming up, then I know those are the days when the "spraying" is likely to be the most obvious.

Geoengineering/hard science. Oh dear, here we go again! I'm being dragged from a casual interest in mysterious white lines in the sky towards geoengineering in one fell swoop. “Oh my God. You mean, like , like a Genesis terra-forming project or something? Should I make a hat?” Give 'em chance to keep up! You're pushing in the right direction for sure but if you push some of them over it'll slow the others. You know it makes sense. Prepare the ground and plant the seed. It'll grow. Tug the plant towards the light and it might snap off.


This website might never even take off. I see your point, but all I mean is link to the Rolling Stone article on Paul Crutzen. I don't mean copy and paste like Megasprayer until people's eyes fall out. I mean, just present some cool **** that the novice can read and see that chemtrails is not that crazy a concept.

I do believe in letting the reader decide. I also believe in the mosaic approach. We don't have to be so linear about it. Epoxynous got busted with his propaganda film. He came up with subliminal news clippings showing historical white-outs and anomalous aircraft emissions. But what he tried to hide from the reader was that all the strange trails were produced by military aircraft.

Yes, you make great points. One of the disinformation tactics is to present everything as an enigma. This just leaves us vulnerable to the next paid trolls who try to "invoke authority." But my house is your house. Feel free to crank stuff out. I have an id at DebateBothSides and Chemtrail Central. We might be able to motivate others to help out with "chemical trail" awareness. The more good stuff there is here, the easier it will be to get other real people to sign up and help with that goal. So again, I look forward to reading your materials, writings, seeing your videos, the photos you have. All we can do is our best and do it in a way that is human and not stressful.

Same with military involvement too. As a skeptic I'm not looking to be told my military is making me sick straight out. I want to know who owns these planes and I want to know where they take off and land so I can show others. Pics of aircraft is the key point here I think. A thread with the best, clear examples we can find. I have a pretty good white/red/red example, but my “professional aerosol investigators kit” only comprises a bottom-end digital camera and a pair of binos, so good close-up shots require masterful juggling and a steady hand.

That said, docs like the “Owning the weather by 2025” have a place, but alongside other “Examples and indications contained in the official record”, such as the recent mentions in the British Parliament and more historical data such as the RAF weather modification experiment over Hampshire which led to the death of 35 people in 1952, rather than as some explicit and yet vague “it's the military” type approach. Let the truth take care of their conclusions.

Same with chemtrails in the media. Again, as a skeptic, I'm not prepared to accept that just yet. However, having looked through the examples of CT vs AO in the earlier thread I might be prepared to look at the later media related evidence with a more open mind. The blatantly AO pics first perhaps, then the “enhanced” ones, like the Miller ad, then the ambiguous ones like Microsoft and Netflix to highlight the blurring of the edges. I might write some sort of psychological piece to go with it - to flesh out the whole predictive programming, subliminal conditioning arena for those who want to know more. In my experience most people don't have a clue about this, but many are quick to recognize it once they've been talked through it – and as you are no doubt aware, it's a portal which tends to shed light on a host of other things at the same time.


Dude, you write better than any of the chemtrail posters at the major boards. I think you are an example of the type of person such boards have driven off. Yes, we need quality, not quantity. There are certain stories that are factual and hit the point.

One final thought for this evening (as it's late here). Faith in the ability of your students to learn for themselves is just as important as your belief in your ability to teach them something. It was only after I left teaching that I realised how important that was. You have to put the fruit on the table and let them eat, offering guidance only when appropriate, not as a matter of course. No matter how attractive the apple might look I'm always going turn away if someone tries to force it into my mouth.



I never wanted to start this board. I was happy at the other places. The **** hit the fan for me when I realized that the last people to be trusted could not be trusted. But I am glad to have this chemtrail forum board fakery out of my system. It is not that I am afraid of the low level astroturfers who do the predominance of the trolling. No, they are easy to debate. The problem is while doing that, other cool **** is being ignored. E.G., it may be common knowledge to you about Adrian Sanders, but here on these american boards, there is no mention about it.

So, I hate to be cynical about this board, but there is no way to predict if it will make a difference. All we can is do our best and humbly invite every real person we come across or reach out to, that they are welcome to come to this place, sign up, and maybe knock on wood, we do our part to chop down the chemical trail tree.

How 'bout "chemical trails?" Can I use that term? I try to poll people in real time with chemtrails, and one day I did have more luck with folks when I said chemical trails rather than chemtrails. Of course, I do realize if I say Frankensteinian atmospheric shenanigans, people are really gonna think I am nuts.
Last edited by socrates on Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby Entropian Artifact » Tue May 29, 2007 6:20 am

Interesting history on the "CT" word. Thanks for that. Always reassuring to see for oneself how the seeds of our terms of reference were sown.

My current favourite example of neuro-linguistic programming, albeit non-aerosol related, is your administration's introduction and use of the concept of "extraordinary rendition".

Extraordinary indeed!
Entropian Artifact
 

Thanks to FreeForums.org

Unread postby socrates » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:49 pm

You can now go to someone's posting history, click, and end up on the exact post you choose.

May41970 already knows this, but for the record, Ed Snell/ Yaak/ Cydoniaquest/ Smoke/ etc. signed up here, but I simply deleted his registration. We'll have to be on our toes May, if people ever sign up. Maybe we should make this a no-proxy website. If someone wants to post, they have to have a real ip address. With the history of Cydoniaquest and Duncan Kunz deleting so many of their posts, virtually ruining tons of threads, that is another thing to consider. It's just gotta balance out with the no walking on eggshells. I just hope newbies don't take it personally if they are getting quoted a lot more than usual.

Also, freeforums.org is one of the members, and Entropian Artifact has been let go for the eugenics comments.

What else? I made a few posts at DBS. Of course, Halva came in with his off-topic strategy. I'm thinking I might be ok to post there if I just stay on my own threads. I updated the AONN story. I updated the Mr. ContrailScience.com thread there also. I'm gonna stick with my guns and watch Dr. Fitrakis' back as regard to his reporting on Kucinich and HR2977.

Perhaps the key realization this week is that one needs to figure out a good strategy, if they are gonna post at the astroturfers' hangouts. My signature is back in business anyway. :mrgreen: :twisted:

Jeff Reynolds:
Originally Posted by dewey189
Originally Posted by may41970
I'm so crazy that the only other person on this board I'm convinced is not being paid to post here is Jeff Reynolds.


Sure seems that way, doesn't it?


{on edit: i had a link to the Jeff Reynolds profile page, but it was now showing up as Halva, spooked the crap out of me. I don't think I made the mistake of putting up his page instead. I think the DBS url links to the profiles changes over time. But then again, even so, wtf is it doing coming up as Halvar? very odd. but i'm not gonna worry about this too much. sorry to anyone who noticed that. I am for real, not messing around. just check out the main top chemtrails section. not too shabby.}
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

I'm thinking No Diversion Bin After All

Unread postby socrates » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:50 am

For the lame trolls, I think they should be simply deleted. For all others, like an Athena88, that's the kind of trolling that says it all and shouldn't be deleted. She said she "dissolved clouds" twenty years ago. Oh my. I think that should remain but be housed in the public forum. If we can ever get some normal guests, maybe we could separate the public part into two sections. A diversion type bin for the off topic blather which perhaps some might find amusing and a real forum where sincere guests can get the respect they deserve. Sometimes, the crap should be deleted. The paid trolls are getting frustrated because they can't control this place.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Unread postby socrates » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:45 am

I changed it so bigger avatars can now fit. I wanted to use the more upbeat looking Bob Marley. A few of the folks here like CrystalRose, MightyMike, and may41970 said I could come up with avatars for them, so maybe I can update their looks.

Ok. It happens.
User avatar
socrates
gadfly
 
Posts: 1558
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts


Return to It Happens

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
suspicion-preferred