Death of RFK Jr Relatives and Possible Connections

[Harvey]

I have always scoffed at the “Chemtrails” folks. (...) But on March 4, I saw, above Portland Oregon, several planes laying down contrails simultaneously at different altitudes on a flight path I have never seen used before. Then the contrails multiplied and did all the “spooky” things that the chemtrails folks have always described. And there were so many of them.

PUBLISHED: 01:05 BST, 13 August 2019

The plan sounds like science fiction — but could be fact within a decade; every day more than 800 giant aircraft would lift millions of tonnes of chalk dust to a height of 12 miles above the Earth's surface and then sprinkle the lot high around the stratosphere.

In theory, the airborne dust would create a gigantic sunshade, reflecting some of the Sun's rays and heat back into space, dimming those that get through and so protecting Earth from the worsening ravages of climate warming.

This is not the crackpot plan of a garden-shed inventor. The project is being funded by billionaire and Microsoft founder Bill Gates and pioneered by scientists at Harvard University.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... rming.html

I never quite understood how 'chemtrails' became the description of choice for a much older and less easy to deride concept, geo-engineering. Anyone?

[brainpanhandler]

I never quite understood how 'chemtrails' became the description of choice for a much older and less easy to deride concept, geo-engineering. Anyone?

Geo-engineering via stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection for global climate change mitigation as an idea worth studying is not much older than the chemtrail conspiracy milieu. Maybe a decade.

There are many other schools of "thought" in the chemtrail hall of mirrors. Most of it is anti-government, militia, patriot, right wing, anti-vaxxer, anti-science drivel. Blech. Those people will probably inherit the earth the way things are going.

The only aspect of the chemtrail conspiracy world I found plausible was the climate change mitigation angle. I mean we were never going to stop burning fossil fuels. And it had to have been obvious even by the early 90's that climate change was real and it was anthropogenic. Removing the CO2 from the atmosphere would be virtually impossible. I would not be surprised at all to discover that the PTB with the means attempted real world experiments in the 90s through the early 2000's to increase the earth's albedo via stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection. What I saw in the 90s is not what I have seen for the last 15 years and that has been one of the more convincing bits of evidence for me. I could of course explain the discrepancy in other ways.

[JackRiddler]

.

Techno-wankers fantasizing about climate engineering and chemtrail fantasies have no necessary relation, but apparently the former is supposed to be evidence of the latter? What's the canard? "Revelation of the method" or "limited hangout"?

[brainpanhandler]

What's the canard?

I believe in the most recent technology rollouts the canard is used to disguise the aerosol nozzles.

[brainpanhandler]

@Jack,

If I understand your question correctly and assuming the geoengineering aspect via sulfate aerosols (or something analogous) was/is real, I would say that the conspiracy world underbelly that attached itself to the chemtrail craze are mostly useful idiots running cover for the geoengineers, if I had to guess. It probably only takes a handful of people to seed wacky ideas in the right places, at the right time in order to kick up a shitstorm of obfuscation.

[Joe Hillshoist]

@Jack,

If I understand your question correctly and assuming the geoengineering aspect via sulfate aerosols (or something analogous) was/is real, I would say that the conspiracy world underbelly that attached itself to the chemtrail craze are mostly useful idiots running cover for the geoengineers, if I had to guess. It probably only takes a handful of people to seed wacky ideas in the right places, at the right time in order to kick up a shitstorm of obfuscation.

See my post about the dangers of em radiation on the first page or anything about what really happened on 9/11 post 2004 or 5.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Also having both spent time on chemtrails before settling here Et in Arcadia ego and I both thought supersaturation of aerosols and other factors like heat and moisture were involved. Independently of each other.

Although the specific incident I saw that sent me down that particular rabbit hole turned out to be a cloud seeding trial using silver nitrate instead of silver iodide (or vice versa) by the Queensland government and a private partner in 2001.

Although I only found that out in 2008.

There ate 100000s of plane flights in the northern hemisphere every day. They releases plenty of aerosols that increase albedo and lower the atmospheric and surface temps by up to a degree C.

I doubt they've all stopped. Just the passenger flights.

[JackRiddler]

So from that would I be wrong to say that the word we're looking for to describe the aerosolized emissions of millions of flights a year is not chemtrails but pollution? Emissions not as the waste product and not as the intended product of the process? (Granted that some part per million flights involves cloudseeding, a practice done with a degree of system only in China as far as I can tell.)

See the difference when you call it that? Chemtrails tells you what matters is an imputed plot (the evidence being one's ground-level supposition about the significance of contrail patterns in the sky), which would involve a relatively small number of people with nefarious or dubious purposes who can, theoretically, be exposed. Pollution tells you what matters is a vast industry transporting more than a billion people in however many tens of millions of flights a year, one until now essential to capitalist civilization (although we are testing that). You see the difference? Which is bigger? Which is potentially easier to change? Which one implicates many of us, which one implicates none of us?

.

[brainpanhandler]

Well, that's about as respectful a way of saying, "That's dumb", as I can imagine. And I don't disagree with any of what you say. And yes, of course, much as it is better (stands a chance of leading to real world change) to focus on Exxon and Monsanto and the Koch bros rather than some shadowy illuminati pulling the strings, so too, you are right, it is better to recognize and work to regulate measurable, known, real world pollution rather than a secret Darpa/Nasa/MIC cabal to save the planet (for capitalism) from climate change. But those things do not have to be mutually exclusive. I know what I saw then. Somewhere I have folders of photos. That is not what I have seen for the last 10 to 15 years. I don't expect anyone to accept that as anything other than entirely subjective and anecdotal.

[JackRiddler]

I don't know that for sure. I'm just saying something you've heard me argue in other contexts: An underlying premise could be true but the method of evidentiary confirmation could still be invalid or even intentionally fabricated, and thus false.

Obviously if aerosol spraying experiments are being conducted on a mass scale in an attempt at geoengineering in a secret project run by state or ruling-class actors with state protection, I would agree we should know about it, even if the resulting impact is just a fraction of what everyday industrial pollution produces. So break out the folders of photos and let's see how different contrails looked like in the 1980s. (I think that's what you mean?)

But again, I see a lot of faulty reasoning in the chemtrail talk, not from you (that I've noticed here, anyway), which would still therefore be false even if the premise turned out to be true.

And when I see combinations of faulty reasoning together with an absence of valid direct evidence, what seems more plausible to me in many cases is disinfo to cover up for other more pedestrian crimes. It's akin to the difference between 5G as a potential health hazard being recklessly implemented because it will make money for big corporations allied to given states, as opposed to 5G as the device used by the globalist cabal to kill people and make it look like a virus, thus triggering the global fascist lockdown.

.

[Harvey]

Are we uncomfortable playing out multiple possible interpretations of the same scenario?

[JackRiddler]

Are we uncomfortable playing out multiple possible interpretations of the same scenario?

I hope that question is not meant for me alone. Obviously we shouldn't be uncomfortable? Is that the right answer?

(btw, I wonder if this thread should be retitled "RI high-weirdness talk follows 2020 Kennedy deaths")

[Harvey]

Are we uncomfortable playing out multiple possible interpretations of the same scenario?

I hope that question is not meant for me alone. Obviously we shouldn't be uncomfortable? Is that the right answer?

(btw, I wonder if this thread should be retitled "RI high-weirdness talk follows 2020 Kennedy deaths")

Not unless you want it to be, Jack. You have my blessing, whichever. I'm not uncomfortable, certainly. I'm often in several minds at once about almost everything. You'd rather I weren't?

[Grizzly]

RI high-weirdness talk follows 2020 Kennedy deaths

Sure, why not?

[JackRiddler]

Oh, so if that's taken seriously, maybe this is more respectful:

2020 Kennedy tragedy, followed by RI high-weirdness talk

I'm often in several minds at once about almost everything. You'd rather I weren't?

Of course not, I hope that's all of us. There's probably an ideal ratio, or a best Bayesian guess: several minds on 2/3 of the questions, and ironclad on 1/3 of the principles.