America – and Western Civilization As a Whole – Was Founded On a Conspiracy Theory

George Washington's picture

The Constitution, Magna Carta and Democracy Itself Are Based on the Idea that – Without Checks and Balances – Those In Power Will Take Advantage of Us

America was founded on a conspiracy theory: that Britain’s King George and his men were conspiring against the colonists.

The Declaration of Independence recites a series of conspiracies:

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism … The history of the present King of Great Britain [and others working with and for him] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.



He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.




He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.




He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.


He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.




He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:




For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:




For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:




For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.




He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.


He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

The American concept of “separation of powers” is also based on the conspiracy theory that those with unchecked power will abuse it. By creating 3 branches of government, the Founding Fathers hoped to reduce abuse of power.

Political science professor Lance deHaven-Smith has documented in a soon-to-be-released book that conspiracy theories were considered as American as apple pie all through American history … up until very recently.

The father of modern economics – Adam Smith – also believed in conspiracy theories. As the New York Times notes:

Smith railed against monopolies and the political influence that accompanies economic power …


He saw a tacit conspiracy on the part of employers ”always and everywhere” to keep wages as low as possible.

But the centrality of conspiracy theories in Western civilizations goes back much further …

The Magna Carta – signed in 1215 – was based on the conspiracy theory that the claim of the “Divine Right” of the king and his men to do whatever they wanted was false and oppressive.

Indeed, the entire idea of democracy – going back to ancient Greece – is based on a conspiracy theory as well: that leaders who make decisions without input from the public will not treat the people as well as if they have a chance to vote. This is another form of “separation of powers”, as it creates checks and balances between the decision-making power of the government and that of the people.

Arguably, Western civilization would never have gotten off the ground with the core idea that those in power need to be checked and reined in, or they would abuse the people.

But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories Nutty?

You may have heard that conspiracy theories are nutty. But the truth is that conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:

Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.


But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.


Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.

Specifically, I got the following message:

“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.


So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).


Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.


Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.


Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).


Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.


Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.


In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.


Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.


Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.


Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less

seriously by judges.

It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.

Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:

Some financial market conspiracies are real …

Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That

While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of
terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….

But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans

A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.

But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:

It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:

  • A BBC documentary shows that:

There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

  • The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election
  • The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy

Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:

The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.

These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.

In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.

Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck, second-rate alcoholic robber might do.

Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never underestimate the conviction of an idealogue.


The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.

Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.

On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.

The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.

Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.

The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths.

We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all scheming criminals.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Disenchanted's picture




Please explain joyful's Cohen quote...why would a SecDef say such things?


"Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important. - William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, April 28, 1997.


btw here's a link to where and when Cohen said that:


If as he(Bill Cohen) said "others" have that capability, does it not stand to reason that the US Military has the same capabilities??

JOYFUL's picture

Asking Element a question like Why?(.....)fill in blank here - is like asking AGW konspirators why it's necessary to fudge and distort data in order to fulfill the mandate of their moneypowerz their universe. yu don't need to ask why...

jus, "how high?"

falak pema's picture

Your logic incarnates the Manichean principle formulated by Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God.

"For those who believe no explanation is required, for those who doubt no explanation is possible."

As long as we live in that frame of mind which denies the very principle of doubt, free will, uncertainty and need for Enquiry, everything is a "konspiracy" organised by some occult Deus es machina.

It does have a very simple advantage this conspiratorial, ideological principle of doubting 'doubt' : It makes Life very simple; black and white! 

It has one major inconvenience it denies rational analytical thinking, the essence of western civilization. We stay dogmatic.

Simple Simons and piemans!

SAT 800's picture

I did your up vote in order to support rationality; but you must know you'll always be out shouted by the Simple Simons on this blog. "God must have loved the common man; he made so many of them".

JOYFUL's picture

Ah, the hidden hand of Mazdak of Feza raises it's hideously heretical shadow from the fastness of Falaks'  katharthic kathedral,[somewhere in the south of Frankdom...

Grazing klose to one of my favorite pastures today, ol sock....for years yu have haunted this site like a ghostly, forlorn fugitive from the fascination of folks for the "evil demon of images" - hopin beyond hope to diskonnect yurself from the very source of yur troubling visions of the iconic which tantalize yet skandalize thy voluptous spirit of scribe-like sanctimony...ever in search of 'the rational'....irrationally!

Baudrillard(who admitted to being "manichean" minded in his famous Australian interview) summed up yur dilemma best, me describing the paradoxical paralysis of the non believers' longing...

"One can see that the iconoclasts, whom one accuses of disdaining and negating images, were those who accorded them their true value, in contrast to the iconolaters who only saw reflections in them and were content to venerate a filigree God. On the other hand, one can say that the icon worshipers were the most modern minds, the most adventurous, because, in the guise of having God become apparent in the mirror of images, they were already enacting his death and his disappearance in the epiphany of his representations(which, perhaps, they already knew no longer represented anything, that they were purely a game, but that it was therein the great game lay - knowing also that it is dangerous to unmask images, since they dissimulate the fact that there is nothing behind them).


This was the approach of the Jesuits, who founded their politics on the virtual disappearance of God and on the worldly and spectacular manipulation of consciences - the evanescence of God in the epiphany of power - the end of transcendence, which now only serves as an alibi for a strategy altogether free of influences and signs. Behind the
baroqueness of images hides the éminence grise of politics. 

Mazdakites, Cathars. Jesuits, oh my,...Falak  bey bakes a pretty pie!(but where be his thumb>)) ...excellent work today, me lad...yu must have recently changed yur brand of absinthe!


falak pema's picture

by all accounts your brand of absinthe stays the same! 

So cheers! 

yt75's picture

Current crisis (as usual more or less) is first an foremost an ecological crisis, ecological in a "close to the ground scientific sense", that is of a species under the constaints of natural ressources necessary to its "way of life".

Typically oil, but not only at all.

Element's picture

Ok, as long as were not talking about fricken 'Chem-trails' and all that laughable HAARP bullshit.

i-dog's picture

Sometimes I think I'd prefer some HAARP fantasies than have to wade through George's statist drivel. This one is pure sophistry.

Element's picture

I can read George, just take it in, no biggie, he makes his case and then leaves you to it (doesn't haarp-ion about it so much). 

But with the HAARP believers and the chem-trailer-trash there's no logic, it's not even entertaining, just the same melange of hyperbolic irrational bullshit sprays, that made not a bit of sense the first time I heard them.  But somehow they can't process it, and see it for what it is.

mess nonster's picture

Skepticism is just a startegy for dealing with ever-present cognitive dissonance. How does one learn to live in the mi=ddle of a paradox?

A true skeptic not only has to cast a doubtful and somewhat cynical eye towards all things, he/she also has to keep an open mind, and believe all things as well.

HAARP and chemtrails? The truth is, i don't know. Is it within the realm of human possibility that evil men would misuse the ionosphere to do evil and dastrdly things? YES. Is it within the realm of human possibility that evil men would dump poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere if they thought it would advance their agenda? YES.

Do humans possess the technology to actually create chemtrails and HARRP? As to the first, yes, and to the second, I don't know.

But why stop here? What about shapeshifting reptilians that unhinge their lower jaws and eat newborn infants, ala David Ikke? Supposedly, the Queen of England is such a creature, as is George Bush.

I find such things hard to believe, but if you have to press me for the truth, the only honest answer is that I have no personal knowledge. How can i say yes or no? All I can say is "I DONT know."

A doubtful skeptic runs the risk of discounting truth because he finds that the story doesn't square with his frame of reference/database. A gullible person believes all sorts of nonsense because he finds that the story resonates with him without asking why he finds the story attractive.

Pontius Pilate asked the good question: What is truth? The internet is a phantasmagoric world of confusing light and shadow, JUST LIKE THE HOLOGRAM WE INHABIT OFFLINE. Zerohedge? As bad as it gets, but that's the fun of it all.

Maybe its better to believe everything and to not believe it at the same time. What's real? No-one knows. We all live within an infinite number of layers of fantasy. Ask any Civil War reenactor just how easy it is to be somewhere else in time and space entirely. There's no murkier world than that of economics.

Element's picture

Apologies for responding of a long dead thread, but I've been away in a remote area for the last week and a half.

I'm with you here.  I guess I'm just more than a bit sick of believer dingbats flinging about baseless arguments and claims from people who don't seem to have a strong grip on the very basis for clear thinking and examination, nor a tendency to be sufficiently honest with themselves about what is known and not known, nor knowable.  But they love to pretend they do know, and insist on shoving their baseless assertions down others throats, and then pretend to be credible and act all put out if you call them fools and time wasters.

As you point out, you really don't know, and that I can respect and work with as it is a mutually agreeable point of fact - cheers.

(see my comment to i-dog above ... someone I have less and less respect for in terms of personal honesty and integrity)

tip e. canoe's picture

"What is truth? The internet is a phantasmagoric world of confusing light and shadow, JUST LIKE THE HOLOGRAM WE INHABIT OFFLINE."

brilliant analysis, sir loch.   agree with your proposal to inhabit the space between belief & non-belief.   the danger in eternal skepticism is that it is easy to fall into the abyss of cynicism, while the danger of eternal belief is that is one short stop tp the prison of gullibility from where one becomes easy prey for manipulation by others.   at either extreme, one flips into becoming the other : the utimate skeptic becomes the most gullible while the fanatic believer becomes the most hardened cynic.   

seems that we have reached that point in our collective metanarrative where this flip is occurring all over, which could only lead to one outcome : self-induced schizophrenia on a massive scale.   then again, maybe it won't.

who really knows?

SAT 800's picture

"But somehow they can;t process it---" IQ is real; and it measures exactly what it's supposed to measure; another clue, this statement itself is now politically incorrect. I'm always amazed that the mentally normal, IQ100, can remember how to tie their shoes; never mind processing data.

i-dog's picture

Hmmm ... I sense some less than rational reactions in your perjoratives "HAARP believers" and "chem-trailer-trash", which is not conducive to rational discussion.

a) HAARP does exist

b) Chemtrails do exist.

Can HAARP cause earthquakes? I seriously doubt it, but would be hesitant to reject it out of hand. I certainly doubt it could have caused the long series of earthquakes in the Fukushima region that occurred a long way below the sea surface (electromagnetic waves do not travel well through sea water).

Can HAARP cause and/or steer severe storms? I have no doubt that this is both possible and probable.

Are chemtrails the same thing as contrails? Nope.

Can chemtrails be confused as contrails? Nope.

You might learn a few things about chemtrails and contrails here:

The intro: "Canadian investigative reporter William Thomas has uncovered, through tenacious and prodigious research, some answers to the mysterious chemtrail issue."

Before you launch into any ad homs, I hold both a Chemical Engineering degree and a PPL, and have undertaken extensive aeronautical engineering studies and flight simulator software development, so I'm quite capable of analysing what others have to say about chemical/condensation trails and vortices.

Back to you.....

Element's picture

[I've been working in a remote area for the past week and a half, hence the late reply]


I seem to be blessed with the facility to be able to review 'evidence' of the alleged deviant naughtiness of such contraptions and observations and call bullshit, fairly quickly. 

I gravely doubt several things you have claimed in the past i-dog, for example, how you claim to be a close family friend of the Murdoch family, and strongly (and falsely) claimed Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish

 But now you offer me another very reason to seriously doubt your claims and discount your 'analysis'.

"... I hold both a Chemical Engineering degree ..."

Not sure why at all you think flight simulator development, holding a PPL or some BS about vortex flow makes you credible in any way, given your quoting of Joel-'effing-Skousen as your credible 'source' (which I find quite laughable, idiotic and unfathomable), and your abject avoidance of standard scientific tools, and analysis, of observed and measured data, to support such a fantastic claim.

I actually have undertaken physical chemistry and organic chemistry, as pre-requisite grounding necessary to undertake more advanced geochemistry courses professionally related to ore-body mineralisation, formation, geochemical exploration, mapping, and emplacement and fluid modelling.

I am by no means an expert, but I have studied this in nauseating detail in order to get my degree. 

So what stands out as a conspicuous and stark omission  from your post and it's claims of expertise, is your inexplicable and absolutely inexcusable absence of any consideration of such a common chemical diagnostic data gathering and logging tool as a prosaic and routine chemical spectroscopy analysis, to observe, measure and actually quantify the exact molecular components present with in any such proposed and claimed 'chemical-trails'.

This is so incomprehensible an omission that it reeks so badly, and is so clearly indicative of someone with NO chemical engineering degree and no occupational background in the field nor practical experience with it, that I'm forced to conclude that you are a liar.

I-dog;  You clearly have no such degree, and are definitely not a scientist. 

So what are you? I do know you are lying here, and that should be quite obvious to any professional in chemistry, who would (with zero exceptions I might add) be very familiar with spectroscopic analysis of gases, liquids and crystaline materials.

If you don't have quantitative spectroscopic absorption measurement data of specific chemical species present (which should otherwise not be present), then all talk of what is, or is not, a 'chem-trail', is absolutely meaningless, and a highly rejectable load of horseshit.

I did a quick search for keywords in your idiotic link, and "chemistry" is not present, nor is "science", nor is "spectroscope", "spectroscopic", or "spectroscopy".  The keyword "analysis" turned-up these two pieces of turgid unsourced utter bull-crap:

"... Analysis of chemtrail residues, in contrast, claims to have uncovered a variety of chemicals and other substances, including barium, aluminum oxide, microscopic fibers and oil-based products, none of which are intrinsic to normal jet fuel. ..."


"... Later chemical analysis has shown a lot of aluminum oxide and micro fibers, also composed of barium and aluminum.  People living under these spray patterns have developed Alzheimer’s-like symptoms. ..."

[note that this expert idiot can not even spell aluminium correctly!]

And that's ladies and gentlemen is the sum total of anything regarding 'analysis' from this absurd expert idiot, "Joel Skousen":

As for "oily glints", and all that sort of abject bullshit, get some polarised sunglasses and have a look at a contrails at a low-ish angle from the sun, or even just have a look at the top of an anvil head with the sun behind it and you will see the very same thing.  The same refracted colors of the rainbow, as if viewing the sun reflecting through petrol spilt on the surface of a puddle.  the light is being polarised by ice crystals and refracted by their prismatic structure--wow!  Mystery of "oily-glints" turns out to be laughable horseshit.

Frankly i-dog, you are a gullible idiot (as well as a liar).

No one who is seriously grounded in chemistry could nor would EVER accept a claim about 'chem-trails' being 'real' which was not solidly empirically founded in systematic observation of the atomic and molecular spectral response from such observations.

Because if you had any, i-dog, then you would instantly know why what you're saying, claiming and linking to, and recommending to be taken 'seriously', is catastrophically stupid in the extreme.

(where's Honestann in this discussion? she's a professional astronomer, so she can tell you all about the spectroscopic study of stellar atmospheres and galactic disks and how atomic and molecular emission and absorption works to alter spectral lines, and z-value displacement).

Back to you, i-dog ... actually no, don't bother, you're too much of a time-wasting lying moron for me to bother with.

Cathartes Aura's picture

following on from a link to this thread, belatedly, by Element, for reasons I've no desire to relate. . .

I'll just post a link,



The unusual presence of the element barium in the atmosphere now appears to have been affirmed through the methods of spectroscopy. Spectroscopy is "the study of the absorption and emission of light and other radiation by matter, as related to the dependence of these processes on the wavelength of the radiation" (Enc. Brittanica). The results of the current research are now sufficient to establish an analytical basis for the formal investigation of radical atmospheric changes induced by relatively recent aircraft aerosol operations. This work further confirms the recent findings that have substantiated the unusual presence of an alkaline salt form in the atmosphere, as revealed through recent pH tests conducted across the country. Barium compounds, especially those of a soluble nature, are regarded as a serious health risk, and they are commonly associated with respiratory distress.

Research by this method will continue, but preliminary results are provided because of the importance of the findings and to support the claims that are made herein. It is recommended that other researchers across the country participate within this endeavor, in an effort to further refine the results of the study. Spectroscopy provides an analytic tool that can be used to establish the presence or absence of certain foreign elements in the atmosphere that have been under consideration for some time.

Clifford E Carnicom
November 1 2000

subsequent testing and confirmation,

while I'm fairly certain these links won't be to Element's liking,  I'm including them for anyone else who may be interested.

i-dog's picture


"I-dog; You clearly have no such degree, and are definitely not a scientist. "

LOL ... fucking moron ... you have no idea. I stopped reading at this point and so won't be bothered replying to any other ad hominems you may have included. Your "liar, liar, pants on fire!" argument is the only thing that's dishonest here.

I don't intend raising my blood pressure in an attempt to debate with a blowhard. Henceforth, consider yourself ignored.

Element's picture

You resort to no form of scientific evidence, or analysis, or testing, or reasonable sceptical demands, you talked about shit that had no bearing on the question of whether chem-trails really are chem-trails, and you quoted Joel Skousen as a serious source!

You're a bloody retard, and a liar, at best.

You apparently know nothing about common observational and empirical tools (that have been in common use for 100 years!) to determine the truth or falsehood of such a question of chem-trails, thus you are clearly no scientist, and certainly no "chemical engineer", as you obviously don't know anything about either.

i.e. you have lied to misrepresented yourself, whilst you have pretended to have intellectually and scientifically assessed and substantiated their veracity and reality, and you have asserted chem-trails are real. 

And yet literally even a mildly competant first-year chemistry student could debunk this chemtrail bullshit with observational data in five minutes flat, a tale which is without any doubt a complete load of fictional bullcrap, of the lamest and most dubious kind.

It's thus completely valid and correct for me to call you out for this and make explicit what you have done here, as you're a dishonest contemptible preening arse, i-dog, and your credibility is terminally damaged, and you will be treated appropriately, and this pointed out to others of what sort of clown you are.  

I'll make sure people here at zh know about you i-dog.

akak's picture

Element, I must admit that I as well have a chemistry background (BS in Chemistry, in fact), and have very notably seen absolutely ZERO evidence of the "chem" part of the so-called "chemtrails".  Zip, zero, nada in the way of any kind of analytical, physical proof.

What I truly believe that all the believers in "chemtrails" are actually seeing are simple CONTRAILS which have become much more abundant in the last 20 years with the massive increase in air traffic over the USA and Europe.  The so-called "patterning" of them is probably simply due to the spreading-out of air traffic that has become necessary due to the increase in said traffic over the same period.

If ANYONE can show my physical, analytical proof of so-called "chemtrails", I would be happy to examine or review such evidence --- but none has ever been forthcoming.  This belief in "chemtrails" all seems like conjecture and supposition to me so far.

Element's picture

Indeed akak, that's all it takes, belief is not required, there is no argument here, nothing that can not be resolved with prosaic observational data.

We are on the same wavelength there, cheers mate.

Ghordius's picture

lol, that was quite a rant! luckily I'm ignorant in the matter and I have never heard or read about those chemtrails before, my only contribution is a question: aluminium? I understand Americans - though i-dog claims not to be one even though I repeteadly show him how his arguments are typically so - spell that element aluminum.

Element's picture

It is aluminium, and any one who doesn't know that, does not know shit about chemistry.

Ghordius's picture

isn't this a bit harsh? Of course you are right, but there is a distinct US "everyday use" of the other spelling

here "the shift in the USA from –ium to –umtook place progressively over a period starting in about 1895, when the metal began to be widely available and the word started to be needed in popular writing. It is easy to imagine journalists turning for confirmation to Webster’s Dictionary, still the most influential work at that time, and adopting its spelling. The official change in the US to the –um spelling happened quite late: the American Chemical Society only adopted it in 1925, though this was clearly in response to the popular shift that had already taken place. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) officially standardised on aluminium in 1990, though this has done nothing, of course, to change the way people in the US spell it for day to day purposes."


Element's picture

No, it's just correct.

Try repeatedly spelling it wrong in a scientific examination, thesis, report, symposium or paper, and see what happens.

What it indicates is the person who wrote it has no actual clue about chemistry, but pretends to have expert knowledge of alleged 'chem'-tails.

Sure they do.

Bringin It's picture

i-dog i believe it's public knowledge that haarp started out as a project to communicate with subs. hence big arrays were built to channel energy thru the ... earth,  effects were noticed.

Thanks for the chemical link. checking it out.

Ying-Yang's picture

From Hamlet - "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

DaveyJones's picture

one of his best lines from one of his best plays

Ying-Yang's picture

Start your education here.

From the website "HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere, with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes."


377th Air Base Wing Public Affairs
2000 Wyoming Blvd. SE
Suite A-1
Kirtland Air Force Base, NM 87117

Your tax dollars at work....

Bringin It's picture

Who is voting this down? Its just statement of fact. 

Be on the lookout zhers for a posse of at least three trolls on the loose today. They seem to be trvalling as a group.

Wait a minute ... is this a conspiracy?

TNTARG's picture

And we all know how the US government works for "both civilian and defense purposes"!

We can just consider the oxymoron "democracy's export" being carried out by hiring mercenaries, bombing and invading countries, killing hundred of thousands as "collateral damage", giving banksters license to take over governments and assets and mainstreams and and and...