This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: "The Fed's Sole Purpose: Keeping The Banks Afloat" - G. Edward Griffin

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Via Casey Research,

“The Fed’s sole purpose: keeping the banks afloat” – G. Edward Griffin

Is the Federal Reserve really doing such a bad job… or does it actually do exactly what it's supposed to do, but the average American is in the dark about what that is?

 

In this explosive video, Casey Summit speaker G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature from Jekyll Island, talks about the Fed's real role in the US economy and why – contrary to common belief – it is not this banking cartel's mission to act in the best interest of the American public.

 

 

Hear the full details of what G. Edward Griffin believes is the true endgame for the United States and the Western world – plus, listen to 27 other experts and find out how to invest, survive, and thrive in an economy weighed down by government meddling, cronyism, and financial fraud.

Click here for more.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 10/10/2012 - 16:48 | Link to Comment jeff314
jeff314's picture

fuck you Bernanke...

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 16:50 | Link to Comment falak pema
falak pema's picture

thats beginning to sound like "Allah o Akbar" at ZH...

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:00 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

I simply cannot understand the disconnect on the part of Doug Casey, where on one hand, he presents Griffen with his wholly accurate "we've been robbed" scenario, only to be followed by 27 other experts who will tell you how to get in on the scam.

Is integrity really too much to ask for from a person these days? I've both met Mr. Casey personally, as well as subscribed to his newsletter for a few years (until I tired of my above complaint), and he seems like an otherwise exceptional person.

Like I said, I just don't understand him.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

Whats your beef? Get in on what "scam"? Casey is a unique person, an avowed hardcore anarchist. Lumping all the other speakers in with him is totally off the mark. His company hosted the conference. Whats wrong with that?

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:29 | Link to Comment lineskis
lineskis's picture

The Fed’s sole purpose: keeping the banks afloat

Well, historically the Fed was created (among other things) for just that purpose. So, not quite like the discovery of aquatic wetness but close enough...

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 19:12 | Link to Comment sunaJ
sunaJ's picture

The clash of classes will come when all members of society accept this as the mandate of the FED rather than solely the parasitic money changing class. Of course by then, the dollar will be worth less than a sheet of toilet paper and the only going currency will be the ear lobes of central bankers.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:05 | Link to Comment The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

And this is news because ????

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:12 | Link to Comment Thomas
Thomas's picture

This is not news but it is linkable and quite possibly ripe for being understood by more than simply the band of crazies who occupy this chatboard. (Terms of endearment, of course.) The populace may be primed to hear his message: link it around the web.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:22 | Link to Comment economics9698
economics9698's picture

I second that.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:18 | Link to Comment Richard Chesler
Richard Chesler's picture

 It is not this banking cartel's mission to act in the best interest of the American public.

 

Repeat until it sinks.


Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:43 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

"keep the banks going" is only half the story. 

Where does the money come from to bail out the banks?

It comes from the American people via currency debasement.

How currency printing and debasement transfers wealth is difficult for the average person to understand.  

A good analogy is a company's stock.  If you have X shares of stock in a company and they issue 100% more stock, your shares lose half their value.   "Printing" more stock stole some of your "wealth".

"Printing" more currency does the same thing.  It reduces the value of currency you have.  The central bank steals some of your wealth, my wealth, everybody's wealth, and gives it to whomever the newly printed currency is given to, Wall Street banks in this case.

You don't realize it's happening because it happens without your knowledge.  But you see the effect of it when prices rise on things you need. 

So here's the full story:  Fed's job is loot all the wealth from America and give it to the banks.

They do it in a very simple way.  Print trillions of dollars of new currency and give it to the banks (or buy worthless crap from the banks with it, same thing).

Since '08 the dollar has lost 50% of it's value from all this currency printing and bank bailouts.  

Since '08 trillions of dollars of wealth have been stolen from the American people and given to Wall Street banks, by the simple silent act of creating trillions of dollars more currency, done with a few computer keystrokes now.

It's not just the Fed looting Americans.  ECB does the same thing to the European people.  BOJ does the same thing to the Japanese people.  PBOC does the same thing to the Chinese people.

Non-redeemable fiat currency that can be "printed" endlessly is the vehicle by which central banks loot a nation's wealth and give it to whomever they want, Wall Street banks in this case.

Remember, fiat currency is like a company's stock.  The more you "print", the less each share is worth.

Central bankers are master pirates.  Smartest pirates on earth.  They can loot an entire nation's wealth, silently, secretly, without anyone realizing it's happening. 

That's pure genius.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:07 | Link to Comment sgorem
sgorem's picture

pure fucking evil.....................

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 03:54 | Link to Comment Revert_Back_to_...
Revert_Back_to_1792_Act's picture

.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 03:04 | Link to Comment Miss anthrope
Miss anthrope's picture

the more I know the less sense it really makes.  If I walk in and pass a counterfeit bill I go to prison.......... when they counterfeit our money they all get bonuses and yachts........... What am i missing here?

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:57 | Link to Comment killallthefiat
killallthefiat's picture

I do agree with NotApplicable.  It is unfortunate that we, the little people, have only the choice to profit from the coming collapse, if we have some cash.

My uncle, age 70 used to say that he feared for my future, but has recently acknowledged, like Ed Griffin, that almost all of us will see "the end".

 

We live in exciting times.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:37 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

if we have some cash.

Cash won't help you in the coming collapse, because cash will be worthless.

The coming collapse won't be government collapse, it will be currency collapse, currency losing all value, like Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, etc.

So no, cash won't help you then.  It'll be worthless.

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:52 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

The Founding Fathers could have profited in their lifetimes from continued British Rule.  They were mostly wealthy.  They risked short-term profit for their beliefs.    This author/linker of videos advocates profiting from an understanding of the policies of the oligarchs.  I'm not passing judgment, because I'm not sure there is a viable alternative at this point.  They didn't have drones or armored vehicles that could heat seek gun fire in the 1700's.

Fri, 10/26/2012 - 11:54 | Link to Comment Nagelstudio
Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:32 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

I did no such thing as "lumping him in." My point is the conference in general.

As I said, on a personal level (I've both met him, and read him for years) I find his ideology and commentary to be spot on (in other words, completely coherent). Yet, rather than adopting "Tu Ne Cede Malis," and refusing to support evil, he instead advises on how to leverage it to ones' advantage. I find this to be a complete disconnect between actions and beliefs. I would assume he has adopted a more "pragmatic" approach, but I consider that to be a slippery slope of ethical calculus.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:39 | Link to Comment Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

You said  "only to be followed by 27 other experts who will tell you how to get in on the scam."

Sorry, but I'm wondering what the "scam" is you are referring to. Making money on PM and mining experts advice is bad?

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 18:22 | Link to Comment Landotfree
Landotfree's picture

"it is not this banking cartel's mission to act in the best interest of the American public"

Duhhhhhhhh!!!!

The Fed's mission is simple, assist in the expansion of the global credit system until it hits max potential.   The Fed does not have unlimited power and certainly can't do much about the coming collapse except convince the lemmings the helicopters are coming... thereby postponing the collapse as long as possible.   

Once the Banks are wiped out... the liquidation of the nonperforming unfunded liabilities will have to start double time.   

And that guy's book is not going to help.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 18:48 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

But I'm a nonperforming unfunded liability!

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:24 | Link to Comment steelhead23
steelhead23's picture

We ALL are.  They want us ALL to die.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 19:49 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

"...that guy's book..."  One of the most influential books in the last few decades about the Fed.   Shows how little you actually know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin#The_Creature_from_Jekyll_...

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 04:16 | Link to Comment Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

Eustace Mullins was way ahead of him.

Some say G. Edward might have done more than a little 'copying' from Secrets of the Federal Reserve (1952)

 

btw...

 

http://whale.to/b/mullin7.jpg

Rothschild added five golden arrows (right image) held in the eagle’s talons, signifying his five sons who operated the five banking houses of the international House of Rothschild

 

Ever heard of Five Arrows Capital and other subsidiaries?

 

Westcore Properties Obtains Up To $200 Million Investment From Five Arrows Realty Securities

August 2011

 

SAN DIEGO – Westcore Properties, a San Diego-based real estate investment and acquisitions firm, announces that it has obtained up to a $200 million investment from Five Arrows Realty Securities V, LP (Five Arrows), according to Marc Brutten, the company’s Executive Chairman. Five Arrows is an investment fund managed by New York-based Rothschild Realty Managers, LLC (RRM), a leading provider of growth capital to public and private real estate companies.

 

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?p...

http://fivearrowsleasinggroup.com/

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 04:26 | Link to Comment Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

 

Here's an excerpt from Chapter 5 of Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins regarding our old 'friends' at J. P. Morgan:

 

The pre-eminence of J.P. Morgan and the Brown firm in American finance can be dated to the development of Baltimore as the nineteenth century capital of the slave trade. Both of these firms originated in Baltimore, opened branches in London, came under the aegis of the House of Rothschild, and returned to the United States to open branches in New York and to become the dominant power, not only in finance, but also in government. In recent years, key posts such as Secretary of Defense have been held by Robert Lovett, partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, and Thomas S. Gates, partner of Drexel and Company, a J.P. Morgan subsidiary firm. The present Vice President, George Bush, is the son of Prescott Bush, a partner of Brown Brothers Harriman, for many years the senator from Connecticut, and the financial organizer of Columbia Broadcasting System of which he also was a director for many years.

 

To understand why these firms operate as they do, it is necessary to give a brief history of their origins. Few Americans know that J.P. Morgan Company began as George Peabody and Company. George Peabody (1795-1869), born at South Danvers, Massachusetts, began business in Georgetown, D.C. in 1814 as Peabody, Riggs and Company, dealing in wholesale dry goods, and in operating the Georgetown Slave Market. In 1815, to be closer to their source of supply, they moved to Baltimore, where they operated as Peabody and Riggs, from 1815 to 1835. Peabody found himself increasingly involved with business originating from London, and in 1835, he established the firm of George Peabody and Company in London. He had excellent entree in London business through another Baltimore firm established in Liverpool, the Brown Brothers. Alexander Brown came to Baltimore in 1801, and established what is now known as the oldest banking house in the United States, still operating as Brown Brothers Harriman of New York; Brown, Shipley and Company of England; and Alex Brown and Son of Baltimore. The behind the scenes power wielded by this firm is indicated by the fact that Sir Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England for many years, was a partner of Brown, Shipley and Company.* Considered the single most influential banker in the world, Sir Montagu Norman was organizer of "informal talks" between heads of central banks in 1927, which led directly to the Great Stockmarket Crash of 1929.

 

Soon after he arrived in London, George Peabody was surprised to be summoned to an audience with the gruff Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Without mincing words, Rothschild revealed to Peabody, that much of the London aristocracy openly disliked Rothschild and refused his invitations. He proposed that Peabody, a man of modest means, be established as a lavish host whose entertainments would soon be the talk of London. Rothschild would, of course, pay all the bills. Peabody accepted the offer, and soon became known as the most popular host in London. His annual Fourth of July dinner, celebrating American Independence, became extremely popular with the English aristocracy, many of whom, while drinking Peabody’s wine, regaled each other with jokes about Rothschild’s crudities and bad manners, without realizing that every drop they drank had been paid for by Rothschild.

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:54 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

I've read/heard those charges against Mr. Griffin, and looked into them for myself. The claims are completely baseless.

As many of us know, almost 100 years ago a group of wealthy/influential men gathered together in secret. They hid their identities, and only addressed themselves by their first names or used code words. They got together to plan the establishment of a central bank. There was an air of mystery to the whole event, and it isnt any wonder that any account of it would reflect this.  Eustace Mullins said that his writing was taken 'word for word' (and that charge was repeated by those who must not have actually looked into this for themselves). The charges aren't true.

If one wrote a detective novel and had the usual elements in it - - criminal, victim, mysteries to solve, and a dectective hot on the case - - - it would be a complete and false stretch to claim that every other dectective novel was a rip off of your work. Same with a  sports page article of the actions in a football game; different accounts will have similiar elements to them given that they are dealing with the same event.

Euctace Mullins contributed a great deal and I have read his works and appreciate them. But he was wrong in his charges, though he may have sincerely believed them.

Those who repeat such charges without actually investigating them do an unwarranted disservice to Ed Griffin, who has been trying to warn people on these sunbjects for more than 50 years. He's been at it longer than any other living individual that I can recall. Such charges also do a disservice to those who may benefit greatly from reading/hearing Mr. Griffins account of those events - which are for the most part still unknown to the American people who have been so harmed by them.

Please evaluate anything you read/hear with an open mind, the insistance on evidence, and sound logical thinking. Don't just repeat something you heard or read without actually looking at the facts for yourself.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:55 | Link to Comment Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

I just said that "some say" he did some copying.

 

I really don't care one way or the other, but the fact remains that Mullins was way ahead of Griffin. I guess it's all good if one obtains the info from either or.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 07:08 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

My friend, "some say" is a dangerous phrase. A charge without taking responsibility or giving proof. It can be used to undermine people, even if unintentionally.

I do appreciate your posting the passages above, however.  Thank you for doing so.

I do agree that Mullins was a remarkable researcher and writer. All that inform others on these topics should be recognized.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:50 | Link to Comment blabam
blabam's picture

Casey just wants to make money off of this clusterfuck. Norhting wrong with that imo. 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:54 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

There is everything wrong with that. Among other things, that just makes him paid opposition.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 18:33 | Link to Comment roadlust
roadlust's picture

You're right, it's nothing more than another "get rich by buying our 27 cassettes!" scam, with lots of moral indignation thrown in so that you can feel "justified" in particpating in the immorality yourself, or by making up some of your own immorality.  So many people want to believe "making money" is somehow an ethical end in itself, no matter what the means are.  You're not going to convince those folks that exploiting people is a problem. 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 18:50 | Link to Comment Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

LOL. Exploiting people? How so? You vote with your feet. So don't buy the tapes. Nobody has a gun to your head. Some of you guys are way out there when it comes to investment advice. Not everyone is a crook.

I used to get Casey, and Richard Russell, Jay Taylor, Bob Chapman, Jim Dines, Jim Willie, David Morgan, etc....so I've heard and seen them all. Some of them are really good, some not so good. Ever heard the term "due dilligence"?

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 19:51 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Interesting talk by G. Edward Griffin.   There is an odd flavor of G. Carlin in the speech but Carlin was a lot funnier.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:29 | Link to Comment Frank Owen
Frank Owen's picture

See if you can laugh it this clip of Carlin:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLY6Te9xGmw

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:00 | Link to Comment killallthefiat
killallthefiat's picture

Carlin is not funny here.  I am not sure what they people in the crowd are cheering for and laughing about. 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 07:28 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Sometimes people laugh in an 'aha' reaction to hearing the truth spoken (very rare in our society today).

They are applauding George for speaking the truth and having the guts to do so.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:43 | Link to Comment erg
erg's picture

Hey Rocky...I remember from some time ago that you have a coin shop. How's byz with the phyzz if you don't mind my asking?

What's the ratio of buyers versus sellers?

Sun, 10/14/2012 - 11:55 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I sell both coins and stamps.   I'm selling all the stamps I can and turning it into PMs.... period.  I sell off the numismatic coins to gain the premiums and I am keeping all the bullion grade coins.   The writing is on the wall.  As long as there is a smidgen of discretionary income out there to tap into I'll continue to convert paper (stamps and fiat) into PMs to hold onto.  All the rest is noise.   My days of buying coins for a 2% margin to sell price are over.  Buyers are of two types:  Those who are in the numismatic field and want to add to a collection (they usually have money and will buy what they can afford regardless of the economy), and there are the bulk buyers (accumulators we call them) who feel that bags full of anything are good!  Very few are focused on coins that will retain their value in the form of wealth preservation.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 19:51 | Link to Comment BigJim
BigJim's picture

 Yet, rather than adopting "Tu Ne Cede Malis," and refusing to support evil, he instead advises on how to leverage it to ones' advantage. I find this to be a complete disconnect between actions and beliefs. 

Why? He speaks out often enough about the corruption in the system. What else can he do?

Don't blame the surfers for the weather, duuuude!

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:29 | Link to Comment Alexandre Stavisky
Alexandre Stavisky's picture

Mr. Griffin.  Such a fine gentlemen.  Articulate and devoted to increasing the knowledge of the criminal cartel that obtains full bellies by power to mint, transmit, and create money as well as cause stampedes and herding activities that enrich them and impoverish the true dreamers, makers, and doers.  I've purchased and re-read his book many times.  Never disappointed.

Men and those like him, with great integrity and pure scruples, would make barren places rich.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:49 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Mr. Griffin also co-produced, and appears in "What in the World Are They Spraying?" - documentary about geoengineering/aerosoling, in case you're interested.

http://farmwars.info/?p=2975

recent follow-up, "Why in the World Are They Spraying?"

http://www.whyintheworldaretheyspraying.com/about

anyone interested in the food supply chain might want to watch these.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:55 | Link to Comment Cosimo de Medici
Cosimo de Medici's picture

Casey is unique?  An a-hole, maybe, but unique?  He's mostly an arrogant sideshow carnival barker selling "the secret" to gullible fools.  Where his a-hole-ness shows up best is when he discusses "charity".  He tosses it all in one basket, whether it is govt charity or free and willing private charity, which he describes as "taking from proven producers to give to proven failures".  Fuck him and his arrogance.  If this a-hole was born a female in Bangladesh he would still be "Doug Casey"?  Even a great person---which Casey is not---often needs a helping hand to overcome the circumstances of his birth, over which one has absolutely no control.

Accidents of birth have far more to do with "success" than whatever he thinks made him the a-hole he is.  If he wants to be self-centered and self-absorbed, that's fine, but at least be honest about it instead of trying to portray himself as something he is not.  If TSHTF, the Universe might be made right again if Casey gets roasted alive by all those "proven failures".  Casey can produce........lunch.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:19 | Link to Comment TheObsoleteMan
TheObsoleteMan's picture

Brilliant people are seldom understood by average people.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:01 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

I don't get it.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:35 | Link to Comment Stud Duck
Stud Duck's picture

Your argument for moral turpitude in noted as one who feels the high road is one that should be taken at all time.  The best answer I can give you is the same as one gave new replacments in the little war 41 years ago, this is war, to survive you must play ruthlessly, without compassion for you fellow man. The people in charge of you do not care about your life just their career, they basically don;t care if you get killed. The people on the other side are trying to kill you. The purpose is to survive, nothing else matters.

This is an economic war, you must crawl out the hole you dug the night before, sling your weapon, sling your pack, and put one foot in front of the other, hope you make it through another day to dig another hole to sleep in, end of lesson.

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 13:11 | Link to Comment alangreedspank
alangreedspank's picture

If the ref says the net is now 1 foot larger, there's nothing wrong about shooting in that new extra space. If you have a beef, blame the ref.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:19 | Link to Comment Chuck Walla
Chuck Walla's picture

Laws and rules make a scam a system.

FORWARD SOVIET!

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:21 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

thats beginning to sound like "Allah o Akbar" at ZH...

Nah, I never hear it followed by loud noises.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:59 | Link to Comment Radical Marijuana
Radical Marijuana's picture

Since privatized fiat money is a crazy cult that was enforced to become our STATE RELIGION, it makes sense that either worshipping, or cursing, the local incarnation of that religion makes basic sense! Recall that the fundamental idea that you referred to, falak pema, is "surrender to the will of Allah" ... which actually means surrender to the man, or men, who get to say what is the "will of Allah." Since Islam aspires to be a state religion, it makes plenty of sense that that man, Benanke, and those men, The Federal Reserve Board, who get to say what the "will of Allah" is MATTER to us! ... We were born inside of a system where everything you need, or want, like food, and shelter, depends on your ability to make money and spend it ... so your life depends upon the state religion, in which the Chairman of the Fed IS like the Pope, and the other members of that Board are Cardinals, much like IF you where living inside of a totally Catholic society, which was completely dominated by that church, and which had excommunication, and the inquisition, to back them up! Since it is practically impossible to live outside of the state religion that dominates our lives, OF COURSE, people either worship, or curse, the symbolic manifestation of that state religion in its local human incarnations.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 16:51 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

G. Griff gets off on some wonky chemtrail stuff, but I have to hand it to him on this topic.  To say he has a mastery of the subject matter when it comes to the Federal Reserve is an understatement.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:00 | Link to Comment Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Chemtrails are only "wonky" if you have not studied the subject.  I think you must be a blue piller on that particular matter?  Or, perhaps you think barium, strontium and aluminum are good for you?  Please research. 

Tuco

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:08 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

I'm assuming that, like all psy-ops (and other forms of terror), there's just enough truth embedded in the lies to make it all plausible. Rig up a handful of planes, let them be "discovered," then rely upon innocent witnesses to propagate the stories that are then picked up and furthered by provocateurs and other theorists of plausibility. Now this isn't to say there isn't a program ongoing, but that it's likely only large enough to create suspicion, just as intended.

Not to mention, they use this disinfo to cover for a myriad of other activities. So, in essence, I find it hard to either believe or to disbelieve based on the evidence, but instead, see it all as an obfuscating activity.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:47 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture

 

 

All one need do is look at the Obama campaign to see the OPEN & VISIBLE lying propaganda machine in action and then, more importantly, look at the hords following it around. It's almost an insult to the quadrapeds to refer to such humans as sheeple. Yet, they exist in the tens of millions.

 

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
Plato

 

An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools.
Ernest Hemingway

Men are so simple and yield so readily to the desires of the moment that he who will trick will always find another who will suffer to be tricked.
Niccolo Machiavelli

 

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:09 | Link to Comment RiotActing
RiotActing's picture

All I know is right over my head I get sprayed all the time... Pacific North West gets hit harder than any place in the country. This isnt crazy talk, there are numerous geo-engineering patents that Monsanto own as well as patents for seeds that are resistant to the shit they are spraying in the sky. People need to wake the fuck up...

Youtube "Why in the world are they spraying" and "What in the world are they spraying" This stuff isn't disinfo... wake the fuck up...

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:04 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

RiotActing,

Making wild claims and talking complete horseshit without ever providing any testable or verified REAL EVIDENCE, does not make anything true and it never will.

You dopey half-wit arsehole.

Sat, 10/13/2012 - 01:48 | Link to Comment mkkby
mkkby's picture

Easy to prove.  Take samples and get them chemically analyzed.  Have witness and document by video.  Then everyone will believe you and you can go on tee vee spouting all this.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:01 | Link to Comment erg
erg's picture

Hmm...I'm of the slant that they want to rub it in your stinkin' face every possible moment they can.

I just re-watched Cars a couple of nights ago and there were two chemtrails clearly visible in a shot.

It's funny what you see when you begin to understand the big schtick.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:37 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

The problem with complicated theories is that they often get brought down by the simplest flaws. Assuming there are large jets criss-crossing our skies intentionally bombarding us with a cocktail of chemicals, where is the rest of the infrastructure to support such a massive and ongoing operation? Storage tanks, chemical plants, pictures of planes on the ground with spraying mechanisms visible, etc? Or are you suggesting that in a world where even the most closely guarded government secrets leak out like a sieve that somehow no one on the inside would ever mention a word about this one? Come on. Look I don't doubt that they would spray us if they wanted to, they've done shit like that to civilian populations before, but they aren't competent enough to pull it off this well, and it's too much of a stretch to expect such a massive program to be able to exist today with little direct evidence other than people that swear the lines in the sky aren't contrails.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 17:39 | Link to Comment john39
john39's picture

start here:

http://youtu.be/jf0khstYDLA

'what in the world are they spraying'

the best part about this... the taxpayer pays for it.

 

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 18:01 | Link to Comment redpill
redpill's picture

You're not listening.

I think some people find comfort in thinking that the powers that be are limitlessly nefarious because it makes them feel more righteous in hating them, when the much more plausible reality is that our world is being lead down the path of disaster by a mixture of utterly incompetent bureaucrats, entirely self absorbed egomaniacal politicians who only care for their own ego, infinitely arrogant central planners who think they can save everyone, and a few thugs to crack down on the squeaky wheels when need be: the full sum of which is such a clusterfuck that they can't even manage to pull their heads out of their ass long enough to send an appropriate security detail to protect our embassy in the middle of that chaotic muzzie shithole they call Libya, much less design a massive nationwide chemical spraying program without getting caught red handed.

So, sorry to deliver the real red pill, but we aren't being rushed up the twisty mountain road toward fascism by darkly brilliant and evil overlords attempting to cull the populace with aerosolized aluminum, but rather by a motley crew of egotistical incompetents that are more likely than not to miss a turn and drive us right off the cliff into a giant steaming pit of shit. The problem is not just a handful of government villains, the problem is US, the weak and complicit electorate we've become, and a pale shadow of the steel-balled patriots that made this country possible to begin with. If we want to go on a witch hunt for an evil nemesis, we should begin by looking in the mirror.

Take two and call me in the morning.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 18:03 | Link to Comment john39
john39's picture

red pill?  thanks for the laugh...

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 18:53 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

This.

I partly disagree with your criticism of the complicated, lengthy conspiracy crowd though.  A very large part of it stems from the inherent need for many people to believe in a power higher than themselves.  This is the same delusion that gives genesis to the god of organized religion.  [for those people that actually believe and don't just chalk it up to a social club].  For some reason, it is comforting for some people to believe (mistakenly) that someone is in control, even if they are not.

It's also typically deep rooted in a myriad of logical fallacies, e.g. propositional fallacies, confusing cause and effect, post hoc, etc.  It's basically this desperate patchwork of false flags, assassinations, and legal constraints that require outlandish jumps of logic between events.  JFK was assassinated, therefor 9/11 was an inside job.  If you piece out all the parts, you really boil a lot of it down to these rudimentary logical fallacies.  JFK might have been killed for ulterior motives and 9/11 might have been an inside job, but one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other...  this is where credibility becomes destroyed.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:11 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

SOOOOOO many things we hold as self-evident now, were just a short time ago dubbed conspiracy theories. 

"The Fed is private"
"The Fed monetizes debt"
"We are at war with Iraq over oil"
"The War on Terror is a war on you"

Is it a "conpiracy theory" to wonder if there is GOLD IN FORT KNOX?

Through many CURRENT, HIP and TRENDY opinions as to what and what is not a conspiracy theory, we find, and have found many answers.  I mean... WHY THE FUCK ARE WE HERE?  To simply talk about things they won't talk about ON PRIME TIME NEWS?... isn't that just another conspiracy theory?   

This thread is nothing more than a one more false dichotomy.  And the usuals are out in force trying to call bullshit... as if they know something.  And no... you don't know.  YOU ASSUME to know.  Cuz isn't false right/left paradigm just another conspiracy... as so many here still TEN HUT as a partisan.  SO, and there-to-fore, I should assume no chemtrails, turrists hit the trade centers, and everyone in power is a dumbass.  So not to be a dumbass, myself... on this site, no less.

Fuck that.  I question EVERYTHING I hear, see, and read in this 24 hour mind numbing news cycle.   

Tired of listening to those on this site PRO-FUCKING-CLAIMING who and who is not "out there." 

I mean if Goldman told you to buy something with BOTH HANDS!!!... wouldn't you sell?

LMAO!!!

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:20 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

What does any of this have to do with my post?  All we're suggesting (and I've definitely not been promoted to speak for red pill) is that the genesis of these "conspiracies" is something different...  no one has disputed (or at least I haven't) that these issues are occurring and not in the best interest of those outside the club.  The issue is that given the fact that we're not in the club and, thus, cannot "know", which theory best explains everything?  We simply are opting for a theory that is a bit simpler at explaining these things.

Needless to say, you've completely missed the mark...

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:11 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

No, it means you need real testable verifyable or else falifiable evidence, not just a mouthful of bullshit and insinuation.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:08 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Red Pill - - I know only a little about this particular subject. Not enough to form an opinion either one way or the other. All I must point out is that nothing you have written makes logical sense. Its all ad hominem attack and many other logical fallacies. You don't address what the supporters of the 'chem trail' position offer as an argument or evidence. (If youre even aware of those arguments and evidence.)  Not accepting something because it would be awful if it were so . . . isn't sound reasoning. This is a the logical fallacy of the consequences of a belief.

By your logic - - the 130,000 people and billions of dollars deployed in America's Manhattan Project to create the atomic bomb could not have happened because so many didnt know about it and that major effort couldnt be hidden. But, in fact it did exist - the new President Harry Truman who heard nothing of it had to be briefed on the project after he was sworn in, and two bombs were dropped on Japan  - - at the surprise of most of the world's people.

Again, I don't know enough about the chemtrail issue to form an opinion. But you havien't provided a sound argument against.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:13 | Link to Comment Unprepared
Unprepared's picture

You are failing to realize one important aspect of the discussion, proven by history, which is that most of the high-profile massacres, crises, catastrophes happened either because of good intentions from their perpetrators or because they were just by-products of their self-interests actions and intentions.

 

I wish evil was so easy to see.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:22 | Link to Comment MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

Speaking of logical fallacies, here's one: shifting the burden of proof.  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:18 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Exactly!

The onus is completely on the person(s) making the claims, the onus is never on the person saying, "where's the testable evidence and substantiation of you claim?"  And nor is the onus ever on me to prove a claim wrong.  It has to be proven right by the person making the claim.  End of story.

I notice some of the people who don't like having to provide actual testable evidence for their claims have red-arrowed you.

That's what we are dealing with here, believers, not truth-tellers.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:20 | Link to Comment RiotActing
RiotActing's picture

You are a fucking moron you cant see they are trying to control the food supply with droughts.... wake up "Red Pill" Maybe you should shove that thing up your ass, might do you some good.

Monsanto owns geo engineering patents... they also own patents on aluminum resistant seeds (among others), Monsanto happens to be buying out farmers across the mid-west that are loosing their farms to drought. If I told this story on wall street about some crooked bankers you would believe it. But this? Its too crazy? Pull your head from your ass...

Control the food supply control the population... "Oh thats TOO crazy!!!" "Ill believe their is a banking conspiracy to bring the country down, but try and tell me they are trying to control the weather and food supply, THAT'S just CRAZY!!! No WAY!!!" -

Well you sir are an idiot and I'm surprised you can tie your own shoes...

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:49 | Link to Comment Tortfeasor
Tortfeasor's picture

You're saying "they" are evil and diabolical and brilliant enough to put together a massive, nationwide cloud doping ring without getting caught on tape or in papers, but they are too fucking stupid to figure out how to do it without leaving blazing white trails all over the sky?

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:22 | Link to Comment RiotActing
RiotActing's picture

They have already won the PR battle, you morons think water vaper comes out of planes and sits in the sky for hours and becomes weather, yeah totally normal... wake the fuck up.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:08 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

RiotActing,

Making wild claims and talking complete horseshit without ever providing any testable or verified REAL EVIDENCE, does not make anything true and it never will.

You dopey half-wit arsehole.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:19 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

aye, I remember that caveat as applied to "Gulf War Syndrome" when veterans were complaining of symptoms that later were proven to be from depleted uranium. . .

of course, accepting that reality would have meant being honest with the world about using banned genocidal weapons on humans, and might have been a teeny deterrent for the volunteers when they gave it thought.

no one cares a bit whether anyone chooses to acknowledge any of what is going down in the world. no one at all.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:41 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

I have not found one solid shred of spectroscopic evidence that proves alleged 'chemtrails' are in fact chemical trails, and not just vapor trails.

Sorry, I have a problem with things that have no solid scientific evidence when the tools to prove the claim, one way or another exist, and have been around for a very long time.

Fraunhofer lines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines

Spectroscopy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

 

Absence of real evidence = Bullshit

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:31 | Link to Comment The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

"They" are the mega chemical, agricultural and m.i.c. "They" have papers. AIR FARCE PAPERS. "Owning the weather by 2025"

Monsannnto has a great interest in it.

It's like Agent Orange but subtler.

Control the crops. Control the water. Control the light.

The blazing trails are a nifty, symbolic, by-product.

Now, fuck off with your blindness and enjoy your

Alzheimers.

Erasing memory, books, history and genes. One asshole at a time.

 

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:05 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

RiotActing,

Making wild claims and talking complete horseshit without ever providing any testable or verified REAL EVIDENCE, does not make anything true and it never will.

You dopey half-wit arsehole.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:24 | Link to Comment CH1
CH1's picture

Well said, RP: The overlords are a bunch of chumps who gained their positions mostly by birth. Evil, maybe, geniuses, NO.

The root of the problem is that people will always blindly obey an institution - no matter what stupidity it orders.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:27 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"The problem with complicated theories is that they often get brought down by the simplest flaws."

Dead nuts on.

"They" are also being sprayed not just the sheeple. Unless they are all suicidal and homicidal (by giving birth to their children) they're in the same boat with the sheeple.

The constant trait, even among meglomaniacs, is they prefer to survive ;-)

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:44 | Link to Comment Scarticia
Scarticia's picture

 

 

I believe that is the number one approved official response for forum posters.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:01 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

As a forum poster yourself, would you like to add something a little more vague?

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:15 | Link to Comment Scarticia
Scarticia's picture

 

 

Since it appears your response to chemtrail spraying is that sprayers would not harm themselves, is also the number one illogical  argument used on youtube against what is obviously there, CHEMTRAILS.  Since you use that argument ,  I must assume you are one of the the constant suppressors of what is obvious.  You do not know who pilots these craft (or maybe you do).  Your arguments do not weigh very heavily on what is apparent to all.  People who were born less than fifteen or twenty years ago may not remember what a clear sky looks like. 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:05 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

nmewn advocates for the top .01% but he has no idea what they represent.  Don't waste your time debating with him.   He sees himself as one someday.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:30 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Look, it's a really simple and basic scientific question; do you have actual spectroscopic absorption or emission evidence, that proves the alleged chem-trails are actually chemical trails and not just engine exhaust 'vapor' trails -- or don't you?

This isn't even complicated.  It can only be one, or the other.

If you don't have it you are talking baseless shit. 

And let me remind you, I don't have to prove they aren't, you have to prove that they are.

So which is it?

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:31 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

dude, if you cared at all about finding a truth related to your question, you'd do the research and find the answer - because the answer exists, you just don't care to put any effort into seeking it.

you've drawn a ring around your available awareness, and are hunkering down within that reality.  it won't protect you, but it will give you all the excuses you need to get by, for now.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:49 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

I have not found one solid shred of spectroscopic evidence that proves alleged 'chemtrails' are in fact chemical trails, and not just vapor trails.  Sorry, I have a problem with things that have no solid scientific evidence when the tools to prove the claim, one way or another, exist, and have been around for a very long time.

Fraunhofer lines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines

Spectroscopy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

Absence of real evidence = Bullshit

You have simply satisfied yourself that you know something, that you don't know at all, and which remains unconfirmed, and you are now not honest enough to admit that you have invested in something you don't have real evidence for.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:52 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

I have NEVER seen even the tiniest shred of evidence for so-called "chemtrails" either.

ALL that I have seen on the subject is wild speculation, mostly based on "patterns" of contrails that are simply due to the massive increase in air traffic over the USA over the last 20 or so years.  Although the simpletons refuse to recognize this fact, not all air traffic flows in fixed "lanes" like cars on a freeway --- air traffic controllers can, and usually do, spread-out air traffic laterally in broad corriders for safety's sake, often leading to the parallel contrails so often, if erroneously, ascribed to "chemtrails".

Really, the hyperventilating, overhyped bullshit I have read onthis non-subject is astounding.  I would not for a second NOT believe that the powers-that-be might not actually desire to implement such methods for various nefarious reasons, but I have yet to see the tiniest scrap of evidence that they are in fact doing so --- and yes, I have looked into it.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 16:25 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

 

 

Indeed akak, I concur fully with your remarks, the last sentence in particular.

I also have looked into chem-trails, off and on, and given it far more time and examination than it ever warranted, but people kept assuring me it was real so I kept looking at what they said, and like you, I drew a blank for the chemistry evidence every time.

I have looked at a lot of these conspiracies, and I do not use that word as any sort of put-down, as I am very clear that some are real.  The immunology vaccines are clearly proven with empirical evidence to be NET very harmful to health, and even genetically damaging in fast-breeding mammals such as dogs. 

And 9-11 being a put-up is indeed the case.  There is more than enough solid evidence of this, in fact the lines of evidence are almost endless, and quite extraordinarily undeniable.  I don't care about how some persona's cope with us demanding real Chemical evidence, or calling bullshit to a lack of it.

That's how it should be.

But I'm pretty disgusted with how some mere anon persona's are behaving about being asked to provide the CHEMICAL EVIDENCE that CHEM-trails are actual chemical trails, and not prosaic vapor trails, and then going to a 'personal' level about it (to anon commenters no-less ... sad)

This is hardly asking too much, it is infact the bare minimum that should be required, and I for one will never give-in to mere believers in 'stuff'.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 16:34 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

meanwhile, over at The Royal Society, conferences took place, way back in 2010,

Geoengineering - taking control of our planet's climate


Dr. Matthew Watson, University of Bristol:

Dr. Watson is the principle investigator of the SPICE project, a recently funded EPSRC/NERC/STFC supported effort to investigate the possibility of deliberately injecting highly reflective material into the lower stratosphere to manage incoming solar radiation. Explosive volcanic emissions, such as those from Mt. Pinatubo, provide a benchmark for research into controlling climate. 

Professor John Latham, National Center for Atmospheric Research

He was for eight years President of the International Commission on Atmospheric Electricity. His research, largely in the fields of cloud and aerosol physics, atmospheric electricity and geoengineering, has yielded about 180 papers in the peer-reviewed open literature. He was for many years Head of Atmospheric Research at the University of Manchester, where the Latham Atmospheric Sciences Laboratories were inaugurated in 2008.

Professor Nicholas Pidgeon, Cardiff University

He currently holds a 3 year Economic and Social Research Council Professorial Climate Leader Fellowship. His research looks at the public acceptability of environmental risks, including the topics of nuclear power, climate change, nanotechnologies and geoengineering. He was a member of the Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering nanotechnology study group and a co-editor (with Roger Kasperson and Paul Slovic) of The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge University Press, 2003. He is co-author of a recent paper on the social and ethical challenges of geoengineering, appearing in the February 2010 issue of the journal Environment, and a principal investigator to the EPSRC/NERC project Integrated Assessment of Geoengineering Proposals (IAGP). 

http://royalsociety.org/Geoengineering-taking-control-of-our-planets-cli...

y'all might want to learn doublespeak, and the obsfucation of reality via acronyms, which is a new way of communicating amongst the leets.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 19:45 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Well that might all seem spooky and strange and surprising to you but to an actual scientist that blurb is not the slightest bit surprising.  It reads like the bio off the back of some dude's book that he's trying to flog.   Listen, I actually am a geologist, and was around about when Pinatubo popped, and I have a paper that discusses that event myself.  I also observed the sulfur-dioxide sunsets for 2 years, and the reported cooling effects.  But these have been known about for a VERY long time.  Big fucking deal.

Scientists have been trying every which way to make clouds form, and rain to fall, and to change albedo levels since the 1930s, if I remember correctly. They even used to shoot chemical canisters into storm clouds with artillery, to try and induce rain to fall. Again, big fucking deal.  None of this stuff is surprising.

Look it's really simple, all I'm asking for is basic prosaic observational data, from commonly used observing tools, showing the evidence of chemical components present that should not be found in jet fuel exhaust vapor trails.

Is that really such an ask?  Stop running away from it.  Stop trying to change the subject.  Stop pretending you have some tangential point to make that stands out and above the veracity of actual physical evidence.  There is nothing you can add that trumps systematic spectroscopic testing and data.  Without that, the chem-trail saga and all the silly videos and dopey webpages are nothing but a dreary sad fantasy of grand ineptitude of thought.

As a conspiracy theory, it's pretty much a FAIL, from an observational-evidence view point, and in case you don't realise it, that's the only view point that matters in this.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:47 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

I am 52, soon to be 53, I know what clear blue sky looks like.

Apparently every lunatic conspiracy theory in the world is fair game to post on ZH with no evidence to back it up. But without evidence it is just that, conspiracy theory.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 07:20 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

We are in full agreement about that.  The reality is there are more and more very low-grade non-thinkers getting into zh, and they really have not even learned the art of examining evidence as yet, but they get in here and have the gall to castigate and attack people who are simply asking them to cough-up some real testable verifiable or else falsifiable evidence.

Apparently these dimwitted arseholes think they're above all that, due to their superior insight or something, se we'll all just have to take their word for it!

We may not agree on all things nmewn, but we do agree about the irrevocable need for evidence in any such discussion (as idiotic as it is), and it should be that case that zh-er's fully understand that basic principle, and are ever vocal in their demand for people to provide it, when they make fantastic unsourced and unsubstantiated claims.

If any of these arseholes think I for one am ever going to backoff from requiring that they're 100% mistaken, and I'll call them out every time, and I don't give a damn what smears or innuendos and crap they wish to attach to their inability to prove their claims.

A lie is a lie, an untruth is an untruth and an urban myth is an urban myth -- until proven otherwise, with testable evidence.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:37 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

no, you've both agreed to do zero investigating on the subject, and instead sit like petulant children, arms folded, brow furrowed, screaming,

NO!

you refuse to seek answers, something you have in common with MANY others in amrka.  smugly posting on ZH doesn't make you cool, or smarter.  knowledge that expands your awareness might though, but you don't want to look. . .

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:43 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

I have not found one solid shred of spectroscopic evidence that proves alleged 'chemtrails' are in fact chemical trails, and not just vapor trails.

Sorry, I have a problem with things that have no solid scientific evidence when the tools to prove the claim, one way or another, exist,a nd have been around for a very long time.

Fraunhofer lines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines

Spectroscopy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy

 

Absence of real evidence = Bullshit

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:56 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Cathartes, I have to agree absolutely with Element, and for the very first time I had to downarrow you here.

There is simply NO proof for the "chem" part of your so-called "chemtrails" --- NEVER have I seen the slightest evidence for your case.  All that I EVER see is wild and ignorant speculation based on patterns in the sky.  Speculation is not evidence.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 16:52 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

akak, you're entitled to your opinions, and to agree with anyone else posting their opinions here too.  I'm sure you know well enough by now that my posts collect downvotes all the time, and if they deterred me from posting, I'd never have registered an account, heh.

years ago I posted many links of research only to get downvoted by ZH'rs - I've satisfied my own curiosity about the subject, including documenting the actual sky above me on many, many occasions.  I'm seriously not interested in "converting" anyone from their own way of believing in their world, on this or any other topic, I merely argue my point, or poke others to argue theirs, etc.

I try not to use the "chemtrail" word, and prefer "geoengineering" or "aerosoling" - if one searches "chemtrail" one gets much paid poster refuting and mis-direction, as with any "conspiracy" that points to corporate governance actions in the world.  if you seriously want to be more informed, you can re frame your search to find more accurate, up to date information.

but it's not really anything I'm proselytising, particularly since the knowledge won't do much beyond helping one realise just how thoroughly humans are manipulated and owned.  it's a tough, bitter, red pill to swallow, but it does eventually lead to an awareness that can deepen over time. 

and those who realise the toxicity can also mitigate by chelating, zeolite being a current method, there are others.

as always, best wishes.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 20:10 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Ok, you really are out of your mind.  Both myself an akak have chemistry education at tertiary level in BSc degrees and we are both telling you that there's no chemical evidence for chem-trails, and our only theme of objection has been a complete lack of Chemical evidence.  So you now want to change the name to something other than chemtrails? ... un-huh.

And you say you posted about this topic at length for years at zh and was junked for it and then you say it's, "... not really anything I'm proselytizing, ...". Uh-huh

And you purge the bad ju-ju from yourself with zeolite clay suppositories or something. But minus any evidence that they're chemical trails at all, or that if they were that they might be toxic to you.  ...  riiiight.

And you say your rationale for changing the name away from chem-trails is because;

    "... I try not to use the "chemtrail" word, and prefer "geoengineering" or "aerosoling" - if one searches "chemtrail" one gets much paid poster refuting and mis-direction, as with any "conspiracy" that points to corporate governance actions in the world. ..."

I don't suppose you've considered the very real possibility that these people were not "paid poster" anythings, that maybe they were just people who knew what they were talking about.  And were not delusional true-believers in what they knew they didn't know.  Nah ... no chance of that! 

Just like it couldn't be prosaic vapor trails.

Yup, you're bonkers.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 20:49 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

zomg!!! no wai!!! you guyz have chem-degrees!!!????

 

dude, just keep downvoting me  around town, it's all you've got left in your argument. 

I am indeed out of my mind, it took some time & some experience(s), but it certainly was intention-all.

 

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 21:04 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Well good luck to you with that, and with the rejection of material evidence as a primary guiding principle for comprehension and understanding of the world around you.  Obviously you don't need that any more, as you now have 'stuff', assorted fantasies, and smug self-satisfaction.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 21:12 | Link to Comment BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

This thread has given me a headache to read but i have because i generally like all of you guys posting.

 

But Cath A.. i've noticed a subtle change in the tone of your posts over the last 6 months.

has there been a cathartic event?  or am a full of poop.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 22:19 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

well, how unusual, and of interest to me, that you've noticed a shift in my admittedly often snarky posts. . . there was indeed a cathartic event high summer time, some non-sense was shed, some truths confirmed, and I'll be honest, I'm still integrating my realisations. . .

wouldn't do it again, wouldn't trade the experience kinda thing - *smiles*

appreciate your post, hope your reality is to your liking!  peace.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 22:47 | Link to Comment BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

i pay attention to folks who are not of the 'guns n ammo' or 'here for their ego' crew.

we of the ZH community will always have our highs and lows as we grow.

i share mine on some posts but usually after all has been said.

 

it helps

peace to you.

ps - snarky posts? this is, and hopefully will continue to be .. fight club.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 23:39 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

re: your ps: lol, yes indeed, that's why I'm here!

I too try to do my more detailed posting on threads others have vacated for new shiney - since I'm not of the 'guns 'n' ammo' etc. crews. . . I'll be more careful to look out for yours now. . .

in the spirit of all the exchanges here, I'll share a song that's kept me entertained recently,

Father John Misty ~ I'm Writing a Novel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ztOeup6BE&feature=related

me thinks you'll smile.

you're appreciated.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 23:27 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

while I'm here, thought I'd leave this,

Few in the civil sector fully understand that geoengineering is primarily a military science and has nothing to do with either cooling the planet or lowering carbon emissions (Report, 6 February). While seemingly fantastical, weather has been weaponised. At least four countries – the US, Russia, China and Israel – possess the technology and organisation to regularly alter weather and geologic events for various military and black operations, which are tied to secondary objectives, including demographic, energy and agricultural resource management.

Indeed, warfare now includes the technological ability to induce, enhance or direct cyclonic events, earthquakes, draught and flooding, including the use of polymerised aerosol viral agents and radioactive particulates carried through global weather systems. Various themes in public debate, including global warming, have unfortunately been subsumed into much larger military and commercial objectives that have nothing to do with broad public environmental concerns. These include the gradual warming of polar regions to facilitate naval navigation and resource extraction.
Matt Andersson
Former executive adviser, aerospace & defence, Booz Allen Hamilton, Chicago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/09/at-war-over-geoenginee...

and this,

Revealed: Army scientists secretly sprayed St Louis with ‘radioactive’ particles for YEARS to test chemical warfare technology

http://aircrap.org/revealed-army-scientists-secretly-sprayed-st-louis-ra...

and finally, this well documented post, with this except,

In his 1970 book, Between Two Ages, former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezezinski (CFR/TC/B) mentioned “weather control” as a “new weapon” for the U.S. military and a “key element of strategy.”

“Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised… Techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm.”

http://watch.pair.com/weather-modification.html


and say again, it matters not to me what people believe in, and what some find of interest, others don't.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 23:46 | Link to Comment BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

 

 

 

OK

from that top quote i guess you are saying that 'element' - with his chemistry grad training and job as assitant head brewer at our local Woolloomoolloo brewery here down under - is out of the loop big time...

i get ya. :)

time for me to go. cu around.

Fri, 10/12/2012 - 04:26 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

No need to be a smart-arse BD, that comment is from what is a newspaper (remember those) and is a claim posited with no evidence, but its own assertion.  Only a lunatic would believe (without any testable evidence) what a newspaper claimed, about earthquakes and weather have been harnessed for military purposes.  I'm not in the habit of drinking the kool-aide evidence-less claims from idiots that won't even accept the need to test a theory.  Let alone to require physical evidence before they make up their 'mind' about what they don't know.  I'm more than happy to be well out of that sort of "loop" (loopy?).

And someone who tells me to seriously consider shutting-it, to "fit-in", if I want to be popular at zh, is simply a deplorable contemptible jerk, at best.

I guess we can blame Cyclone Yasi on the US Pacific fleet or the Chings paid us back for the iron price , or something?  Or maybe big Frank in Fiji had had enough and cooked one up?

We've all had compelling cathartic direct 'insight'.  I suspect that's par for the course for a developed mind. It's not particular, it's general, and it is very reassuring, but it doesn't mean you become a special case with a personal excuse for ignoring the basic needs of evidence in our life, and our direction, so our brain to comes up with valid answers and makes real connections.  In other words, it doesn't mean we get a franchise on being right, nor won't delude ourselves if due care is not taken, and a deluded illusion-filled mind is going nowhere (except maybe becoming nuttier than a fruit cake).

Ease off the scotch mate. ;-)

Fri, 10/12/2012 - 06:00 | Link to Comment BigDuke6
BigDuke6's picture

Lol

I admit 90% of my best posts are about scotch but is that so wrong !!
Be good
Bd6

Sat, 10/13/2012 - 02:28 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

a fine single malt can be a focusing tool, until it isn't, of course.

doubtful either or any of you will be re-visitng this space, understandably, heh, but I spent a bit of time late this evening using a search engine to see if I could find your requested information Element (as I am fairly certain you'll not desire to look for it).

Carnicom Institute is a site that dates back to late 90's, I'll leave my opinions at the door, and just post some links:

The unusual presence of the element barium in the atmosphere now appears to have been affirmed through the methods of spectroscopy.

http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/spectra1.htm

 

The identification of barium in the atmosphere as a result of aircraft aerosol criminal activities continues to be confirmed. Studies with a diffraction grating spectrometer have repeatedly identified important signature high intensity spectral lines at approximately 712 and 728 nanometers (in addition to others) in the visible portion of the spectrum, as reported in an earlier table. All research conducted thus far continues to indicate a unique match to the element of barium.

http://www.carnicominstitute.org/articles/spectra2.htm

no idea whether these tests conform to your standards, etc. - but I wanted to post something that at least addressed your repeated requests on this particular perspective.  again, I realise you believe this subject to be nonsense, so "convincing" you is not something I'd ever take on as a task. 

I do believe there is much information out there, I read enough of it, but it was ages ago and not on this computer, so I've no links, convenient excuse, lalallala yeah.

folks believe anything they like, whatever works.  myself included.  /shrugs.


Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:29 | Link to Comment Cabreado
Cabreado's picture

"If we want to go on a witch hunt for an evil nemesis, we should begin by looking in the mirror."

You were really good 'til there.
It's a shame you summed it all up that way.

That's a dangerous sentiment, because it implicates no one, really...
while it gives a (yet another) pass to a reasonably finite and defined set of perpetrators...

whether they be Persons, or character traits...

it is reckless disregard of dynamics in play (and while this is age-old stuff, you neglect it still...)

"looking in the mirror" just doesn't cut it,

no matter what color pill you play around with.

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 21:15 | Link to Comment Unprepared
Unprepared's picture

Thanks RP

I'm not saying the chemtrails things is false but sometimes I wonder if the hardcore, ultimate conspiracy theorists (those who believe that everything is meticulously controlled and plan by a specific set of demonic people) are not somehow rosy optimists when reality, crude and simple is that all this fucked up status quo is simply the sum of widespread, bid-up, cumulative conspiracies, revealing how the evil side of most people is running rampant.

That realization is even more scary and depressing than the them .001% cabal trying to control we the docile .999%

 

It is not one giant pyramid scheme, it's net of fractally interdependent pyramids, and YOU and ME are probably in at least one, whether we know it or not.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:33 | Link to Comment Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Your belief that the sheeple are weak does not invalidate the reality of conspiracy, nor does the apparent incompetence/greed/egomania of the government/corporations/elite.

The sheeply are weak... and ripe for manipulation, conscious and unconscious.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:08 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

So, sorry to deliver the real red pill, but we aren't being rushed up the twisty mountain road toward fascism by darkly brilliant and evil overlords attempting to cull the populace with aerosolized aluminum.

Yes, that's exactly what's happening.

The genius of it is making it look like they're a bunch of incompetents stumbling around, fooling people like you. 

So you really are taking the blue pill after all.

And btw, that embassy didn't get security because they wanted that ambassador whacked.

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:21 | Link to Comment sgorem
sgorem's picture

damn 'Pill, nice to see some one on here that's got some fucking sense about what-the-fuck is going on. nicely worded.......i'll add my green to that..................

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:46 | Link to Comment Stud Duck
Stud Duck's picture

Got to give you a green one on that little rant!

This is a country headed to disaster on auto pilot. nothing more.  The only thng one can do is jump just before impact.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:13 | Link to Comment RiotActing
RiotActing's picture

You just havent seen it first hand, I was skeptical at first too. But I have a front row seat to it. There is never any ryhme or reason why. The weather doesnt matter, there are days with no trails at all, guess no planes fly that day right? Please and then the whole fucking sky is covered in criss cross crap that doesnt go away, it then turns the sky into a milk haze. Believe what you want. Be a sheep, think they cant fly planes without people knowing... come the fuck on dude.

There is a TON of evidence the government has been geoengineering since they have been flying in the sky, the military industrial complex has stated it is one of its goals, to control the weather... watch those videos, wake the fuck up.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:05 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

RiotActing,

Making wild claims and talking complete horseshit without ever providing any testable or verified REAL EVIDENCE, does not make anything true and it never will.

You dopey half-wit arsehole.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 20:42 | Link to Comment GoodMorningMr.V...
GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

What Conspiracy? If Geoengineering is a conspiracy than I suppose so is bioengineering and Monsanto.

 

 

 

 

 

Geoengineering

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21873-geoengineering-would-turn-bl...

 

They're trying to block out the Sun's rays by spraying aluminum aerosol with the hopes of slowing global warming. Doubtful it will work but with them being caught up in the global warming hysteria it won't stop them from trying.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:10 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

They're trying to block out the Sun's rays by spraying aluminum aerosol with the hopes of slowing global warming.

 

But global warming itself is a conspiracy theory. There's nothing to mitigate.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 23:33 | Link to Comment john39
john39's picture

just a cover story.  its really about population control.  but you have to dig through several layers of misdirection to get there.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 00:23 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

So the government is secretly spraying poison from airplanes in order to combat global warming which they know doesn't exist because they made it up? Wow, that is devious.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 00:45 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

No, of course not, you patronizing know-it-all... Nor is our government funded and controlled by corporations who influence an agenda that suits only their interest within an inflationary monetary system designed to slowly siphon and steal the product of your labor through a hidden tax perpetuated through a media message designed to distract you.

Mine sounds even more devious and certainly more complicated than yours.  So there.

 

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 01:19 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Nor is our government funded and controlled by corporations who influence an agenda that suits only their interest within an inflationary monetary system designed to slowly siphon and steal the product of your labor through a hidden tax perpetuated through a media message designed to distract you.

 

But that doesn't mean that every bad thing you can imagine is true, ya know?

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 02:13 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

Of course, but Slater-san seems pretty confident.  Could be there's a speck of merit in there somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3D1PM2pQ7E

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:36 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Hey, it's really simple, either you have hard spectroscopic evidence of chem-trails being actual chemical trails, or you don't.

I don't give a fuck what your mere opinion is about it.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 13:39 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

I don't give a fuck what your mere opinion is about it.

Yet your opinion is redundantly splattered all over this thread like a bad one size fits all copy and paste.

Nothing wrong with exploring this "conspiracy" further... like many other "theories."  That is my opinion.  And you're right... Yours is 'simple' and common.  I can find that shit anywhere.    

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 16:41 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Fine, then if you are so impassioned by this compelling speculative subject (I'm betting fairly confidently that you're not, that you're another one with no spine and nothing in the way of CHEMISTRY evidence to add on the subject), then I'm sure you'll also have a burning-desire to not rest a moment until you get to the bottom of it all.  

Please find the CHEMICAL spectroscopic signature data that proves, or else disproves, once and for all, that the alleged chem-trails are actually tails of chemicals, being sprayed from aircraft, and not >99.9% just prosaic vapor trails exiting jet exhaust nozzles.

Good luck.  I sincerely mean that, because if you had some spectroscopic data we'd have some reason to discuss things material, rather than talk meaningless nothings and errant bullshit about supposed chem-trails.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 17:06 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

Its a THEORY, dimwit.  A CONSPIRACY one, remember?  There is no PROOF.  Hence "theory" worthy of those who may tirelessly research the subject.  As opposed to whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say.  I never said I believe it, but I won't go so far to play your game either.  Meaningless nothings is your schtick.  You've said nothing in your posts.... other than "prove it!" 

Settle it "once and for all" you say.  Don't make me laugh.  I could say that regarding just about ANYTHING we may collectively speculate about on this site.  Again, your'e so fucking common.  What a crock.

 

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 18:54 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Theories get tested and falsified every fucking day!  You'll have to do better than strawmen and laughable pomposity. 

You said above that you were happy to "explore" the idea of chem-trails, look into them some, and yet you say there's no way to get proof on them, so you won't even test to see if they are real, or not, via known common methods?  And you're calling me a "dimwit"?   What don't you understand about physical testing? And what was so complicated (or unreasonable) about what I originally said to you? Here it is again:

"Hey, it's really simple, either you have hard spectroscopic evidence of chem-trails being actual chemical trails, or you don't."

Do you realize that anyone interested can work out (very quickly) with a cheap spectroscope, on a camera, or on a small telescope, whether the trails left behind jets have major compounds within them that are unlike burned jet fuel and water vapor?  You realize it's that easy to detect and prove the presence, and also to accurately quantify the abundance of other compounds observed to be present?  This fact is why your opinion is irrelevant, as it simply isn't needed to check the facts of whether a chem trail is actual a chemical trail than is not a just a vapor trail.

But furthermore; doesn't it strike you are just a little bit curious that not one of these supposed chem-trail alleged chemistry experts has done basic testing of what they claim to be a devastating and compelling proposal with shattering and global ramifications?

Would it not seem advantageous and compelling and responsible, and also warranted and essential, that such testing were done without fail?  And continuously repeated, to monitor what was claimed to be occurring, and thus to gather an accurate and continuous data record on what is supposedly being done?

Doesn't that seem just a tiny bit odd to you that not one of these ever so concerned and passionate allegedly professional people aren't doing anything basic like monitoring and measuring the chemical components and the quantities present within such chem-trails, with even a basic spectroscope, if chem-trails really exist?

I mean, if you posited their existence, and using a spectroscope you found they did exist, would you not make systematic measurements, plus show as many people as possible how to replicate such measurements, and teach them how to keep accurate observational records, and to communicate these, to build-up a solid database of observations of the chemicals being sprayed, and how much, and try from this to work out exactly what's going on? Wouldn't that be your immediate priority, so you had something irrefutable that required no argument, here it is, hard data.

Or does it seem more likely to you that the absence of any of that sort of evidence means that they must be right about it anyway?

So who's the gullible common dimwit again?  Are you even capable of thinking clearly?

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 19:44 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

So, therefore, its still a conspiracy theory isn't it you fucking idiot?  Or, because YOU say different... or is that your dildo-scope talking.

So according to you now I believe that in the...

"...absence of any of that sort of evidence means that they must be right about it anyway?"

Oh so you're making shit up now? And where from my posts do you draw THAT conclusion genius? Is that what you call gathering data and providing proof? 

I know, I know, you reached too far and enjoy hearing yourself talk to the point of your LECTURES (LMFAO) being reduced to regurgitating the same verbal vomit OVER AND OVER AND OVER?  I mean, really.  Do you need to say the SAME SHIT AGAIN AND AGAIN!

PROVE to me that I have assumed "THEY must be right anyway." BUT... you won't.  Cuz you can't.  SO, you fucking dimwit. Try harder. And keep your analysis to under four pages of shit stain, shit stain. 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 20:20 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Dude, check your shift key, seems to be stuck, maybe some of your drool shorted it out.  Don't worry, it's common.

But seriously, get a clue about material evidence, it can help alleviate your confusion about what's real and what's not.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 21:18 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

LMFAO! As suspected, you didn't... cuz you couldn't. FACTS ARE no matter how hard you tried, you couldn't lump me in to your false dichotomy. "Riding the fence or awaiting more information" doesn't sit well with your right or left, romney v obama, hefty v glad, with me or against me pathetic attempt at an argument. I have a lot of respect for people on zh I disagree with... but you? No. How can I? You're a waffle.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 23:51 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

C'mon boy, bring it!  I'm just getting started with your ass.  Just because the backbone of your argument consists of a Liesman "but, but, but.. just look what the data says..." (allow me to pause and chuckle for a moment) doesn't mean you can't still pretend to know something.

I have a suggestion.  The next time you feel like completely hijacking a thread... Come better prepared.

And part of that preparation should require you to answer this question... Is there @800 tons of gold in Fort Knox?  You can't answer "possibly."  Cuz no adverbs allowed in your yes/no world.

Please provide elementalisticscopic evidence to support your true or false conclusion.  Thank you.

Fri, 10/12/2012 - 04:52 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Good gawd, you haven't even learned how to formulate an actual question, or to tie your thoughts together in coherent sentences yet, and you still think you've made some profound counterpoint to the basic need of requiring physical evidence about claims concerning physical alleged chemical observations, and their cause and origins?

As for hi-jacking a thread, I was doing other things and listening to the comment thread in a text-reader, and suddenly there's all this absurd crap being said in it about chem-trails.

Sorry sport it was not me who hijacked the thread, I just replied to it, after hearing numerous dickheads like RiotActing-boy sprouting idiotic evidence-less drivel and bullshit within it.  Hence my initial cut-n-paste response to his repeated spamming of the thread, as he had already hijacked it into stoopidsville.

I would probably not have even posted any comment in this thread if dreary morons like you were not already mouthing-off ploppy-ploppy about chem-trails being reeeeeal, and truuuuue, and scaaaarey, 'n stuff.  As far as I can see you also have zero to add regarding resorting to actual evidence (just as I originally supposed), and are likewise simply trawling out idiotic laughable irrelevant drivel and ignoring the complete lack of chemical evidence for Chem-trails.  How surprising.

Drink less booze you common tosser.

Sat, 10/13/2012 - 01:06 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

Yeah I was drunk... So What? But eventhis drunk fucker can tell when you're waffling. 

So, once again, you lie and claim, "if dreary morons like you were not already mouthing-off ploppy-ploppy about chem-trails being reeeeeal."

So I ask you again, tell me when I said anything that resembles THAT.  YOU WON't.   Cuz you can't.  Okie dokie?  Do you understand?  Hot shot?  I can sit on the fence on this... and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.  Just like you sitting on the fence of... 

that 800 tonnes?  You won't answer because your own argument could be used against you.  I know.  It sucks.

Answer either question.  Try not to linger-waffle.  This thread has as much meat as your argument.

 

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 22:12 | Link to Comment erg
erg's picture

You asume too much. Whoever suggested the pilot could see the patent constituting what is in the fuel in his tank?

I'm old enough to remember a proper contrail. It was very short relative to the length of the plane and dissipated as quickly as the plane moved. It didn't hang in the air for an hour as it diffused.

Wed, 10/10/2012 - 19:51 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

I'm was guilty of thinking so many topics were 'wacky' and 'wonky' in the past. But I've learned to look past the tactics of those who toss out the word 'conspiracy' with mocking scorn, or use ad hominem attacks on someone - - rather than addressing the arguments and evidence. - - Unfortunately, I've found that many things that I doubted before are true.

The late Bob Chapman wrote to me (as he did to many people) years ago and said that Wall Street and the government are run by psychopathic criminals. At the time, I thought he was exaggerating to make a point. Turns out, he meant exactly what he said . . . and its true.

I miss Bob.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:43 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Hey, when you make a wild claim, and you're happy to be a conceited believer about it, this still does not in any way relieve you of the responsibility the onus and requirement to provide actual evidence proving your claim.

Jesus H Christ!  Is this simple remedial stuff really so fucking hard to grasp?  Is the US science, philosophy and education system really this fucking shitful?

I knew it was bad, but really, you can't even think?  Or even see a need to?  Nor even understand the need to use actual hard evidence any more in such matters?

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 06:49 | Link to Comment Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

Element, +1 for your recent hard facts crusade, though I have to ask: are you sure you are not getting a bout of culture shock?

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 07:27 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Is it culture?  Or just plain stupidity combined with an inability to think in terms of what is, and what is not, and the remedial steps and needs of how to go about determining which is which, and also being unable and unprepared to say "I don't know", if the way to inquiry is blocked, and such is the true case?

The latter I suspect.

But there sure seems to be a lot of it, of late.  It's really dismal.  I don't know how these people conclude they are informed or aware of something, or how it helps them to assume they 'know', what they have not proven, even to themselves.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 08:22 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Element -  "Are you talking to me ?" (Comment  2876493 above )

Actually,, I don't know enough about the subject of chemtrails to have an informed opinion on the subject. (And stated so earlier in this discussion.)

My statement immediately above this one (comment  2876493) got sandwhiched between various other statements written later so that now it appears that I think true something which I havent investigated deeply enough at this point. One danger of ZH commentary.

My point was that, as you have stated, sound evidence is always required - - as is a sound logical argument.

Insisting that something is true . . . but not backing that up with facts, isn't sound. - - Using ad hominem attacks, "you believe that shit . . . are you some kind of conspiracy nut ?  You think the Gulf of Tonkin was a set up by the American goverment ?"  is also unsound.

Thank you for continuting to bring up the need to provide proof and argue soundly.

(Of course, maybe you weren't actually addressing me, and your statement also got buried in other later comments made by others.)

Many here probably already know this, but it would be very interesting/productive to investigate such topics as:  logic, logical fallacies, the scientific method, the Trivium - grammar, Logic, rhetoric - - a system of sound thinking going back to at least the ancient Greeks. It used to be taught to students by the Jesuits (I don't know if they still teach these investigation & thinking methods). This is taught in the very few elite private prep schools - don't know if its still taught today in Ivy league colleges.

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 08:46 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

I think I was referring to your comment, but maybe I have misunderstood you're view there.  Sorry if I have.

I'm not sure why it requires some sort of special training to grasp that things need to be tested and verified or falisified in order to determine what is true, and just as importantly, to know what is false, plus to understand the areas you don't know yet, and to realise there is still more you can't know. 

This hardly seems an onerous requirement, as to be blunt, it's stating the very obvious.  Our entire scientific and technological world is based on doing that, otherwise we'd still be living in caves and wiping our bum with a stick.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 09:08 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

You may naturally be a logical thinker or had family & teachers who passed on that attitude to you, but its not common. People respond emotionally. - And that has been used against them by politicians and con men pushing their own agenda for thousands of years. (Just look at ads - especially political ads. They often seek to frighten people and then to offer them a way to address their 'pain'.)

Who, what , where, when ?  Are all basic questions that must be asked about any subject.

The Why ? should be asked to see if there are any inconsistencies in an argument or logical contradictions, and to see if what is proposed or put forward is supported by the facts and logical arguments.

The  How ?  should be addressed - - - that is communicating an argument to others effectively and putting it into action.

Regards, - -

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Perhaps I should maybe go away here feeling mildly flattered that you think I may have natural smarts for logical thought or something, problem is that's certainly not the case (what you have said is actually pretty revolting and sad). I encounter bright people who are able to think clearly and check stuff every day. It is entirely normal. 

What is not normal though are people who go further and do the actual work needed to make sure they do know what they say, and know what their limits of knowledge are too.  So they don't posit mere beliefs and assertions, but can back stuff up and have a track record of getting it right due to this.

Tyler and G. Edward Griffin are both good but different examples of it.  The difference between them and a dummy is this:  Tyler does the work, he casts his net widely, he harvests numbers, learns what they are, exactly what they mean, then spends hours ripping them apart, logically with EXCEL, and makes charts and finds relationships, and tests and checks them.  And he makes sure that what they show is true and meaningful, and intelligible, or at lest that they indicate what is false, or dodgy, or trending within them.  This is how he can have greater insight and make better calls than people who don't do any of that.

Same with G. Edward Griffin; he systematically reads everything then cross-references everything, and checks every source on a point, until he has the best possible picture about the FED--he does the needed work to get that.  This factor is why he's the authority on the FED, and thus seems really smart and insightful, and difficult to contradict, etc.

They both do the WORK of real thinking, and clear and real knowledge development. 

They check things, they make sure they have the tools, the resources, and they develop the skills for doing this systematically, with solid clarity.  The reason why people normally don't think as clearly is they don't do any of this work, nor develop themselves to be able to increasingly do it.

They are instead very LAZY, SLOPPY and mentally UNTIDY, so that they both can not think, nor have orderly and organised streams of informative valid thoughts.  And even if they did, they still have not done any careful PERSONAL study and research of topics, so they will not have actually closed the gap between what they know is true from evidences, checking and testing, and what they don't know or have not checked, and they will understand the limits of what they know and don't know, and they will have a good idea about what they can not know, and how they might change that.

As a result of people not doing that, what we get instead is this dopey class of people who's only trick and only recourse is to have mere subjective BS opinions on topics, irrespective of available facts. They simply don't do any logical evaluation and material checking and testing of what they are examining.  They instead just slop about within BS webpages, that were written by people who likewise have not done any real thinking work and examination.  It's all very shallow and self-satisfied.  So they just collectively state, or else adopt some idiotic untested belief, and its garbled BS story, which does absolutely nothing to dispel ignorance, myths and delusions.  But instead, just sews these in the next idiot who comes along who also is to lazy and mentally disorganised to check and test and logically evaluate what is valid, and what can not be.

There is no excuse for dumb people, because they're really just people who allowed themselves to be that mentally lazy (just like people allow themselves to be fat), and did not try to smarten themselves up, and to dispel their own ignorance, and take responsibility to train themselves how to think clearly, to test and put aside mere false or baseless beliefs, to assess people's assertions.

Because everyday people can actually think when you make them to think, they're just too used to relying on some fucking moronic "leader" to do it for them, because they are as lazy a shit, and therefore they are as dumb as shit.

That is the only difference here, and which is what makes them nothing more than dead-wood, the human livestock.  If people aren't their own leader, their own thinker, then sorry, they're just the chickens and the sheep and the cattle.  And they sure as hell will be seen as such by any one who is doing the work and thinking independently and for themselves, and are their own leader, and their own light.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 14:46 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

hey bright logic boy, you do know that "Tyler" is plural, yes?

and ZOMGawd, EXCEL!!!1!!

the ultimate proof!

 

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 18:08 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

"boy"?

I never took you for a dipshit, but I guess I was wrong.

Are you saying there is no central 'Tyler', the person running the show at zh? Or that the Tyler(s) don't all use Excel?  Because the Tyler has said a few times that Excel is his primary analysis tool.  And quit being a pathetic fuckhead, I did not say EXCEL provides 'proof', you said that, moron.

All I said was Tyler does the work to find out what is what, and what is not, etc.

Now stop changing the topic, or shooting the messenger, and shifting the burden of proof, and go learn how to use a chemical spectroscope and prove, or rather, attempt to disprove your thesis, because that's what any HONEST real tester of a theory and evidence opportunities does.  They don't simply demand they are right, they check honestly, and at great length, with care and thoroughness to see if their theory is, wrong.  Yes, wrong!

Proving an idea to be wrong, by systematically testing it, is much easier and faster than trying to prove something is right. If you try every test possible but still fail to falsify it (disprove it) then the chances grow higher that it may in fact be correct.  So attempting to prove a theoretical proposition wrong is in fact the pathway to having a theory declared to be the most probably right (pending further tests)

The onus is all on you. You say it's real so you must provide the physical spectroscopic evidence to support your belief by trying to prove it to be wrong, if you can't then let us know, and we can all try to help disprove the theory.  And if after exhausting the possibilities and none of us can disprove it, then we'll have to propose that you just may be right.  Fair enough?

Have you got the intellectual honesty to do ANY of that?  To find out for sure, either way, via systematic empirical testing?  Or are you just content to be a dishonest believer in what you don't know, but like to pretend you do?

 

That's all it takes.

Thu, 10/11/2012 - 21:40 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Element - - - Interesting comments, thank you for posting them.

If I may make an observation. Sometimes one can get pretty frustrated with people who don't think clearly. But it wasnt always that way. You may not know this, but the literacy level in the American colonies at the time of the Revolution was in excess of 90% (several % points higher, I don't have the figures in front of me now). And during that century and the 19th century, it was pretty much expected that children who attended the one room school houses (for just a few months) would begin already knowing how to read. They were taught by their mothers at home. America was much different than Europe in this regard. Her citizenry were informed, opinionated, and dynamic. They learned the classic skills on how to think critically.

This changed around the 1890s with the wider instigation of mandatory public schooling. The purpose of that 'schooling' as stated in documents from that time - - was to dumb down the public. It was to make them into obedient and controllable workers for the factories - - rather than the independent businessmen & farmers that Americans had sought to be previously. (In America an individual could work hard, put a stake together - and make something of himself. This was far different than the class bound societies of Europe.) - - The purpose of 'schooling' (kinda like schools of fish) is to create a mind numbing environment where people learn to seek approval from an authority, not think for themselves - but repeat the 'correct answer', kill curiosity, and deaden creativity. Schools are very successful in this mission.

My previous two paragraphs may seem incredible to you. If so, I can understand that. There is a great deal of evidence to back these statements. To begin, search out the writings/interviews of former NYC and NY State Teacher of the Year - John Taylor Gatto. He has done considerable historical research and writing on the nature of 'education' in the United States. His major works can be found online and can be read for free.

www.johntaylorgatto.com

Americans weren't always dumbed down. They were purposely made that way and have been victimized by the emptiness of their schooling (and t.v.)  It doesnt have to be that way, and this can be changed. The methods I mentioned in my earlier posts have been taught going back at least to the ancient Greeks. They are the foundation and source of the scientific method which transformed western society and generated our technology.  (Though technology is not Wisdom.)    Regards, - - -

Fri, 10/12/2012 - 05:15 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

OK, I clearly mis-read your earlier posts due to them being in the mix of this evidenceless chemical-trail stuff, thanks for the clarifications.

I have long suspected the same thing in my own country, but I had a public education in many different schools, as I was always traveling.  I lost track of how many schools I've attended, so I have a wide experience of many state public schools in different states, and also a limited experience of private Catholic schools, and those were terrible places to attend. The Catholic schools had very disturbed nuns and brothers and the students also became disturbed, as these were also extremely violent, arbitrary and abusive places.  So I much preferred the sanity and reasonable treatment in state public schools.  Though the education curriculum was about on par within all schools.  Even University was fully public at that time and it was all well run and thorough.

The standards slipped in the early 1970s were a socialist govt came to power with a liberal agenda and discipline and standards slumped and them collapsed from there.  Now our schools are also providing pass grades to people who literally can barely read or write or do basic math and are basically very ignorant and ill-prepared for vocation or business, let alone for a life of learning.  It is a very sad commentary on the state's dysfunctional abandonment of tried and true methods of education, in favor of dippy fads that simply don't work.

Cheers.

 

Fri, 10/12/2012 - 10:20 | Link to Comment HardAssets
HardAssets's picture

Thank you for your further comments, theyre appreciated.

I haven't heard how it is in other countries (except the U.K.), but in America the education of the offspring of the wealthy & influential 'elites' is quite different than that found in the mandatory public schools. In the very few private prep schools, students are taught the classic tools of learning as I described earlier (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric). There is co-operative rather than competitive  behavior among students - - and no bells ringing to mark the start & end of classes. Subjects are explored in the time they require. - - Those students usually find that later attending elite Ivy League colleges (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc.)  to be much easier, after their rigorous prep school classical education. The college years are used to build and solidify social relationships among peers that will later be useful in working life.

Again, I highly recommend John Taylor Gatto's work. His interviews can be found on the internet. Mr Gatto taught throughout NY city in both rich and poor districts. He had received a classical education in the small town where he grew up (a small corner that seemed to escape the moves to destroy education found in most of the country). Afterwards he attended Columbia University, which is an elite college.  - -  In his teaching he found that all children had an equal capacity to learn if given the proper environment of respect and expectation of achievement. As a matter of fact, he found that very poor black kids, after a few months, did better than white kids from rich districts. He theorized that the poor kids had common sense ('street sense') and hadn't had everything just given to them - - and were better able to adapt and to learn because of this. He taught the kids the same kind of cirriculum that he had at Columbia Univ.

Like you, we moved around alot when I was a child. Schools varied in their quality - looking back none were particularly good. I did have some experience with kindly nuns and with Jesuits that was very positive in terms of education. (I have spoken with others who had very negative, abusive experiences in Catholic schools. So it seems there is great variation there also.)  My mother read to us as very young children and took us to libraries often. I think that sparked my own love for learning and independent thinking, (such as it is !)  Best regards & thank you for the good conversation, - - - -

Fri, 10/12/2012 - 06:23 | Link to Comment Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

HardAssets --- thoughtful and fascinating. Thank you for posting them.

Yes, the european experience with the "Prussian School Model" that was the forefather of the modern one was, all in all, a positive one, that raised literacy levels from below 10% levels to 95% very quickly. Of course it was a nationalistic & authoritarian one, some would say also militaristic (also because of it's roots in the catholic schools for the elite), but nevertheless it brought a general improvement. If you want to be cynic it raised masses of "dumb illeterate peasants" (the reality of the european masses of that time, in such stark contrast to the American reality you were describing) up to the level of "literate, obedient and controllable workers for the factories" with a side chance of improving the gifted further to the professions, academia, etc.

But it also emphasized the Classics and the Scientific Method, which are IMHO the two friends of truly independent and critical thought.

I sense (my prejudice) in all this a (typically American?) persecution fear, though, in your sentence "the purpose ... was to dumb down". Is it not more exact to say that the - in the words of one American PaleoConservative - "new managerial elite" just needed, asked for and got factory workers? Out of the available "matter"? Or, better, that was what the economy offered, due to it's transformation from a mainly agrarian to an industrial society? This is a honest question, pls excuse me if I'm cautious with some implications. Let's say that I tend to see a lot of American Individualistic Grieviances to some social shifts as an excuse to "take it personally" (Someone very big and powerful hates me an my Way of Life) in a very sensationalistic way.

I'd expand your excellent "Technology is not Wisdom" to even "the Scientific Method is not Wisdom". Best Regards, G.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!