I listened to her for a little while, and wasn't convinced in the slightest at what she was saying. Frankly, she comes off as a little unstable and overly emotional. If someone wants to convince us of chemtrails, they have to do so with some sort of scientific analysis that truly separates it from contrails. So far, all I see are people looking at contrails and concluding that they're something more sinister.
And the whole thing has no point. Why on Earth would the government want to poison its own population? They want to eliminate taxpayers? Even if it did, why use such an ineffective method as releasing a substance at 35,000 feet and hoping it will not dissipate by the time it reaches us? Furthermore, how are all these people escaping the supposed poison themselves? It's not as if Obama is giving speeches while wearing a gas mask, so...it really makes no sense. They would be destroying themselves, too.
The 'shill gambit', as it's known, is something I've run into time after time from conspiracy theorists. Not all of them do it, but a great number of them do. They're so convinced a conspiracy is going on, and their minds are so consumed with the idea, that when you simply disagree with them, they immediately assume you must be part of the conspiracy, too. People like that cannot be reasoned with.
I'm certainly not accusing you of having done it, because you haven't.
Btodd
Well, I will be honest with you I have referred to someone as a troll if they behave as one (there are certain characteristics of a troll) and it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out if someone is after a few passes. A shill might just take some extra time to figure out (and sometimes its good when "the" rocket scientist say it themselves) to give us (who arent) a heads up, so I would appreciated it from her. She might have good reason, I saw disinformation spread on someone else (see down further) using that site when it wasnt true.
I am just dropping off something for the OP to look at because there is plenty to search through (testimonies and the like) quite a few found on youtube (containing links below the video) as well as documentation in the video itself. From this one millitary industrial hygenist, there are also meteorologists, biologists, scientists, doctors, in the one video I had watched it was a nuerologist and I havent even scratched the surface of what is out there to watch (before deciding)
I would encourage folks to search it out and hear the witnesses for themselves.
I would just gather from enough folks with a tad bit of credibility (having credentials) and give their testimony a listen first. But keeping in mind the enviroment will naturally be hostile towards them (as it seems to be) and just not to be dissuaded by the same. I will typically tune into when thats occurring, because for me its like a beacon which entices me to look more closely for some odd reason. Thats sort of how I tick.
I am still researching some of these things and I prefer a lot of different people bringing to the table something to consider. And I often prefer to make sense out of what appears unthinkable (and to have a logical reason for it). So I can understand the need for the puzzle pieces to fit together (I just love puzzles myself) even as I do the scriptural ones.
I think its good to analyze things from various number of witnesses at their various levels of understanding (and perspectives) and in the way they might communicate it. I suppose when you do that in any particular set of circumstances) you will naturally begin to form a theory (and more especially when you have a backdrop of other information while they might be trying to piece together other things that might seem nuts. Theories will come, and police hypothesis (or theorize) according to the evidence. Its can be an important process in the way of working something out until all the pieces fall into place (and satisfy their questions). Sometimes even they get the wrong guys and some times they get the right guys, the longer its investigated the clearer a picture might become.
I think where there is harm (or just the potential for harm) while making people sit in the dark on a thing probably isnt a good idea for making it go away. Who doesnt run with unanswered questions in their own minds from time to time (on far less important matters)? And where two or more people are involved (in that sort of thing) I believe it would be rightly called a "conspiracy theory".
A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis
that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization
of having caused or covered up, through
secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation w
hich is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.
That makes sense, and folks will do evil things under the cover of darkness. I suppose 19 men (alone) conspired on 9-11 which would make that (to some) a conspiracy "fact"? Not theory, but Im not sure, some might think
that itself is just a conspiracy "theory" on the one sides part because the other part might believe (for whatever reason they do) that more were involved than that. So I think it depends on who you ask . Because Im guessing folks believed there were some more involved (whether on our side of things or the others) and for whatever reasons (or evidences) that might cause them to believe that. Im sure that all varries also person to person.
Thats sort off topic a bit but I sure dont demonize people who may doubt an official story on any thing, and ask too many questions. But I wouldnt look to anyone who seems to go out of their way to make others look like fools for every question either. There is just something dishonest in that (at least to me).
And for the thread (back on topic) but more in the discussion aspect of it (as that is how far I got)
Here are various breif snippets from the following
Then theres this Rosalind Peterson.Geoengineering agricultural defense
In the body of the communications (in the above video) you can see someone referring to (even posted a link to that metabunk site) telling everyone there that Rosalind Peterson had changed her mind (in respects to these Chemtrails). The person whose channel it is comes back in catches it corrects that. And as anyone can tell by the dates and further searching on Rosalind Peterson that just wasnt true, she still does. So it does appear like folks who dont know what they are talking about and dont double check things out as throughly as they should are given out sites to information given false information. So its good to double check because by the second video watched that sort of proved what the airforce whistleblower (Kirsten) had said concerning disinformation (and this time on another person, and this time on Rosalind) who is speaking on the same thing (and more then qualified to do so)
And then heres another for the OP
Theres also another 7 part video series I saw with her but I heard enough for now.
I had glanced at a few titles but they seemed more sensational in nature. And maybe its just the video "titles" themselves but that sort of puts me off when folks do that (although I understand, they want to get peoples attention).
Im tired, I can only take so much science
