posted 08-13-2003 07:41 PM            

August 8, 2003

To all:
The act of investigating and opposing chemtrails, typically involves a number of things. One is to keep a lookout for the appearance of chemtrails and unusual, likely related, phenomena, maybe even keeping a diary or taking pictures. Another is to look into what is said about chemtrails, or what others elsewhere have seen. Another is to keep in contact with fellow opponents. A common feature, too, is that of speaking with others, to reveal to them what is going on.
We have spoken to a number of individuals about chemtrails. Going to garage sales, meeting people we know, speaking with people about abnormal weather. We have pointed it out to others, when masses of chemtrails gridded the sky above. We have printed out small handbills, including pictures we have taken of chemtrails, telling people that something is going on over their heads, and telling them about Chemtrail Central, and, then, posted them in our local supermarket, and even handed them out.
In talking to others, we have experienced a number of reactions. Some have sat staring at us, as we spoke; many have responded with flat questions about what it's for; some have laughed right in our face, before we even stopped talking. It occurred to us that other chemtrail opponents, likely, went through much the same.
Mentioning chemtrails does often seem to evoke a strong reaction from many people. Bring up the issue of the Abominable Snowman, the Loch Ness Monster or West Virginia's Mothman and you'll get a fair amount of interested attentiveness, with only a smattering of eye-rolling, among those who seem to fashion themselves as "people of the world". Mention conspiracy theories about the assassination of President Kennedy or the supposed manned landing on the moon, and you can tend to get overtly querulous reactions, as if the listeners may have heard it all for the first time, with some just dismissing it entirely, as if it was beneath their dignity. Mention UFO's and even the skeptical might ask the occasional question, but little more than that. Bring up the topic of chemtrails, though, even if you have to explain it from whole cloth, and you run a real risk of genuinely frosty responses, or deliberate and elaborate shows of derision.
Recently, the site www.forteantimes.com, an outlet for the Charles Fort Society, a group dedicated to compiling the odd, unusual and enigmatic, as well as propounding unorthodox theories about what is seen, ran a thread in one of their forums, about the changing brightness and hue of the moon. The moon shines by reflected light, so it reminded me of comments on Chemtrail Central about the changing appearance of the sun. I left a post on that thread, referring to chemtrails, giving a quick run through of the subject, and referencing the thread on Chemtrail Central about the differing appearance of the sun.
Immediately, a contributor to the Fortean site, using the i.d., swjk, began spouting some gibberish about chemtrails being the tentacles of huge space jellyfish, and that their crossing is their means of signalling to each other. Another - I'll use the word - wiseacre took up the subject, thoroughly agreeing with swjk's "analysis" of the nature of chemtrails, and claiming the differing appearance of the moon to be caused by the jellyfishes' gelatinous bodies, interposed between us and the satellite. Two other individuals, one a moderator of the site, then began an inane banter about the jellyfish "fitting into" the subject, then answering, in mock sagacity, that they couldn't "fit in" because they are so big! Not a word about the subject of the color and brightness of the moon, which was the subject of the thread, just a concerted assault on the subject of chemtrails! I posted a response, commenting on their evident lack of manners, if not outright duplicitous natures, to which they responded that their reaction was "just a joke", then taking exception to my supposed lack of patience with others' "opinions".
They just admitted that what their carrying on was "a joke", then they try to call it "an opinion"! Which only demonstrates their fundamental paucity of understanding of even the rudiments of discussion, if not of courtesy, as well, to say nothing of their underhanded willingness to literally "say anything" to cover over their evident malingering.
They were not joking! They were engaging in the attempted attack on the subject of chemtrails!
A follow-up post by another member commented on a pinkish cast to the moon, where they were. Swjk immediately chimed in with the suggestion that it was caused by "one of the jellyfish". It is reminiscent of the debunkers' infantile obsession with referring to Cliff Carnicom ad "Clowny-com", or using the fact that I wrote letters for my wife, expressing her views, and, therefore, using her name, to a fibromyalgia newsgroup, to suggest that my wife really doesn't exist and that I have schizophrenic delusions!
If the reaction to mentioning chemtrails seems all but universal, the character, or lack of it - among the "skeptics", seems equally shared. To a one, they all demonstrate the qualities of the arrested development bully. The sense of contempt. The air of viciousness. The acts of spite.
And, whether on internet forums, or in person, this nature seems evident, whenever subjects like chemtrails are brought up.
Speaking face-to-face, though, can have the disadvantage, for the contemptuous, that they have to face up to the person, rather than snipe from behind an internet bush, and that they have to be prepared with useable objections to what is being stated. For those essentially professionally disdainful of anything that doesn’t hew to “the party line”, yet not actively engaged in spreading the propaganda regularly touted to obstruct legitimate discussion, can find themselves at a loss. Fighting things like concern about chemtrails, it appears, is not necessarily so automatic and self-evident a course. Which only legislates further against depicting “debunkers” as “earnest” and “honorable” in their pursuits. The result, for those caught in impromptu conversation on the subject, generally, resort to the simplest of reactions, usually contemptuous laughter, or icy, stony silence.
There are those who would try to say that this is unfair, touting the perennial dodge: “You can’t tell how a person is going to act.” In fact, though, reaction does generally tend to follow rather well understood forms. For those genuinely interested, and not disdainfully opposed to a concept, you can see the expression that is termed “galvanized”. They show interest. They show contemplation. They may lean forward; they may cock their head slightly; they will ask follow-up questions - this is not the same as making contentious challenges to “explain something” - they may even look off to the side in thought, as they reconcile their own experience with what they are being told. Those ruthlessly inclined to show contempt will remain all but motionless, perhaps a slight smirk on their face, their eyes locked insolently on you. And, if they decide to try to emulate the motions of the interested, they will not be capable of it; that is something the utterly vicious are not able to reproduce.
It could be helpful for those who have had the experience of trying to talk to others about the subject, and in running up against the evident “moles” against mentioning anything “beyond the pale”, to share their stories. Where it doesn’t help demonstrate the tactics the ruthless utilize in fighting the truth, it can, at least, be an encouraging step for those who are new to such overt potential displays of hate.