Post by Wayne Hall on May 28, 2011 23:05:14 GMT -5
The following remarks by G. Edward Griffin spotlight a social phenomenon that calls for analysis. Surely this habit, this reflex, of trying to find counterarguments to whatever claim is made by a petitioner or complainer is something that must have grown up at every level of U.S. society, and internationally, in response to the arguments of Soviet Cold War diplomacy. It did not die with the alleged death of the Cold War, and has now become automatic, and thus very easily transferable to the situation of "dealing with" chemtrails activists. Interestingly, even non- native-English-language speakers seeking a diploma in English from American institutions such as the Michigan English-language examinations must now become skilled in this technique of finding counterarguments to any statement made by one's interlocutor. The acting out of scenarios involving the deployment of the refutation technique has replaced the reality-based oral interviews that once formed the basis of the oral examinations for non-native-English-speakers seeking these qualifications.
G. Edward Griffin wrote: "It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many laboratory tests we collect, they always manage to come up with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in our snow and rain water as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.
SKI-SLOPE THEORY
When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow is merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from a toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by saying that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.
Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and refrain from challenging the prevailing view.
DUST-BOWL THEORY
Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.
We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the "dust-bowl" theory even remotely plausible. But it will take a little time to pull the facts together."
W.H. www.enouranois.gr
.
G. Edward Griffin wrote: "It seems that the die-hard skeptics refuse to believe what they see with their own eyes. No matter how many laboratory tests we collect, they always manage to come up with a theory that, no matter how far fetched it is, would explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in our snow and rain water as merely due to some climate condition or error in preparing the chemical sample or some unintended human interaction.
SKI-SLOPE THEORY
When we released our documentary, What in the World Are They Spraying, we included snow samples taken from Mt. Shasta in Northern California, which contained toxic levels of these metals. Since snow is merely frozen rain water, it was clear that this came from the sky and not from the soil or water run-off from a toxic waste dump. Nevertheless, an Internet debunker challenged our conclusion by saying that people ski on Mt. Shasta, and skis are made of aluminum. Therefore, the tested aluminum probably came from the skis! Nothing to worry about after all.
Of course, this was all made-up nonsense. People do ski on Mt. Shasta, but it is a big mountain, and there has never been any skiing in the area where the samples were taken. Even if there had been, that would not explain the high levels of barium and strontium. These metals are not used in the construction of skis. Our debunker never bothered to check on any of that. He was merely looking for some plausible explanation in order to plant doubts into the minds of casual readers. If people are confused by seemingly plausible explanations that even remotely could explain the high levels of aluminum, barium, and strontium in snow and rain water, they will back away from coming to a conclusion and refrain from challenging the prevailing view.
DUST-BOWL THEORY
Another debunker contacted me a few days ago and claimed that a plausible explanation for the chemicals in snow on Mt. Shasta is that the samples were taken in a year with early snow melt which, according to him, means there was a lot of bare earth exposed at the time, and the wind must have blown dust from the earth onto the snow. Furthermore, he claims that the soil on Mt. Shasta contains the same metals as found in the samples; so, you see? Here is another perfectly plausible explanation. Once again, nothing to worry about.
We are planning to respond to this gentleman as soon as we can find the time to carefully examine his claims about the early snow melt, the amount of bare earth exposed, the composition of the surface soil, and especially the rainfall and moisture levels of the soil during this period. I expect to find that, even if there had been an early snow melt, the soil on Mt. Shasta would have been far too moist and covered with moss, ferns, or other ground cover to make the "dust-bowl" theory even remotely plausible. But it will take a little time to pull the facts together."
W.H. www.enouranois.gr
.