Mold Avoiders Policy on Discussion of Airplane Trails
Mold Avoiders Group Post – April 2016
Periodically, individuals in this group report reacting to things that are happening in the sky.
I think that it is important that people here feel free to discuss whatever they are reacting to, whether it is inside buildings, outdoors, in the water supply, coming down from the sky, or from other places. That is an important component of avoiding toxicity and also how knowledge is created. So I am all for that.
The problem that I have is that almost invariably, when issues in the sky are brought up, the contributions from a small number of group members veer off into what I consider to be libelous speech.
Specifically, the following elements that constitute libelous speech are included:
1. It is asserted that for reasons that are either unclear, evil or misguided, persons in positions of authority are purposely and covertly “spraying” dangerous substances on the population, causing harm to individuals as a result.
2. It is asserted that this is not just a theory being debated but that it actually has been “proven” – with the suggestions being that anyone who argues that it might not be the case or likely is not the case is misguided or naive or part of the conspiracy.
I have looked into this topic numerous times and have not found there to be any evidence that is even vaguely convincing that this purposeful “spraying” is actually what is going on.
While I do understand that planes sometimes are used to spray substances for weather control purposes, the assertions that are being made almost invariably suggest that this is being done clandestinely and routinely. And very often with substances that never have been publicly acknowledged to be used for weather control.
Again, I see no credible evidence that this is happening. I am not saying that I know for sure that it is not happening – I only am saying that I see no good evidence that it is happening.
That being the case, asserting that there indeed is substantiated evidence of a conspiracy to spray things out of airplanes that is resulting in massive harm to the populace falls – in my assessment – squarely within the realm of libelous speech.
In addition, this sort of discussion seems to fall well outside the framework of this group, which has the goal of discussing what it is happening in an objective and critical way.
The reason that I find it inconsistent with the mission of the group is that it is not my experience that those who are discussing this phenomenon here are doing so in an objective way that is designed to lead to the generation of accurate knowledge.
Rather, they are asserting vehemently that what they are proposing is “truth,” without offering any sort of case that I believe falls within the realm of reasonable inquiry and critical evaluation.
So after some consideration, I am going to put some limits on this.
1. I don’t have any problem at all if people point to the skies and then state reacting to what is happening there. That falls within the realm of evidence-based speech.
2. If people would like to present clearly stated hypotheses with regard possible reasons for what is happening in the skies, while making it clear that these are just hypotheses rather than something that has been proven, I will tolerate that.
3. If people suggest that it has been proven that the proposed conspiracy is actually occurring without presenting any thoroughly compelling evidence of the sort that would be considered worthy of coverage in, say, The New York Times or similar publications, I will delete it.
4. The use of the word “chemtrails” itself suggests that a conspiracy of the type described is taking place. (See this article for an explanation.) Thus, I am not going to be tolerating the routine reference to what people are seeing in the skies as evidence of “chemtrails.” Insofar as the word is used, please do so in the way that you would use the word “gremlins” or “fairies” – as something that could conceivably exist but that has not been proven to exist.
5. This topic has already been discussed multiple times in this group, and many people in the group already have weighed in on it. I do not have time to keep repeating my own position on this matter just because others decide to bring it up. Thus, insofar as people find it necessary to bring up the possibility that “chemtrail conspiracies” might exist, I would like for them to read the previous discussion and then link to it, and also to link to this explanation of the group policy on the matter, so that others in the group who are interested will have an easy way to reference alternative positions without my having to spend my own valuable time crafting rebuttal responses.
6. If conversations go off course with comments that are in violation of these rules, and if after those comments are removed the comments that are left do not make any sense, I will be removing those remaining comments too even if they are not in specific violation themselves.
7. While discussing reactions to various environmental stimuli is certainly within the purview of this group, speculating about nefarious government motives that could be happening is not within its core purpose. That being the case, if I feel that this speculation is being discussed to the point that it has the potential of driving people who are interested in its core purpose away from the group, then I may be deleting posts or threads regardless of whether they comply with the rules stated above.
Thanks very much for your attention to this matter.
Lisa Petrison, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Paradigm Change/Mold Avoiders
Member Comment:
Here are some pictures that you should look at.
Lisa Petrison:
I agree that the skies look different than they did in the past and that it is a source of concern. I have a collection of pictures like that myself.
As I say, my objection to this topic is with regard to the assertions that certain covert activities are responsible for this and that this has been proven to be true. Since I have not seen any such evidence, and since none has been presented to me when I have asked for it in the past, I feel the assertions that these covert actions have been proven to be happening that were made in this group prior to this thread were libelous and thus something that I do not want to allow in this group any more.
But I am just as concerned about what it is going on in the skies as I am about what is going on on the earth and in the oceans, yes.
Member Comment:
At the flight height there is very low relative humidity in air because of height and low temperature. Pure water from planes can’t have this effect. There must be some substances that attracts water molecules or ice particles. One big question is why this is happening.
Lisa Petrison:
In the context of the previous discussion about this (now archived), I am not sure whether I agree with the statement that “pure water from planes can’t have this effect.” I think that it is plausible that the situation is that under some circumstances, particulates that already are in the air may be responsible for the observed effect, even if all that is coming out of the planes themselves is water vapor.
I don’t know whether that is true or not, because I don’t know enough about this topic. But nor am I convinced that the statement made above is true. So I think that it either needs to be framed as an opinion or a hypothesis, or that evidence needs to be presented to support that it is is true in the context of the problematic skies that currently exist.
Member Comment:
I have checked into this a bit and find it strange that limited plane vapor can get nearly unlimited. It’s against nature laws that I know of.
Lisa Petrison:
What Erik appeared to be proposing in the previous discussion is that the upper atmosphere is now loaded with metal particulates (which I tend to think is true) and that under certain circumstances that when those particulates are hit with water vapor, they become visibly frozen and stay frozen for a long time. And thus have the potential of creating the dramatic trails in the sky that now have become common.
As I say, I don’t know enough about this topic to know how to judge whether or not that is true. But it seems to me to be a plausible alternative explanation to the concept that water vapor on its own cannot do this and thus that something must be being sprayed out of the plane’s exhaust.
So unless this alternative explanation (or other alternative explanations that may have been proposed by others that I do not know about yet) can be eliminated from consideration, then I don’t think that we should be accepting as statement of fact that water vapor being emitting from the planes cannot be causing the observed effects and therefore that something must be being sprayed.
Rather, insofar as alternative hypotheses have not been eliminated, then the idea that something is being sprayed must be stated as a hypothesis. At least, as far as I am willing to accept, for the purposes of this group.
I also should note that the idea that the upper atmosphere has become contaminated with metals and that this is creating the observed effect is much more alarming to me than the explanations involved in any of the conspiracy theories that I have heard.
So I am not trying to dissuade people from being concerned about what it is going on the skies or from paying attention to them. I think that it is very important.
But I think that if we are going to discuss it, it should be from a reasonable intellectual perspective and also one that does not involve libelous statements.
So that is my goal in putting limits on the discussion.
Links on this page are in orange (no underlining).