Promo image for the chemtrails summit
The visible lines generated in the wake of a plane’s passing are known as contrails, they’ve been documented by aviators from a hundred years ago. But to these internet researchers, the scary white lines in the sky are cover for literally anything they could dream up: nanobots, burrowing threads, common earth minerals like aluminum, and yes, even mind control schemes.
Our YouTube video (above) is nearly eight hours of an activist conference in Tucson, Arizona with our commentary. Apparently ‘chemtrails’ is too colloquial, and these activists want to keep the pseudoscience turned up to 11, so now they’re raising awareness of “Geoengineering” . Source video and audio was taken from the official video broadcast by Matt Landman, ACTual ACTivist.
Your panel: Producer Dave, Media Wench, The Councilman, and Breadboard Baker.
Chemtrails theory is a hoax that undercuts the foundations of climate science. Alex Jones and InfoWars, noted birther proponents, were proponents of the chemtrails theory in the past, but have since moved on to more lucrative conspiracy theories. Each of these pseudo-scientists has a look. Patrick Roddie is cosplaying a professor. Elana Freeland is cosplaying a librarian. Matt Landman is cosplaying a New Age spiritualist. Each of them is invested in a persona that is so knowledgeable, you don’t dare to challenge their assertions. They will show you their slide deck and go to the next slide before you finish reading past the headline. They imply that you can “do research” by just watching everyone else’s YouTube videos.
Patrick Roddie, the Dean of Derp
Elana Freeland, the librarian of 5G misinformation
Matt Landman, the star of the show
They believe really hard, and they want you to believe really hard too. But they don’t have proof, despite their confident conclusions. Notice how hard they try to disparage the FAA, the EPA, and even NASA. They will tell you the satellite data we’ve been gathering since the 1960′s is all part of the conspiracy to hide the chemtrails. They tell us that we can trust none of it. That, I believe, is the real aim of this flim-flammery. Understanding the reality of human-generated climate change depends upon drawing conclusions from the accumulated weather data, and the easiest evidence to understand is the collection of pictures of the earth from the weather satellites. If doubt can be cast on that by these pseudoscientists, then we will be less informed as a populace, and we may vote in favor of more greenhouse gas pollution, against our own best interests as human beings.
