Tennessee Senate passes bill outlawing Chemtrails

I’m still trying to figure out what problem they are trying to solve
 
I can't wait until the first time the Minn NG orders an airliner to land because somebody saw contrails and called the sheriff's office. I wonder if anyone will bother to point out to the legislature and the sheriffs that they don't have jurisdiction over the national airspace.

Has the FAA released any comment on this silliness?
 
When this all began, the Program Office was faced with quite a dilemma: how to hide a chemtrail program when the evidence of it would be written across the very sky, visible to all. The solution was brilliant.

The office had to somehow explain what the public would see, therefore the OpSec experts created a conspiracy theory which was actually true, then discredited it. Anyone who comes along now trying to blow the whistle on the program is immediately considered to be just another conspiracy theory whacko and immediately ignored. The program is thus able to hide in plain site with no worries about exposure of the truth, since the truth is already in the public domain anyway but isn't believed.

It's an even better ruse than the Area 51 alien stories which have been used for years as a cover story for what's really going on.

Anybody spraying this week? I'd love to hear what's planned for the next Tennessee application. I'm grounded while my plane is being painted, but I sure wish I could be up there with you guys controlling the minds of the people for their own good.
Brilliant.
 
This performative bovine waste needs to stop.
Towns need to stop passing dumb nuclear free zone nonsense.
This is worse though. This is state legislatures pandering to nonsense conspiracies
 
This is worse though. This is state legislatures pandering to nonsense conspiracies
It isn't contrails. There have been recent conversations about spraying things into the atmosphere in order to lower the temperature of the earth to control climate change. Given that we don't have the sophistication of the science to understand how to control it and the cost of getting it wrong would be global, it's a good idea to restrict this.

Not sure how the legislators believe they could enforce this, but it is what it is.

The atmosphere modification idea was the backstory of the film Snowpiercer about a post-apocalyptic world in a permanent ice age when the climate controls went wrong.

 
Last edited:
The atmosphere modification idea was the backstory of the film Snowpiercer about a post-apocalyptic world in a permanent ice age when the climate controls went wrong
I think I will propose a new bill for my state legislature that allows law enforcement to investigate instances of humans being used as batteries to power AI machines while being trapped in a simulated alternate reality.
 
I think I will propose a new bill for my state legislature that allows law enforcement to investigate instances of humans being used as batteries to power AI machines while being trapped in a simulated alternate reality.
Interesting.

Is it be actively discussed in serious scientific circles by people who want to implement humans as batteries?
 
We have lot's of experiments in using aerosols to change global temperature. First experiment was Krakatoa in 1883.
Krakatoa
 
Interesting.

Is it be actively discussed in serious scientific circles by people who want to implement humans as batteries?
Heck if I know, it was a joke. Though per your comment as to how it would be enforced, time spent discussing and drafting that bill would be equally as productive a use of time for a state with the 6th worst violent crime rate and 11th worst poverty rate. Worries about unintentional effects from climate mitigation strategies and human-powered alternate realities are just about on the same practical footing.
 
Mostly cloud-seeding for rain/snow:

Specifically climate cooling schemes:

Beware the law of unintended consequences.
 
Interesting.

Is it be actively discussed in serious scientific circles by people who want to implement humans as batteries?
Define serious. :lol:

1713451027357.png

Your point is valid, but having lived in TN for 16 years, in this instance you're giving this state legislature far too much credit.
 
Beware the law of unintended consequences.
It isn't contrails.


I'll post it again. Behind the "plausible deniability" of the wording in Tennessee's final legislation, it is pandering to contrails conspiracy theorists through bad law. The Minnesota bill at least is more honest about the intent.

Nicely, as one of the bill's supporters, admits it is about chemtrails (and current government weather modifiation) and that he and his wife are excited to finally see it dealt with. Others are making similar allusions.




Tennessee lawmakers vote to ban geoengineering, with allusions to 'chemtrails' conspiracy theory

The bill would prohibit technologies that could modify the atmosphere. But lawmakers’ comments about it toed a line between fact and fiction.
www.nbcnews.com
www.nbcnews.com

“This will be my wife’s favorite bill of the year. She has worried about this, I bet, 10 years. It’s been going on a long, long time,” Republican Sen. Frank Niceley said at a hearing about the bill last month. “If you look up — one day, it’ll be clear. The next day they will look like some angels have been playing tic-tac-toe. They’re everywhere. I’ve got pictures on my phone with X's right over my house. For years they denied they were doing anything.”

During the hearings, lawmakers also confused contrails with “chemtrails” and asked whether wildfires in Western states were caused by cloud seeding or whether geoengineering was causing a rise in cancer rates.

Republican Rep. Bud Hulsey inquired about whether geoengineering was the reason for honeybees’ decline. “Absolutely — and it is the reason that the honeybees are going away,” replied David Perry, who was testifying in support of the bill and told the committee that he was a licensed health care provider of 40 years. “The microcosm that they live in is affected by these aerosols.”
 
Define serious. :lol:

View attachment 127950

Your point is valid, but having lived in TN for 16 years, in this instance you're giving this state legislature far too much credit.
Like cyberpunk people. You know, if we all generated enough power, you could live your whole life in a simulation and never know it.
 
Define serious. :lol:

View attachment 127950

Your point is valid, but having lived in TN for 16 years, in this instance you're giving this state legislature far too much credit.
Like cyberpunk people. You know, if we all generated enough power, you could live your whole life in a simulation and never know it.
 
It might be outside their jurisdiction, but perhaps as a next step, they ban any instance of pushing really hot objects off the edge of the earth, in an attempt to lower the overall temperature. You know, run a heat pump, make a bunch of stuff really hot, and push it off the edge.
 
kind of like saving our planet by outlawing cars that burn fossil fuels and requiring electric cars.

um....
 
There have been recent conversations about spraying things into the atmosphere in order to lower the temperature of the earth to control climate change. Given that we don't have the sophistication of the science to understand how to control it and the cost of getting it wrong would be global, it's a good idea to restrict this.
Whenever I see someone come up with a solution to a climate problem, I'm reminded of things like draining the Everglades, sinking tires off the coast to create reefs, etc. Seems like there's no shortage of people with solutions who don't really understand how the environment works.
 
Not that I'm a fan, but I roughly remember a Gore Vidal quote along the lines of "the most dangerous people in the world are intelligent people. Not because they're any more malicious, but because they're capable of justifying anything." I would add to that, that especially in the scientific community that danger is compounded with arrogance, that is re-enforced by an institutionalized version of group think. Combine it with the 30 second attention span of the average person and it's no wonder why we're where we're at.
 
Not that I'm a fan, but I roughly remember a Gore Vidal quote along the lines of "the most dangerous people in the world are intelligent people. Not because they're any more malicious, but because they're capable of justifying anything." I would add to that, that especially in the scientific community that danger is compounded with arrogance, that is re-enforced by an institutionalized version of group think. Combine it with the 30 second attention span of the average person and it's no wonder why we're where we're at.
No offense to TN residents, but I see the Venn diagram representing the Tennessee state legislature and the scientific community as just a picture of two separate circles.
 
Back
Top