I was reading WUWT, and came across a comment:
“As is our stated blog policy, no discussions or linkages to discussion of chemtrails will be permitted. Grousing about it won’t change anything.” (WUWT)
This is an odd comment. First it assumes that people know what “chemtrails” are, because how can you reframe from posting on something if you don’t know what it is? Secondly, on a blog whose whole premise is that there has been a conspiracy on global warming (which is undoubtedly true give the scam of the climategate inquiries) to reject outright any discussion of other possible conspiracies seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
But is it? For years there have been suggestions that the police have been paid by journalists to supply information. I personally ran a small village website, and I just couldn’t fathom out how the local paper could obtain the inside information on police matters if they weren’t unusually “friendly” with the local police. Likewise, it is unusually difficult to get any real criticism of the police in the newspapers. Now it appears that a lot of that “conspiracy theory” was well founded. It seems that regular payments to police was (is) as much part of police culture as was (is?) MPs expenses.
Obviously the chemtrail conspiracy which suggests that some trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for a purpose undisclosed to the general public may be a bit far fetched, but personally I would prefer to see the evidence being presented rather than being repressed.