August 20, 2024 • 31 mins
We’ve all seen them…white streaks emanating from behind commercial airliners. Is it water vapor or is there something more nefarious being released at 30,000ft? Tennessee legislators were so alarmed by these white plumes, they just passed legislation banning so-called “chemtrails” and any other form of geoengineering. Really, no Really!
Chemtrails have been linked to conspiracies about secretive government forces who are using them to release chemicals that could cause sterilization, reduction of life expectancy, mind and weather control and a whole host of other sinister outcomes. But are any of these conspiracies real?
When Jason and Peter, saw that 6 or more states are taking up similar anti-chemtrail legislation, they turned to Dr. Joshua Horton, Senior Program Fellow for Geoengineering at the Harvard Kennedy School for answers.
IN THIS EPISODE:
- If chemtrails aren’t real, why are they being banned?
- Geoengineering and manipulating our weather explained.
- The Chemtrail myths exposed!
- What are contrails and what causes them?
- Could geoengineering eventually reverse climate change?
- Shady companies that make geoengineering claims.
- The debate over geoengineering experiments explained.
- Google-heim: Cows produce how much methane???
FOLLOW JOSH:
X – @joshuahorton533
LinkedIn – Joshua Horton
***
FOLLOW REALLY NO REALLY:
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Really now, really, really.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Now, really hello and welcome to really no really, just
Alexander and Peter Tilden, who remind you that subscribing to
our show paves the trail to happiness. And speaking of trails,
we've all seen them, white streaks up in the sky,
trailing behind commercial airliners. Is it just water vapor or
is there something more nefarious being released to thirty thousand
feet Tennessee lawmakers were so alarmed by these white plumes
(00:32):
they passed legislation banning so called chemtrails and any other
forms of geoengineering. That's right, they actually banned them. Really no, really,
chemtrails have been linked to conspiracies about secretive government forces
who are using them to release chemicals, chemicals that could
cause sterilization, reduction of life expectancy, alter the weather, and
(00:55):
control people's minds, plus a whole host of other sinister outcomes.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
But are any of these conspiras He's real.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
No.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
But when we saw that six or more states are
taking up similar anti chemtrail legislation, we turned for answers
to doctor Joshua Horton, Senior program Fellow for Geoengineering at
the Harvard Kennedy School so let's follow the trail that leads.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
To Jason and Peter.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
We're going to talk about a thing that is of
great concern to many, many people, and yet by all
anecdotal evidence doesn't exist. It's not a thing we've done.
The guys with the ghost stores, we're not sure if
they exist. We're not sure this one. We're relatively sure
(01:36):
it doesn't exist. But it's got a lot of people
very concerned.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
It's a conspiracy.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
It's well, I never know what actually conspiracy. Conspiracy is
that something, something is nefarious and it is being done
behind our backs. We're being swindled. We don't have all
the information. If I may, yes please.
Speaker 6 (01:57):
You called me and said, hey, Pete, Tennessee lawmakers are
banning chemtrail.
Speaker 5 (02:02):
That was the thing they banned. This is exactly what
they banned. They had a bill to prevent geoengineering, which
is the practice of intentionally modifying the atmosphere to counteract
global warming. So they banned this thing because they see
aeroplanes flying up in the sky and they see a
trail of white mists or white cloud behind it, and
(02:25):
they go, that is somebody in the deep dark underworld
spraying things into our atmosphere to either affect the atmosphere,
the weather, or.
Speaker 6 (02:37):
US reproduct or reproductive organs right, or its companies doing
crop stuff.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
Right.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
Something's going on, and the state of Tennessee said, no way,
you're done. You're not doing it, not here, not over
our sacred ground. Atmospheric scientists are saying, we have no
evidence of any large scale programs suggesting that you know
any of this is going on. A White House official
said in an email, the federal government is not involved
(03:05):
in any outdoor testing or deployment of solar radiation management
or any of this stuff. Nobody that might be doing
it is copping to it, not even to say, well,
we're just seeing if maybe something, But I also want
to go, oh really, Tennessee, you banned it. So now
what it's supposedly is condensation. That's what we're seeing is condensation.
(03:28):
So when a plane flies over Tennessee now and it
has a trail behind it, what is Tennessee actually going
to do? They scrambled jets, but are they shooting it
out of the sky?
Speaker 4 (03:37):
What are they going to do?
Speaker 6 (03:38):
Sorry, So six more states are in the process of
banning it, and we're not being cocky.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
We wanted to go some babies.
Speaker 5 (03:44):
And I don't mean to be political. People are very
concerned about these things, and God knows, yes there has been.
Speaker 6 (03:50):
Let me give you that, okay, So let me give
you the background. Apparently it's been around this chemtrails iudea
since nineteen ninety six, when an Air Force paper research
paper was least called weather as a Force Multiplier, so
owning the weather. In twenty twenty five, it was a
military paper about how they may weather modification systems in
(04:10):
the future. Whatever Art Bell, the Late Night guy got
on that, other people got on it. It was when
the Internet exploded right all over, so that began the thing.
But we have to know that also during the Cold War,
the British government conducted more than seven hundred and fifty
mock chemical warfare attacks on the public and thousands of
people were exposed to zinc cadmium sulfide, a chemical chosen
(04:34):
because it's small, similar to that of germs, and because
it glows under unctraviolet light, making it easy to trace.
It was thought to be non toxic at the time.
The repeated exposure could be cancers. The US did the
same in the fifties and sixties. So do having done
that now being told there's nothing like this happening.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
Yeah, so that thing.
Speaker 6 (04:53):
Became a force multiplier and that is the origin of this.
So what we do on this podcast is we try
and get on the top guy, somebody non biased. And
I'm sure people who are into it are still going
to write us and go, guys, yeah, what are you stupid?
Speaker 5 (05:08):
What he's still stupid? What are you being stupid? Yeah,
you're being stupid. Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:14):
So I'm dying to ask if this is happening, if
there's a possibility, by the way, with climate change, yeah,
can we please alter alter the weather? Can you make
it rain? On a micro level? I just want to
know what they're working on, how they're working on it.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
And they sprang it over the state of Tennisee and
if this guy can be trusted.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
So we've got an expert.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
So let's welcome Josh Horton. Oh I'm sorry, I'm very sorry.
I didn't mean to denigrate. It's paraph spiritualist spent a
lot of money to get that dr.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Well he did, or what we're banking.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Doctor Josh Horton is a research director of geoengineering and
he conducts research on geoengineering, policy and governance issues, including
the regulation of research, liability and compensation, and geopolitics. That
previously worked as a clean energy consultant for a global
energy consulting firm.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
We won't say which one.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
And he holds a PhD hence a doctor in political
science from Johns Hopkins University. Let us welcome doctor josh Horton.
He also might be the Horton of the Horton's restaurant chain.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
So doctor Joshua Horton has joined.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Thank you for joining us. It's very nice we get
actual smart and smart, intelligent, experienced people that want to
waste time with us.
Speaker 6 (06:27):
It's a fabulous We had set up the premise of
chemtrails and that states are starting to ban chemtrails or
and I thought, and we don't want to be cavalier
about it, but I thought the kemptrail thing I gave
some of the origin was debunked, that that it was vapor,
et cetera. But we want to have somebody on who
knows what they're talking about. Tell us why this continues
(06:48):
and why this legend you think this legislation is happening now.
Speaker 7 (06:53):
Well, it's a classic conspiracy here pem trails and exactly
what kem trails are or to be. It depends you ask.
There's a long history here. So you talked about the
idea of contrails, which are a real thing which we
can see when the airplanes fly. For many years now
there were claims that those are actually chemtrails, not contrails,
(07:16):
and what those chemicals were doing.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
It's a wide variety of.
Speaker 7 (07:21):
Claims, weather modification, which is pretty benign, try to enhance rainfall,
to mind control, to mass sterilization. Since the time that
the chemtraial conspiracy kind of got rolling, geoengineering sort that
came into the mix separately, which is what I work on, which.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Isn't happening, but also would.
Speaker 7 (07:43):
Entail I woever were to happen dispersing chemicals in the atmosphere,
although upper atmosphere, not the chop sphere. So there's been
this melding of PEM trails and weather modification claims with geoengineering,
which is a very controversial field, and if you look
at the claims or try to figure out what's being asserted,
it's very messy. It's never clear cut. I think if
(08:07):
you ask people that give you a bunch of different answers.
Cam trails do not exist. They've been debumped in that sense,
certainly scientifically, and yet people believe they exist, and they
believe they do certain things, and they never can quite
tell you who's doing it, why they're doing it, what
if I's having But they believe this and it's persistent,
(08:29):
and now it's sort of showing up legislation and things
like what you're talking about, these statewide bands in Kinnessee
maybe elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
And if you look at sort of the bills that
have been passed.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
You can see you can sort of do an archaeology
and find that the origins of these proposals for classic
chemtrail's ideas that sort of globbed on too conspiracy theories
about geoengineering and sort of melted it all together. And
now they just want to ban all this stuff even
though never really exists. That's the best that I can
to explain it. It's a very difficult thing to pin
(09:02):
down because it's a conspiracy theory. It's ever shifting, ever changing,
it's very flexible, it adapts to the latest news that
comes across the wires, and it's so it's a difficult
thing to fully debunk in a way that's perspective to
those who really believe it. And that's the challenge.
Speaker 5 (09:18):
So can you just for I think I know the answer,
but I would rather hear it from you. So when
we look up and we do see a sort of
a plume of a trail behind an airplane, what are
we actually seeing?
Speaker 7 (09:30):
So I'm not a physical scientist, but I have a
pretty good grasp of this. This is basically it's water
vapor that's in the exhaust from engines on jet aircraft.
When the water vapor exits the jets, it turns into
ice crystal. It freezes, and you can see it. The
white lines are frozen ice crystals that condensed from the
(09:53):
water vapor that was contained in the exhaust from the
jet engines. And within a few minutes usually it goes away.
It can be longer or shorter depending on local atmosphere conditions.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
But that's all. It's just ice.
Speaker 7 (10:06):
And yet that's not enough for some people who won't
accept that as the answer. But that is they asked me,
and they ask I would say virtuale all scientists, but
really all scientists, they will play you.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
That's what it is.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
Yeah, Jason had an interesting question about that though. So
you're in Tennessee, shoot to shoot the plane out of
this guy. So they made a band so that now
only happened. How do you enforce it in practice? It
seems a bit sir, because you're obviously not going to
sort of prohibit all airplanes from flying over the airspace.
Speaker 6 (10:38):
See geo engineering the task of trying to release particles
into the honesty wherever you're releasing them to do enough
either help damage, et cetera. That would make a difference.
And if I'm correct, there is no geo engineering that
we I mean, China may be doing something North who
knows who's doing what that you're not privy to, but you,
(11:00):
you're into the scientific community, would know if there's something
going on, if anyone's doing it, And as of today,
no one is doing it successfully or unsuccessful.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (11:11):
That's correct?
Speaker 7 (11:12):
Yeah, so's there's different kinds of geoengineering, and the labels
get confusing. But when people think about geo engineer talk
about it, what they tend to mean is this large
scale aircraft flying into the stratosphere to release sulfur or
other particles that creates this thin case. You really wouldn't
able to see that would deflex in sunlight and cool
(11:33):
the earth sort of like a giant.
Speaker 5 (11:36):
Solar shield or something that is not happening.
Speaker 7 (11:40):
Just there's no evidence for that. We can barely get
experiments done that would be micro versions microscope versions of that.
There's been a few attempts by Harvard. We tried to
do that a couple of years ago to have an
experiments that would have produced virtually no effects. There was
an outcry about it in various simple society groups that
(12:02):
that's not good. We don't have to be affected. This,
don't do it.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
So that failed.
Speaker 7 (12:06):
The one exception in terms of anybody doing anything like
this is that there's another kind of geo engineering that's
called marine cloud brightening, which is this idea that you
would basically loft sea spray into low lying marine clouds
that would brighten the clouds, that would reflect more slide
away from the Earth, and in those areas and regions
(12:28):
where you had done this, you could cool the local areas.
This could work, and it's actually is being trialed in
a very limited way in Australia over the Great Arier
Reef by legitimate scientists who are trying to see to
what extent this could actually be engineered, how much brighter
the clouds could be made to be, what the fact
(12:50):
I would actually have in this case the reefs underneath
the clouds or that are really sort of helped them
to adapt to higher temperatures. But there's a hand, you know,
it's three or four tests. It's very very minimal stuff.
And in terms of the big geo engineering stuff that
you might hear about in Hollywood movies or elsewhere that
that's not happening, we're decades away from that happening. It
(13:13):
could happen, and it probably could work. It'd be very risky,
a lot of unknown consequences, but we're pretty sure it
would work in a very basic way in terms of
dialing down the sun and producing temperatures. Wow, but lots
of controversies about that. It's most that there as much
political and governments and ethical as they are sort of
(13:35):
technical engineering. Right.
Speaker 5 (13:37):
Is there anything that you're aware of or that you
specifically are working on yourself that you think does is
promising and it could be viable to help counteract, you know,
are the global crisis. It's that you think does is
(14:03):
promising and it could be viable to help counteract, you know,
are the global crisis.
Speaker 7 (14:11):
I think it's pretty clear. So this is a very
narrow feels it's a full of a bunch of nerds
who look at this stuff. But if one is honest
looks at the growing amount of literature and studies is
supposed to computer models that sort of see what would
happen if you did this. There's increasingly, i'd even say
overwhelming evidence using computer models that a moderate amount of
(14:35):
geoengineering is putting a moderate amount of say sulfur or
some other part of up in the atmosphere, in the
stratosphere over the planet, it would certainly reduce global temperatures,
and if you did a small amount, you could just slow,
you know, just marginally reduce things. Looks like if you
did it intelligently in terms of where you released it,
how quickly, how much, et cetera, it looks as though
(15:00):
most parts, if not all, parts of the world would
be better off under some geoengineering scenarios then they would
be without doing geo engineering. But with climate change happening.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Right now, there's a lot of you know, one.
Speaker 7 (15:13):
Could say you're playing god, You're you're you know, who's
controlling who's setting the third step for the planet, which
country is doing it? How do you agree on where
that's set. There are concerns about talk about this stuff.
Is that provide an excuse not to cut see you
two emissions?
Speaker 1 (15:28):
And does it sort of give a uh.
Speaker 7 (15:30):
You know, a green light toil and as companies to
go full bore. These are all legitimate concerns and it's
very messy. But in terms of the technical di mentions
it of this, as I see it, it's pretty clear
that that some sort of moderate version of what has
been discussed, if it were done, would benefit most places
(15:53):
and most people in most ecosystems.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
With any projected potential hazards.
Speaker 7 (16:00):
The more you do, the more hazardous it becomes. Any
geo engineering, there's going to be perturbation, so there's going
to be some some effects consequences for say, regional precipitation,
for regional temperatures that compared to the way the world
was one hundred and fifty years ago, would be problematic.
(16:21):
But comparac to birthings are headed, which is really the
proper comparison sort of risk risk scenario, things soon be headed.
It generally looks again as you get a sort of
a smart deployment, a moderate amount that on balance, no
place would be much worse off than it would have
been without doing the geoengineering, and most places would be
(16:42):
better off in terms of lower temperatures, more more sort
of stable precipitation patterns, fewer extreme weather events including the cyclones, floods, droughts,
you know, the usual set of things. It's reparkeable. Actually
it's almost too good to be true.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
Question, why don't we give it a shot? Where's the
tipping point?
Speaker 6 (17:04):
Where's where I'm at? You don't have a lot of funding.
I read that the funding is minimal. Isn't there somebody
somewhere who's going to screw this? Like Jason just said,
also two hundred billion dollars at this. Let's let's get
approval and let's let's go for it.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
Well, a couple of things. So there are a handful
of sort of cowboys. There's there's a couple of guys. Well,
I think they're a renow now that these guys from
Silicon Valley. They have a company called make Sunset makes sunsets,
and the past year they've been filling balloons with sulfur,
(17:39):
releasing them and then selling cooling credits to those who
would buy these things. I mean, hell, one balloon delivered
x amount of cooling. Now that's ridiculous physically.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
Is it working. Is the business working?
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Uh, it's not working. They don't think it's going to work.
Speaker 7 (17:57):
But they're they're in it for the shock value, and
they've certainly made an impact. They've gone lots of attention,
they've gotten a lot of pushback from those and in
my community, some of them think it's people think it's
great because they're just sort of sticking into the system
and saying, hey, we're going to just try something. It's
something not gonna work, They're going to get this intention
for this generate enthusiasm. That's one case. There's also an
(18:20):
Israeli company, well I think startups. It's a brand new
company that I it's shrouded in secrecy, and of course
one of the people who runs it is former was
involved in the Israeli nuclear program, so it's got all.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
The sort and there.
Speaker 7 (18:36):
Apparently this is a company that's got a lot of
funding that has has patented some sort of a delivery
mechanism or a particle and it intends to do some open.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Air trials of this four now.
Speaker 7 (18:51):
I don't know how it is, but they have a website,
there's talk about it. These are really fringe sort of
actors in the scheme of things by a large I
think the views of the people who really work on
this is that the scale of what's being contemplated in
terms of really, in a sense, taking over some control
(19:12):
of planetary climate and trying to manipulate it in a
way that helps people in the planet. It's an issue
of immense global public interest. It's a public policy issue.
So this should not be left of the market to
deliver to the sale.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
If you could sort of snap your fingers and get
the green light for a kind of project or experiment
that you think is viable, what would be the thing
that you would like to put into some sort of
practical experimentation of this.
Speaker 7 (19:47):
I like this, It's going to be very boring, but
I think what's actually the most important right now is
to do some very small scale experiments that wouldn't even
affect the climate, but that would involve releasing a little
bit of particles they could be sold for something else
at the right altitude, and then driving vehicles through the
(20:07):
plumes to sort of measure what's happening in those plumes,
how there are particles of behaving. And the reason to
do that is because, first of all, it's impossible to
recreate those conditions in.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
An the laboratory.
Speaker 7 (20:21):
Everything we need to think we know about geoengineering, which I
was giving you sort of a you know, a sort
of optimistic depiction of it all that is based upon
computer models, which obviously could be wrong. And the computer
models are only as good as the data that we
have from real world experiments, and so you need to
sort of parameterize those models with real world evidence. So
(20:46):
we need to go see if sort of the algorithms
we have in these models is actually accurate. Is what's happening,
what would happen in the real world.
Speaker 6 (20:56):
So as a review, just to recap Jay tem trails
not not a thing.
Speaker 5 (21:01):
I'm not so sure we got the guy.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
We got the guy. You can unequivalently look at us
and say, not a thing.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
I just want to be one of those guys who
you know, I fascinated this where you know, like a
flat Earth or apparently there's still some flat earther people
out there, and you go, at, what, what do we
need to do can break you go maybe. I mean,
we we have satellites and people in space looking back
and going it seems to be a ball and they go.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
No, but somebody who's comfortable with a conspiracy. We need
things explained. People need things explained. And I know we'll
probably get huge pushback on this episode, but doctor Horton,
thank you so much for coming on and good luck.
I hope you get funded.
Speaker 8 (21:41):
I would love your work to get a little more attention,
rip it up a little more love, because it seems
to me, I mean, the obvious statement is if if
you and your colleagues.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Are not allowed to push forward, it seems that the
writing is on the wall that we're going to have
a major crisis on our hands, that we're already seeing
the signs of and right.
Speaker 7 (22:05):
And the really scary thing is what if we don't
do any research and then we come to a point
the world does in say, twenty years time, and we say, well,
we got to do something extreme, right, we don't know
if it works, let's just give it a shot.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And it's a disaster. That's sort of the worst possible out.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
You've got it, doctor Horton, Tanky, it's a pleasure. Thank you.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
So very Rarely, very rarely do we ask a question
and get an answer, even though, by the way, that
was the format of the show initially. Yeah yeah, really
no really, but that well, as you said, there will
be people no matter what, who will hear this. If
(22:54):
someone has information and they're telling the truth. If I
know something I can say, I will tell you. Here's
my source, here's my thing. These unnamed we are idiots.
You and I are idiots. We are idiots. We should
not yourself, young man.
Speaker 6 (23:10):
We should not have called this podcast really no real
what should we have called unnamed sources?
Speaker 5 (23:15):
And we interview every week unnamed sources in every category?
What's your name? I can but here's what I know. Yeah,
here's what I know unnamed sources. Wow, maybe here's a
name source that we can rely on.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
Googa nyme? Hello sir, Hello, hello, Hello, break through the cloud?
Speaker 5 (23:36):
See what I did there? Metaphor breakthrough?
Speaker 4 (23:38):
I heard what you said? What?
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (23:40):
What?
Speaker 5 (23:41):
What in the miasthma of our.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Attention to your brilliance? Yeah? Did you hear what? I
did you hear that segment?
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (23:49):
It wasn't me.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
What's that? What? What?
Speaker 5 (23:52):
What did we miss or discover.
Speaker 9 (23:55):
Well, I've been researching Tim Harton's and it appears it
appears that they are releasing toxic casses through their patrons
through It's a nefarious Canadian going.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
To employed them into a balloon.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
The piece people that people don't know that Tim Moreton
Tim Morton's is because we're in America. Tim Hortons is
a huge chain hamburger, hamburger or lunch chain or whatever,
what do you want to call it.
Speaker 9 (24:20):
I think I think a dunkin Donuts sort of.
Speaker 5 (24:25):
I thought it was more like the equivalent of a
Denny's kind of thing, and I've actually eaten there. I
don't remember. It's in the strange foreign land called Canada.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
You know.
Speaker 9 (24:46):
Obviously it was very correct, except for the fact that
our guest said the keem trails don't exist.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
But I did want.
Speaker 10 (24:53):
To say, I don't want to say people are actually
worried about out toxic gases that are being released into
our atmosphere that are actually causing problems like you know,
climate change.
Speaker 9 (25:08):
We might and this is and I will source this
because why not EPA is letting us.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
Know those liars right right right the.
Speaker 9 (25:19):
In cells or whatever they call the deep State the
Deep State that the EPA a single cow produces between
one hundred and fifty four and two hundred and sixty
four pounds of methane.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
Gas a year.
Speaker 9 (25:33):
Yeah, okay, now map counting emissions from any other livestock,
we're just talking about cattle here worldwide. That's one point
five billion cattle raised for meat production worldwide, So that
releases two hundred and thirty one billion pounds of methane
(25:54):
into the atmosphere per year.
Speaker 4 (25:58):
So take it.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Figure out my Atlanta or something from cows that would
alleviate they just they did. I'll tell you what they
tried to do. And I've actually seen this, and David,
you can research this and we can verify it. There
was a company that was trying to get charcoal filters
that would hang over a cow's tail so that the
farts would go through this charcoal.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
And film the fart the fart. I didn't quite Why does.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
That sound like something I would come up with rather
than we're going to hang does I get a car,
we're hanging this on your mirror.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
We're hanging this on the cow's tail.
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Charcoal undies for the cow, and the.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Cow's going Is there charcoal covering my ass? What's going
on back there? What's going back?
Speaker 5 (26:39):
Does my ass look fat in the side?
Speaker 6 (26:40):
You know, I can fart and not smell it anymore?
What's happening here? I would think the thing is to
get him not to fart, like to cut down on
the sure, or to capture the fart and use it
for energy. I didn't get to asking them about partment
credits because I wonder how how that whole thing works.
But he probably doesn't. That's not a business that he
knows because it just always was.
Speaker 5 (26:58):
There anything else in your research that have to worry
about other than cows?
Speaker 9 (27:02):
Well, I'm just saying I don't know if this is
the exact thing that you're referred to, but Argentina's National
Institute of Agriculture and Technology, it came up with a
backpack for cows that would capture the cow emissions.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
It's not quite what I Yeah, where are we with that? Oh?
Speaker 5 (27:22):
It's right there with the flying car.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
Just is it neal?
Speaker 9 (27:29):
And it actually looks like a jet pack on the
back of a cow?
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Yeah, I mean it's I think.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
Its the cows are going to get the jet packs.
I'm still waiting the jet pack. And by the way,
it's negating the cow's natural jet and you want.
Speaker 6 (27:43):
Me to produce mock really this thing on my ass, David, thank.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
You, thank you, and please don't blacktap for us. You
know what, that's a very special episode. So keemp trails
nothing but kept nothing. I don't think we've changed one
person's believe you. So what's interesting The average parashooter, given
the methane problem, is probably contributing more to the problem
(28:07):
of global warming. Then you think they're farting the hallway down,
I'd be cropping the hallway. So let's stop the passion.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
You know what. I The only vision I got when we're.
Speaker 6 (28:19):
Wrapping up here is chickens somehow watching this on YouTube
going pooh, now, yeah, take care of everybody.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
Really no.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
As another episode of really no, really, he comes to
a close.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I know you're wondering, what are some other popular conspiracy
theories that have been pretty much debunked. Well, I'll burst
those bubbles in a moment, but first let's thank our guests,
Doctor Joshua Horton. You can follow doctor Horton on LinkedIn,
where he is simply Joshua Horton, or on x where
he is at Joshua Horton five three three.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Find all pertinent links in our show notes.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Our little show hangs out on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and
threads at really.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
No Really podcasts.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
And of course you can share your thoughts and feedback
with us online.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
At reallynoreally dot com.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
If you have a really some amazing factor story that
boggles your mind, share it with us, and if we
use it, we will send you a little gift. Nothing
life changing, obviously, but it's the thought that counts. Check
out our full episodes on YouTube, hit that subscribe button
and take that bell so you're updated when we release
new videos and episodes.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Which we do each Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
So listen and follow us on the iHeartRadio app, Apple
podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
And now, what are some other popular conspiracy theories that.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
Have been pretty much debunked.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Well, you have a bunch of old favorites still hanging around,
like the Earth is really flat, we never landed on
the moon, Bigfoot and NeSSI the Lockness Monster still running
and swimming around out there.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
And of course President John F.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Kennedy was killed by Cubans, the CIA, the Mafia, the
military industrial complex and pretty much anyone.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Who wasn't Lee Harvey os.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
But there are some other beauties out there that you
don't hear about as much, like the folks who believe
the European Nuclear Research Agency that discovered the Higgs Boson
particle in twenty twelve apparently created a black hole that
sucked our entire planet in. The conspiracy claims that Earth
was destroyed right then, but we just haven't realized it yet,
which is kind of a big thing to miss.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
But you never know.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I mean, maybe we're protected by the hollow Earth theory,
which claims that what we believe is the surface of
our planet is really.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Just a hollow shell.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Not only that, but the actual inhabited Earth is really
inside that hollow shell. And all of that, of course,
jobs very nicely with the theory that our entire reality
is actually a manufactured computer matrix that we are living in.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
And I guess we are still waiting for Neo to
get us the.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Hell out, or at least make another movie about And
while we're waiting, we can consider the conspiracy theories that
claim that the Titanic never actually sank, which is going
to be a big blow to James Cameron and that
King Charles is actually a vampire because he is in
fact related to Vladi Impaler, who was the role model
for Bramstokers.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Dract And yeah, I guess he is kind of pale.
Maybe he is a vampire And if that's true, m
trills are the least of our problems. Really, no, really
is production of iHeartRadio and Blase Entertainment
Really now, really, really.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Now, really hello and welcome to really no really, just
Alexander and Peter Tilden, who remind you that subscribing to
our show paves the trail to happiness. And speaking of trails,
we've all seen them, white streaks up in the sky,
trailing behind commercial airliners. Is it just water vapor or
is there something more nefarious being released to thirty thousand
feet Tennessee lawmakers were so alarmed by these white plumes
(00:32):
they passed legislation banning so called chemtrails and any other
forms of geoengineering. That's right, they actually banned them. Really no, really,
chemtrails have been linked to conspiracies about secretive government forces
who are using them to release chemicals, chemicals that could
cause sterilization, reduction of life expectancy, alter the weather, and
(00:55):
control people's minds, plus a whole host of other sinister outcomes.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
But are any of these conspiras He's real.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
No.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
But when we saw that six or more states are
taking up similar anti chemtrail legislation, we turned for answers
to doctor Joshua Horton, Senior program Fellow for Geoengineering at
the Harvard Kennedy School so let's follow the trail that leads.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
To Jason and Peter.
Speaker 5 (01:16):
We're going to talk about a thing that is of
great concern to many, many people, and yet by all
anecdotal evidence doesn't exist. It's not a thing we've done.
The guys with the ghost stores, we're not sure if
they exist. We're not sure this one. We're relatively sure
(01:36):
it doesn't exist. But it's got a lot of people
very concerned.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
It's a conspiracy.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
It's well, I never know what actually conspiracy. Conspiracy is
that something, something is nefarious and it is being done
behind our backs. We're being swindled. We don't have all
the information. If I may, yes please.
Speaker 6 (01:57):
You called me and said, hey, Pete, Tennessee lawmakers are
banning chemtrail.
Speaker 5 (02:02):
That was the thing they banned. This is exactly what
they banned. They had a bill to prevent geoengineering, which
is the practice of intentionally modifying the atmosphere to counteract
global warming. So they banned this thing because they see
aeroplanes flying up in the sky and they see a
trail of white mists or white cloud behind it, and
(02:25):
they go, that is somebody in the deep dark underworld
spraying things into our atmosphere to either affect the atmosphere,
the weather, or.
Speaker 6 (02:37):
US reproduct or reproductive organs right, or its companies doing
crop stuff.
Speaker 4 (02:43):
Right.
Speaker 5 (02:44):
Something's going on, and the state of Tennessee said, no way,
you're done. You're not doing it, not here, not over
our sacred ground. Atmospheric scientists are saying, we have no
evidence of any large scale programs suggesting that you know
any of this is going on. A White House official
said in an email, the federal government is not involved
(03:05):
in any outdoor testing or deployment of solar radiation management
or any of this stuff. Nobody that might be doing
it is copping to it, not even to say, well,
we're just seeing if maybe something, But I also want
to go, oh really, Tennessee, you banned it. So now
what it's supposedly is condensation. That's what we're seeing is condensation.
(03:28):
So when a plane flies over Tennessee now and it
has a trail behind it, what is Tennessee actually going
to do? They scrambled jets, but are they shooting it
out of the sky?
Speaker 4 (03:37):
What are they going to do?
Speaker 6 (03:38):
Sorry, So six more states are in the process of
banning it, and we're not being cocky.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
We wanted to go some babies.
Speaker 5 (03:44):
And I don't mean to be political. People are very
concerned about these things, and God knows, yes there has been.
Speaker 6 (03:50):
Let me give you that, okay, So let me give
you the background. Apparently it's been around this chemtrails iudea
since nineteen ninety six, when an Air Force paper research
paper was least called weather as a Force Multiplier, so
owning the weather. In twenty twenty five, it was a
military paper about how they may weather modification systems in
(04:10):
the future. Whatever Art Bell, the Late Night guy got
on that, other people got on it. It was when
the Internet exploded right all over, so that began the thing.
But we have to know that also during the Cold War,
the British government conducted more than seven hundred and fifty
mock chemical warfare attacks on the public and thousands of
people were exposed to zinc cadmium sulfide, a chemical chosen
(04:34):
because it's small, similar to that of germs, and because
it glows under unctraviolet light, making it easy to trace.
It was thought to be non toxic at the time.
The repeated exposure could be cancers. The US did the
same in the fifties and sixties. So do having done
that now being told there's nothing like this happening.
Speaker 4 (04:52):
Yeah, so that thing.
Speaker 6 (04:53):
Became a force multiplier and that is the origin of this.
So what we do on this podcast is we try
and get on the top guy, somebody non biased. And
I'm sure people who are into it are still going
to write us and go, guys, yeah, what are you stupid?
Speaker 5 (05:08):
What he's still stupid? What are you being stupid? Yeah,
you're being stupid. Yeah.
Speaker 6 (05:14):
So I'm dying to ask if this is happening, if
there's a possibility, by the way, with climate change, yeah,
can we please alter alter the weather? Can you make
it rain? On a micro level? I just want to
know what they're working on, how they're working on it.
Speaker 5 (05:27):
And they sprang it over the state of Tennisee and
if this guy can be trusted.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
So we've got an expert.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
So let's welcome Josh Horton. Oh I'm sorry, I'm very sorry.
I didn't mean to denigrate. It's paraph spiritualist spent a
lot of money to get that dr.
Speaker 4 (05:43):
Well he did, or what we're banking.
Speaker 5 (05:45):
Doctor Josh Horton is a research director of geoengineering and
he conducts research on geoengineering, policy and governance issues, including
the regulation of research, liability and compensation, and geopolitics. That
previously worked as a clean energy consultant for a global
energy consulting firm.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
We won't say which one.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
And he holds a PhD hence a doctor in political
science from Johns Hopkins University. Let us welcome doctor josh Horton.
He also might be the Horton of the Horton's restaurant chain.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
So doctor Joshua Horton has joined.
Speaker 5 (06:20):
Thank you for joining us. It's very nice we get
actual smart and smart, intelligent, experienced people that want to
waste time with us.
Speaker 6 (06:27):
It's a fabulous We had set up the premise of
chemtrails and that states are starting to ban chemtrails or
and I thought, and we don't want to be cavalier
about it, but I thought the kemptrail thing I gave
some of the origin was debunked, that that it was vapor,
et cetera. But we want to have somebody on who
knows what they're talking about. Tell us why this continues
(06:48):
and why this legend you think this legislation is happening now.
Speaker 7 (06:53):
Well, it's a classic conspiracy here pem trails and exactly
what kem trails are or to be. It depends you ask.
There's a long history here. So you talked about the
idea of contrails, which are a real thing which we
can see when the airplanes fly. For many years now
there were claims that those are actually chemtrails, not contrails,
(07:16):
and what those chemicals were doing.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
It's a wide variety of.
Speaker 7 (07:21):
Claims, weather modification, which is pretty benign, try to enhance rainfall,
to mind control, to mass sterilization. Since the time that
the chemtraial conspiracy kind of got rolling, geoengineering sort that
came into the mix separately, which is what I work on, which.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
Isn't happening, but also would.
Speaker 7 (07:43):
Entail I woever were to happen dispersing chemicals in the atmosphere,
although upper atmosphere, not the chop sphere. So there's been
this melding of PEM trails and weather modification claims with geoengineering,
which is a very controversial field, and if you look
at the claims or try to figure out what's being asserted,
it's very messy. It's never clear cut. I think if
(08:07):
you ask people that give you a bunch of different answers.
Cam trails do not exist. They've been debumped in that sense,
certainly scientifically, and yet people believe they exist, and they
believe they do certain things, and they never can quite
tell you who's doing it, why they're doing it, what
if I's having But they believe this and it's persistent,
(08:29):
and now it's sort of showing up legislation and things
like what you're talking about, these statewide bands in Kinnessee
maybe elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
And if you look at sort of the bills that
have been passed.
Speaker 7 (08:41):
You can see you can sort of do an archaeology
and find that the origins of these proposals for classic
chemtrail's ideas that sort of globbed on too conspiracy theories
about geoengineering and sort of melted it all together. And
now they just want to ban all this stuff even
though never really exists. That's the best that I can
to explain it. It's a very difficult thing to pin
(09:02):
down because it's a conspiracy theory. It's ever shifting, ever changing,
it's very flexible, it adapts to the latest news that
comes across the wires, and it's so it's a difficult
thing to fully debunk in a way that's perspective to
those who really believe it. And that's the challenge.
Speaker 5 (09:18):
So can you just for I think I know the answer,
but I would rather hear it from you. So when
we look up and we do see a sort of
a plume of a trail behind an airplane, what are
we actually seeing?
Speaker 7 (09:30):
So I'm not a physical scientist, but I have a
pretty good grasp of this. This is basically it's water
vapor that's in the exhaust from engines on jet aircraft.
When the water vapor exits the jets, it turns into
ice crystal. It freezes, and you can see it. The
white lines are frozen ice crystals that condensed from the
(09:53):
water vapor that was contained in the exhaust from the
jet engines. And within a few minutes usually it goes away.
It can be longer or shorter depending on local atmosphere conditions.
Speaker 1 (10:04):
But that's all. It's just ice.
Speaker 7 (10:06):
And yet that's not enough for some people who won't
accept that as the answer. But that is they asked me,
and they ask I would say virtuale all scientists, but
really all scientists, they will play you.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
That's what it is.
Speaker 5 (10:18):
Yeah, Jason had an interesting question about that though. So
you're in Tennessee, shoot to shoot the plane out of
this guy. So they made a band so that now
only happened. How do you enforce it in practice? It
seems a bit sir, because you're obviously not going to
sort of prohibit all airplanes from flying over the airspace.
Speaker 6 (10:38):
See geo engineering the task of trying to release particles
into the honesty wherever you're releasing them to do enough
either help damage, et cetera. That would make a difference.
And if I'm correct, there is no geo engineering that
we I mean, China may be doing something North who
knows who's doing what that you're not privy to, but you,
(11:00):
you're into the scientific community, would know if there's something
going on, if anyone's doing it, And as of today,
no one is doing it successfully or unsuccessful.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Is that correct?
Speaker 1 (11:11):
That's correct?
Speaker 7 (11:12):
Yeah, so's there's different kinds of geoengineering, and the labels
get confusing. But when people think about geo engineer talk
about it, what they tend to mean is this large
scale aircraft flying into the stratosphere to release sulfur or
other particles that creates this thin case. You really wouldn't
able to see that would deflex in sunlight and cool
(11:33):
the earth sort of like a giant.
Speaker 5 (11:36):
Solar shield or something that is not happening.
Speaker 7 (11:40):
Just there's no evidence for that. We can barely get
experiments done that would be micro versions microscope versions of that.
There's been a few attempts by Harvard. We tried to
do that a couple of years ago to have an
experiments that would have produced virtually no effects. There was
an outcry about it in various simple society groups that
(12:02):
that's not good. We don't have to be affected. This,
don't do it.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
So that failed.
Speaker 7 (12:06):
The one exception in terms of anybody doing anything like
this is that there's another kind of geo engineering that's
called marine cloud brightening, which is this idea that you
would basically loft sea spray into low lying marine clouds
that would brighten the clouds, that would reflect more slide
away from the Earth, and in those areas and regions
(12:28):
where you had done this, you could cool the local areas.
This could work, and it's actually is being trialed in
a very limited way in Australia over the Great Arier
Reef by legitimate scientists who are trying to see to
what extent this could actually be engineered, how much brighter
the clouds could be made to be, what the fact
(12:50):
I would actually have in this case the reefs underneath
the clouds or that are really sort of helped them
to adapt to higher temperatures. But there's a hand, you know,
it's three or four tests. It's very very minimal stuff.
And in terms of the big geo engineering stuff that
you might hear about in Hollywood movies or elsewhere that
that's not happening, we're decades away from that happening. It
(13:13):
could happen, and it probably could work. It'd be very risky,
a lot of unknown consequences, but we're pretty sure it
would work in a very basic way in terms of
dialing down the sun and producing temperatures. Wow, but lots
of controversies about that. It's most that there as much
political and governments and ethical as they are sort of
(13:35):
technical engineering. Right.
Speaker 5 (13:37):
Is there anything that you're aware of or that you
specifically are working on yourself that you think does is
promising and it could be viable to help counteract, you know,
are the global crisis. It's that you think does is
(14:03):
promising and it could be viable to help counteract, you know,
are the global crisis.
Speaker 7 (14:11):
I think it's pretty clear. So this is a very
narrow feels it's a full of a bunch of nerds
who look at this stuff. But if one is honest
looks at the growing amount of literature and studies is
supposed to computer models that sort of see what would
happen if you did this. There's increasingly, i'd even say
overwhelming evidence using computer models that a moderate amount of
(14:35):
geoengineering is putting a moderate amount of say sulfur or
some other part of up in the atmosphere, in the
stratosphere over the planet, it would certainly reduce global temperatures,
and if you did a small amount, you could just slow,
you know, just marginally reduce things. Looks like if you
did it intelligently in terms of where you released it,
how quickly, how much, et cetera, it looks as though
(15:00):
most parts, if not all, parts of the world would
be better off under some geoengineering scenarios then they would
be without doing geo engineering. But with climate change happening.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
Right now, there's a lot of you know, one.
Speaker 7 (15:13):
Could say you're playing god, You're you're you know, who's
controlling who's setting the third step for the planet, which
country is doing it? How do you agree on where
that's set. There are concerns about talk about this stuff.
Is that provide an excuse not to cut see you
two emissions?
Speaker 1 (15:28):
And does it sort of give a uh.
Speaker 7 (15:30):
You know, a green light toil and as companies to
go full bore. These are all legitimate concerns and it's
very messy. But in terms of the technical di mentions
it of this, as I see it, it's pretty clear
that that some sort of moderate version of what has
been discussed, if it were done, would benefit most places
(15:53):
and most people in most ecosystems.
Speaker 5 (15:55):
With any projected potential hazards.
Speaker 7 (16:00):
The more you do, the more hazardous it becomes. Any
geo engineering, there's going to be perturbation, so there's going
to be some some effects consequences for say, regional precipitation,
for regional temperatures that compared to the way the world
was one hundred and fifty years ago, would be problematic.
(16:21):
But comparac to birthings are headed, which is really the
proper comparison sort of risk risk scenario, things soon be headed.
It generally looks again as you get a sort of
a smart deployment, a moderate amount that on balance, no
place would be much worse off than it would have
been without doing the geoengineering, and most places would be
(16:42):
better off in terms of lower temperatures, more more sort
of stable precipitation patterns, fewer extreme weather events including the cyclones, floods, droughts,
you know, the usual set of things. It's reparkeable. Actually
it's almost too good to be true.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
Question, why don't we give it a shot? Where's the
tipping point?
Speaker 6 (17:04):
Where's where I'm at? You don't have a lot of funding.
I read that the funding is minimal. Isn't there somebody
somewhere who's going to screw this? Like Jason just said,
also two hundred billion dollars at this. Let's let's get
approval and let's let's go for it.
Speaker 7 (17:18):
Well, a couple of things. So there are a handful
of sort of cowboys. There's there's a couple of guys. Well,
I think they're a renow now that these guys from
Silicon Valley. They have a company called make Sunset makes sunsets,
and the past year they've been filling balloons with sulfur,
(17:39):
releasing them and then selling cooling credits to those who
would buy these things. I mean, hell, one balloon delivered
x amount of cooling. Now that's ridiculous physically.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
Is it working. Is the business working?
Speaker 1 (17:54):
Uh, it's not working. They don't think it's going to work.
Speaker 7 (17:57):
But they're they're in it for the shock value, and
they've certainly made an impact. They've gone lots of attention,
they've gotten a lot of pushback from those and in
my community, some of them think it's people think it's
great because they're just sort of sticking into the system
and saying, hey, we're going to just try something. It's
something not gonna work, They're going to get this intention
for this generate enthusiasm. That's one case. There's also an
(18:20):
Israeli company, well I think startups. It's a brand new
company that I it's shrouded in secrecy, and of course
one of the people who runs it is former was
involved in the Israeli nuclear program, so it's got all.
Speaker 1 (18:33):
The sort and there.
Speaker 7 (18:36):
Apparently this is a company that's got a lot of
funding that has has patented some sort of a delivery
mechanism or a particle and it intends to do some open.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
Air trials of this four now.
Speaker 7 (18:51):
I don't know how it is, but they have a website,
there's talk about it. These are really fringe sort of
actors in the scheme of things by a large I
think the views of the people who really work on
this is that the scale of what's being contemplated in
terms of really, in a sense, taking over some control
(19:12):
of planetary climate and trying to manipulate it in a
way that helps people in the planet. It's an issue
of immense global public interest. It's a public policy issue.
So this should not be left of the market to
deliver to the sale.
Speaker 5 (19:30):
If you could sort of snap your fingers and get
the green light for a kind of project or experiment
that you think is viable, what would be the thing
that you would like to put into some sort of
practical experimentation of this.
Speaker 7 (19:47):
I like this, It's going to be very boring, but
I think what's actually the most important right now is
to do some very small scale experiments that wouldn't even
affect the climate, but that would involve releasing a little
bit of particles they could be sold for something else
at the right altitude, and then driving vehicles through the
(20:07):
plumes to sort of measure what's happening in those plumes,
how there are particles of behaving. And the reason to
do that is because, first of all, it's impossible to
recreate those conditions in.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
An the laboratory.
Speaker 7 (20:21):
Everything we need to think we know about geoengineering, which I
was giving you sort of a you know, a sort
of optimistic depiction of it all that is based upon
computer models, which obviously could be wrong. And the computer
models are only as good as the data that we
have from real world experiments, and so you need to
sort of parameterize those models with real world evidence. So
(20:46):
we need to go see if sort of the algorithms
we have in these models is actually accurate. Is what's happening,
what would happen in the real world.
Speaker 6 (20:56):
So as a review, just to recap Jay tem trails
not not a thing.
Speaker 5 (21:01):
I'm not so sure we got the guy.
Speaker 4 (21:05):
We got the guy. You can unequivalently look at us
and say, not a thing.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
I just want to be one of those guys who
you know, I fascinated this where you know, like a
flat Earth or apparently there's still some flat earther people
out there, and you go, at, what, what do we
need to do can break you go maybe. I mean,
we we have satellites and people in space looking back
and going it seems to be a ball and they go.
Speaker 6 (21:30):
No, but somebody who's comfortable with a conspiracy. We need
things explained. People need things explained. And I know we'll
probably get huge pushback on this episode, but doctor Horton,
thank you so much for coming on and good luck.
I hope you get funded.
Speaker 8 (21:41):
I would love your work to get a little more attention,
rip it up a little more love, because it seems
to me, I mean, the obvious statement is if if
you and your colleagues.
Speaker 5 (21:53):
Are not allowed to push forward, it seems that the
writing is on the wall that we're going to have
a major crisis on our hands, that we're already seeing
the signs of and right.
Speaker 7 (22:05):
And the really scary thing is what if we don't
do any research and then we come to a point
the world does in say, twenty years time, and we say, well,
we got to do something extreme, right, we don't know
if it works, let's just give it a shot.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
And it's a disaster. That's sort of the worst possible out.
Speaker 4 (22:20):
You've got it, doctor Horton, Tanky, it's a pleasure. Thank you.
Speaker 5 (22:34):
So very Rarely, very rarely do we ask a question
and get an answer, even though, by the way, that
was the format of the show initially. Yeah yeah, really
no really, but that well, as you said, there will
be people no matter what, who will hear this. If
(22:54):
someone has information and they're telling the truth. If I
know something I can say, I will tell you. Here's
my source, here's my thing. These unnamed we are idiots.
You and I are idiots. We are idiots. We should
not yourself, young man.
Speaker 6 (23:10):
We should not have called this podcast really no real
what should we have called unnamed sources?
Speaker 5 (23:15):
And we interview every week unnamed sources in every category?
What's your name? I can but here's what I know. Yeah,
here's what I know unnamed sources. Wow, maybe here's a
name source that we can rely on.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
Googa nyme? Hello sir, Hello, hello, Hello, break through the cloud?
Speaker 5 (23:36):
See what I did there? Metaphor breakthrough?
Speaker 4 (23:38):
I heard what you said? What?
Speaker 5 (23:40):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (23:40):
What?
Speaker 5 (23:41):
What in the miasthma of our.
Speaker 4 (23:43):
Attention to your brilliance? Yeah? Did you hear what? I
did you hear that segment?
Speaker 3 (23:48):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (23:49):
It wasn't me.
Speaker 4 (23:51):
What's that? What? What?
Speaker 5 (23:52):
What did we miss or discover.
Speaker 9 (23:55):
Well, I've been researching Tim Harton's and it appears it
appears that they are releasing toxic casses through their patrons
through It's a nefarious Canadian going.
Speaker 5 (24:09):
To employed them into a balloon.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
The piece people that people don't know that Tim Moreton
Tim Morton's is because we're in America. Tim Hortons is
a huge chain hamburger, hamburger or lunch chain or whatever,
what do you want to call it.
Speaker 9 (24:20):
I think I think a dunkin Donuts sort of.
Speaker 5 (24:25):
I thought it was more like the equivalent of a
Denny's kind of thing, and I've actually eaten there. I
don't remember. It's in the strange foreign land called Canada.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
You know.
Speaker 9 (24:46):
Obviously it was very correct, except for the fact that
our guest said the keem trails don't exist.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
But I did want.
Speaker 10 (24:53):
To say, I don't want to say people are actually
worried about out toxic gases that are being released into
our atmosphere that are actually causing problems like you know,
climate change.
Speaker 9 (25:08):
We might and this is and I will source this
because why not EPA is letting us.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
Know those liars right right right the.
Speaker 9 (25:19):
In cells or whatever they call the deep State the
Deep State that the EPA a single cow produces between
one hundred and fifty four and two hundred and sixty
four pounds of methane.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
Gas a year.
Speaker 9 (25:33):
Yeah, okay, now map counting emissions from any other livestock,
we're just talking about cattle here worldwide. That's one point
five billion cattle raised for meat production worldwide, So that
releases two hundred and thirty one billion pounds of methane
(25:54):
into the atmosphere per year.
Speaker 4 (25:58):
So take it.
Speaker 5 (25:59):
Figure out my Atlanta or something from cows that would
alleviate they just they did. I'll tell you what they
tried to do. And I've actually seen this, and David,
you can research this and we can verify it. There
was a company that was trying to get charcoal filters
that would hang over a cow's tail so that the
farts would go through this charcoal.
Speaker 4 (26:21):
And film the fart the fart. I didn't quite Why does.
Speaker 5 (26:25):
That sound like something I would come up with rather
than we're going to hang does I get a car,
we're hanging this on your mirror.
Speaker 4 (26:32):
We're hanging this on the cow's tail.
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Charcoal undies for the cow, and the.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Cow's going Is there charcoal covering my ass? What's going
on back there? What's going back?
Speaker 5 (26:39):
Does my ass look fat in the side?
Speaker 6 (26:40):
You know, I can fart and not smell it anymore?
What's happening here? I would think the thing is to
get him not to fart, like to cut down on
the sure, or to capture the fart and use it
for energy. I didn't get to asking them about partment
credits because I wonder how how that whole thing works.
But he probably doesn't. That's not a business that he
knows because it just always was.
Speaker 5 (26:58):
There anything else in your research that have to worry
about other than cows?
Speaker 9 (27:02):
Well, I'm just saying I don't know if this is
the exact thing that you're referred to, but Argentina's National
Institute of Agriculture and Technology, it came up with a
backpack for cows that would capture the cow emissions.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
It's not quite what I Yeah, where are we with that? Oh?
Speaker 5 (27:22):
It's right there with the flying car.
Speaker 4 (27:24):
Just is it neal?
Speaker 9 (27:29):
And it actually looks like a jet pack on the
back of a cow?
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Yeah, I mean it's I think.
Speaker 5 (27:34):
Its the cows are going to get the jet packs.
I'm still waiting the jet pack. And by the way,
it's negating the cow's natural jet and you want.
Speaker 6 (27:43):
Me to produce mock really this thing on my ass, David, thank.
Speaker 5 (27:47):
You, thank you, and please don't blacktap for us. You
know what, that's a very special episode. So keemp trails
nothing but kept nothing. I don't think we've changed one
person's believe you. So what's interesting The average parashooter, given
the methane problem, is probably contributing more to the problem
(28:07):
of global warming. Then you think they're farting the hallway down,
I'd be cropping the hallway. So let's stop the passion.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
You know what. I The only vision I got when we're.
Speaker 6 (28:19):
Wrapping up here is chickens somehow watching this on YouTube
going pooh, now, yeah, take care of everybody.
Speaker 4 (28:33):
Really no.
Speaker 3 (28:34):
As another episode of really no, really, he comes to
a close.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I know you're wondering, what are some other popular conspiracy
theories that have been pretty much debunked. Well, I'll burst
those bubbles in a moment, but first let's thank our guests,
Doctor Joshua Horton. You can follow doctor Horton on LinkedIn,
where he is simply Joshua Horton, or on x where
he is at Joshua Horton five three three.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Find all pertinent links in our show notes.
Speaker 2 (28:58):
Our little show hangs out on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and
threads at really.
Speaker 3 (29:03):
No Really podcasts.
Speaker 2 (29:04):
And of course you can share your thoughts and feedback
with us online.
Speaker 3 (29:07):
At reallynoreally dot com.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
If you have a really some amazing factor story that
boggles your mind, share it with us, and if we
use it, we will send you a little gift. Nothing
life changing, obviously, but it's the thought that counts. Check
out our full episodes on YouTube, hit that subscribe button
and take that bell so you're updated when we release
new videos and episodes.
Speaker 3 (29:28):
Which we do each Tuesday.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
So listen and follow us on the iHeartRadio app, Apple
podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
And now, what are some other popular conspiracy theories that.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
Have been pretty much debunked.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Well, you have a bunch of old favorites still hanging around,
like the Earth is really flat, we never landed on
the moon, Bigfoot and NeSSI the Lockness Monster still running
and swimming around out there.
Speaker 3 (29:51):
And of course President John F.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
Kennedy was killed by Cubans, the CIA, the Mafia, the
military industrial complex and pretty much anyone.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Who wasn't Lee Harvey os.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
But there are some other beauties out there that you
don't hear about as much, like the folks who believe
the European Nuclear Research Agency that discovered the Higgs Boson
particle in twenty twelve apparently created a black hole that
sucked our entire planet in. The conspiracy claims that Earth
was destroyed right then, but we just haven't realized it yet,
which is kind of a big thing to miss.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
But you never know.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
I mean, maybe we're protected by the hollow Earth theory,
which claims that what we believe is the surface of
our planet is really.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
Just a hollow shell.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Not only that, but the actual inhabited Earth is really
inside that hollow shell. And all of that, of course,
jobs very nicely with the theory that our entire reality
is actually a manufactured computer matrix that we are living in.
Speaker 3 (30:40):
And I guess we are still waiting for Neo to
get us the.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Hell out, or at least make another movie about And
while we're waiting, we can consider the conspiracy theories that
claim that the Titanic never actually sank, which is going
to be a big blow to James Cameron and that
King Charles is actually a vampire because he is in
fact related to Vladi Impaler, who was the role model
for Bramstokers.
Speaker 3 (30:59):
Dract And yeah, I guess he is kind of pale.
Maybe he is a vampire And if that's true, m
trills are the least of our problems. Really, no, really
is production of iHeartRadio and Blase Entertainment
Hosts And Creators
Peter Tilden
Jason Alexander
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com