"Und Butter unternimmt den Versuch, die kritischen Recherchen hierzu mit einer dicken Decke von Wahnhaftigkeits-Schelte zuzudecken und zu ersticken." (Seite 7) Dipl.-Psych. Klaus Schlagmann "Butter makes a try, to cover up critical researches with a thick blanket of delusionality scolding and to suffocate them." (Page 7) (translated by Denglisch)
Dipl.-Psych. Schlagmann: "Ein durchsichtiges Manöver, um mit einem kleinen Scherz von der Ungeheuerlichkeit abzulenken, die er selbst mit seinem 'Interview' begeht: Es gibt unfassbare Vorgänge im politischen Raum, belegt durch eine Fülle offensichtlicher Indizien, durch das Internet immer leichter mit eigenen Augen, Ohren und Verstand in Sekunden nachzuvollziehen, von Fachleuten durchschaut." (Seite 7) "A transparent maneuver to distract from the monstrosity which he himself is committing with his 'Interview' with a little joke: There are incomprehensible events in the political sphere, proved by an abundancy of obvious clues, through the internet always easier accountable with own eyes, ears and sense within seconds, figured out by experts." (Page 7) (translated by Denglisch)
Psychologist (Master) Klaus Schlagmann, Saarbrücken, Saarland, Germany about an interview with Prof. Dr. Michael Butter regarding the topic "conspiracy theories". Schlagmann himself relates rather to the term "conspiracy hypothesis" than to the term "conspiracy theories". Butter states that there is a fragmentation in public opinion nowadays. He does not handle the truth value of the single fragments in public opinion as he has "no time" for that. His view to these fragments is that of a perspective as a cultural scientist.
This view tries to segregate perspectives beyond the traditional scheme to a milieu of a subculture - therefore the collective term of "conspiracy theory" for all kinds of unusual interpretations of reality. The collectivation of these distinctive interpretations of reality serves the purpose which is called in sociology "stratification". Websites like "Metabunk", "Psiram" or "Esowatch" and the like have the purpose to stratify these interpretations of reality to a collective group. All these artificially constructed group members have in common that they disturb the recycling intentions of established economic interests. The purpose is to disencourage any real discussion about the truth value of these unusual perspectives, although at least parts of them are in fact real science.
Instead of it these topics are rediculized in total. There is a refusal to discuss even objective facts (for example high values of Aluminum, Barium, Titanium or Strontium in rainwater). ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=24#TestResults ) Thus, these facts don't have the chance to enter the realm of the scientific community as it is signaled to them that certain kinds of topics are tabooed and they are threatened to be psychiatrized and kicked out. ( Manuel Abegglen, MSc: PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF AIRCRAFT ENGINE EXHAUST PARTICLES http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=18158#Post18158 ) This threat of psychiatrization is real and not merely fiction as the German version of Wikipedia states itself: "Psychologisch lassen sich Verschwörungstheorien als krankhafte Paranoia deuten, wenngleich die Mehrzahl der Forscher den Anhängern von Verschwörungstheorien keine Geisteskrankheit unterstellt." https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verschwörungstheorie (Version of February 9th 2018) (("Psychologically conspiracy theories may be construed as irrational paranoia, though the majority of researchers doesn't imply a mental alienation to the proponents of conspiracy theories.") translated by Denglisch) Nevertheless, in public context the psychiatrization of proponents of certain topics is imminent as the following video broadcasted by the ZDF (TV of public law) shows:
ZDFinfo: Verschwörungstheorien - Leben im Wahn 11.12.2015 (ZDFinfo: Conspiracy theory - living in delirium - December 11th 2015, translated by Denglisch)
This Soviet strategy of exclusion is a relict of the cold war when members of the scientific community - such as Sacharov or others - were turned over to psychiatry trying to put them in line again or to quiet them down.
The background of this practice in the Soviet Union was the following: "Article 58-10 of the Stalin-era Criminal Code, 'Anti-Soviet agitation', was to a considerable degree preserved in the new 1958 RSFSR Criminal Code as Article 70 'Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'. In 1967, a weaker law, Article 190-1 'Dissemination of fabrications known to be false, which defame the Soviet political and social system', was added to the RSFSR Criminal Code. These laws were frequently applied in conjunction with the system of diagnosis for mental illness, developed by Academician Andrei Snezhnevsky. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Snezhnevsky , Denglisch) Together they established a framework within which non-standard beliefs could easily be defined as a criminal offence and the basis, subsequently, for a psychiatric diagnosis.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
After 1953, there was a systemic need for a political replacement of the Gulag-system and as Nikita Sergejewitsch Khrushchev put it in the state newspaper "Pravda" (Truth) of May 24th 1959 page 2: "A crime is deviation from generally recognized standards of behaviour frequently caused by mental disorder. Can there be diseases, nervous disorders among certain people in a Communist society? Evidently, yes. If that is so, then there will be also be offences, which are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. Of those who might start calling for opposition to Communism on this basis, we can say that clearly their mental state is not normal." Quoted after: Knapp, Martin,McDaid, David,Mossialos, Elias, Mental health policy and practice across Europe : the future direction of mental health care, Maidenhead 2007, ISBN 0-335-21468-1, 978-0-335-21468-6, page 402 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/748926629
As many abilities of the Soviet Union were put on the market after 1991 also this idea of strategic psychiatrization is used in the social engineering business of the west - not with the nowadays web meaning of "social engineering". The irony: the nowadays inclusion policy. First exclusion, then inclusion, like a module in software engineering. Of course, to lower wages.
Also, Dr. Thomas Grüter, MD, ( http://www.thomasgrueter.de/vitatg.html ) states the factual psychiatrization of proponents of so-called conspiracy theories by the media: "Grüter, so wird deutlich, betrachtet Verschwörungstheorien mit Skepsis, warnt aber zugleich vor einer Psychiatrisierung derjenigen, die eine Verschwörungstheorie vertreten, wie es mitunter in den Medien durch Journalisten vorgenommen wird." https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wa...erungsverdacht-glaubwuerdig-3395562.html "Grüter, it becomes clear, looks at conspiracy theories with skepticism, at the same time he is warning before the psychiatrization of those who are proposing a conspiracy theory, how it is being done by journalists in the media." (translated by Denglisch)
The usage of psychiatrization as a political weapon is not that far away as the statement of the German judge Rudolf Heindl shows:
But again, also this judge - living and working in the Bavarian province - had to live with the "sprachregelung" Conspiracy theory: "Rudolf Heindl hat sich durch seine Kritik an der bayerischen Justiz, wobei er auch vor Verschwörungstheorien nicht Halt machte, bis zum Schluss auch viel Ärger eingehandelt." https://n-land.de/news/lauf/rudolf-heindl "Rudolf Heindl has made with his criticism around the Bavarian judicial system himself a lot of trouble whereas he did not hesitate to use conspiracy theories for it." (translated by Denglisch) For the uninformed: Heindl was arrested himself by the police and brought to the closed psychiatric department of the local hospital where the psychiatrists refused the signature of a prepared examination paper of the state authorities in Munich.
As we know from Jack Nicholson's role this topic of legal insecurity by potential threats of getting in touch with psychiatrics is not just a German or a Soviet problem, it's a problem of relationship between the government and the individual:
Two perspective are clashing: The one side calls it conspiracy theory the other side calls it political abuse.
One may suspect that the main theoretical force of psychiatrization of the topic of "conspiracy" - at least in Germany - is coming from a psychologist with the name Sebastian Bartoschek who got his PhD by writing his thesis "Bekanntheit von und Zustimmung zu Verschwörungstheorien" ( http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/902883419 ) "Prominence of and approval to conspiracy theories" at the Westfälischen Wilhelms-University in Münster, Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany. One thing - he did - is the introduction of the concept of transliminality into the German public discussion for giving systemic amunition in public justification for the mere theorizing of conspiracies instead of their investigations. The concept of transliminality was developed by the Australian Michael Thalbournes. "High degrees of this trait have been shown by Thalbourne to be associated with increased tendency to mystical experience, greater creativity, and greater belief in the paranormal, but Thalbourne has also found evidence that transliminality may be positively correlated with psychoticism." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliminality
Psychoticism is one main center of attention of psychiatry. In fact, biologically seen you have only 0,5 % of the population which is schizophrenic. Schizophrenia includes the phenomenon of psychosis. What Andrei Snezhnevsky did in the Soviet Union was the introduction of the term "sluggish schizophrenia". "The prevalence of Snezhnevsky’s theories directly led to a broadening of the boundaries of disease such that even the mildest behavioral change could be interpreted as indication of mental disorder.[8]:40" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Snezhnevsky That way you - seen from the point of view as a government - are able to define a broader part of the populace as schizophrenic if it is politically opportune.
But you may also get psychotic when your environment is that sick that it makes you sick. This was stated in a judicial decision of the Oberlandesgericht (regional appeal court) Hamm, Northrhine-Westfalia in the year 1977 which had to deal with a person who survived Auschwitz.
When Bartoschek introduces this kind of method into the discussion of phenomenons he is not interested in disputing about the origins of the white stripes in the sky or about rain water tests, soil tests, drinking water tests, hair tests, blood tests and the like. For him these facts are fake facts ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=18144#Post18144 ) and the efforts to investigate these phenomenons are an expression of psychosis. There is not even a common discussion about the methods of these tests. There is no interest in discussing this subject with seriosity and with the chance to disprove in one way or the other the seriosity of these tests. The refusal of serious discussion says it pretty much all. And: if persons are refusing to investigate facts with the method of claiming that these facts are fake facts without proving that these facts are fake facts because they don't have enough personell capacity (Butter: "No time.") to investigate around the claimed "fake facts" why are they starting such a discussion without solid background at the first place? They themselves are basing their claims on pure belief. But a belief is not a fact.
This is obviously forgotten or by purpose of a new book "Die informierte Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde: Warum die Digitalisierung unsere Demokratie gefährdet" ("The informed society and its enemies: Why the digitalization is endangering our democracy") by Stephan Russ-Mohl. ( http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/990782280 ) The title of the book was derived from Poppers famous work "The Open Society and its enemies". This is obvious. In difference to Popper Russ-Mohls central topic is Fake News. And as we know from the documentary "Overcast" ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19497#Post19497 ) and others the official point of view by the governmental authorities is that geoengineering is actually not existing already. Therefore, any news about it would be degraded to "Fake news". Russ-Mohl obviously does not know anything about Poppers point of view accepting the existence of conspiracies. Nevertheless, he calls his book "The informed society and its enemies" negating the existence of already ongoing geoengineering by supporting the term "Fake news" which is nothing else but a battle cry. In fact, Russ-Mohl is depending on the oligopolistic structures within the media economy and is satisfying a market created by this same media economy. Therefore it can't be objective. Right now, there are one million persons in the air - every day worldwide. ( https://vimeo.com/240441628 ) The air traffic industry is strategically more powerful than the auto industry as we have seen it with the Diesel affair. Ecological Problems around this air traffic industry are tabooed as we see it with cabin air problems ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=12328#Post12328 ) or the widespread usage of air flights by voters of the green party ( http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/un...ten-rekord-bei-flugreisen-a-1002376.html ) obviously not being conscious of the contradiction in their own behaviour. This contradiction is even higher if you look to the political goal of the Greens. This goal leads to the abolition of the combustion engine in the auto industry while the voters of the Green party are still using the combustion engine of airplanes massively. And who is paying for this change from combustion engine to other kinds of drive form?
Russ-Mohl respects his economic dependency. The creation of a label with the name "Fake news" creates a structure of a ban on thinking. The propaganda around this term is strengthening this ban. The term creation has mainly the purpose to preserve economic structures of the media markets. "Journalism" is treated as a brand for protecting itself from unpleasant questions within the "freeworld". In direct dictatorships the ruler may express his view and everybody is knuckling under to him afterwards. In democracies the direct tortious interference is little bit more difficult. Instead of it there are other mechanisms to work with. The economics at the first place.
If you compare the number of people, who are asking themselves what is going on, with the worldwide average occurrence of schizophrenia within the world population one may ask him- or herself if Bartoschek himself has reached meanwhile the point of no return as a victim of exogenous psychosis as there are so many asking themselves what is going on and have therefore a different perception than he has.
In other words: journalists like Bartoschek are working unscientifically and are merely using their mainstream media might to look at these from the mainstream distinct opinions. Probably they can't act in a different way as they are not able to counter the arguments of the divergent opinion. They are just not informed enough to discuss the content what geoengineering consists of. It is energetically much easier to discredit the topic by utilization of the common media impact.
Irene Neverla - Professor for journalistic and communication at the University of Hamburg - states that journalism is a "cultural producer". (Lilienthal, Volker; Neverla, Irene; Lügenpresse, Köln 2017, page 32 ( http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1009126871 )) The culture is produced by "Agenda Setting" and "Framing".
Therefore, the claim of journalists to represent the common populace when they are doing their work is just a myth of a "public lie". THEY respective the owners of the media are selecting the topics to be dealt with in public AND they - at the same time - are doing the interpretation of the found facts of the selected topics into the cultural context.
In fact, once a professor for political science (Cologne, Germany) - Thomas Jäger ( https://www.wiso.uni-koeln.de/de/forschung/find-an-expert/experts/prof-dr-thomas-jaeger/ ) - invited to the TV-broadcaster PHOENIX (TV of public law), stated that the "public" can only stand six topics at the same time. Jäger is editor of the book "Sicherheit und Medien". ("Security and media") ( http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/465341262 ) Therefore, he looks with his description through the eyes of the security state. And if you look yourself to the reality you may confirm that Jäger is describing the reality with his analysis.
This amount of only six topics being handled with at the same time in the mass media is not really much. But this statement shows how efficient the "published opinion" is working. But who is deciding that enough is enough regarding to the number of topics dealt with at the same time?
The media represented by the journalists - whereas many of them are not journalists anymore but infotainers - decides what is on the agenda and what is not.
"Kommunikationswissenschaftlich ausgedrückt hieße dies, dass die Funktion des 'Agenda Settings' - die Themenwahl und Priorisierung bestimmter Themen - und die Funktion des 'Framings' - die Rahmen von Problemlagen und der Meinungsvermittlung - vom Journalismus unzureichend erfüllt würden." (Lilienthal, Volker; Neverla, Irena; Page 34) "Communication scientifically expressed this means that the function of the 'agenda setting' - the selection of topics and the priorization of determined topics - and the function of the 'framing' - the frame of problem situations and the opinion mediation - would be fulfilled inadequately." (Translated by Denglisch)
Quite the opposite of the claim of power by the mass media when they are telling the public that they are representing the populace by asking politician about issues as Marietta Slomka of the ZDF (TV of public law) did for example one month after the last parliamentary elections.
In reality, the mass media is not representing the populace. They are merely producing news for anonymous markets.
In this context it is of interest what Dirk Müller - Nickname: Mr. Dax (German stock exchange indice) - is telling in Minute: 16 Second: 33:
He is refering to Richard Nikolaus Graf Coudenhove-Kalergi - one of the founder of the EU - who wrote - according to Müller - that in reality we don't have a democracy but a plutocracy. If such a plutocracy is real, it is plausible that the media business is the first address of influence of the upper class.
But not only Coudenhove-Kalergi told the truth. The French Socialist Jean Monnet was publicly and openly against democratic structures for the European Union being afraid of the impossibility to unite Europe through democratic structures.
Now, we have at least 70 percent new German laws coming from undemo-cratic structures within the EU which get only democratized by rubber-stamping of the German Parliaments "Bundestag" and "Bundesrat".
For the reason of market making the psychiatrization, criminalization of the divergent opinions as extremists or the creation of news terms like "echo spaces" are serving the purpose to preserve the markets of the media industry and to keep their markets on line.
Nevertheless, there is a certain success in the effort to get a grip on the "objectification" - seen from the view of those who try to investigate the phenomenon of "Geoengineering" - of the conspiracy "problem" (as seen from the perspective of the upper class) through the mixture of single topics under an umbrella term through hierarchization. The umbrella term - in this case the term "conspiracy theory" - takes in the positive as well as the negative emotional tensions of the single topics below. You only have to include more topics with more negative emotional tensions to lower the attractivity of a determined topic.
For that reason there is now an effort to cultivate the successes of public discussion of geoengineering into a form of a mixture with other topics which are less successful in objectification of their topics to a sociological stratum of "conspiracy theorists" which is excluded from a scientific approach. This exclusion mirrors the economic reality within the scientific community as they get their money from companies and the government. The latter one is - at the same time - also dependent of the economic development and as representative of the state dependent from the stability of that same state.
Therefore the effort of the European Union to get a hand on that topic as many European countries respectively their governments have the problem of the distribution of policy-"destabilizing" unpleasant ideas. Politician as publicly known stakeholders of policies are only media workers in reality. The real work of policymaking is done by ministerial bureaucracies which are doing their job according to the motto: "We don't care who is our boss under our rule." as the example of democratically not legitimized General Secretary Martin Selmayr - grandson of the military generals Josef Selmayr und Heinz Gaedcke - shows. (Compare the article "Die Steilvorlage" of "DIE ZEIT", March 15th 2018, page 12) ( http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/879708189 ) An example for a scientific bureaucrat - who is taking "responsibility" - is given by Ulrike Niemeier of the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19880#Post19880 ). But who gave her the authority and the legal legitimization of taking "responsibility"?
As the members of the a little bit (this means that the representation of the populace within the EU is not given) more democratic European Parliament are under pressure themselves ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19154#Post19154 ) this kind of project (Michael Butter) shows that the EU-project above - Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories(COMPACT) - can be originated in the undemocratic European Council which hardly appears in public but has in reality the real power within the European Union. The single European national governments don't know how to treat the topic of Chemtrails or other realistic "Conspiracy theories" beyond the usual media channels.
And it is not by random that persons like Schipowski or Butter - both with an academic grade as or working as a "cultural scientist" - are put on the topic of "Chemtrails" professionally. Truth or not Truth is not their topic. It would be better for the truth that this question ought to be dealt with physicists who have didactic abilities for proving the untruth of the made assumptions in the sky. Instead this topic is made to be a topic of cultural hegemony. As it has to be prevented to discuss the topic by facts you achieve this goal of cultural hegemony only by cultural war. And this - in fact - is the opposite of the "Open Society" of Sir Karl Raimund Popper who invented originally the term "conspiracy theory" in the year 1945. This classification of "Geoengineering" as a topic of "cultural war" is the equivalence to its security sensitivity we have learnt from Prof. Thomas Jäger (Cologne) with his "Six-topics"-assumption.
On the one hand "Popper acknowledged that genuine conspiracies do exist,[69]" on the other hand he "argued that totalitarianism was founded on 'conspiracy theories' which drew on imaginary plots driven by paranoid scenarios predicated on tribalism, chauvinism, or racism". ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory ) The Open Society and Its Enemies Volume 2: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath" by Karl Raimund Popper (Originally published 1945) http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/864097443
In other words the aura of the great and influential thinker Karl Popper of the post-war world is being used through his terminology to fight a cultural war against dissident thinking. Popper stated: "(...) I do not wish to imply that conspiracies never happen. On the contrary, they are typical social phenomena. (...)" http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books/popper_open_society.html A typical social phenomena does not mean that it occurs often. It means out of many social phenomena there is one social phenomenon which occurs at least that often that it is being categorized. The conclusion: The real world does not consist only of conspiracies but conspiracies occur that often that they are one category in social contexts out of many and one has to take in account the possibility of a social phenomenon as a conspiracy. The categorization as a conspiracy does not say anything about the likeliness of the social phenomenon "conspiracy".
Karl Popper - A talk (1974)
Karl Popper - Das Prinzip Kritik in der Offenen Gesellschaft (Gespräch)
The assumption of the possibility of the existence of a conspiracy is similiar to the mathematical assumption of probabilities. In the assessment of situations as probable or not probable you use mathematics which give you exact results but saying at the same time that the next event in a set of equally structured possible events is only equally possible as the other equally structured possible events may occur. In reality, mathematics give you the information that you don't know nothing exactly about the future. Only the possibility that this mathematically investigated event may occur. The only truth into this insight is, that you are not allowed to say that this specifically looked at event can not happen. At least, this tiny information is an information.
Similiar the social phenomenon "conspiracy": "Conspiracies occur, it must be admitted. But the striking fact which, in spite of their occurrence, disproved the conspiracy theory is that few of these conspiracies are ultimately successful." (Karl Popper) http://lachlan.bluehaze.com.au/books/popper_open_society.html This statement of Popper is indeed interesting. It includes the opinion that many - the limit is the category "typical" - conspiracies may occur in reality. BUT not every conspiracy is successful. In fact, not even the majority of them is successful. And the number of occuring conspiracies is that high that you may tell a conspirator: "Nice try." - because conspiracies are "typical".
You need only little to recognize that "conspiring" is part of human nature. In the U.S. the state gives the "conspiracy" even an official status of being possible as the penal code knows the criminal offence of "conspiracy". ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 , https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_rights ) Therefore, the U.S.-american lawmaker - including the U.S.-President - is a "conspiracy theorist" as he or she had adopted this law. Admitting that a "conspiracy" is generally possible but will be sanctioned by society.
And as there is so much fighting by the mass media against the assumption of the existence of "conspiracies" one may suspect that there are - to the contrary - conspiracies in reality, right now. You just don't know where they are and when they are occuring. This is because of the nature of the secrecy which is inherent to every conspiracy.
It is similiar to Donald Rumsfeld's preemptive thinking in terms of terrorism: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.[1]" DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld February 12, 2002 11:30 AM EDT http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636 Ultimately, this kind of thinking comes from the treaty of Rio de Janeiro, where the foundation was laid down for the CO²-tourism for the government bureaucracies worldwide.
Such a thing like the existence of regular weather modification can only be argued for in the kind of plausible assumptions. And one plausible reason for weather modification is its military advantage.
You may compare this kind of governmental conduct of negligence of and fighting against topics with the policy of opaque atomic states ( http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/474892652 ) which are running this kind of policy for the purpose of being protected as Israels One-atomic-bomb-state goal is or India who claims its global status this way and trying to prevent an atomic arms race on the Indian subcontinent at the same time.
If there was an "opaque" policy regarding nuclear weapons why should there not be an "opaque" policy of weather modification?
Opaqueness has diverse advantages. And one or more advantages of this kind of governmental policy were the reason(s) of the opaqueness of these weather modifications or other programs.
If these assumptions are being ignored publicly you may only conclude that this ignorance is probably part of the assumed conspiracy. What else one may conclude if a rational discussion of plausible observations is being refused? The prestigious psychologist Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Eysenck had a similiar problem at his times: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19906#Post19906 And the discussion about this described phenomenon is still being refused.
Diplom-Psychologe (official title) Klaus Schlagmann with own psychotherapeutic practice - a youtube document as an impression of his person:
