Home » chemtrails » Barium Chemtrails on KSLA

Barium Chemtrails on KSLA

Brief Summary:
  • Samples of water were collected in August 2007, in Stamps Arkansas, by leaving some bowls outside for a month
  • The resultant dirty water was tested by KSLA and was found to have the same amount of barium in it as most municipal tap water.
  • The reporter misunderstood the results, and said there was a lot of Barium
  • The reporter now admits he was mistaken, and that he found no evidence for chemtrails

 

ksla-jar.jpg

Some conspiracy theorists think that persistent spreading contrails indicate some kind of deliberate aerial spraying, probably by the government. They speculate as to what could be in these trails, and one of the most common things they claim is barium.

Some people are so obsessed by this idea that they have rainwater tested to see if it has barium in it. They usually find some, and then trumpet this as evidence that their theory is correct.

Unfortunately they are wrong. I’ll explain why, but first, some basic science.

What is Barium?

Barium is a metal, like calcium. You never find it in its metal form (outside of a lab), as it oxidizes rapidly in the air. Instead you’ll find compounds, usually barium sulfate or barium carbonate. Barium compounds are used in the plastics, rubber, electronics and textile industries, in ceramic glazes and enamels, in glass-making, brick-making and paper-making, as a lubricant additive, in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, in case-hardening of steel and in the oil and gas industry as a wetting agent for drilling mud. Barium in water comes primarily from natural sources as it is present as a trace element in both igneous and sedimentary rocks. Barium is generally present in air in particulate form as a result of industrial emissions, particularly from combustion of coal and diesel oil and waste incineration.

µ and Parts Per …

When you measure the concentration of a substance in water, you can express it in various ways. You have to pay attention to units when converting from one way to another.

A liter of water weighs 1 kilogram, which is 1000 grams.

A milligram is 1/1000th (a thousandth) of a gram. 1mg = 1 milligram = 0.001g

A microgram is 1/1000000 (a millionth) of a gram. 1ug = 1µg = 1 microgram

Note that last line, because it’s important. The symbol µ is the greek letter “mu”. In measuring, it’s used to mean “micro”, or “millionth”. (To type µ, hold down the Alt key, type 230 on the numeric keypad, and then release the Alt key). Since it’s difficult to type, it’s often written using the letter “u”. Make sure you understand the difference between a milligram (mg, 1/1000th or a gram) and a microgram (µg, ug, 1/1000000th of a gram). A milligram is thousandth, not a millionth. It’s a little confusing sometimes.

A microgram is a millionth of a gram, so it’s a billionth of a kilogram. Since there are 1000 grams in a kilogram, and 1,000,000 micrograms in a gram, there are 1,000,000,000 µg in a kilogram. All this is basic high school science.

Concentration in water is measured as ppm, ppb, g/L, mg/L, µg/L. These are parts per million, parts per billion, grams per liter, milligrams per liter and micrograms per liter. We can convert between these easily:
1 ppm = 1 mg/L = 1000 ppb = 1000 µg/L
1 ppb = 1 µg/L = 0.001 ppm = 0.001 mg/L
(remember that 1 Liter is 1000 grams, so 1 mg in one liter is a thousandth of a gram in one thousand grams, or 1 part in a million).

Chemtrail claims

This video is very popular right now. Claiming that water was analyzed and found to have barium in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI

airteamimagescom.jpgThe video was taken in Stamps, Arkansas, which is not entirely surprising as that’s in a region of the US the might be renamed “Contrail Alley”. It’s at the intersection of the cross country routes between the West Coast, and the major airport in Atlanta, Orlando and Jacksonville. Stamps is midway between the two major regional VORs (Texarkana and El Dorado), right next to the major East-West airway Victor V278, and on the edge of a MOA that traffic has to skirt occasionally. It’s also directly below the Atlanta to Dallas, San Antonio to New York and Houston to Chicago flight routes. On just ONE of these routes (Atlanta to Dallas) there is a scheduled commuter flight, directly overhead, at contrail altitude every 15 minutes! The same frequency of flights is found on the Houston-Chicago route, which crosses at right angles almost exactly overhead. Hence, when the weather is right, it is inevitable that you will see contrails in a grid pattern, “a giant checkerboard”. See this Google Earth file: airlines-over-stamps.kmz

ksla-jar2.jpgBut back to the video. It shows a jar of dirty water (collected 9/1/2007), which was collected by Bill Nichols. He’s posted some comments on the YouTube video describing how he collected the water:

it was rainwater. i collected it in two separate bowls on the hood of a pickup truck in my backyard. we are 25 miles from the nearest interstate. this is a very poor county, the only industry is chickens, logging , farming, a little oil—no coal burners or anything like that. i wasn’t looking for attention. i was looking for answers, ksla said they would pay to get it tested. i dropped it off, and they asked my opinion

i put 2 clean bowls there specifically because i wanted to catch what was falling. i don’t recall exactly when i put the bowls there, but they were there for about a month before i contacted ksla. the goo that i caught was full of barium. have a cool day!

Pause for a second, and consider if you left a bowl out for the month of August in rural Arkansas, what would you expect to find in it after a month? Some dirty water? Perhaps a little dust? What’s dust made of outdoor? Dirt, dried topsoil. What would you expect to find in the dirt in Arkansas – one of the richest sources of barium in the US? You’d expect a bit of Barium – but did they actually find any more than you’d get in tap water?

This dirty water was tested, the test results are available in full here. You can also see the results in the video, at around 00:55 to 00:59. Here they are pieced together.

ksla-test-results.jpg

And just to be clear, here’s a closeup of the results, and the units:

ksla-test-results2.jpg

That’s quite straightforward right? Barium found at 68.8 µg/L. That’s 68.8 parts per billion. Now listen to the audio at that precise point (also transcribed on the KSLA web site):

“The results: a high level of barium, 6.8 parts per million (ppm), more than three times the toxic level set by the EPA”.

Immediately you can see something is wrong here. it’s 68.8, not 6.8, and it’s not parts per million, it’s parts per billion. So it’s actually 0.0688 parts per million.

And what of “three times the toxic level set by the EPA”? They are referring to the EPA Limits, as quoted by the CDC:

“The EPA has set a limit of 2.0 milligrams of barium per liter of drinking water (2.0 mg/L), which is the same as 2 ppm [parts per million].”

So the EPA limit is 2 ppm (2000 µg/L), and the tests actually found 0.0688 ppm (68.8 µg/L), just 3.4% of the allowable limit.

That limit’s not really a “toxic level” either. There’s no evidence that it would be toxic even at that level (which, remember, is 29 times higher than what was actually found). The world health organization has set a drinking water level of 7 ppm after doing studies into the health effects of barium.

Barium has always been in water

The WHO also reported on the barium levels in drinking water (meaning, from a tap, not some dirty puddle) and they found:

In a study of water supplies of cities in the USA, a median value of 43 μg/litre was reported; in 94% of all determinations, the concentrations found were below 100µg/litre (IPCS, 1990)

So the average was 43 µg/L, but most were below 100µg/L. This means the amount of Barium found in this supposed chemtrail residue was about the same as was found in the municipal water supplies in the US, back in 1990. This is pretty low, it varies with geography based on the type of rocks in the aquifer. In Tuscany, Italy, the Barium in drinking water was around 1000µg/L (1ppm), high, but still within safe limits.

The amount of barium will also vary based on the weather. Very heavy rains will leach more barium out into the groundwater. So you’d expect more barium after very rainy seasons. This is actually what you find if you look at the historical records in California (which has very uneven annual rainfall). You see spikes in barium whenever there is a wet year after a dry year. Recent years like these are 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2004 (2001 and 2003 also spiked to a lesser extent). The expected peaks were confirmed by the results of Rosalind Peterson at California Skywatch.

So what’s going on here? Chemtrail theorists are constantly claiming that “chemtrails” are made of barium, and that it’s affecting our health. But whenever water is tested, it is found to have perfectly normal levels of barium, which vary as expected based on the rainfall. In the cases where they claim it’s got an unusual amount, this is just a misunderstanding of the units and limits involved.

Yes, there is barium in the drinking water, there always has been, and always will be. Trace amounts, mostly from the environment and some industrial pollution. It’s a very small amount, and not dangerous. There is no evidence to suggest it has anything to do with “chemtrails.”

Update #1: 5/2/2009

Jeff Ferrall, the reporter in the story now says:

http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/comment-page-8/#comment-23164

Yes, I did make corrections to my first report, which originally aired almost 2-years ago now… after quickly realizing my very embarrassing mistake. I was not happy with myself. Unfortunately, the first version of my report got out to the internet before I could make the correction(s), and the wrong version is shown repeatedly.

My feeling is, and maybe you’d agree, that if such aerosol mixes were created and loaded into jets with either a separate/independent dispersal method other than the exhaust, or actually in the fuel itself… somewhere, somehow, you’d expect someone to talk. I have not heard that yet.

I also interviewed the scientist who originally patented what some believe was a precursor to so-called chemtrail technology. He’s a very kind, helpful man who could not have been more helpful. He says he knows nothing about any such conspiracy.

There’s also a mention of this story In Skeptical Enquirer magazine:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/curious_contrails_death_from_the_sky/

Update#2: 3/14/2010

More people make the same mistake.  This time someone in Austrailia, and the story was picked up by a Los Angeles environmentalist.   Again mg is confused with µg, making the results 1000 times as high:

http://www.examiner.com/x-10438-Human-Rights-Examiner~y2010m3d13-video-White-Clouds-of-Death-Aussie-exposes-geoengineered-chemtrail-contents?#comments

976 thoughts on “Barium Chemtrails on KSLA

  1. Let’s say you had to lay out the case for a jury. What would you tell them? What evidence would you present?

  2. uncommonsense says:

    I saw a magician saw a woman in half. I saw it with my own two eyes. I ask my friends and they saw it too. One need not be a rocket scientist to see that there is something deliberate in this scheme. I guess he was a murderer. Thats all the proof I need.
    ….He should plead the 5th!

  3. Dave says:

    Uncommonsense: In the old days, after the trick, the woman gets up and takes a bow. Everybody applauds.

  4. captfitch says:

    I would be convinced that it might be systematic if I could see some evidence of control but I have never seen that. I would think that I would be seeing strange routing, altitude change requests and other seemingly directed instructions. On the contrary ATC seems to be getting less and less directive- I think I’ve gotten almost all requests I’ve made recently.

  5. Raymond says:

    Hi, just want to say i love your site. We have a chemtard living in our city who likes taking water samples, i was hope you could sheed some light on them please, she’s on about the Aluminium content in the water, her tests are done in g/m^3 so grams/1000kg, the result was .058grams/m^3 so that should work out as 58u grams/L ?

    Here is her video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTaZRLbKB8o&feature=player_embedded#!

    This is her website. http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/

  6. A m^3 is a cubic meter, which is 1000 liters, or 1000 kg.

    0.058g is 58mg
    so it 58mg/1000 liters
    or 58ug/L (58 ppb)

    Aluminum is normally found in rainwater in concentrations up to 1200 ppb, and up to 269,000 ppb in ground water. So 58 is nothing to worry about. See:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ylcNOcsym3cC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=ppm+aluminum+in+rainwater

    Aluminum, of course, comprises around 7% of the earth’s crust.

  7. Raymond says:

    Thanks, i thought so. So loving your site. You have alot of patience for these tards. A friend and i started a facebook page called “Chemtrails are in your head not in the sky” just for a laugh.

  8. Raymond says:

    I posted the ppb result up on her site to find she deleted it then said this later on, I nearly split my sides loughing.

    “I had disinfo person trying to dismiss my video outrightly today by claiming that the amount found in the rainwater sample I tested is not very high for aluminium and that there is nothing to worry about. People like this need to look at the big picture presented and bear in mind that geo-engineering is not about normal aluminium, it is about NANO-SIZED particles of aluminium, as well as a host of other toxins. The evidence from overseas shows that we do have a great deal to worry about!”

    Nano sized aluminium not normal aluminium.

    Here’s her chemtard site: ” http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/new-video-why-is-aluminium-in-the-rainwater-geo-engineering-chemtrails/#comments

  9. Chemtrail Pilot says:

    Hmmm, let’s see. The Department of Energy admits “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.” http://www.asp.bnl.gov/ This is exactly what Soetoro’s science czar advocats in EcoScience. Wonder who the “theorist” is now…

  10. That’s exactly what I was talking to sovereignpatriotusa about.

    What the ASP program does is detailed on the web page. They don’t create trails. They measure the effects of aerosols created by pollution, only a small percentage of this comes from air travel. They do science.

    “aerosols” are any of a large number of types of particles suspended in the air.

    “Radiative forcing” is a scientific term, it does not mean exactly what you think it means. It’s simply a measurement.

    Nowhere is there anything to do with deliberate spraying to affect the climate. Nobody has done that yet.

  11. Tooth&Claw says:

    Uncinus,

    Though I have loved following the debate between yourself and the others, all of whom provide good arguments, I am still in the middle wondering, what is the truth?

    I wondered if you would care to watch this video of a German report about the airforce spraying the sky as part of a military exercise with the Netherlands, and then please comment. I’d like to hear you debunk the military science behind these exercises. If you can’t (and this is not meant to be an assault on your opinion and research) I will lean heavily towards the idea that we are infact suffering, perhaps as an indirect consequence of some clandestine military operations.

    Here is the link to the video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4&feature=related

    I am sure you are already aware of this incident, but you have not yet mentioned it in this debate.

  12. faithinscience says:

    I don’t mean to step on toes, but I have the answer so I’ll post it.

    http://contrailscience.com/germans-admit-they-used-duppel/

  13. faithinscience says:

    About that, I have to wonder… what makes people think that when chaff is released, it looks anything like these trails we all see in the sky. Yeah, on RADAR it looks like a trail but does anyone have any evidence that, to the naked eye, the “widespread use” (lol) of chaff looks anything like persistent contrails? I would imagine that it wouldn’t persist anywhere NEAR as long as a normal persistent contrail could last. Why would we want the enemy to see an arrow that represents our path on their RADAR?!? It’s ridiculous! The chaff is used at a specific time during combat…to confuse missiles that are locked on to them. It’s a TEMPORARY solution to a VERY specific problem. But, as usual, people have been “educated” about this subject from others who aren’t educated and all sorts of speculation and assumption becomes “fact” in the minds of some. Oh well, all anyone can do is post the truth where others are confused, and hope for the best.

  14. No toes stepped on here. I’ve tried to set up the posts here as a one stop shop for the most common points raised by the chemtrailers, so all people need to do is post the appropriate link.

  15. Tooth&Claw says:

    Uncinus,

    I have just found your piece on this video, so no need to respond! All I will say is that you don’t really ‘debunk’ the video. Focusing on a few translation errors is not a debunk. The fact remains that the military do experiment with weather, they do release chemicals into the atmosphere, and they do have high frequency ionospheric research programes that probably do coincide with the spraying. For whatever reason, reasons I don’t believe we will ever know, but it is undeniable. Yes this blog is about distinguishing the difference between contrails and chemtrails, and you spend a great deal of time trying to show people that what they think is a secret military operation to kill, poison or dumb down the population is in fact just a natural occurance from any aircraft at a specific altitude with specific atmospheric conditions.

    You have succeeded in pointing out what is from the exhaust, and what is water droplets from air flowing over the wings with two great photos that sum up your point perfectly. Congratulations, you can now stop blogging. Unless of course you also concern yourself with debunking common conspiracy theories? It’s just that you have stated already that your purpose is not to go into whether or not this is military or not, but simply to show that what people think is poison is actually harmless.

    The problem that you face is the large number of people who KNOW that the military experiment with all kinds of new technologies, technologies developed by private enterprise’s and sold onto the government. This is common knowledge. Now, telling people that they are wrong in believeing that they are being poisoned, by demonstrating what a contrail is and what a contrail is’nt, does not really re-assure them that the military has nothing to do with their poor health.

    In short, stop telling people that the military do not experiment with weather modification, and that this is not having a detramental effect on their health. Stop telling people that what they believe to be a toxic cloud is just water vapour, or an exhaust cloud, because in truth you don’t know! You can speculate, using scientific data compiled from reliable meteorlogical studies, that what people are seeing is harmless, that the military have nothing to do with it. But you do not know! Do not deny what you do not know, a fundamental scientific principle; never rule out possibilities without fully exploring all avenues.

    Have you done much research on military geoengineering programs? I have’nt either, because the military happens to be so damn secretive about their ‘black ops’ that nobody, not even congress, really knows where, or into what, they pour all those billions of dollars.

    Are you going to deny this again by stating that “exhibit A is an exhaust contrail, exhibit B is an aerodynamic contrail, therefore you are wrong, I am right, there is no ‘conspiracy'”!

  16. Focusing on a few translation errors is not a debunk.

    When the mistranslation is translating “düppel” as “chemtrails” instead of “chaff”, then actually I think it’s all the debunking you need. It’s a report on how chaff messes up the weather radar reports. That’s it.

    I’m not saying there’s no conspiracies in the world. Clearly there are.

    I’m saying there is no evidence to support this particular conspiracy theory: chemtrails.

    No OF COURSE I can’t prove that the government is not poisoning you. I also can’t prove that the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Not being able to disprove something is not the same as proving it.

    But why would you believe in something with a total absence of evidence? What is there that makes you think that the contrails you see are any different to regular contrails?

  17. captfitch says:

    They see the evidence with thier eyes. An all too common claim which, to the chemtrail believer, is all they truly need as evidence. Seeing is believing I suppose.

  18. faithinscience says:

    So, it’s a good idea to just make assumptions and believe them as fact? OK, got it.

    And who says that “the government” isn’t experimenting with weather manipulation?! Of course they are. Lots of people are! What does this have to do with the persistent contrails we all see in the sky? Nothing, as far as I can tell. These trails are simply a byproduct of aviation. Every combustion engine is putting out a trail of the exact same components as part of burning hydrocarbons…basically steam.. It’s the ambient air that determines if ANY plane will leave a trail. And that air can change in a heartbeat as far as the flight is concerned.
    Please provide ANY evidence that says anything is being intentionally “sprayed” onto us…and then provide the evidence that it comes from the trails we all see. Or, is it just easier to jump on the bandwagon with VERY circumstantial evidence? Don’t worry, I can see why some people are confused. They have taken shortcuts when learning about the subjects and now pay the price.

  19. faithinscience says:

    If anyone who reads this is a graphic artist, please get in touch with me. I need someone who can help me make a short movie that shows how our atmosphere contains different pockets of air that rise and fall and move around each other. I need to color code the different layers as well as showing the movement of air pockets THROUGH the layers…that are also colorcoded. I also need the section of the atmosphere to be rotated at an angle. Sound confusing? I know! And there is quite a bit more I need! In my mind it looks like a bag of multicolored marshmallows..But not uniform in shape like marshmallows…Irregular shapes like the pockets of air actually are, each color representing air that’s cold/dry, cold/moist, warm/dry and warm/moist and how steam, when introduced at high pressure, behaves in each of these air types. That’s the simplest way I can put it.
    It’s just so obvious that so many people have no concept of how their own atmosphere works and the way weather is influenced. They accept half-truths as fact…and RUN with them….

  20. Tooth&Claw says:

    “why would you believe in something with a total absence of evidence?”

    It’s called an hypotheses. This is how everything starts. Until there is a body of evidence it will always be a suspicion. Whats wrong with suspecting military experiments being the cause of reported ill health and the cause of some strange ‘anomalies’ (though you call them clouds – its not hard to pretend something is a cloud when it isn’t) in the sky? Whats wrong with suspecting some planes when they leave an enormous trail of cloud behind them?

    “It’s a report on how chaff messes up the weather radar reports. That’s it. ”

    It’s also a report suggesting the military may be responsible for some strange anomalies appearing in the sky. Whether or not it is directly mentioned is irrelevant. This was a TV production, therefore they will be refraining from making any direct accusation. Though I feel everybody who watches the video can see the underlying suggestion. The German military admitted it ‘could be’ the Dutch.

    “I’m saying there is no evidence to support this particular conspiracy theory: chemtrails”

    There is no evidence to absolutely disprove this theory either. Only your belief against somebody else’s. If it’s known that the military experiment with the weather, is it not feasible that they would be adding something to the atmosphere? You are asking for evidence, but one would have to write to the USAF for access to confidential scientific reports that are’nt even supposed to exist, legally. Or you would have to know somebody who is willing to break a secrecy agreement and spill the beans, but even that is not ‘evidence’.

    “But why would you believe in something with a total absence of evidence?”

    The human evolution theory was widely accepted with absolutely no scientific evidence. Over the years hominid fossils have been found could show a link between modern man and a primitive monkey type creature. Scientists argue that the complex code of genetic information just evolved by random selection, others argue the DNA is the carrier of an intelligently designed code of information that cannot evolve. My point is this, evolution has become an established fact despite it’s lack of physical evidence. Do you believe in the human evolution theory? If so, you believe in something with a lack of evidence.

    I honestly believe the vast majority of these contrails that people use as evidence to support a conspiracy theory, are in fact regular contrails. You have demonstrated that point well. But, I do not rule out the possibility that some of these contrails are actually the result of experiments, and I won’t even rule out the possibility that the military is trying to affect peoples health, the possibility this is part of a eugenics program, the possibility that this is to combat global warming etc etc etc.

    You wont rule them out based on a lack of evidence, but you wont agree that it is a possibility. Thank god you are not a scientist, there are already to many who think like this. We need more Hoffmans in the world of science.

  21. It’s called an hypotheses. This is how everything starts.

    No it is not. In science everything starts with observation. If there are observations that cannot be explained with known theories or models then hypotheses are suggested to explain them. These hypothesis are then tested by further observations and experimentation.

    But being a hypothesis does not make something science.

    Take the Loch Ness Monster. People observed things in the lake. They hypothesized that it was a monster. They discounted much more sensible explanations like floating logs or otters, because they had got a fixed idea that there was a monster.

    Similar with chemtrails. People see persistent contrails. They don’t recall seeing them before, they feel ill, so they hypothesize that the planes are spaying poison. They discount the more reasonable explanation that these are actually normal contrails, and them feeling ill is unrelated.

    Science does not accept things without evidence. Science is entirely based upon evidence. The theory of evolution came about because of the sheer weight of evidence that suggested it was true. Much like the theory of universal gravitation came about because of the observations that suggested it.

    Are you even saying anything besides “the theory cannot be ruled out”? Because if not, then that’s pretty meaningless as pretty much ALL theories cannot be ruled out. There are an infinite number of theories. You can’t rule out any of them. But what you CAN do is see how much evidence either supports or refutes them. Theories stand or fall only on their evidence.

    I’m not ruling out chemtrails, nor am I saying they are not a possibility. I’m saying that there is no evidence to support that particular theory, and a lot that suggests it is not correct.

  22. Tooth&Claw says:

    “I’m not ruling out chemtrails, nor am I saying they are not a possibility. I’m saying that there is no evidence to support that particular theory, and a lot that suggests it is not correct.”

    Fair point. It is just that you had not explained that you do not rule it out, it sounded more like you were trying to disprove the theories. But all I wanted was an assertion that it IS possible.

    “In science everything starts with observation”

    Thank you for the technical correction. In this case, the observations being the trails in the sky and ill health. The hypotheses that military opperations are affecting the human quality of life.

    “The theory of evolution came about because of the sheer weight of evidence that suggested it was true”

    No it didn’t. The theory came about because of a few mens observations, and succeeding interpretations. What they observed was the connection all living things have with each other. Their evidence was their experience, and their notes and drawings. But it was one man who is largely responsible for the theory, you know, Darwin. This ‘weight of evidence’ has come about in the last 50 years or so. When the ‘hypotheses’ was first put forward there was NO evidence to suggest that it is true.

    “Science does not accept things without evidence.”

    Only the evolution theory! Dawkins called the human evolution theory “an established fact”, based on partial fossil remains, molecular similarities, a family tree postulating the course of change, and geographical variation. The problem is that all of that evidence is soundly disputed. Further, there is such an abundance of evidence supporting the theory because it is the commonly accepted one! Try applying for a grant to explore the hypotheses of an intelligent designer as the source of genetic information. Unless you have private backing by a religious organization (which instantly brings a stigma to your name, as a scientist) you will never have the funds to provide any scientific information showing the evolution may not be as much of a ‘fact’ as we think it is.

    Sorry to go on about evolution on a blog about contrails! It’s just that I wanted to show that science is not always right. A weight of evidence does not necessarily mean a more accurate theory, but rather mirrors the general thinking of society as a whole.

    NB. appologies for the last paragraph in my last post for being abrupt and of a tone inappropriate for this discussion…. and any discussion!

  23. David says:

    Somebody forwarded me this video … unsolicited. I apologize if it’s already been discussed, but I’d appreciate your thoughts on it …. Thanks!
    http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/899.html

  24. Sorry to go on about evolution on a blog about contrails! It’s just that I wanted to show that science is not always right. A weight of evidence does not necessarily mean a more accurate theory, but rather mirrors the general thinking of society as a whole.

    Science is almost always wrong. Newton’s theory of gravitation was wrong (well, not entirely accurate), but it was the theory that best fit the facts.

    Science provides models of the world that best fit our observations and measurements of the world. As new evidence arises that cannon be explained by existing models, then new models are often required. Newton’s theory was found to be lacking when observations of the movements of planets did not match it. Hence a new theory of relativity was created to match what was actually observed. This theory too may be shown in time to only be an approximation.

    Now science works best when the hypotheses are testable. There has to be some actual consequence of the hypotheses. Otherwise you might as well be saying “contrails are the trails of angels scraping the vault of heaven”. It’s a pointless hypothesis.

    Do you actually think there is ANY evidence to support your hypothesis? What is that evidence?

  25. SR1419 says:

    This vid was discussed a little toward the end of this thread:

    http://contrailscience.com/chemtrails-the-best-evidence/#comment-48562

    it is also discussed here:

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread595196/pg1

  26. SR1419 says:

    Ahh Uni- you are quick! Nice new article.

  27. faithinscience says:

    “Do you actually think there is ANY evidence to support your hypothesis? What is that evidence?”

    We ask and ask…But, it never comes. I think that there is a huge disagreement about what counts as evidence. Some say that a general suspicion is all that matters. Sorry, I require a bit more!

  28. Yeah, I wanted to get something up to point people to, so it’s a bit sparse. If you know of additional videos, then let me know and I’ll add them. It’s good to have everything in one place.

  29. SR1419 says:

    look out Uni- they are gunning for you- check out his comments:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ChemtrailConnection#p/a/u/1/gYuma0VHiFk

  30. Did you mean his other video, where he “debunks” my first post?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ChemtrailConnection#p/u/3/YHIs4O6iJLM

    Why must people pult long textual explanations in video? Ten minutes to present something that could be done in two, and then it’s very difficult to go back and look at individual statements. Arguing by video seems to be a common technique in those promoting pseudoscience.

  31. SR1419 says:

    Actually, I was referring to his comment on his channel where he states:

    “Also we are in the middle of a massive rebuttal to contrailscience.com, in which we go into detail on every article and explain its misinformation one step at a time.”

    This ought to be good 🙂

  32. Aha, so that video was step 1 of 60. Seems like he said everything I said was true, but either not relevant, or possibly fake. He was not entirely clear why.

    I think he’ll end up de-convincing himself if he keeps going.

  33. faithinscience says:

    “This ought to be good :)”

    I can’t wait!

  34. Tooth&Claw says:

    “Science is almost always wrong. Newton’s theory of gravitation was wrong (well, not entirely accurate), but it was the theory that best fit the facts.”

    Science is only wrong in the absence of factual information that verifies the conclusion. In other words, without proof the conclusion, and the evidence used to form that conclusion, is speculative. Science is not wrong about the chemical composition of water, or the compounds in tree blossom, or the double helix structure of our DNA, or the movements of the planets, or the function of our lungs because it has been proven, with proof. Science has turned hypotheses into theory, into fact. I always thought this was the purpose, to learn more about the world and increase knowledge and therefore awareness.

    “it was the theory that best fit the fact” – with respect to the contrail conspiracy, considering the total lack of proof on either side of the argument, there is no fact to fit the theory. Just the hypotheses, that you have heard over and over. You keep asking for evidence, people give you their evidence: their personal accounts, photos and videos. What they lack is proof to support their conclusion (formed based on their evidence). But you also lack proof to support your conclusion that what they think they experience is not actually what they are experiencing.

    “Do you actually think there is ANY evidence to support your hypothesis? What is that evidence?”

    If what you want is evidence in the way of military scientific reports, or photos of military planes filling up with poison, you will never see it because nobody has it. You know this, but you keep asking for it, almost like you are re-affirming your position as ‘right’. Further, I am undecided on this issue. I have no hypothesis to propose to you. I am open. One thing I will not do is rebuke people’s experiences based on simple science. On the premise that because I can explain how contrails are formed, how they behave, and what they are, I know for a fact that EVERY SINGLE contrail seen in the sky is nothing more than that, a contrail. Experience is observation, if MIT are willing to fund a study into these observations I am sure you and I could sift through alot more data that would shed alot more light into this. Unfortunatly, that would never happen: a) they would’nt buy the idea b) they would’nt be allowed even if they wanted to.

    People cannot provide you with scientific data to support their hypotheses, you would have to ask the USAF for that information… good luck with it!

  35. You know, it’s not really about the theory. It’s about the evidence. People keep coming up with what they consider evidence, and I point out that flaws in that evidence. Usually I do this by demonstrating that the evidence is incorrect, or better explained by a simpler theory.

    Now I understand that in an abstract sense you are arguing: “we can’t discount the chemtrail theory, because it might be true”, and that’s fine.

    But the bulk of what I discuss on this site does not hinge on if some abstract and ill-defined theory is technically correct or not, but on the simple fact the the evidence proffered to support various versions of the theory is quite plainly NOT correct.

    So feel free to keep your unknowable hypotheticals in limbo status. Let me know if you want to actually discuss some evidence.

  36. Tooth&Claw says:

    Dyn-O-gel

  37. Ross M says:

    ice-supersaturation

  38. I see your Dyn-O-Gel and raise you Silver oxide.

    What’s your point? That there exists a cloud seeding product that supposedly can defuse storms, and looks nothing like a contrail? The company behind which has now gone bankrupt because it did not work, and was probably a investor scam all along?

    What is that evidence of, exactly? That people do weather modification? Everyone knows they do. Lots of companies are involved in it. It’s not a secret.

  39. captfitch says:

    Tooth&claw- why don’t you look into a product called Prist. That’ll blow your mind. Or how about the systems on many new jets which “weep” a substance from the leading edge of the wings?

    The thing is- there are many, many things in aviation that are confusing and look sinister at first glance but when you become educated about them it turns out to be nothing.

  40. Tooth&Claw says:

    “I see your Dyn-O-Gel and raise you Silver oxide.”

    Hahaha I have to say I am all out. Your silver oxide does my dyn-o-gel. No point really, nothing you don’t already know. Just that companies spray the sky with substances, as you admitted, and so do the military, probably, as we won’t know until they find something better. But as you are only interested in scrutinizing photo’s of apparent chemtrails, I will leave it at this.

    Good job with the web site, I have learned alot today, thank you.

  41. Tooth&Claw says:

    captfitch – Prist? A microbiostat fuel additive for aircraft. Thanks for the link, it was… mind blowing.

    “there are many, many things in aviation that are confusing and look sinister at first glance but when you become educated about them it turns out to be nothing.”

    Are you talking about UFO’s? Really I can’t think of much in aviation that has appeared sinister. There have been things that appeared to be nothing but after some education turned out to be suspicious, yes. I recommend looking into lysergic acid diethylamide, THAT will blow your mind.

    Regards to you and Prist.

  42. captfitch says:

    I don’t get it- here I am, admitting that I frequently request or deny an extra ingredient be added to my jet fuel and you easily brush it off? Frankly, if someone were to tell me tomorrow that yes, chemtrails are real and Prist is the culprit I might actually believe them. It’s the ONLY possible thing that even remotely fits into the chemtrail picture. None of us really know what it is except its dangerous as hell- is an anti-microbial (maybe?) is an anti-icing agent (maybe) and you can have it added or not added without any questions. But whatever, I think you’re generally more interested in arguing about the argument then actually discussing semantics and specifics but I also think that without some specifics we could all be here a very long time trying to prove our general positions.

  43. faithinscience says:

    Isn’t the jet fuel in the jet fuel is more harmful than any additive.

  44. captfitch says:

    Probably but at least we know what’s in the jet fuel- additives could be anything.

  45. JazzRoc says:

    faithinscience:

    Isn’t the jet fuel in the jet fuel more harmful than any additive?

    Toxicologic Assessment of Jet-Propulsion Fuel 8 (2003)
    Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST)

    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10578&page=7

    Conclusions: JP-8 was found to be potentially toxic to the immune system, respiratory tract, and nervous system at exposure concentrations near the interim PEL of 350 mg/m3. Those toxicities are summarized below.
    Immune System: Inhalation exposure of mice to JP-8 aerosols at a concentration of 100 mg/m3 for 1 hr/day for 7 days led to decreased cellularity of the thymus; exposure at 500 mg/m3 for 1 hr/day for 7 days led to decreased spleen weight and cellularity; and exposure at 1,000 mg/m3 for 1 hr/day for 7 days led to decreased ability of spleen cells to mediate several immune responses. The subcommittee reviewed the methods used to generate the exposure atmospheres in the studies using JP-8 aerosols and suspects that the total JP-8 concentrations in the atmosphere may have been underreported.
    Respiratory Tract: Animal studies conducted in rats and mice suggest that mixtures of JP-8 vapors and aerosols can result in pulmonary inflammation and alterations in pulmonary functions; such effects have been reported in mice exposed at concentrations as low as 50 mg/m3 for 1 hr per day for 7 days. As in the immune-system studies described above, the subcommittee suspects that the JP-8 concentrations in these studies may have been underreported.
    Nervous System: The findings provide further indication that the interim PEL of 350 mg/m3 might be too high to be protective of human health.
    Cancer: The carcinogenicity of JP-8 has not been investigated in epidemiologic studies or in chronic lifetime inhalation-exposure studies in experimental animals. Ninety-day continuous inhalation-exposure studies of JP-5 have been conducted in mice exposed at a concentration of 750 mg/m3, and no increase in the incidence of tumors was observed. The carcinogenicity data available on mixtures similar to JP-8 (such as other jet fuels and middle distillates) indicate that most of these materials induce skin tumors in mice when topically applied in excessive amounts and under conditions of excessive skin irritation.
    Other Toxicity End Points: The subcommittee further concludes that in addition to inhalation exposures, the potential exists for a substantial contribution to the overall JP-8 exposure by the dermal route, including mucous membranes and the eyes, either by contact with vapors and aerosols or by direct skin contact with JP-8. It should be noted that earlier this year, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists proposed a Threshold Limit Value for kerosene and jet fuels, as a total hydrocarbon vapor, of 200 mg/m3.2 Also, ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., has set an occupational exposure level of 5 mg/m3 for kerosene and middle distillate fuel aerosols.
    Recommendations: The subcommittee strongly recommends that a battery of inhalation-toxicity tests in experimental animals be conducted with JP-8 vapors and mixtures of vapors and aerosols. The lifetime carcinogenicity of JP-8 has not been studied.

    Yes.

    But not after it is BURNT.

  46. ruffneck says:

    Its just a test no worries side effects are limited. In the oilfield we are required to posses a H2S ticket, hydrogen sulfide is a very effective killer. I have asked instructors if there has been tests conducted for long term exposure of small amounts over a long period of time, it appears that we are the lab rats and always will be.

  47. faithinscience says:

    I hypothesize that clouds are made of milk because they are white. Prove me wrong…please!

    ” My point is this, evolution has become an established fact despite it’s lack of physical evidence.”

    BULLSHIT! There is more than enough evidence to prove evolution. Where did YOU learn about the subject?! Answersingenisis.com?! Wow, it’s amazing what people will believe!

  48. JazzRoc says:

    ruffneck:

    “we are the lab rats and always will be”

    H2S (hydrogen sulfide) may be new to you but has been known for hundreds of years.
    Our school chemmy lab always reeked of the Kipps Apparatus, even though it was drained and standing within a fume cupboard.
    The truth of it is that if you can smell it, then the concentration in air isn’t dangerous. It’s when your nose is overwhelmed by it, and yu can no longer smell it that it is dangerous.
    Because it has a smell it is less dangerous than carbon monoxide, which is equally poisonous (and for similar reasons), but has no smell at all.
    In air, sunlight and moisture, hydrogen sulfide will oxidize to hydrosulfurous acid in a short space of time. It is found in nature venting from volcanoes and mudpools, and anaerobic conditions in swamps and sewers.
    Stop thinking you’re a lab rat. 🙂

  49. Richard Lefew says:

    I cannot believe I found this site. The idea that someone, or some group is so incredibly worried that people may be misidentifying contrails, or Chemtrails, that they would set up their own site, to correct, this incorrect thinking…is totally bizarre!

    If there wasn’t something to hide, why all the fuss? Just forget about those people taking rain samples. There not going to find anything anyhow. Why waist the time and the money creating this website? Does it really bother you that some people believe that there are certain programs by governments and NGO’s aimed at affecting the weather, and the use of atmospheric aerosols may be involved?

    Everyone on this site knows that there is no such thing as Geo-Engineering. The military would never dream of doing anything that might affect the weather, and billionaire industrialist/philanthropist would never invest in any new technology to try to mitigate global warming.

    To think you can cause rain by something called “cloud seeding”, the whole idea is ridiculous. It’s never happened. I totally agree.

    Meanwhile, in the real world. Who is paying for this site? NASA? DARPA…Just curious

    Nobody, I Don’t care how big a computer nerd would take an interest in this subject, or trying to debunk Geo-Engineering as a real concept. For heavens sake, you can go to one of their conventions. They just had one here in San Diego…and guess what they (Guys like Ken Caldera) talked about the whole time? . . . well, it’s that thing you say doesn’t exist, and is just a normal contrail.

  50. Artyom says:

    So in your mind, weather modification justisfies your belief in “Chemtrails”. I don’t remember anyone here denying Weather Modification. Chemtrail believers just use this as indirect association to justify Chemtrails existing even though a contrail and cloud seeding are two different things. The talk about geoengineering at forums is also enough? And then to insinuated that a man’s personal site is linked to a government agency? Such delirium. So Chemtrails is a secret operation, yet they hold an open forum to discuss chemtrails? So it isn’t secret, but they never mention using all the passenger jets as means of attempting geoengineering which would make everyone who holds jobs with airline industry aware of such a program. Nobody takes interest in this? Obviously you take interest in it or you wouldn’t be talking about the San Diego forum and the contents. NERD…… lol ))))

  51. faithinscience says:

    I believe this site exists to help educate those who are woefully misinformed, about aviation and/or basic (VERY simple) atmospheric science, understand that their “beliefs” are WRONG! For you to suggest that someone has to fund this site and it couldn’t be made by someone who has an interest in these subjects, is VERY telling about YOU. You invent a scenario in your head and post it as truth. Too funny! If I knew how to make a website, I would make one just like this one, but would ALSO allow freedom of speech. You should thank Uncinus for taking his OWN time to post the facts about “chemtrails”. No one else seems to care about the truth in this matter. Paranoid speculation and a lack of education, in the specific subjects that explain the lines in the sky, seems to be the “norm” in the chemtrail believer community. This site just serves as a beacon of truth in a sea of paranoid speculation and uneducated assumption. If one “believes” in “chemtrails”, they haven’t researched the subject properly. That is a fact.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Regarding “If there wasn’t something to hide, why all the fuss?”

    There are lots of people debunking the Cottingley Fairies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies). Does that mean that the fairies must in fact exist?

  53. ruffneck says:

    I take interest in this subject, because of geo-engineering,aerosol campaigns, agent orange, mustard gas, napalm, corexit and all other chemicals deployed by aircraft. I dont remember having a debate on modifying my weather, so I thought maybe if I do enough research I may be able to see this one coming. Very influential people are talking about it, then its probably happening, since i am not in the loop, how would I know. If only we dropped as much food on people as we do all this poison.

  54. faithinscience, the easiest way to make a web site like this is to use wordpress.com. You can literally have a site up and running, with your first post, and photos, in under 2 minutes:

    http://en.wordpress.com/signup/

    For example, I just made this site for fun (actually it took me 15 minutes due to rambling, but still….)

    http://uncinuscience.wordpress.com/

  55. thefactsmatter says:

    Thanks. It took no time at all. Now all I have to do is “borrow” all the content from your site.

    🙂

    http://thefactsmatter.wordpress.com

  56. Borrow away! Maybe stick a link back here occasionally though 🙂

    Protips: on the dashboard http://thefactsmatter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/index.php the sections you’ll use most are: Posts (for creating new posts), Comments (moderating comments, removing spam, stc.) , Appearance (changing the look and feel like that sunset graphic, adding Widgets in the sidebar), and Settings (changing things like the comment settings which are under Settings -> Discussion).

  57. Rob says:

    Govt does more than we’ll ever know

  58. Sure, but does it do THIS? That’s the question. Where’s the evidence, other than “the Government are evil and powerful”.

  59. Rob says:

    The funniest thing here is people finding it unbelievable and laughable that governments would do thi to their populations. There is already evidence if has been done.

  60. It being unbelievable is not the issue. Name one piece of evidence that is is actually happening.

  61. Rob says:

    You could be right that it is not doing this, but there are admissions by the MoD in the UK that they sprayed large parts if the population with chemicals that could cause minor health issues, however, some areas experienced side effects that could not be described as minor. It may have been alludedto in thus chain (I’ve read for a long time and not got past Oct 2008, so eventually gave up and came to the bottom of the chain. Guardian newspaper had an article about it, but you know, very, very few here in the UK know about it. How weird is that. Something that scary, even reported about, yet hardly anyone knows. We are all pretty much a cross between sheep and ostriches, aren’t we ?
    New

  62. The MoD tests were to check for dispersion of biological weapons. They used things they thought were essentially inert, but found later might cause some health problems in some people. The majority of the tests were done at ground level.

    So what’s that got to do with chemtrails?

  63. SR1419 says:

    “large parts of the population” ??

    Can you quantify that statement or is it merely hyperbole for emotional effect?

    According to the Guardian article, it was a limited number of tests spread out over years with only 2 via aircraft…and done in relatively remote locations that would indicate a rather small percentage of the population (less than 1% ?? ) were affected.

    …and yet, as Unicinus pointed out – how do these tests bring evidence to bear that every persistent trail one sees in the sky is really a “sprayed” “chemtrail” and not a persistent contrail?

  64. Rob says:

    These replies, sadly (especially after two years appearing – on the whole, successfully – to be scientifically objective), demonstrate an entrenched partisan position. At the risk of appearing rude, a little intelligence would recognise a principle.

    Please read again what I posted. Think about what happened.
    Read both of your responses. Then think again.

    I do no think there will be any need for me to elaborate, but that will depend on your response(s).

  65. Why don’t you just tell us what you think the “principle” is? If you think I’m wrong, then just clearly say where I am wrong, and why. Don’t play semantic games.

  66. Rob says:

    You sound unusually rattled, like you are on the ropes, and I take no pleasure in delivering the sucker punch, but on four occasions planes took part in an experiment by the ministry of defence where the city of Norwich was sprayed with a substance known as “Silicon treated FP”, which is claimed to be “innocuous in the concentration which were expected to occur on the ground.

    For SR1419, is that enough ‘population’ for you? Also, Hyperbole? What vocabulary could possibly be used to describe such an event that it could be classed as hyperbolic?

    And Uncinus, from your dirigible response last time (“only two planes” and “used things they thought inert”) tell me this: as a pilot, if you were asked to drop ‘what we think are harmless chemicals’ on a city if men, women, children, babies, I’ll and elderly, would you do it?

    In trying to offer explanations for such a dastardly deed in the pursuit of winning an argument that you had all but won, you make yourselves look desperate. Yes you’re correct, most contrails are just that, yes you proved it, bravo, but here is real proof that some are indeed chemtrails and denying their existence was one thing, but to belittle the proof when it is given makes you smaller as men.

  67. Two secret but essentially harmless trails? Thirty years ago? Not even resembling what people now call “chemtrails”? You might as well say that cloud seeding or crop spraying is proof of chemtrails.

    Nobody denies what the MoD did. But apart from that, what are you suggesting is happening now?

    You know, “they” spray slightly toxic chemicals over people all the time, every year?

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/08/04/state_to_begin_aerial_mosquito_spraying_over_se_mass/

    http://sanfrancisco.about.com/od/greenliving/a/stopaerialspray.htm

    Here’s some video of an “actual chemtrail”, which has never been any kind of secret.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQfwxJ5ih0M&feature=related

    Nobody denies these things, but you seem to suggest that something else is happening. What exactly are you claiming? And what is your evidence?

  68. SR1419 says:

    Yes, of course, result to ad hominem attacks when all else fails. Does that make you larger?

    I simply asked to you to quantify your subjective assertion. It does appear that a significant portion of the population was effected. I certainly didn’t offer an explanation for such a “dastardly deed”.

    The fact that the UK gov did these tests over 40yrs ago is not “real proof” that what some people claim are “chemtrails” today really are “chemtrails”.

    Did these tests leave persistent trails? Were the agents released at 30k+ feet? Were they identified incorrectly as contrails?

    No one is denying that these tests happened- simply that seeing a persistent trail in the sky is not evidence of similar tests given the nature of the physics of the atmosphere.

    The gov is bad, the gov does bad things…that still doesn’t change the fact that there is no evidence that what people think are “chemtrails” are anything more than persistent contrails.

  69. Kamran says:

    Rob, you are completely right about everything except for the delivery system. Atmospheric delivery of pathogens is random and chaotic, not to the governments liking. Modifications to a “spraying schedule” in order to achieve different results or cause different patterns of exposure are difficult to predict and execute.

    Do not get me wrong the government is poisoning us, but it is not using planes to do it. Think about it; what has the media told us to worship from our childhoods? What does the government have complete control over the manufacture of? And what is every one of us dependent on? Our money! We are in contact with these pieces of paper everyday. This is where the poison is coming from; either causing or aggravating everything from the common cold to cancer.

    But fear not, for there is a solution. Myself and several other patriots have figured out the secret of the governments bio-radiation treatment. We are able to have a success rate for sanitation of contaminated currency that approaches 90%. The other 10% appear to be resistant strains that would require more research to evaluate treatments.

    Be careful, this information isn’t freely available; the government has shut down nearly all sites that directly reference this phenomenon. That’s how you know it’s true.

  70. captfitch says:

    Kamran- I’m intrigued by your system of decontamination. I would like to compare it to my own system. Can you please send me a large sample of bills to test. For accurate data I will need approximately 100 samples of each denomination of bill from ones to one-hundreds. I will test them and then send them back to you.

  71. Kamran says:

    Captfitch- The contaminated bills that my process cannot sanitize? Alright, but be careful, the strain as undergone an extensive waveform mutation that is difficult to combat. Or do you want to see bills that I think are likely clean, but may still have Heinkel-Fawkes residue that is unable to be detected by my instruments?

  72. TRUTHTIME says:

    THEY WERE SPRAYING TODAY OVER CENTRAL INDIANA. THEY WOULD NOT BE LEAVING ANY CONTRAIL, AT ALL, THEN THEY TURN THE SPRAYERS ON FOR SHORT BURSTS, THEN BACK OFF, IT WAS BLATANT AS HELL. A VIDEO CAMERA IS GONNA BE PURCHASED, THOUGH THE TRUTH IS, IT SEEMS, THE MASSES ARE SO DOPED AND DUPED , THAT THEY ARE CONVINCED, THAT THEY DO NOT EVEN CARE . ITS INCREDIBLE.

    I NOTICE THEY SPRAY AHEAD OF CLOUD BANS COMING THRU. ITS THERE USUAL AGENDA, THOUGH I AM SURE THEY HAVE OTHER FACTORS THAT THEY CONSIDER.

    THE PROBLEM IS THE JONESTOWN SCENARIO. WHOEVER IS PARTICIPATING IN THESE CHEMTRAILS, AND THE SPRAYING, ARE LIKELY TRUSTING THAT THE STUFF IS GENERALLY HARMLESS, AND OVERTIME , CONVINCE OTHER PILOTS THE SAME THING, EXPANDING THE PROGRAM. YET, LIKE BEING SERVED KOOLAID EVERY SUNDAY, ONE SUNDAY THE PITCHER COULD GET SPIKED, AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER JONESTOWN , MULTIPLIED BY THE THOUSANDS, OR EVEN MILLIONS.

    LETS TRY TO REALIZE, THIS IS REAL, THEY ARE SPRAYING SOMETHING.

  73. Jimmy says:

    Truthtime – you really don’t have to shout.

  74. JazzRoc says:

    Truthtime:

    LIES in CAPS

    Well, fancy that! 🙂

  75. Louah says:

    H.R 2977 107 Congress Look it up

  76. Artyom says:

    @ Louah

    Study the Legislative Process, then the facts in the article Uncinus posted makes even more sense because you’ll understand how bills are written, brought to floor (comittee), modified, and passed. It was a bill to prevent the militarization of space. Bush later went on to state space is a US domain. Then after that China shot down an old satellite, followed by a US attempt by an aircraft based missile. These things were exactly what the language of the bill were meant to prevent.

  77. TheFactsMatter says:

    Just a little tidbit of funny for ya! There was this guy on youtube who went on and on about barium in the trails. He said he would see them all the time while he was working on an oil rig. The funny thing is, he was exposed to more barium because he’s an oil worker than he’d be exposed to in a billion years of sucking “chemtrail fallout”. Well, I found it funny anyway… It’s interesting how people are so unaware of what they are being exposed to on a regular basis while living their rather ordinary lives.

    Make-up, cleaners, solvents, art supplies, electronics, building materials, and so on and on contain more chemicals than these people can imagine! Not to mention all the sources of combustion that can be found everywhere. I see people who complain about respiratory illness, and smoke like chimneys…and blame “chemtrails” for their ills.

    It’s just so sad that people ignore actual reason for concern in favor of myth and assumption.

  78. cowboygirl says:

    Good grief evidence shows its been going on here since the 40s China is doing it, the Soviets are doing it, everyone is doing it. There are companies all over the world advertizing success doing it. Now with all the global warming hysteria and the money now available to combat it these projects are everywhere.

    http://weathermodification.com/cloud-seeding.php
    http://www.weathermodification.org/
    http://www.rense.com/general67/weather.htm
    http://www.rbs2.com/w2.htm

  79. captfitch says:

    But they ARE NOT doing it from the back of a 737!!!

  80. SR1419 says:

    Cloud seeding is not the same as supposed “chemtrails”

    Cloud seeding is not done at high altitude via jet aircraft, doesn’t result in persistent contrails and isn’t secret!

    Why are you confusing the myth of “chemtrails” and the reality of cloud seeding?

  81. Tempus Mutantis says:

    I have seen the first jets in my country, and followed the development till today;there were some questions of the effect on the Ozone-layer from the con-trail-exhausts in the 50ties already(con-trails are also polluting). So one would think that better and less polluting fuels might have been developed – as in all other fields. Instead jets began to pollute tremendously much more than ever before. As no authorities have been willing to as much as ansering questions from the public for more than a decade and totally ignored all such,it is natural that humans sense there is something being hidden from us. When we have the sprays analysed we see a very long list of chemicals that are dangerous for biological beings (men,animal,plant) , particularly in combination with the many poisons in the water,food,medicines,plastics,Corexits,etc. The sum total is what is dangerous. Why have the fuel for air-planes -if that is your argument- not been developed so it is better than 50 years ago?

  82. Tempus Mutantis says:

    Persistent con-trails??? So what makes them peristent? What’s the difference? It is not enough to invent a new word without explaining its content. Otherwise its just some more double-think and Hegelian crash of logic.

  83. Artyom says:

    Hegelian? *Palm-Face*….

  84. Mr. Suntour says:

    @ Tempus Mutantis – “Persistent con-trails??? So what makes them peristent? What’s the difference? It is not enough to invent a new word without explaining its content.”
    —————————————————————————

    I hope you aren’t serious…have you even thought about googling “persistent contrail”? Did you read anything on this site? Ugh, the intellectual laziness of people these days continues to astound me.

  85. Ross M says:

    @ Tempus Mutantis: The difference is that the so-called persistent contrails have been formed where the relative humidity with respect to ice is greater than 100%. Ice-supersaturated. That is what is means. It also means that the ice in the contrail cannot evaporate. The air is already ice saturated. So the contrail persists. It’s not a fancy made-up new word. A contrail that persists is a persistent contrail.

  86. TheFactsMatter says:

    “It is not enough to invent a new word without explaining its content.”

    Persistent contrails are nothing new to those who have studied these subjects. I’m not surprised that the term is new to YOU though. Why do you people even TRY to discuss this subject…EVER…if you don’t even know the vernacular?!

  87. Interestingly some in the chemtrail community have co-opted the language, and started referring to what they used to call “chemtrails” as “persistent jet contrails” – but still claiming they somehow deliberate “geoengineering schemes”, the “PJC Program”

    http://www.californiaskywatch.com/content/welcome-bonnefire-coalition

    It’s like “chemtrails lite”

  88. SR1419 says:

    Tempus-

    as folks have pointed out…its not a new word or jargon-its been used for decades- as this paper from 1972 suggests:

    http://tinyurl.com/3828jfj

    Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail
    R.G. Knollenberg
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
    Volume 29, Issue 7 (October 1972)

    “It is often observed that contrails spread considerably…Under favorable conditions, a lateral spread of kilometers is observed…If sufficient air traffic exists, an entire overcast of contrail cirrus may develop and persist for hours with rapid growth in the ice budget of individual contrails.”

    Another term you want want to research is “contrail cirrus”.

  89. Uncinus, have have spent many hours reading this thread and feel better for it. I have received a true education. My viewpoints have not been altered by arguments (rational or otherwise) and I will always fall on the side of scientific method and evidence.

    The true education has come from your grace, eloquence and demenour in your explainations and the help you have offered folks to search out hard facts to support their claims scientifically. You have treated folks with dignity and been honest whilst staying true to your own reserarch and evidence.

    I have admired this greatly throughout, and cower to your patience and dedication.

    Well done, Sir.

    Take Care….Basil Fishcakes.

  90. bobby says:

    i like elements and stuff this website isn’t good at all hahahahahaha

  91. TheFactsMatter says:

    Written by bobby on November 5, 2010.

    “i like elements and stuff this”

    Me too!

  92. JazzRoc says:

    Tempus Mutandis:

    So one would think that better and less polluting fuels might have been developed – as in all other fields. Instead jets began to pollute tremendously much more than ever before.

    This is all the REVERSE of the truth.
    Kerosine (decane), as fractionated from petroleum, is the epitome of a liquid fuel, combining the greatest degree of safety, production efficiency, and energy density possible.
    Furthermore, the modern turbofans are the most efficient combustion engines the world has seen so far.
    True, a compromise has been made between production cost and sulfur retention which allows a few million tons of sulfur dioxide to be released into the stratosphere each year, and these super-efficient turbofans are doing the releasing, but 96% of atmospheric SO2 has arrived by other means.
    So you are entirely wrong – yet right – these machines are doing damage – BECAUSE of their high efficiency, and not because the industry is in any way slack or inefficient.

  93. JazzRoc says:

    I might point out, Tempus, that the compromise was someone’s POLITICAL decision.
    I believe that as Ozone Hole conditions will WORSEN as a consequence, forcing a change in the value of removing that sulfur, and it will be removed.
    It’s a pity it wasn’t removed anyway. We should always pay the true costs for what we get.

  94. This post pointed out errors in a local TV report that unintentionally exaggerated the barium levels in rainwater. The reporter acknowledged the error. The barium levels were actually normal. That’s it! End of story. But the comments show that such a conclusion is never acceptable to chemtrail believers. They ignore the findings here. Instead, they change the subject and re-litigate (if you will) every allegation in their arsenal, no matter how many times these have been disproved in the past.
    The chemtrailers are quite simply dishonest — perhaps insane.

  95. Or just very reluctant to admit they were wrong.

  96. Stryker says:

    Could someone please explain to me a few things I have noticed of these alleged “con” or “chem” trails??
    1) Some so called contrails start and stop at seemingly deliberate areas! I have observed this myself ( sometimes leaving a trail for one kilometer and then stopping), and it certainly gives the impression that it is a deliberate act! Why does this happen??
    2) I have heard both altitude and humidity mentioned as factors which may affect the pattern and dispersal of these trails, however, this is clearly not the case in Newcastle, Australia where I live! The planes I observe are traveling at different altitudes yet the trails form the same way,also,some planes will not leave a trail at all while other planes do!! Five minutes apart!! And about the humidity:
    3)I have heard it mentioned in conversations online that humidity is a factor in contrail persistence and yet I observed a plane leaving a very clear and persistent trail at about two o clock in the morning the other night!! It was not humid by any stretch although I would not say it was cold either..Perhaps I should start checking the humidity and weather conditions on days when these trails persist!
    4) Why, on days with similar conditions, do trails form some times and not others???
    Any information which would help to further my understanding on this phenomena would be appreciated…
    thanks
    Strykes

  97. captfitch says:

    Stykes-

    It will take some reading but if you spend some time with this site all of your questions will be answered.

    As for number 3- if it isn’t already mentioned several times on this site- the weather at ground level has very very little in common with the weather at the altitudes jets fly.

  98. 1) See: http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/
    2) See: http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/
    3) It’s the humidity at flying altitude, not on the ground. They differ a lot.
    4) Same as 2.

Comments are closed.