Home » contrails » Chemtrail Myths

Chemtrail Myths

Some people believe that the government is spraying something into the air, and this creates unsual looking contrails. They call these “chemtrails”. Now, there is no real evidence that “chemtrails” are real, but there are several myths on the internet about “chemtrails”. All these myths can very easily be shown to be false, and I’ve gathered the most popular myths here as a little time-saver for the person who has encountered “chemtrails” for the first time.

Myth #1Normal contrails don’t last very long, but “chemtrails” last for hours and sometimes spread out.

False – Contrails fade away, or persist, or even spread out to cover the sky, depending on the weather conditions. you can confirm this by looking in an encyclopedia. such as the Encyclopædia Britannica

[Contrails] may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.

For more info on this myth, read “Persisting and Spreading contrails

Myth #2 Contrails have been observed to persist and spread when the humidity was too low, so they must be “chemtrails”

2004chambersgraph.gifFalse – Nobody has ever measured low humidity within a persisting contrail. The fact is it is very difficult to measure humidity in a specific region at a specific altitude, at a given time, the best you can do is make a rough prediction. Measurements are made by weather balloons at just a few stations that average 235 miles apart, at 12 hour intervals, and then local predictions are extrapolated from this. The weather balloons can drift as much as 100 miles in their ascent, so you never know where the measurements are coming from. Humidity can vary by as much as 80% in a 12 hour period, and vary by similar amount over just a few miles. The fact that the contrail is spreading is actually a far more accurate indicator of high humidity than the available humidity predictions. NASAs own experiments (right) show persisting contrails over a large range of calculated humidities, even down to 10%.

Myth #3 – Long lasting contrails have appeared in “parallel lines”, “grid” and “X” formations, which are not normal, so must be “chemtrails.

False. Well, the last bit is false. Yes, contrails make all kinds of patterns in the sky, simply because there are a lot of planes flying overhead, and they fly in all directions. This is pretty much a function of where you live, and the prevailing winds. For example, if you live the Willamette Valley, Oregon, the overflying planes are nearly all North/South, so you’ll get parallel lines. If you live live in more central place, like North Texas, you’ll get planes flying overhead in every direction, so you will get “X” patterns (and “H” and “grids”). If there’s enough wind, and the trails last long enough, then the grid might spread out to cover the sky.

Myth #4 – A bill to ban chemtrails was introduced into congress by Dennis Kucinich, but quickly had chemtrails edited out.

False – HR 2977 was written by a bunch of UFO enthusiasts intent on exposing a conspiracy to suppress alien technology. Dennis Kucinich did not write the bill, he not know what chemtrails were, and when he found out, he distanced himself from that language. The bill was re-written in order that it might pass. See the full article: Kucinich, Chemtrails and HR 2977.

Myth #5 – Public Law 105-85 gives the military permission to experiment with chemical and biological weapons on humans, without their consent

False – 105-85, Sec. 1078, actually prevents experiments except for peaceful purposes, and those can only be performed if informed consent is obtained from each test subject. It’s basically the same procedure as for human drug trials.

SUMMARY

Those myths are really the basis of the “chemtrail” conspiracy theory. There is more, of course, like the halos and sun-dogs that you sometimes see (normal atmospheric optical effects), the dark lines (shadows of varying types), the stuff on the ground (unconnected). But these things really get to the heart of 99% of the chemtrail argument. After they are dispensed with, the theory holds about as much water as alien mind-control implants.

Let me know if you’ve got something else you’d like investigating, and I might add it here.
Just leave a comment below.

1,275 thoughts on “Chemtrail Myths

  1. When I’m saying the evidence is lacking, I’m specifically referring to the “chemtrail” theory, that all or some of the persistent trails we see in the sky are not contrails, and that they are either new, or there are significantly more of them than you would expect.

    This falls down when you look at the evidence. Contrails do persist and spread, and always have. There’s no evidence that there’s more than there should be, except for the recollections of a few people, which are countered by the recollections of other people.

    Weather modification is obviously happening, but as far as the evidence shows this is mostly limited to cloud seeding. Cloud seeding looks nothing like a contrail.

    It seems a little odd that you can simultaneously believe and disbelieve the military. On the one hand you take the “owning the weather in 2025” paper as being true, and simultaneously you take their denials of active large scale weather modification programs as a lie. How do you pick which parts of what the military says as being correct? What criteria?

  2. checkthemap says:

    Uncinus wrote:

    Nobody is saying that the DOD has no secret advanced weaponry programs. Obviously they do, and they are secret.

    Where I take issue is when people claim to know what those programs consist of, based on the most tenuous of clues, and selective reading of only the papers that mention your pet theory.

    ——-

    Uncinus, I should clarify that I called you rude in another post — you are not rude, it’s JazzRock or whatever his name is, he is the rude one. It always makes me laugh to think of all the rude sob’s online who love to insult people because no one can kick their ass for it. I’d like to see JazzRock talk the same way in a bar. Don’t think it will happen . . .

    I’ve been reading through your site, really trying to convince myself that you are not just a gov’t disinfo agent, not that it makes any difference to anyone, and really I’ve got a lot of other things to do and should just move on . . . . But when I read quotes like the one above, any hope that your motives are honest is greatly reduced.

    It’s sort of a ridiculous statement. You are constantly telling people to produce proof that secret gov’t programs exist that result in the spraying of chemtrails. Apparently when they do produce what proof is available — which of course is very limited — you accuse them of “selective reading of only the papers that mention your pet theory.”

    What else are they supposed to mention, Uncinus? If official documents exist that mention programs that might result in aerosol spray campaigns — all of a sudden this is worthless material to bring forward?

    No, it seems your main purpose here is not to enlighten or to learn, but to deflect and suppress.

    And it should be noted that a lie is continuously stated on this board — that the main argument for the existence of chemtrails is that they persist through the day.

    No, there is much, much, much more that has been observed by thousands of people and documented — independently from one another.

    We all know that contrails can persist, and these new trails are very much like contrails. That’s the beauty part — it’s like a cloned sheep, or a GMO seed. Looks just like the real thing, but in important ways, it is not the real thing. Would most people notice? Most people can’t tie their shoes and chew bubble gum at the same time. So no, they wouldn’t, and if they did, they wouldn’t care.

  3. checkthemap says:

    Uncinus wrote:

    When I’m saying the evidence is lacking, I’m specifically referring to the “chemtrail” theory, that all or some of the persistent trails we see in the sky are not contrails, and that they are either new, or there are significantly more of them than you would expect.

    This falls down when you look at the evidence. Contrails do persist and spread, and always have. There’s no evidence that there’s more than there should be, except for the recollections of a few people, which are countered by the recollections of other people.

    — Well, you can say this, but over a decade of observations by thousands of people world wide seem to disagree. Should we believe you, or them? Are observations useless? It is not just a few people observing — that is disingenuous. If it was just a few, why do you have this website? Why bother?

    Weather modification is obviously happening, but as far as the evidence shows this is mostly limited to cloud seeding. Cloud seeding looks nothing like a contrail.

    — What evidence? Has the military become a transparent agency all of a sudden? Are you saying we have all the information at our disposal about their projects? Are you claiming that Congress is aware of every military project currently underway, that there are no secret or black op projects?

    It seems a little odd that you can simultaneously believe and disbelieve the military. On the one hand you take the “owning the weather in 2025″ paper as being true, and simultaneously you take their denials of active large scale weather modification programs as a lie. How do you pick which parts of what the military says as being correct? What criteria?

    — Good question. How do we know what the military says is correct? How do you know? The answer is, you don’t, and that’s why the people who believe they are seeing anomalies cannot just swallow your assertions on this site that everything is normal.

    I have to use my common sense, and trust my instincts, as we all do, with limited information at my disposal. I believe that something very abnormal has been going on in the skies. This is because I”ve seen very abnormal things.

    FOr instance:

    The spraying that I’ve witnessed, much of the time, comes from the back of planes that are not passenger planes, and they are flying literally, straight up into the sky at 90 degree angles, leaving massive dirty trails. Passenger planes do not now, and never have, flown in this manner. The difference between a passenger plane and these very small white planes is quite distinct. You see them flying side by side, looking very much like military formations, and they work together laying out perfect grids of these trails, flying in all sorts of convoluted manners and angles that don’t correlate to normal air traffic.

    Now, you can tell me this is normal air traffic, Uncinus, and that I’m just deluded, but I’m afraid I won’t believe you.

    You can tell me I haven’t proven anything, but I don’t know how else to present the information. Thousands of other people have documented the same thing. We all recognize something is very different.

    This doesn’t mean that we don’t understand what contrails are and how they are formed.

  4. And it should be noted that a lie is continuously stated on this board — that the main argument for the existence of chemtrails is that they persist through the day.

    No, there is much, much, much more that has been observed by thousands of people and documented — independently from one another.

    No really, the vast majority of verifiable claims are the long persistence, and that they form grids, and that they spread out to cover the sky.

    The other claims, of unmarked aircraft, etc, do not stand up to scrutiny. For example:

    The spraying that I’ve witnessed, much of the time, comes from the back of planes that are not passenger planes, and they are flying literally, straight up into the sky at 90 degree angles, leaving massive dirty trails. Passenger planes do not now, and never have, flown in this manner. The difference between a passenger plane and these very small white planes is quite distinct. You see them flying side by side, looking very much like military formations, and they work together laying out perfect grids of these trails, flying in all sorts of convoluted manners and angles that don’t correlate to normal air traffic.

    Indeed, passenger planes do not fly up at 90 degrees, leaving massive dirty trails. Rockets do though.

    But what do we have to go on here? Without any photo of video, all I can presume is that you are seeing a regular plane and are being confused about the angle because it is flying towards you from near the horizon. And what do you mean by “convoluted manners and angles that don’t correlate to normal air traffic”. If you have no photos, could you at least draw a diagram?

  5. SR1419 says:

    – Well, you can say this, but over a decade of observations by thousands of people world wide seem to disagree. Should we believe you, or them? Are observations useless? It is not just a few people observing — that is disingenuous. If it was just a few, why do you have this website? Why bother?

    Observations are not useless…but they are prone the vagaries of humans’ ability to correctly decipher what they see. If they base their observation on ignorance, they are bound to make incorrect assessments of what they saw.

    …yes, they “seem” to disagree….they do not “remember” contrails persisting before (insert year of their choice here…they year the finally noticed them)…regardless of the FACT that contrails did and always have persisted at times…

    …the visual record; photos, movies etc dating back 50+ years…is undeniable…

    …the scientific research dating back 40yrs or more – specifically addressing contrails that persist, spread and cover the sky in a haze…is undeniable…

    …the anecdotal evidence of eyewitness accounts from- pilots in WW2, from newpapers, from laymen on the ground looking up…all support the existence of persistent contrails long before the current hysteria.

    It is now a perfect storm of more contrails (twice as many planes in the sky globally as in 1995) and more people noticing them…and more people being mislead by what they read on the internet…a true herd mentality with no consequence for error.

    If you google “chemtrails” you get deluged by fear mongering hysteria based on lies and myth….

    …the main theme is “contrails dissipate- chemtrails don’t” …and from that lie they build a huge industry of fear and fallacy…

    2 planes in the sky; one leaves a dissipating contrail, one leaves a persistent contrail…and that “evidence” is proof of “spraying” ??…when in fact that is a known potential behavior of contrails in the atmosphere…

    Where is the logic? Where is the scholarship?

    How many believers of “chemtrails” actually take the time to learn all they can about the science of contrails so that they can make educated statements about what they see in the sky?

    How many “chemtrail” believers have googled “supersaturated persistent contrail” to actually learn about what IS known about contrail behavior…

    or “contrail cirrus” ??

    “Legit study”?? There have been, are currently, and will be in the future 100s of papers written by scientists all over the world studying the origins, behavior and effects of persistent contrails…they have sampled contrails right from the plume, they have recreated contrails in labs…they have made many, many “legit” studies…

    Why have you not read them already?

    Doesn’t it make you wonder why not a SINGLE atmospheric scientist- anywhere in the World- has said that persistent contrails are really something else??? ..at least 9.11 “truthers” could dredge up some “engineers” to try and validate their claims…

    When Uncinus says there is no evidence, he is referring to the fact that EVERY SINGLE behavior of supposed “chemtrails” – persisting, spreading, haze inducing, gap forming, grid patterns, sun dog forming and on and on….is a KNOWN, SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN behavior of contrails…

    …and thus, just looking up and claiming it is a “chemtrail” because it persists…or spreads…or has a gap in it…or there are multiple trails…or because 2 flight paths crossed…is an exercise in ignorance…it exposes the observer for being ignorant of the facts and makes any assertion about what they believe they see highly dubious.

    CheckMap…your specific accounts are indeed quite odd…but you say “Thousands of other people have documented the same thing. ” ….I disagree…the overwhelming, vast majority of “chemtrail” claims do NOT involve planes flying straight up…they are flying typical vectors- across the sky and leave persistent trails “horizon to horizon”….

    …all the photos and videos people post of purported “chemtrails”- are planes and trails on typical vectors…adding nothing to their “evidence”.

    If you had a video of plane flying straight up- I would love to see it.

    …and yet strange flight paths in and of themselves are not “evidence” of “chemtrails” in the least….

  6. JazzRoc says:

    checkthemap:

    Uncinus, I should clarify that I called you rude in another post — you are not rude, it’s JazzRoc or whatever his name is, he is the rude one. It always makes me laugh to think of all the rude sob’s online who love to insult people because no one can kick their ass for it. I’d like to see JazzRoc talk the same way in a bar. Don’t think it will happen…

    And where was that, exactly? I need to know because I like to always appear slightly more polite than the person I’m arguing with, and in the case you mention I must have made an error. 🙂 Just the post number will do…

  7. checkthemap says:

    Oh come on, JazzRoc, gimme a break. You’re the rudest person on here!

    Anyway, SR1419 . . . pretty much every point you made in your post I would have to disagree with. We just totally disagree, and the problem is that neither of us is going to change what we think.

    I also already posted somewhere else on this site today a list of the differences that most people see between chemtrails and contrails. I’ll try to find it and post it again.

    I have a particular conspiracy theory of my own, which has developed from years of dealing with conspiracy theorists . . .

    I believe that there are paid agents who are sent out to feed the fires of serious conspiracy paranoia, to spread insane conspiracy theories and suck in the most gullible, so that the REAL conspiracies are more protected because now it the word “conspiracy” is associated with total wingnuts.

    If you think this is a possibility, you probably would say that “chemtrails” are also an insane theory to suck in the most gullible. But I don’t agree, I think they are something other than normal contrails.

    ALso, I noticed the chemtrails on my own, no one pointed them out to me, I didn’t read about them on the Internet. One day I was playing in the park with my dog, I fell back on the grass to rest, and I looked up and there was a huge, menacing, low lying trail RIGHT over my head. And I became inexplicably frightened. I noticed it was different than any contrail I’d ever seen. I was so bothered by it that I left the park and went home. It wasn’t until later that I came across the chemtrail websites.

  8. checkthemap says:

    No really, the vast majority of verifiable claims are the long persistence, and that they form grids, and that they spread out to cover the sky.

    Uncinus wrote” The other claims, of unmarked aircraft, etc, do not stand up to scrutiny. For example:

    The spraying that I’ve witnessed, much of the time, comes from the back of planes that are not passenger planes, and they are flying literally, straight up into the sky at 90 degree angles, leaving massive dirty trails. Passenger planes do not now, and never have, flown in this manner. The difference between a passenger plane and these very small white planes is quite distinct. You see them flying side by side, looking very much like military formations, and they work together laying out perfect grids of these trails, flying in all sorts of convoluted manners and angles that don’t correlate to normal air traffic.

    Indeed, passenger planes do not fly up at 90 degrees, leaving massive dirty trails. Rockets do though.

    But what do we have to go on here? Without any photo of video, all I can presume is that you are seeing a regular plane and are being confused about the angle because it is flying towards you from near the horizon. And what do you mean by “convoluted manners and angles that don’t correlate to normal air traffic”. If you have no photos, could you at least draw a diagram?

    Uncinus, I have to say that I”m a little disappointed in your responses. I was kind of hoping that you would be able to make me believe in you — because after all I DO want to “debunk” chemtrails in my own mind.

    But you are not debating well.

    I spent many years talking with people on the chemtrail websites, I was part of all the chat rooms, I have even worked with citizen groups to organize around the issue — so no one on this site can tell me that I don’t know what the majority of people are saying about chemtrails. I KNOW. And there is more to it than that they are normal vapors that just linger — which anyone can see by looking through years of discussion on online boards.

    Then you say that my other claims, of unmarked aircraft, etc, do not stand up to scrutiny.

    But you follow that up with nothing.Rockets??? Dude, I”m not talking about rockets. None of us are seeing rockets, thanks. We might be driven half nuts by all the bullshit in the world we have to deal with, but we DO know the difference between a rocket and a plane.

    Now, you are claiming total ignorance of the face that these “spray planes” have been reported by countless people to often be small, white, unmarked, and flying at unusual angles, even straight up into the sky LIKE a rocket. Or, if not totally straight, at a very steep angle that no passenger plane ever flies.

    And this is where I lose all my glimmering faith in you. Because either you are truly ignorant of what people have been witnessing — in which case, what use are you at all? — or you are bullshitting me.

    Neither one is helpful.

    If you haven’t seen what we’ve all seen for over 10 years, you pretty much don’t belong at the table discussing this.

  9. One day I was playing in the park with my dog, I fell back on the grass to rest, and I looked up and there was a huge, menacing, low lying trail RIGHT over my head. And I became inexplicably frightened. I noticed it was different than any contrail I’d ever seen. I was so bothered by it that I left the park and went home.

    I think this says more about you than about if, and how much, contrails have changed.

    We don’t get particularly many contrails here, but some days (usually in the winter) we get quite spectacular days, grids, crosses, the whole shebang. On Dec 16th 2007 I was in Santa Monica, at the Farmer’s market, which was the day I later took the photos in this post:

    http://contrailscience.com/contrails-above-and-below/

    I was paying attention to the people at the farmers market, and at the beach earlier, hundreds of people. NONE of them were looking up at this dramatic display of contrails. Nobody seemed in the least bit disturbed. I’ve never seen anyone pay any attention at all to contrails, and I’ve been watching for it for years. Nobody cares, to 99.999% of people, the current contrails are perfectly normal.

  10. checkthemap says:

    Then why are you hosting this website? Seriously, why do you care? A lot of people believe in aliens — why aren’t you hosting a site to debunk that?

    And I’ve said it repeatedly myself — you’re right, most people don’t notice chemtrails or care. Funny how that doesn’t prove your theory, though.

  11. checkthemap says:

    Also, I find it kind of amusing that you choose to illustrate your point — about people not noticing — with an anecdote about something you witnessed.

    Why should I take what you witnessed seriously? You don’t seem to believe that anything I claim to have witnessed has much value.

    People are unobservant, harried, and many are like walking brain death victims. They watch TV and eat crap all day, or they’re so busy they can’t look up. And when they do, they don’t notice what is in the sky. I’m amazed by this truth, but I can’t argue that they don’t notice anything abnormal.

  12. Suntour says:

    Quotes by checkthemap –

    “these new trails are very much like contrails. That’s the beauty part — it’s like a cloned sheep, or a GMO seed. Looks just like the real thing, but in important ways, it is not the real thing.”

    “Well, you can say this, but over a decade of observations by thousands of people world wide seem to disagree. Should we believe you, or them?”

    “The spraying that I’ve witnessed, much of the time, comes from the back of planes that are not passenger planes, and they are flying literally, straight up into the sky at 90 degree angles, leaving massive dirty trails. Passenger planes do not now, and never have, flown in this manner.”

    “I KNOW. And there is more to it than that they are normal vapors that just linger — which anyone can see by looking through years of discussion on online boards.”

    I thought this was appropriate.

    The Dragon In My Garage – by Carl Sagan

    “A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”

    Suppose (I’m following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

    “Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

    “Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

    “Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

    You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

    “Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

    Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

    “Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

    You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

    “Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.” And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

    Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative — merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

    Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons — to say nothing about invisible ones — you must now acknowledge that there’s something here, and that in a preliminary way it’s consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

    Now another scenario: Suppose it’s not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you’re pretty sure don’t know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages — but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we’re disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I’d rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren’t myths at all.

    Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they’re never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon’s fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such “evidence” — no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it — is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

  13. But you are not debating well.

    I’m not debating at all. My goal here is not to “convert” you. I’m just discussing contrails, linking to lots of contrail science, pointing out various problems in the “chemtrail” theory, and giving my opinion on various thing. All of which you are free to ignore. I’m just some guy, I have no expertise.

    Now, you are claiming total ignorance of the face that these “spray planes” have been reported by countless people to often be small, white, unmarked, and flying at unusual angles, even straight up into the sky LIKE a rocket. Or, if not totally straight, at a very steep angle that no passenger plane ever flies.

    So why no photos or video of this?

  14. checkthemap says:

    Uncinus — there are many photos of the planes flying at their well-known angles, and probably video as well. Why don’t you do your homework — don’t make me do it for you. If you’re unwilling to seriously research all the claims, why do you pose yourself as someone capable of debunking this “myth”? I mean, its not worth my time to go parading photos for you, if you claim to have not seen them, I have to assume you’re full of shit or lazy. Also I doubt you’ve not seen the planes yourself.

    Suntour — I have no idea what you think you’ve accomplished with that very long screed you posted, but I guess I’m supposed to be second-guessing my reality and sanity now, or looking for dragons, or snorting flour, or something . . .

    Well, boys, it’s been fun. I just wanted to check out this debunking site to see if you could cure me of my malady. But unfortunately, you can’t. And I do have a lot of other things to do.

    Good luck with everyone else, though.

  15. Uncinus — there are many photos of the planes flying at their well-known angles, and probably video as well. Why don’t you do your homework — don’t make me do it for you. If you’re unwilling to seriously research all the claims, why do you pose yourself as someone capable of debunking this “myth”? I mean, its not worth my time to go parading photos for you, if you claim to have not seen them, I have to assume you’re full of shit or lazy. Also I doubt you’ve not seen the planes yourself.

    I’ve seen hundreds of photos of supposed “Chemtrails”, however I genuinely don’t remember of a photo or video that was described as a plane flying up at 90 degrees. I honestly would like to see this. I feel you are mistaken, but since I have never seen what you are describing, I can’t really comment.

    So humor me, one photo of a 90 degree plane? Anyone?

    And to be specific: “flying literally, straight up into the sky at 90 degree angles”, do you actually mean they are flying vertically?

  16. checkthemap says:

    I’m sure you’re observant enough to have noticed that I amended my comment to say that, if not at a 90 degree angle exactly, it is a very steep angle that does not correlate with passenger aircraft.

    I’ve taken hundreds of chemtrail photos and photos of the planes, but because I was trying to zoom in as much as possible, it isn’t as easy to tell what angle they are flying at. But the direction of the trails as shown in many photos is usually enough to see the kind of steep angle many of them are dispersed along. I don’t have time to get out there taking video all day long, like many Americans I am just working to get by.

    But you know, I’m pretty certain at this point — because I’ve been reading a lot of other posts on this site — that you are here to mislead and try to undermine people’s trust in their own common sense and perceptions.

    I know you’ll argue that — don’t bother.

    I’d like to stop corresponding now, so please don’t bother writing back either, because I’ll get sucked back in to the discussion, and its a waste of my time.

  17. So what angle is a “steep angle”? The steepest a passenger jet would go is less than ten degrees, look up the “climb angle”. So if you are seeing what you describe it is very unusual, and I’d really like to see a photo of it – especially if it’s leaving a contrail?

  18. Suntour says:

    Sorry checkthemap, I may have gone a bit overboard by quoting that story. It wasn’t posted for you to check your sanity, but to show you how chemtrailers appear to the non-chemtrail crowd.

    Chemtrailers claim that chemtrails exist, but any evidence presented shows normal contrail behavior. When confronted with that, the chemtrailer either claims that the behavior they saw isn’t normal (even though decades of contrail evidence exists to the contrary) or they say “that’s the trick, it looks just like a contrail”.

    When are we going to see some of the strange photographs, videos and “evidence” that chemtrailers claim exist? When are we going to see something that cannot be explained away by flight path data, decades of contrail observation/testing and meteorological science.

    Where are these anomalies that are so convincing to chemtrailers?

  19. JazzRoc says:

    checkthemap:

    Oh come on, JazzRoc, gimme a break. You’re the rudest person on here! – Not when you’re around.

    Anyway, SR1419 . . . pretty much every point you made in your post I would have to disagree with. – And that’s a pity because SR1419 writes accurately and excellently.

    I believe that there are paid agents who are sent out to feed the fires of serious conspiracy paranoia, to spread insane conspiracy theories and suck in the most gullible, so that the REAL conspiracies are more protected because now it the word “conspiracy” is associated with total wingnuts. – The problem with your non-science is that you are left with the desire to impart meaningfulness to word-association, at the expense of your power of conceptualization. Words may change but concepts are independent of words.

    One day I was playing in the park with my dog, I fell back on the grass to rest, and I looked up and there was a huge, menacing, low lying trail RIGHT over my head. And I became inexplicably frightened. And had you read “Contrails to Cirrus”, for instance, your fear would disappear, for IF exhaust ice can pick up ice out of the atmosphere (which it can) by an amount which is TEN THOUSAND times greater than the starting amount (which it can), and make a trail 10Km wide by 2Km deep (which it can) then what you saw becomes EXACTLY possible, natural, and normal – in a saturated stratospheric layer, which is known to occur at least 17% of the time.

    No really, the vast majority of verifiable claims are the long persistence, and that they form grids, and that they spread out to cover the sky. – And those are normal explicable events, explained on this site, which you just will not read.

    Uncinus ”all I can presume is that you are seeing a regular plane and are being confused about the angle because it is flying towards you from near the horizon.” – An entirely accurate statement.

    there is more to it than that they are normal vapors that just linger – You are not being receptive to the information on this site.

    you are bullshitting me. – “You’re the rudest person on here!”

    Uncinus“I think this says more about you than about if, and how much, contrails have changed.” – How true.

    You don’t seem to believe that anything I claim to have witnessed has much value. – Your eyes see – then your brain interprets. Without certain information (Science – which you will not absorb) your weakened power of interpretation invalidates your vision. For you the Sun goes round the Earth…

    Suntour“A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage” – is a brilliant analogy. Thanks.

    UncinusSo why no photos or video of this? – Come on, let’s have some fun!

    I have to assume you’re full of shit or lazy. Also I doubt you’ve not seen the planes yourself. – “You’re the rudest person on here!” – and Uncinus is a private pilot. I think he’s seen quite a bit, even if he only flies in the troposphere.

    Suntour — I have no idea what you think you’ve accomplished with that very long screed you posted, but I guess I’m supposed to be second-guessing my reality and sanity now, or looking for dragons, or snorting flour, or something… – Come on – you’re cleverer than that!

    Uncinus: “So humor me, one photo of a 90 degree plane? Anyone? And to be specific: “flying literally, straight up into the sky at 90 degree angles”, do you actually mean they are flying vertically?” I second that.

    if not at a 90 degree angle exactly, it is a very steep angle that does not correlate with passenger aircraft. – Perhaps it correlates better with an aircraft flying STRAIGHT AND LEVEL towards you, seven miles up, and fifty miles away – and the REAL reason for this topic is your failure to accept this. Were you never taught PERSPECTIVE at school?

    I’m pretty certain at this point — because I’ve been reading a lot of other posts on this site — that you are here to mislead and try to undermine people’s trust in their own common sense and perceptions. – Yours have ALREADY misled you.

    We’re ALL trying to do you a favor! 🙂 (But it furnishes some amusement as well!)

  20. JazzRoc says:

    checkthemap:

    you are here to mislead and try to undermine people’s trust in their own common sense and perceptions

    Or:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro

  21. SR1419 says:

    Anyway, SR1419 . . . pretty much every point you made in your post I would have to disagree with.

    What is to disagree with??? I simply stated facts.

    Can you elaborate? Can you provide some substance? …rather than just cop out and say we disagree and leave it at that.

    How much do you really know about the science of the atmosphere and contrail formation, persistence and spreading?

  22. checkthemap says:

    Actually the truth is that, most likely, everything Uncincus references on this website with regard to the science of contrails is absolutely true. I have no way of verifying, I’m not a scientist, and I have a life to live, but I’ll assume it’s all accurate numbers.

    But as is so clear from the many intelligent people who have posted here — I’m excluding the paranoids and idiots — it doesn’t change what we have witnessed, and what we sense to be true.

    What we sense to be true is:

    *Chemtrails are essentially contrails, and display most of the same properties

    *There may be something different — a chemical agent or another agent — added to the trail, which some of us can taste when the entire sky is saturated

    * The saturation of the sky correlates with plane activity that we recognize to be unusual — often highly unusual to the point of being alarming — in our region, county, or over our homes — places we have lived for years or decades.

    * The planes themselves often do not appear to be passenger planes, and have been seen to be flying at unusual angles, and in formation

    * The contrails that are formed then go on to spread and become cirrus type clouds that display properties we are unfamiliar with seeing on a regular basis — sometimes every single day for most of the year, in every possible type of weather, day and night.

    * The properties include dirtiness, oiliness, drippiness, extreme web-like structures that persist indefinitely and finally, the formation of foul looking clouds

    * Extreme saturation of the sky results in health problems for some people. These include breathing problems, headache, stuffy head, sinus problems — and again, the nasty metallic taste

    * Changes in local weather have been noted by people all over the world in relation to the saturation of the sky with these . . . . trails.

    * Independent observation has led many people to share experience on the Internet

    * While a lot of the people are also very paranoid, and some are delusional, many are not — and they are sincere in their concern, and provide helpful research and documentation in the form of photographs and video

    * Other documentation that has been found over the years include numerous sources the suggest the existence of weather modification and directed energy programs, which would involve the use of aerosol spraying into the atmosphere to alter its composition.

    All of this taken together is what constitutes the “chemtrail” issue — and taken together, it should be understandable for anyone without a secret agenda as to why it remains an issue, and why people are concerned.

    Now, this website — where an anonymous person calling himself Uncinus sits with rather unusual patience, calmly refuting the observations and concerns of everyone who has witnessed the above stated phenomena (your dedication to this hobby is truly inspiring) — provides only these essential arguments:

    * Everything you are seeing is perfectly normal

    * This is all the result of increased air traffic

    * You cannot trust your own observations, you can only trust the numbers I provide here on this website

    * If you can’t provide “proof” of currently existing weather modification programs, or directed energy programs, there is no reason for me to believe they might exist, despite all the evidence that they might exist.

    On this last point, this is what I think:

    * If I were running, for instance, a weather modification program — especially one with military uses — I would certainly not want to manipulate the skies so dramatically that it would be noticed by civilians or enemy combatants.

    * Therefore I would develop methods that were relatively easily masked

    * Once I did that — say, by developing aerosol spray agents that could be released as vapor trails in order to alter the composition of the atmosphere for my uses — I would do something else . . .

    * I would pay some low level mind manipulator to get online and help manage the folks who had noticed the program. His job would be to sit around all day and tell people . . .

    — Everything you are seeing is perfectly normal

    — This is all the result of increased air traffic

    — You cannot trust your own observations, you can only trust the numbers I provide here on this website

    — If you can’t provide “proof” of currently existing weather modification programs, or directed energy programs, there is no reason for me to believe they might exist, despite all the evidence that they might exist.

    But hey, that’s just me . . .

  23. Okay, let’s assume that I’m a “low level mind manipulator”. Ignore all the opinions I give. But not the facts – like old photos, books, science, etc, which you can independently verify.

    Now, given that, how would you persuade a neutral scientist of your case?

    Specifically, since we are talking about “Chemtrails” here – how would you persuade a neutral scientist that some trails are not normal contrails? You claim that some trails are clearly different to normal contrails – so how would you go about persuading a neutral scientist of this?

    I think that’s very important to your case, because if you can’t persuade a neutral scientist, then how are you going to do anything about it? And given the vast amount you’ve written here, I presume you DO what to do something about it? I mean, in the time it’s taken you to write all this, you could easily have found some photos, or even gone and taken some.

    Remember, hundreds of millions of people see the same sky as you, and see nothing strange. Pointing at the sky and saying “isn’t that odd” is not going to change that that. You need some actual evidence that it IS odd. So what’s the evidence? How can you persuade?

  24. And in other news, I’m going to be a way for a couple of weeks, got a covert op, visiting my relatives. So I apologize if comments are not moderated quickly – might be an occasional delay of a day or so, depending on my internet access.

  25. checkthemap says:

    The quick answer is,

    * I don’t expect to do anything about chemtrails. Most people don’t notice them, and if they do, they don’t care.

    * I would not try to persuade anyone anymore. I’ve tried, it doesn’t work. People either notice, or they don’t.

    * I would advise anyone who wants to understand to spend a lot of time outside, looking up, and observing.
    It is the totality of what you see and experience that shifts the perspective — not any one piece of information you can read on the Internet.

    Also, I think that if the trails are part of a program, that program has not remained the same over many years, and probably will continue to be modified, so the trails and their properties will not stay exactly the same.

    Enjoy visiting the relatives — hey, even spooks have to say hi to Mom every once a while.

  26. Here’s an example of the problem with angle perception.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TDmfNDbAxY

    It’s a video of a plane making a turn, your it’s labeled “chemtrail vertical climb”. In all likelihood, the plane is maintaining a constant altitude.

    Can you see how confusion might arise?

  27. I would advise anyone who wants to understand to spend a lot of time outside, looking up, and observing.
    It is the totality of what you see and experience that shifts the perspective — not any one piece of information you can read on the Internet.

    Very true, but can you really learn all you need to know about contrails simply by staring at them for days? You could watch them for years, and never realize that they are made from frozen water vapor. You know some people think contrails are exhaust smoke? You could watch them for years, and not realize that they are essentially cirrus clouds. If you watch them for years you might see a correlation between the persistence and the weather, but you’d never figure out the nature of this correlation.

    See that’s where science comes in. You can read all about the science of contrail formation. You can read about the “contrail factor” of high bypass jet engines. You can read about the atmosphere, and how it varies with altitude, and by region. You can read about the history of contrails, and previous observations, and even previous public panics. There’s not “one piece” of information – there’s thousands.

    Observation is great, but stand on the shoulders of giants and you’ll see a lot further.

  28. checkthemap says:

    Oh yes, Uncinus! It’s all so clear now! What a fool I’ve been!! This photograph has shocked me into reality again!! I . . . I feel as if I’ve been living in a dream . . . .

    No, seriously. That has nothing to do with what I’m talking about and you know it. And don’t start your points with “in all likelihood.” That wouldn’t fly if I said it, now would it? Can you provide proof that the plane is maintaining a constant altitude?

    In fact, can you provide proof that you are a pilot?

    And what’s up with Uncinus? What does that handle stand for? Just curious.

    God I keep screwing off talking to you, I need to get back to work . . . I’m just bored, I’m living in a remote area, rather short on conversation around here. . . .

    That’s my excuse, what’s yours?

  29. checkthemap says:

    Observation is great, but stand on the shoulders of giants and you’ll see a lot further.

    That’s so beautiful.

    I think you missed your calling. You’re a philosopher. Or a motivational speaker. But that requires wearing a lot of pink and purple, which might not be your thing.

    I agree with your statement, though, and would tell anyone to research contrails thoroughly while they stand outside with their necks bent looking through their binoculars saying “Now what the FUCK is THAT??”

    Read the texts, then get out in the field, that’s what I say. Gotta have both.

  30. checkthemap says:

    Hey, Uncinus . . .

    I have a question.

    Do you think it’s possible that global weather modification projects are currently underway?

  31. checkthemap says:

    Jazzroc and SR 1419 . . . sorry, I’m playing with Uncinus. It’s his sandbox.

  32. In fact, can you provide proof that you are a pilot?

    And what’s up with Uncinus? What does that handle stand for? Just curious.

    Well, I could show you my log book, but then you’d know who I am. VFR squawk is 1200 – I’m not sure what kind of proof would be useful here I’m not an airline pilot, just a private pilot. I only fly little planes, Pipers, PA-28. The highest I’ve ever been by myself was 10,000 feet. Anyway, me being a pilot is simply what get me interested in the subject of weather, not a source of authority.

    “Uncinus” is from”Cirrus Uncinus”, my favorite cloud type.

    Do you think it’s possible that global weather modification projects are currently underway?

    Possible, yes. Likely, no. There’s certainly a lot of talk about the possibility, but then there has been for decades. There’s also been a lot of talk about terraforming mars, but likewise no actual evidence that anyone is doing it.

    Global weather modification will happen eventually, is humanity survives long enough. But it’s just such an incredibly risky thing to experiment with. Kind of like performing surgery on yourself while trapped alone on a desert island. Pretty much a last resort option.

    If it is done, then reversible and non-toxic options would be the best. Like increasing ocean cloud cover with ships. I would greatly prefer a more passive approach, like reducing the current sources of anthropic warming. Simple things like painting things white.

  33. SR1419 says:

    I have no way of verifying, I’m not a scientist

    Actually…that is not true…you CAN verify by doing the research of available information regarding the science of the atmosphere.

    Over 50 yrs worth of accumulated research, data and findings….tested by others and built upon with additional knowledge…and published for all to see…

    You have to want to know it…want to find it…

    …and given the magic of the internet, all it takes is a few minutes to do so.

    That you..and so many other “believers” have not done so is very, very telling.

  34. checkthemap says:

    Uncinus answered: Possible, yes. Likely, no. There’s certainly a lot of talk about the possibility, but then there has been for decades. There’s also been a lot of talk about terraforming mars, but likewise no actual evidence that anyone is doing it.

    Global weather modification will happen eventually, is humanity survives long enough. But it’s just such an incredibly risky thing to experiment with. Kind of like performing surgery on yourself while trapped alone on a desert island. Pretty much a last resort option.

    Uncinus,

    Relating weather modification projects on Earth to terraforming Mars is a pointless argument. You can mention any venture humanity has not yet undertaken, it doesn’t prove anything about the existence of weather modification programs on Earth now.

    As for your second answer: Do you have any proof that humanity is unwilling to experiment with risky undertakings? Is there not, in fact, far more proof that we are historically willing to undertake much risk — often with terrible consequences — when science presents us with new possibilities to further our interests?

    Your arguments are not based on fact, nor are they persuasive. Try again?

  35. checkthemap says:

    SR 1419 that you..and so many other “believers” have not done so is very, very telling

    Is there some reason why you chose to ignore the beginning of my post, where I said that I believe what Uncinus has presented as scientific fact about contrails? You are certainly focused on presenting me as someone who doesn’t want to hear the “facts.” In order to do that, you have to selectively quote from my previous posts, and ignore what doesn’t suit your purpose.

    Oh yeah . . . what IS your purpose, by the way?

  36. If there’s no evidence of something happening, then why do you think it is happening? If you can’t persuade a neutral scientist of something, then why believe it yourself?

    So far your evidence consists of “lots of people, including myself, have seen what we think are strange contrails, which we don’t remember seeing before”. Now, lots of people believe they are, or have seen Otherkin, would you believe them?

    Normally when people discuss a scientific subject, they try to figure out what is going on based on the observed facts, and known science. You don’t seem willing to go beyond: “lots of people believe something like contrails, and the government is evil, and the weather is odd, so chemtrails must be real”.

    Come on. Scientist-up. Can’t you at least show ONE PHOTO that show what you are talking about. Take a break from posting for a few days if you need time to look for one.

  37. checkthemap says:

    If there’s no evidence of something happening, then why do you think it is happening?

    — Everything I posted in my list above constitutes evidence. If you don’t agree, I can’t help you.

    If you can’t persuade a neutral scientist of something, then why believe it yourself?

    — I don’t know whether I can, or I can’t. I haven’t spoken with a “neutral scientist” about chemtrails. I don’t believe you are neutral, and I don’t consider you a scientist because you haven’t claimed to be one.

    — I believe in my own powers of intelligence, observation, and common sense

    So far your evidence consists of “lots of people, including myself, have seen what we think are strange contrails, which we don’t remember seeing before”. Now, lots of people believe they are, or have seen Otherkin, would you believe them?

    — I don’t need to compare the chemtrail issue to every other mass – sighting issue. Another pointless argument from you.

    Normally when people discuss a scientific subject, they try to figure out what is going on based on the observed facts, and known science. You don’t seem willing to go beyond: “lots of people believe something like contrails, and the government is evil, and the weather is odd, so chemtrails must be real”.

    — I never said the government is evil. I know that people in government regularly lie and cover up their secret programs. Also, you should amend the last part of that to “chemtrails very well might be real.” And nothing you have put forth has negated this.

    Come on. Scientist-up. Can’t you at least show ONE PHOTO that shows what you are talking about. Take a break from posting for a few days if you need time to look for one.

    — Uncinus, how lucky for you that you are already sitting in front of your computer, where, on the Internet, there are literally thousands of photos. You know how much of my time you’re already successfully wasting, I’m sure you also know I’m not going to parade photos around for you to dismiss.

  38. Uncinus, how lucky for you that you are already sitting in front of your computer, where, on the Internet, there are literally thousands of photos. You know how much of my time you’re already successfully wasting, I’m sure you also know I’m not going to parade photos around for you to dismiss.

    I’m sure you are aware that the vast majority of “chemtrail” photos on the internet show nothing at all unusual. How am I to pick what YOU think is unusual? Just pick one at random?

    Five turns of a high altitude racetrack holding pattern.

    You’ve not presented me with evidence – you’ve presented me with a list of the type of thing that you consider to be evidence. You’ve not show (via photos or otherwise) that these things happen, and nor do you provide any criteria for re-observing these things – how exactly are we supposed to measure the “dirtiness, oiliness, drippiness,” of contrails? Contrails are “more oily” than before? How much? How can you demonstrate this except with photos?

  39. checkthemap says:

    Uncinus,

    I just looked at the link you provided for “Otherkin.”

    So, you are actually saying that people who think they are witnessing part of a weather modification program — which is something described in numerous existing government and industry papers, though the actual program is not admit to by authorities — are in the same group with people who think they are vampires?

    And you also want me to believe this is not a disinformation site?

    Please . . . now really, I have to get back to my coffin . . .

  40. checkthemap says:

    The problem is, Uncinus, that you just keep spewing out the same lines. Which I guess in a way is effective. Because by doing that, you infer that I have not answered any of your questions, or made any valid points, but I have, and I’m not going to keep repeating them.

    I wouldn’t have chosen that particular photo, actually. But by all means, keep searching and presenting them to me. Better your time wasted than mine.

    You also have not answered most of the questions I’ve put to you in all my posts. I’ll repeat one now:

    Your entire basis for dismissing the existence of global weather modification program is that it would be “too risky” an undertaking.

    I repeat: Do you have any proof that humanity is unwilling to experiment with risky undertakings? Is there not, in fact, far more proof that we are historically willing to undertake much risk — often with consequences destructive to life on Earth — when science presents us with new possibilities to further our interests?

    I will present a few examples:

    The development of:

    * Nuclear energy and weapons

    * Biological weapons

    * Toxic chemicals in food and other products

    * Many Pharmaceuticals

    * Clear-cutting and strip mining/ mountaintop removal

    * Genetically modified organisms and seeds

    * Cell phones

    — All of the above constitute enormous and expensive widespread programs that have been proven to be and/or:

    a. Harmful to people and the planet

    b. Used without proper levels of testing, resulting in mass death

    c. Used with testing, still resulting in mass death

    c. Used without adequate testing, with the possibility of future damaging health consequences . . . but really, really profitable

    So again, please tell me if your reasoning on this matter still holds.

  41. The “Otherkin” analogy was just an analogy. The point being that lots of people believing in something is no evidence for it existing – especially in the absence of other evidence.

  42. checkthemap says:

    *The photos are there, and you’ve seen them (gee, do I hear an echo?)

    *Personally, I can’t prove anything further than observation, because I’m not wealthy and don’t have the resources to take samples

    I’ve said this before, you know it, it’s common sense, and you know that, too.

    How much do they pay you for this? It must get boring.

  43. checkthemap says:

    No, the Otherkin wasn’t an analogy — it was an attempt to group me with nitwits and freaks.

    But since you are making analogies to totally unrelated things, and getting rather off topic, let me ask you something . . .

    Do you believe in God?

  44. SR1419 says:

    CMap-

    …I was merely suggesting that you do not have to believe Uncinus…you can KNOW for yourself…

    Educate yourself as much as possible as to the science of the atmosphere and the micro-physical properties of combining jet exhaust into the atmosphere at high altitudes….

    If you truly want to know what you see in the sky then you need to know all the available information so you can make informed guesses…just speculating based on ignorance of available information is not going to get you very far.

    Every single visible behavior you have listed and attribute to “chemtrails” is a known behavior of “normal” contrails.

    How does that constitute “evidence”?

  45. Your entire basis for dismissing the existence of global weather modification program is that it would be “too risky” an undertaking.

    No it’s not. I think it’s unlikely that people would be doing it now, based on the lack of science and political will to support it. But really my argument here is simply that there is NO EVIDENCE that such modifications are taking place.

    All the things you mention are not deliberate attempts to modify the state of the entire planet. Some of them have caused harm, most are localized. But they are not at all in the same class as deliberately altering the entire planet’s atmosphere.

    And, cellphones? Really? That the government, in your opinion, is lacking in cellphone emission regulation and research, is that evidence that they would be willing to geoengineer the planet?

    Anyway, really, lets assume that they DO want to geoengineer the planet. Let’s even assume that they are currently doing it. Assume I’m psyops, and everything I say is a lie.

    Now what evidence do you have that some contrails are deliberately different?

  46. *The photos are there, and you’ve seen them (gee, do I hear an echo?)

    I’ve seen hundreds of photos of supposed chemtrails, and I’ve no idea which photos you are referring to. Why can’t you pick one?

    I’d like to see what you are talking about. But your unwillingness to pick a photo that shows something unusual seems only to indicate that you’ve never seen a photo that demonstrates anything. Yet you claim these photos are out there. Which is it?

    What about this photo? Will this do?

  47. checkthemap says:

    Bullshit. There is not a lack of science, and political will isn’t necessary.

    You’re getting boring.

    I’m not going to pick a photo because there are no photos you will agree are abnormal. You know it, and I’ve said this before, but I guess part of your shtick is to get people to waste their time, which you do well. I applaud you for that.

    No point in fighting on your turf.

    However, when pressed to explain yourself, you fall very flat. Your statements about weather modification are sorry indeed, and would require extreme naivete on the part of your listener — and why would you bother trying to persuade those folks?

    I’d hoped you could do better.

  48. checkthemap says:

    <>

    Looking at all the data available, my informed guesses tell me that various military projects involving weather modification and/or directed energy are likely in use right now, and involve aerosol spraying of the atmosphere with the manipulation of airplane contrails.

  49. checkthemap says:

    –But really my argument here is simply that there is NO EVIDENCE that such modifications are taking place.–

    Uncinus, what would constitute evidence to you?

  50. I’m not going to pick a photo because there are no photos you will agree are abnormal.

    The point is not to debunk a particular photo. The point is for you to demonstrate the type of thing you are talking about. How can you say there are all these photo out there, if you can’t point to one.

    I promise not to attempt to explain any photo you post. I just want to see what you are talking about, just an example?

    Uncinus, what would constitute evidence to you?

    Photos of planes spraying something unusual. Leaks of information from the thousands of people that would be involved in such a scheme. Statistics that show inexplicable weather changes that correlate to suspicious events. Test results showing increased levels of certain chemicals in the air or rainwater. Statistics that show contrail persistence is not correlated with weather conditions.

  51. checkthemap says:

    Uncinus,

    I won’t point to a photo, because I don’t trust you. I don’t believe you are just some guy who is monumentally dedicated to debunking chemtrail conspiracy theory. If you are, you really need to get a more full and interesting life.

    And because I don’t trust you, I don’t want to play your game.

    As far as all that you constitute as evidence — it might all exist. I really don’t know. I dropped my own investigation years ago, as I’ve said. I figure that if there is a huge global military project, and it is secret, it’s going to stay that way.

    My brother was in the military for many years until he was killed, and from what I understand, those guys don’t tend to “leak” too much. You know, these colors don’t run? Well, they don’t leak either.

  52. checkthemap says:

    And please answer my final question.

    Do you believe in God?

  53. Do you believe in God?

    No.

  54. Guest says:

    I’d say this supports the idea that some contrails are chemtrails:

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/aerosol_weapons.htm

  55. It does not describe how chemtrails look different to contrails. It does say:

    So, while we await the great awakening, have a wonderful, barium-dried summer under a synthetic tarpaulin of aluminum-white, particle-laden, electrically-charged aviation scum that passes for sky. Endure well your respiratory and ocular difficulties while staring at huge oily sun rings and smeary sundogs, the patent signature of chemical assault. Don’t forget to salute and click your heels when you see tanker formations patriotically saturating the atmosphere with such a dense, micro-particulate brew that they cast black shadows alongside or ahead of themselves.

    So why has no unusual levels of barium been detected? Why have there been no increases in illness rates? Why has nobody noticed an increase in sun-dogs?

    No, this provides no evidence, it simply repeats a somewhat extreme form of the theory, with nothing to base it on.

  56. checkthemap says:

    Uncinus,

    How long have you had this website, and how long have you been a chemtrail debunker?

  57. I’m not sure if “chemtrail debunker” is an accurate label, skeptic might be better, but I’ve had this website since May 2007. So a bit over two years.

  58. Suntour says:

    By checkthemap:

    “I’m not going to pick a photo because there are no photos you will agree are abnormal.”

    “Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?” – Carl Sagan

    ————————————————————–

    “I won’t point to a photo, because I don’t trust you. I don’t believe you are just some guy who is monumentally dedicated to debunking chemtrail conspiracy theory. If you are, you really need to get a more full and interesting life.

    And because I don’t trust you, I don’t want to play your game.”

    Wikipedia – “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

    The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.”

    —————————————————————-

    By checkthemap – “So, while we await the great awakening, have a wonderful, barium-dried summer under a synthetic tarpaulin of aluminum-white, particle-laden, electrically-charged aviation scum that passes for sky. Endure well your respiratory and ocular difficulties while staring at huge oily sun rings and smeary sundogs, the patent signature of chemical assault. Don’t forget to salute and click your heels when you see tanker formations patriotically saturating the atmosphere with such a dense, micro-particulate brew that they cast black shadows alongside or ahead of themselves.”

    Whew, that’s a pretty damning statement, considering you have no evidence to show for any of it.

    [EDIT by Uncinus – that quote is actually from the Infowars article linked by “Guest”, written by Amy Worthington, and not chekthemap]

    By the way, are you serious about the shadows? Both of those types of shadows you described are perfectly normal behavior when the sun, a contrail and a lower cloud deck are involved. Also, check out edge shadows and the self shadow, which is often mistaken by chemtrailers as a “dirty cloud” or “chemcloud”. Please apply a bit of science and an open mind and you’ll see just how all of these shadow types are not only possible, but perfectly normal given the conditions.

  59. Suntour says:

    By Guest – “I’d say this supports the idea that some contrails are chemtrails:”

    http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/aerosol_weapons.htm

    Alex Jones? Yeah, I’d say his site supports “chemtrail theory” lol.

  60. Suntour says:

    checkthemap, since I have a bit of extra time, I thought I would try to address some of your points mentioned above.

    By checkthemap – *Chemtrails are essentially contrails, and display most of the same properties

    Really, how do you *know* “chemtrails” display either the same or different properties than a persistent contrail?

    By checkthemap – *There may be something different — a chemical agent or another agent — added to the trail, which some of us can taste when the entire sky is saturated

    Could something else in the air be effecting your sense of smell or taste? Or do you truly believe that something 30,000 feet above your head, which is more than likely subject to high winds is wafting down to the ground, so much of it that you can taste it? Pardon me for finding this highly unlikely. My opinion on this is, it’s more than likely a placebo effect.

    By checkthemap – * The saturation of the sky correlates with plane activity that we recognize to be unusual — often highly unusual to the point of being alarming — in our region, county, or over our homes — places we have lived for years or decades.

    Plane traffic from day to day is relatively the same, the only time a person really notices an airplane at 20,000ft+ is when they’re leaving contrails. Airplanes without contrails are very hard to both see and hear at that altitude. Go to http://flightaware.com/ and enter your location to see just how many planes are flying above your head at any given time.

    By checkthemap – * The planes themselves often do not appear to be passenger planes, and have been seen to be flying at unusual angles, and in formation

    How do you know these are not passenger planes? Is it because they’re white when observed through a zoom lens? A large majority of passenger airplanes have white underbellies. Unusual angles? In formation? Please do post a video of “chemtrails” being formed in formation.

    By checkthemap – * The contrails that are formed then go on to spread and become cirrus type clouds that display properties we are unfamiliar with seeing on a regular basis — sometimes every single day for most of the year, in every possible type of weather, day and night.

    Yes, this has been observed since the very first persistent contrail (with gaps) was seen back in 1921. See this PDF for info – http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/049/mwr-049-07-0412c.pdf Also, during WWII persistent contrails were something that high altitude bombers would try to avoid leaving because is marked their location.

    By checkthemap – * The properties include dirtiness, oiliness, drippiness, extreme web-like structures that persist indefinitely and finally, the formation of foul looking clouds

    Ok, this has to be backed up with photos or video for us to believe these are not either naturally occuring cloud formations or residual effects of persisting contrails. These claims are just too outrageous.

    By checkthemap – * Extreme saturation of the sky results in health problems for some people. These include breathing problems, headache, stuffy head, sinus problems — and again, the nasty metallic taste

    Please show us some medical evidence that ties persistent contrail activity with actual health issues. Not placebo effects, but actual health problems.

    By checkthemap – * Changes in local weather have been noted by people all over the world in relation to the saturation of the sky with these . . . . trails.

    Yes, it is well documented and even by observation one can tell that when cirrus clouds start appearing in the sky, more persistent contrails can be seen, since the conditions for cirrus clouds are the same for contrails. In addition, a large number of cirrus clouds are likely a warning for an incoming frontal system. So it would follow that weather changes happen when you see a lot of persistent contrails.

    By checkthemap – * Independent observation has led many people to share experience on the Internet

    Yes, many people who hadn’t seen persisting contrails before got together and started claiming they are “chemtrails” without any solid evidence.

    By checkthemap – * While a lot of the people are also very paranoid, and some are delusional, many are not — and they are sincere in their concern, and provide helpful research and documentation in the form of photographs and video

    Sweet, let’s see some of these very helpful and obviously quite convincing photographs and video!

    By checkthemap – * Other documentation that has been found over the years include numerous sources the suggest the existence of weather modification and directed energy programs, which would involve the use of aerosol spraying into the atmosphere to alter its composition.

    Yup, there is a lot of speculation with regards to altering the atmosphere, but I have yet to see or hear anything that tells us they are actually doing it. If there were some hard evidence that they have been, maybe it would help to convince the non-chemtrailers, but there isn’t. You seem pretty convinced though, maybe you have some evidence that you could produce for us?

  61. Suntour says:

    Sorry my Q&A formatting on that last post is messed up, but I think people get the idea.

  62. Since I’m going away for a while, and there’s some discussion going on, I’m going to turn off comment moderation for a while. This means comments will show up immediately. I’d appreciate it if people could try to stick to the top of contrails and chemtrails, and specifically on how they are different from one another.

    Comments still might not show up if they get filtered as spam – usually those with lots of links.

    I’ll still be popping in, just not as active for the next two weeks.

  63. checkthemap says:

    Suntour,

    Since all the evidence available online is . . . well, available . . . I don’t see why it is my responsibility to scour the web searching for images that might convince people who are clearly determined to maintain a “skeptic” perspective. That is how you appear to me, despite your claims of openness.

    I am assuming you have done your homework and spent a lot of time looking at all the information presented on the Internet, though certainly the body of photographic evidence online is incomplete — many people do not post all their photos — and people’s observation and personal stories are important to listen to as well. And so far, nothing has convinced you — so why would I be any different?

    When I say I do not trust Uncinus, it’s because I do not trust Uncinus. I’m being honest. I think this site is most likely a purposeful disinformation website. Of course I may be wrong, but if it is, I don’t want to bother dealing with it. And if it isn’t, I am put off by the extreme level of unwillingness to listen to anything other than the viewpoint that all contrails are perfectly normal.

    As so many people have said, chemtrails and contrails are very similar, but there are differences we have noticed and documented — none of which you appear to believe.

    What I see on this site is the repeated comment, “But why don’t you show us the evidence?” This is stated no matter what is presented, and it begins to look very much like a ploy to discredit absolutely everything that people have witnessed around the world — the totality of which points to the strong possibility that something is being done to manipulate clouds and weather.

    No personal observation is considered acceptable on this website. For instance, when I say I’ve seen an extremely abnormal number of planes flying over my house in a day — you tell me I have not. What gives you the right to tell me that? Nothing at all. You were not there, you have no idea.

    When I call the FAA to complain about the planes, and the trails obscuring the sky — they tell me the planes do not exist.

    This is the same for observers around the world — we have all experienced the same thing.

    So, I assume that either you on this website are related somehow to the cover-up, which is certainly not a great stretch, or you are so close minded and arrogant and convinced of your rightness, that you can hear nothing.

    It is quite simple to sit back and demand tests that “prove” that people are getting various physical ailments from the spraying, but of course we all know that it’s impossible to prove.

    You know it, and yet you demand it.

    So, Suntour, you and Uncinus and Jazzroc et all, are either arrogant idiots or corrupt bastards who are part of this desecration of our skies.

    Either way, you can all go fuck yourselves.

    Happy trails,

    ctm

  64. SR1419 says:

    ….and yet another “believer” comes roaring in full of self-righteousness and indignation only to break upon the rampart of logic and science…

    …and in the end is left with nothing but insults.

    typical.

    …as if asking for evidence is somehow dodging the issue.

    This is the same for observers around the world — we have all experienced the same thing.

    This is simply not true. I am an observer. I have experienced nothing like you supposedly have. Nor as anyone I know.

    …its not that I am unwilling ” to listen to anything other than the viewpoint that all contrails are perfectly normal” …I have listened, closely, for the last several years…I have looked at photos, video, eyewitness accounts…

    …and I have seen nothing that would suggest the trails in the sky are not simply a result of jet exhaust and atmospheric physics…

    Nothing.

    …which is what you apparently have…nothing.

    …and just as a curiosity…how do you think the US Military would pull off such a large- global no less- operation for years and years…without a single shred of evidence coming to light?

    Do you really think that is a likely, logical scenario?

  65. JazzRoc says:

    checkthemap:

    So, Suntour, you and Uncinus and Jazzroc et all, are either arrogant idiots or corrupt bastards

    Well, you weren’t a lot of fun either.

    Good luck learning to understand perspective, and believe me, it’s about time you studied a little atmospheric physics (as well) BEFORE coming to conclusions about people you cannot possibly know.

  66. Checkthemap:

    Get in contact on my Youtube channel.

  67. Guest says:

    I have provided a link that is heavily footnoted with government and corporate admissions of plans and tests using aircraft to distribute aerosols to impact weather, test bioweapons, “prevent” global warming and a myriad of other purposes.

    The best comeback was to attack the website (infowars.com) and its owner (alex jones) that posted the article. I know its difficult to address facts when you have committed to a conclusion, but it would be nice for the chemtrail debunkers to admit that some contrails have been chemtrails.

    In regard to the visual arguments regarding pictures. It is simply a red herring to even discuss what we all see is obvious in the sky. Even though it is obvious, it is not conclusive. Therefore, all discussions on photos is moot.

    Again, in the 90+ footnotes in the article linked, you will find many government, corporate and research interests all admitting they have either participated in chemtrail dispersion or plan to.

    This point is not debatable.

    Please, again, do not fall into the trap of discussing what you see in the sky. It really doesn’t matter and provides all the ammunition the debunkers need to obfuscate the topic. Cointelpro? Maybe. I can’t really think of any other purpose for website devoted debunking an admitted phenomenon.

  68. SR1419 says:

    None of the aerosol “plans and tests” in that link your provided involve using persistent contrails as a method of delivery- much less on a global scale.

    None of them involve contrails at all.

    The entire “chemtrail” belief system is based on the visual “evidence” of persistent contrails.

    “contrails dissipate- chemtrails don’t” is the usual meme.

    Thus, discussing what one sees in the sky in not a “trap” but indeed the source of the issue. That it provides “debunkers with ammunition” says more about the existence of “chemtrails” than anything else.

    Moreover, Alex Jones is a known purveyor of dubious and false information and thus he being the source is extremely relevant.

  69. Guest says:

    SR1419, I cannot argue with direct statements of untruth (lies). Please do not try to drive the discussion into only the corner where you are advantaged.

    For example footnote 17: 17. Death In the Air, Global Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, Leonard G. Horowitz, Tetrahedron Publishing Group, 2001; “Military Conducting Biological Warfare in Washington,” 12-12-97, http://www.rense.com; Probing the Chemtrails Conundrum, William Thomas, Essence Publications, 2000, http://www.willthomas.net.

    Let me ask you specifically. Do you believe weather modification through cloud seeding has at least been tested? China admitted doing it before the Olympics last year.

    If you admit that weather modification has either been tested or is in use, then you – the debunker – have been debunked.

  70. Guest says:

    Debunkers are a strange lot. Rather than factually addressing the concerns aired by “black helicopter nutjobs”, they will always attack the man, raise straw men and obfuscate the discussion. What are the reasons that debunkers debunk?
    1. Paid Cointelpro (look it up if you don’t know what it is).
    2. A misguided sense of self-importance exemplified by the “that’s to big to hide” comments.
    3. An investment in the authority of compartmentalism (“this is my job and I do it well”).
    4. Fear of the unknown. “I have a good understanding of the world around me.”
    5. A naive belief that there is no evil in the world.

    These are just a few motivations that come off the top of my head. I am not a proponent of chemtrails. I do know that the government participates in weather modification and bio testing via aerosol. I do not know the extent of chemtrailing, but I do not deny that it happens.

    Why would anyone feel it necessary to argue that there are no chemtrails? It has been admitted that there have been chemtrails. The real question is how much?, how often? and where is it being done?.

    I don’t think reasonable answers are none, never and nowhere. Do you? If so, why? It has been admitted.

  71. SR1419 says:

    Cloud seeding???

    Please….cloud seeding has long been practiced in this country and elsewhere…

    It is not clandestine…nor does it involve the troposphere…or using persistent contrails as delivery…or even involve “spraying” anything. Typically, it is silver iodide released via flares from small planes.

    See here:

    http://www.weathermod.com/

    “chemtrails” as the internet myth is purveyed is about contrails that persist, spread and cover the sky in a haze…which is a known behavior of contrails.

    Moreover, you respond with such a blatant display of hypocrisy “attack(ing) the man, raise straw men and obfuscate the discussion” by doing that very same thing with your question of motives…

    Typical of those who are losing debates.

    again…NOTHING you have submitted as “proof” results in trails that persist and spread and that is the one thing that “believers” point to in agreement as “proof” of “chemtrails”.

    Good luck with that.

    PS: Please do show where anyone “admitted” that the persistent trails one sees in the sky are really a global, clandestine “spray” campaign.

  72. JazzRoc says:

    Guest, you surely take the prize for the most rapid descent into hypocrisy I have ever witnessed.

    Your links were not easy to find, and continued in the style you use yourself – that of making claims without backing them up.

    There was an item on the Will Thomas site which said “SEE chemtrails filmed from the air on Japanese television news” which turned out to be the well-known YouTube video “CHEMTRAILS – you decide” which is a passenger’s video of cloud streets – an atmospheric phenomenon known from ancient times. A satellite view of this is on this website (somewhere!) and it shows thousands of square miles of it streaming down the Bering Straits from the Arctic. So THAT is rubbish from the start, isn’t it?

    My experience of both Rense and Will Thomas is that their articles take disparate true facts and build them into works of fiction. You can take any piece of FICTION from EITHER site, and, as long as you can identify the true reasons behind the basic facts employed, you can DEBUNK it. It’s not impossible to debunk these sites from their beginning to their end. But it’s not a particularly rewarding thing to do.

    It puzzles me sometimes that you should also be ugly and menacing as well as hypocritical, though.

    This site is all about contrail SCIENCE. If you had cared to study the links, and learn to understand the science behind them, you would find that piece-by-piece your veil of misunderstanding and fear would lift.

    You would see that all the visual evidence which leads you to believe there are poisons in aircraft trails is explicable in terms of the science of gas turbines operating in the stratosphere, and not only that, but other optical features in the skies like haloes and sundogs are ALSO explained by optical physics and ice crystal structure.

    If you could properly understand the sheer scale of the Earth, or could properly calculate the logistic effort required to geo-engineer it, you’d soon pipe down.

    If you knew what ways of geo-engineering the Earth were preferable, in the logical order of cost and effectiveness, then you’d know that NO government will EVER be seriously interested in the methods suggested by chemtrailers, for they simply aren’t sensible.

    If you believe that things that are proposed actually get done in the end, then I recommend you spend some time in a patent office.

    You believe that without scientific understanding you can assume real events that you can imagine are taking place, when they are not, and that the motives you assign to other people are accurately assigned, when they are not.

    You are like a person who sits at a card table to play a card game, but does not know the rules. Until you learn them, everything you do looks silly.

    So learn some science. This site is called contrail SCIENCE.

  73. Guest says:

    I guess you won’t answer my question regarding your vehement defense of the “No chemtrails” position. I am not arguing that there is a “global, clandestine spray campaign. You are arguing that there is not. I am arguing there may be.

    What qualifies you to dismiss the hypothesis? This is my fundamental question: What kind of people argue knowledge that something like this does not exist. Certainly you (and others like you) don’t feel that your knowledge of the world is omnipotent, do you? When does a pollutant become a chemical agent? Obama and his top eugenicist Holdren seem to think particulate air pollution may be required to stifle global warming.

    What I find most entertaining is how almost every debunker I’ve ever communicated with is whole-heartedly supportive of the anthropogenic global warming conspiracy/hoax. How do you explain this? I think it has to do with a susceptibility to propaganda more than anything else.

    Again, I restate my initial questions: Why would people spend effort to debunk others suspicions? What makes them so sure the suspicions are unfounded? Why is anyone invested in debunking?

    I know my interest is to try to learn more about things I am curious about. What is your interest?

  74. Guest says:

    Jaz, I do not use visual evidence to come to any conclusions. I simply ask the question. I really don’t have a dog in the hunt other than the fact that I am open to ideas that you debunkers seem completely closed to. Why must you attack me just because I doubt your omnipotence?

    And don’t give me the “you don’t understand science” line. I’m a degreed engineer. I’m simply trying to increase my understanding. Can you say the same? You seem quite firm in your commitment to your position.

  75. SR1419 says:

    I am not arguing that there is a “global, clandestine spray campaign”. You are arguing that there is not. I am arguing there may be.

    I am simply of the belief that there is no evidence of “chemtrails” in the visible trails that people point to as “proof”.

    Its really quite simple.

    The entire “theory” was born of the belief that the persistent trails people saw in the sky was evidence of….something…

    However, detailed analysis of all available information regarding these trails is highly conclusive that these trails…are not “new”, are not “different”, are not unusual and are to be expected should one take the time to learn the science behind what is actually taking place in the atmosphere when a jet flies through it.

    Thus, the very basis for the entire theory is untrue.

    A myth.

    Everything else after that is superfluous. Misdirection. Obfuscation.

    That people want to control the weather is well known…cloud seeding (precip enhancement), hurricane mitigation, hail mitigation etc…all of that is above board science and is of no mystery…

    That people are studying “aerosols” and thinking of clever ways to do things is not surprising nor a secret. The vast majority of aerosol research has to deal with the particulate matter already in the atmosphere.

    That governments can do secret, nefarious and bad things is not doubted.

    …but none of that changes the fact that the trails people point to in FEAR …were there all along …have always behaved as they do now…and are fully, explicably, and undeniably bound to the laws of nature…laws which are free for all to know and understand….

  76. Guest says:

    Uncinus, what would constitute evidence to you?

    Photos of planes spraying something unusual. Leaks of information from the thousands of people that would be involved in such a scheme. Statistics that show inexplicable weather changes that correlate to suspicious events. Test results showing increased levels of certain chemicals in the air or rainwater. Statistics that show contrail persistence is not correlated with weather conditions.

    Photos of planes spraying something unusual would be very unusual indeed. Certainly you have seen crop dusters and aerobatic stunt pilots discharge chemicals. I think a better question is what kind of pollutant/agent would survive the combustion process. Certainly most heavy metals and ionic compounds would. I’m unsure of what microbes would, but it is my understanding that there are some microbes that live in lava.

    I find it perplexing that you think thousands of people would have to be involved in a concerted effort for the FAA to test and/or mandate specific jet fuel additives. Many of these additives have trade names and different purposes: http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html . Therefore, it would not be difficult or out of the ordinary at all to inject odd pollutants into the contrails through testing or mandate. Like I asked earlier, when does a pollutant become a chemical agent?

    As far as credible witnesses go, here are comments from DEFENSE SECRETARY WILLIAM COHEN at a public forum:

    Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy
    Sam Nunn Policy Forum
    April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

    Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week’s scare here in
    Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to
    deal with that (inaudible), at B’nai Brith.

    A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a
    false threat under the circumstances. But as we’ve learned in the
    intelligence community, we had something called — and we have James
    Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom
    moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off
    a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can
    paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search.
    The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using
    some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some
    reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to
    construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very
    dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written
    about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to
    devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific so
    that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and
    others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects
    that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an
    eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off
    earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic
    waves.

    Notice the last sentence of the previous quote. These electromagnetic weapons are one of the reasons to spike the atmosphere with metals or ions or some other medium.

    I guess my point is that there are some people doing some really crazy things that pay no mind to health and safety. Take the swine/bird/human flu. It is pretty commonly understood to be an engineered virus and not naturally occurring.

    In fact, my physics professor was involved in the Manhattan project and he said that almost half of the physicists were warning of a possible global thermo-nuclear chain reaction right up until they blew the first successful A-bomb test. I’m not sure if you know what that means, but luckily those guys were wrong. This mindset continues today with the construction of the Large Hadron Collider:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_particle_collisions_at_the_Large_Hadron_Collider

    It takes a lot of courage to accept the possibilities in a world filled with greed and evil, but simply denying anything unnerving is the act of an ostrich, not a man. Therefore, the simple dismissal of theories as “conspiracy” is an act of both cowardice and ignorance.

    I can see on this site that most everyone seems to want to discuss the visual appearance of the contrails. I have no interest in what they look like. I came here hoping to find chemical engineers and refinery technicians discussing fuel additives. What I found was internet tough guys arguing who’s smarter. Sadly, that’s what the cointelpro is designed to do.

    Enjoy your sodium fluoride and flu shots!

  77. JazzRoc says:

    I think a better question is what kind of pollutant/agent would survive the combustion process. Certainly most heavy metals and ionic compounds would. – How do they get through the GAP in the trail? Isn’t FLAME TESTING a way of identifying metals, Mr. “Engineer”? What about the absolutely clear space in the trail gap?

    I’m unsure of what microbes would, but it is my understanding that there are some microbes that live in lava. – Ho, ho! Rush off and tell all hospitals that heat sterilization is a waste of time – bacteria can pass through a bunsen flame!

    I find it perplexing that you think thousands of people would have to be involved in a concerted effort for the FAA to test and/or mandate specific jet fuel additives. Many of these additives have trade names and different purposes. Therefore, it would not be difficult or out of the ordinary at all to inject odd pollutants into the contrails through testing or mandate. – Except that the mixing takes place at the refinery local to the airport tank farm, so thousands of people would be aware of it. It’s that card game again, and you’re unaware of the rules…

    As far as credible witnesses go, here are comments from DEFENSE SECRETARY WILLIAM COHEN at a public forum – Like there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

    “But as we’ve learned in the intelligence community, we had something called — and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search.” – That’s true – the same effects are being created in our society by chemtrailers – it’s a form of inadvertent terrorism. YOU are a “phantom mole” to me.

    The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. Notice the last sentence of the previous quote. These electromagnetic weapons are one of the reasons to spike the atmosphere with metals or ions or some other medium. – Just find me the papers on creating volcanoes and earthquakes, and I’ll debunk them. You have NO IDEA of the depths and energies involved, but I’ll give a clue: a 1 megaton bomb (many orders more powerful than HAARP) clears a 100-foot diameter sphere when set off in solid rock. Think about that…

    I guess my point is that there are some people doing some really crazy things that pay no mind to health and safety. – Thus will it ever be. Wanna cigarette?

    Take the swine/bird/human flu. It is pretty commonly understood to be an engineered virus and not naturally occurring. – Then it isn’t understood at all. How’s your understanding of evolution? Almost every time it replicates in a host such viruses will be subject to mutation forces.

    half of the physicists were warning of a possible global thermo-nuclear chain reaction right up until they blew the first successful A-bomb test. I’m not sure if you know what that means – I’m not sure you know what that means either.

    This mindset continues today with the construction of the Large Hadron Collider – The mindset of ignorance will continue without hindrance into the future, no doubt.

    BILLIONS of relativistic protons pass each other tens of thousands of times per second, and just once in a while there is a collision which is other than a glancing hit. Tens of thousands of these will be sorted to discover, if we are lucky, a Higgs Boson.

    Tell me that is a scenario for swallowing up the Earth with a black hole again… 🙂

    the simple dismissal of theories as “conspiracy” is an act of both cowardice and ignorance. – That’s why I don’t do it. I just tell you as soon as you spout rubbish. There’s never a long wait.

    I can see on this site that most everyone seems to want to discuss the visual appearance of the contrails. I have no interest in what they look like. – Yeah! You come to a site calling itself “Contrail Science” to:

    I came here hoping to find chemical engineers and refinery technicians discussing fuel additives. (Titters offstage!) 🙂

    What I found was internet tough guys arguing who’s smarter. – ANYONE can be smarter than you. You studiously leave matters of science unread. You seem to miss all directions to topics that would assist you to have a better picture of the world. You are like a person hammering his hand and complaining about the pain.

  78. Guest says:

    Jaz, your scathing attack simply makes you seem envious of my reasonable position and modest education. I think I’ve done my part to help you expose the weakness in your arguments. Let me summarize your comments:

    1. Gap in the trail and flame testing eliminates metals and ions from exhaust
    2. Common bacteria are the only microbes that could be contained in the fuel
    3. Virus mutations are responsible for the convergence of 3 types of flu (when viruses typically diverge)
    4. You are qualified to determine what science is risky and which is not
    5. I am stupid for not accepting your decrees.

    I leave it to the casual observer to weigh our comments against eachother.

  79. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    If you can taste chemicals, the supposedly these chemicals are not lingering with the trail.

    So what is lingering?

  80. SR1419 says:

    I can see on this site that most everyone seems to want to discuss the visual appearance of the contrails. I have no interest in what they look like.

    …that is indeed odd…this being a CONTRAIL SCIENCE website…

    Moreover, CONTRAILS being the very essence of the matter…the origin of the “chemtrail” theory…the very reason we are even discussing this in the first place…and the supposedly defining factor in the legitimacy of the “chemtrail” claim….

    ..and yet you do not want to discuss it…

    That is logical.

    You would rather deal in hypotheticals, speculation and connecting dots that may or may not exist…all the while IGNORING the fact that the very basis for the entire theory is a lie…

    (“chemtrails” is supposedly a global phenomenon…how does the FAA mandate the jet fuel for other countries?)

    It takes a lot of courage to accept the possibilities in a world filled with greed and evil, but simply denying anything unnerving is the act of an ostrich, not a man. Therefore, the simple dismissal of theories as “conspiracy” is an act of both cowardice and ignorance.

    Your holier-than-thou, self-righteous attack only undermines your credibility…You claim to be so open-minded to the possibilities and yet seem to close minded to the idea that people might disagree with you…or that you might be wrong. Again with the hypocrisy.

    I can only speak for myself but I have never denied “anything unnerving” nor do I speak from ignorance. I know the World is filled with “greed and evil”. There is no doubt that “there are some people doing some really crazy things that pay no mind to health and safety”- as JR pointed out that has always been the case and always will be. That does not mean every single nefarious idea or belief is true. The fact is I have spent a lot of time and effort researching this possibility and have concluded that “chemtrails” are not evidenced by seeing persistent trails in the sky…

    …again, which is what the entire theory is based on.

    That you “have no interest” in discussing the underlying premise of the entire debate is quite telling.

    Good luck with that.

  81. JazzRoc says:

    Guest:

    1. Gap in the trail and flame testing eliminates metals and ions from exhaust – Well it does, doesn’t it?

    2. Common bacteria are the only microbes that could be contained in the fuel – There are possibly a thousand species of bacteria which could be contained in the fuel. As they pass through the FLAME they will become STEAM, CO2, SO2, etc., etc.

    3. Virus mutations are responsible for the convergence of 3 types of flu (when viruses typically diverge) – Like bacteria, viruses GET ABOUT. Like bacteria, they are open to the exchange of information between them, as well as to information gathered both from their host cells and also “genetic rescue systems” belonging to the host. This can easily create a “convergent” scenario.

    4. You are qualified to determine what science is risky and which is notAnyone (even you) who takes the trouble to become more scientifically-educated becomes more qualified in such a determination. It might not help in itself, of course, unless you also obtain better information as well.

    5. I am stupid for not accepting your decrees – You don’t appear to have listened to me (or Uncinus, or SR1419) at all. Norr have you read the links…

    How are you digesting the “gap”?

  82. JazzRoc says:

    MyMatesBrainwashed:

    If you can taste chemicals, the supposedly these chemicals are not lingering with the trail. So what is lingering?

    It’s an interesting point.

    Up there you see a classic ever-expanding “chem” 🙂 trail, and it’s SEVEN MILES above your head.

    Down below, a “chemtrailer” tastes “chemicals” in his/her mouth. Was there a hyperspace link to the tongue? Or was there a limbic “placebo” connection? Pavlov’s dogs salivated to the sound of a bell. Do “chemtrailers” salivate to the sight of a persistent contrail?

    Meanwhile, the trail is falling slowly. Measurements confirm the average speed of the stratosphere to be 50mph and trail descent to be about 0.75m/sec from 10,000 metres, so if trails fell all the way (which they don’t!) they would land, er, nearly four hours later and two hundred miles away.

    Hooray for hyperspace! 🙂

  83. citizen of the cosmos says:

    I saw the History Channel weather warfare episode, its on youtube now. Seems very likely that the US would use and want to use the weather as a weapon. How can you guys be so solid and so 100% that “they” aren’t testing over the US. Seems very likely?

  84. Suntour says:

    I’m not 100% certain that “they” arent testing over the U.S., but if a person looks at the logistics of the whole thing, it seems like a big fairytale. Even after watching the History Channel show, that doesn’t answer anything. It felt just like I was reading chemtrailcentral’s forums in vocal form. That show…there is so many questionable statements, so much speculation and pure fear mongering that it’s laughable. This is purely entertainment and suspense, this is not a documentary.

    Frakes says things like:
    “while highly speculative, some researchers suggest these strange cloud formations…”

    “the theory is that chemtrails are being used in conjunction with haarp”

    “allegedly…”

    In each instance, he then goes into a few different points that depend soley upon these statements as fact.

    The captions at the bottom of the screen were based soley upon speculative statements as well:
    “HAARP HEATS ATMOSPHERE”
    “ELF WAVES MOVING JETSTREAM”
    “ELF WAVES REFLECTING”
    “RELEASING CHEMTRAIL”
    “CHEMTRAIL CAUSES DROUGHT”
    “RAF CLOUD SEEDING”

    William Thomas – author of “Chemtrails Confirmed”
    “chemtrails are deliberatly sprayed by high flying US tankers dispersing chemicals into the atmosphere”

    There is absolutely no proof for that statement, yet the History Channel allows it to go unchallenged and even acts as if it’s fact!

    Nick Begich – Author “Angels don’t play this haarp”
    “Haarp is being used for weather modification”

    They just took his word for it, he didn’t even have to show proof.

    Some of these statements and questions are so vague and/or speculative, but they’re taken and run with as fact.

    “some of the research indicates that you can move the jet stream around”

    “some people believe…

    “if an enemy could…”

    “…that could change the weather.”

    “…perhaps it’s already here?”

    “…has the US already been attacked by a weather weapon?”

    “some researchers believe…”

    “did the royal airforce embark on deadly cloud seeding experiments without the public’s knowledge?”

    “a report by pentagon researcher Al Ponte (sp) alleges”

    Here are a few of the only skeptical statements that I made note of during the show. Notice how they are immediately contrasted with “though” and “but” statements:

    “There’s no conclusive proof that any of them are being used as weather weapons, though they do have the ability to manipulate the ionosphere.”

    “so far there has been on conclusive proof…but it does illustrate the potential”

    “nations still deny that they are weaponizing weather, but there are suggestions to the contrary”

    This stinks of the same sensationalism as the Moon Landing Hoax “documentary”. It’s too bad they can’t have real science on TV, but I suppose it isn’t as sexy and scary as the idea that the big bad Government might be pulling a fast one on you.

  85. citizen of the cosmos says:

    I still think if they are capable of doing it and if HAARP has the potential to do what they claim it does. The US government will use it. “They” tested 1000’s of Nuclear weapons over our soil and who knows what else they’ve tested on us. Seems exactly like something “they” would do in order to secure the Empire..

    The debate is here, but if it is being done in the name of national security we will never know the truth and all leads and directions one follow to attain the truth, it will be obscured by clouds…

  86. SR1419 says:

    CotC-

    you are forgetting some very important points…

    There is NO evidence that “they” are testing anything…persistent contrails at the very least are certainly not evidence…which is what the entire theory is based on.

    Moreover, “chemtrails” are supposedly a global phenomenon which makes the likelihood of this being a secret program of the US Government all the more unlikely…

    The speculation is so vast, the dots being connected so far flung, the gaps in logic so glaring…that it teeters on the edge of impossible.

  87. citizen of the cosmos says:

    I think you may be under looking some important points too. It is a World Market/economy now, which means there is a push for a world society/government. So if one chooses to see it that way then it makes perfect sense that the “chemtrails” would be world wide with many international global groups participating..

    If this is just so unlikely; then why do so many people believe this myth? Why is this a world wide topic of debate? Why is it making its way to mainstream outlets? What do people see that is making them think and ask questions about what they see? What happened in the past to initially start this debate..?

    Something must have changed to get people wondering about this in the first place..

  88. JazzRoc says:

    Citizen:

    if they are capable of doing it – I’ll agree with you that the last lot certainly were – and even that there was and is a potential or an ongoing conspiracy to try to do it. But an accurate criminal test (if you are a detective) involves means, motive, and opportunity. That is, not just motive.

    if HAARP has the potential to do what they claim it does – But it doesn’t. It never has done so, doesn’t do so right now, and it never will do so in the future. Stop reading journalistic pseudoscience!

    “They” tested 1000’s of Nuclear weapons over our soil – No. Not true at all. The great majority of nuclear tests were underground.

    Seems exactly like something “they” would do in order to secure the Empire.. – No means or opportunity…

    if it is being done in the name of national security – No means or opportunity.

    there is a push for a world society/government – And so there bloody well ought to be. It will eliminate both nationalistic war, and third-world children being paid fifteen cents a day making your footwear.

    it makes perfect sense that the “chemtrails” would be world wide – If they were, but if you were to RESEARCH EVEN FOR A SECOND you’d see that trails demarcate civil aviation routes ONLY. Just look up dailly satellite pictures and you’ll see that trails are barely noticeable from space.

    why do so many people believe this myth? – Because many people are gullible non-scientists.

    What do people see that is making them think – Trails from seven miles beneath. Trails that were first made eighty-eight years ago. Ice from the water in engine exhaust, dramatically added to by condensing water vapor out of the sky.

    Something must have changed – Civil aviation has grown 5000% since the fifties.

    I’m glad it has made you think. Use it or lose it…

  89. SR1419 says:

    “….which means there is a push for a world society/government.”

    By Whom??

    The US is supposedly the instigator of this push and yet it disregards the closest thing there is to a World gov- the UN- the second it does not adhere to the US agenda…and refuses to pay its arrears…

    Do not mistake the desire to coordinate and cooperate in a world challenged by global issues as a desire for a “World” government…or a “World” society….

    If the UN, OPEC, NATO, ASEAN etc… are any indication….you have nothing to fear as the World is a lonnnng way from consensus…and probably will never achieve it…

    Most of the World fears US hegemony and are loathe to follow its lead…others absolutely despise the US and will fight it at any and every opportunity…

    I find the the whole “one world government” meme so naive and childish…and displays a real lack of understanding of the World…if not a lack of international travel 🙂

    “…many international global groups participating”

    This just begs the question of logistics, numbers of people and planes involved and the lack of any leaks, whistle blowers or a single shred of hard evidence…all for a global campaign run over 10yrs..supposedly. That just not likely or probable in the least….

    “…then why do so many people believe this myth? ”

    Good question. Why does anybody believe any myth?? Loch ness? chupacabra? UFOs? fake moon landing? Elvis still alive? …and on and on…

    It is certainly exacerbated a great deal by the internet and the inclination of people to believe anything they read without bothering to check facts, seek other sources of info, do due diligence etc…The internet allows instant validation of beliefs regardless of any actual truth…it encourages a complete abandonment of scholarship.

    5 minutes spent on “chemtrail central” or youtube will show you that is the case.

    The internet allows myths to flourish…people do not understand what they see and instantly find others who feel the same..and find others who think they know and tell others that what they believe…is the “truth”. The entire myth is pervaded by the idea that “contrails dissipate- chemtrails don’t” …and yet that has been scientifically proven NOT to be the case…and yet still people cling to that myth…and lots of pretty websites, youtube videos etc…tell them that is so.

    …and that is just the “human” side of the equation…there is also certain FACTS that contribute to the myth…or at least contribute to the number of trails in the sky

    There has been a HUGE increase in the number of flights in the sky…not just in the US but globally- particularly in the last 20 years…in some places more than triple the number since 1985…

    There are changes in the engine design of jets that create more condensation nuclei and water vapor that are the seeds of contrails…allowing contrail formation over a wider range of parameters than before. (There is a lot of research on this…feel free to look for yourself)

    Why isn’t there a single atmospheric scientist…anywhere…who says that the trails people see in the sky are NOT just contrails…just one….

    why is that?

    …once again…at the risk of being redundant…the entire myth is based on a false premise…it is born of a lie…

  90. JazzRoc says:

    Citizen, here’s a bit of news for you concerning “them”.

    The End of Little Grey Men and the truth about Roswell

    This title may be retitled if you’re a chemtrailer as “Disinformationalist reveals all”, but if you have a modicum of scientific understanding my original title rings true. It’s longer than an hour, sorry, but it’s worth it.

    This story begins with why small steel spheres were issued to United States Navy pilots during the War in the Pacific of WW2, why whales can and do swim down a thousand metres wherever they are in the deep oceans, and continues with the connection this had with US attempts to detect the first tests of nuclear weapons conducted by the USSR, and the connection with the Roswell New Mexico “crashed flying saucer” incident, and further connections to Tom Clancy’s book “The Hunt for Red October”.

    It is a classic story of the real truth springing from the discovery of intrinsic properties of the Earth, and physical science, and the engineering applications (frequently most top secret) which sprang from that.

    Real scientific factual truth is infinitely more fascinating than popular myth…

    http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=+StumbleVideo%3A+Physics+10+-+Lecture+11%3A+-+Waves+I++&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#hl=en&emb=0&aq=f&q=physics+10+lecture&start=5

  91. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Maybe if Uncinus sold subscriptions, wrote books and made money out of exposing the chemtrail hoax he’d have more credibility.

    Although it seems easier to sell fear.

  92. JazzRoc says:

    MMB:

    Maybe if Uncinus sold subscriptions, wrote books and made money out of exposing the chemtrail hoax he’d have more credibility.

    You’re probably right there.

    But not with me. The only thing Uncinus can’t do is proof-read what he writes to a 100%. This man loves his subject: clouds and aviation.

  93. stars15k says:

    As someone continuously called a “paid shill”, “disinfo agent”, “disinformationalist”, and lots of other combinations that just aren’t nice, I sincerely hope books NOT be sold. The science is out there, the bookstore is full of weather guides, the internet has lots of visually-oriented learning opportunities, and the libraries have lots more books, OLD books which show pictures of everything shown and labeled as chemtrails. The idiots out there who don’t learn, research, or even try to understand the science would scoff at anything written anti-“chem”, and not buy it anyway.
    I’ve been telling people for months the only shills are the people who write book, make videos, run websites, and make personal &/or talk-radio tours. I believe it shows credibility that he hasn’t gone the $$$ route. No more information is really needed, people just need to wise up and find it.
    Stupid is a choice these people make, feeding them information with a spoon doesn’t work. Why waste the time?

  94. Guest says:

    stars15k

    Stupid is a choice these people make, feeding them information with a spoon doesn’t work. Why waste the time?

    OK, now I am fully convinced this entire site is simply a pentagon funded psyop. All you debunkers have simply failed to address any issue other than the visual element of the basic argument. I posted peer reviewed articles and direct quotes from the secretary of defense, and in return, the same old song and dance around the real subject.

    This is all the proof I need:
    http://www.nfmpolitico.com/yourerie/2009/07/23/hill-takes-on-dod-propaganda-costs/

    How much of the billion are you guys getting?

  95. Guest says:

    Senate appropriations to DOD regarding $1BB propaganda funding:

    “Much of the content of what is being produced, and certainly some of the largest cost drivers in these programs, is focused so far beyond a traditional military information operation that the term non-traditional military information operation does not justly apply,” the House report reads.

    “At face value, much of what is being produced appears to be United States Military, and more alarmingly non-military propaganda, public relations, and behavioral modification messaging. The Committee questions the effectiveness of much of the material being produced with this funding, the supposed efforts to minimize target audience knowledge of United State’ Government sponsorship of certain production materials, and the ability of the Department to evaluate the impact of these programs.”

  96. JazzRoc says:

    Guest:

    I posted peer reviewed articles and direct quotes from the secretary of defense, and in return, the same old song and dance around the real subject.

    The “real subject” being “trails show us that aircraft are spraying us with poison” – which YOU have danced around.

    Remember the “GAP in the trail” question? I really believe you CANNOT, because it does too much damage to your belief system. So you’ve danced around that.

    You have done so without answering a single question any of us has asked of you.

    You have done so without checking any of the facts we have recommended you take onboard.

    THEN you come up with “peer reviewed articles”! 😀

    Your “belief system” condemns you to blatant untruth and hypocrisy.

    It will never be a substitute for knowledge.

  97. JazzRoc says:

    Actually, Guest, I reckon you don’t exist at all.

    I reckon that YOU are Uncinus, and you’re just pulling our plonkers… 🙂

  98. Jimmy says:

    I find this website hugely entertaining. Keep up the good work!

Comments are closed.