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. bryansail33 says:

    Hi All,
    The vapor vs. chem debate rages on. I have an open mind with regards to the likelyhood of the U.S. weaponizing weather. Really there is a mountain of data that when combined is strongly indicative that the U.S. has been working and testing this for many decades.

    I think Guest has made some very good points with regard to fuel additives and the huge importance of militarizing weather. Weather’s impact on the battlefiled has been a game changer for thousands upon thousands of years and somehow Jazzrock and Uncinus are skeptical of actual military testing of weather control? Seems a bit out of touch to think that we are only at the point of thinking about militarizing weather or thinking that we only have chaff or cloud seeding in our arsenal.

    Alcoa. Big Multinational company. Take a look at their profile. $2.9 Billion in revenue from Alumina (stated). Contrails are Chemtrails, have been for a long time. It may not be a conspiracy to do most or any of what the chemtrail web sites claim. A better jetfuel additive is big money.
    http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/about_alcoa/overview.asp

    The only unity I see with a one world governance is that Multinational corps & banks have had the upper hand for a long time. Banks & Corporations dominate the world where it matters. Governments seem to run somewhere underneath them. This doesn’t appear to be a recent development. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm Link is a fairly long posting on the Federal reserve. Interesting that Alcoa is mentioned in it. Global domination is their game. They are going to manufacture the science to get their product everywhere that they can including in the air. Nothing too surprising there.

    The part that is more interesting to me are the properties that contrails can convey in the air and onto ground surfaces that can be useful for military applications.

  2. JazzRoc says:

    I have an open mind with regards to the likelyhood of the U.S. weaponizing weather. – Hmmm.

    Really there is a mountain of data that when combined is strongly indicative that the U.S. has been working and testing this for many decades. – Technically, there’s no fault in your sentence. It’s true. But exactly how much effort have they expended? If opponents have already been deterred from fighting military battles in the open with conventional weapons, then what use is weather warfare? Have you REALLY ever considered ALL the implications? Like how other countries might object? How it might have harmful effects elsewhere? I’m sure they have…

    I think Guest has made some very good points with regard to fuel additives – No. Neither of you seem to understand how aircraft are fuelled.
    The local airport possesses a TANK FARM to hold kerosine supplies. These have been piped aviation kerosine from a local refinery. The refinery is essentially a BIG STILL. The crude petroleum it distils may have arrived from a variety of sources, each petroleum type being an unique hydrocarbon cocktail, as individual as a fingerprint. As a consequence, what is distilled off at the refinery has roughly ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY SIX separate hydrocarbons, all of approximately the same molecular weight as DECANE, the classic kerosine hydrocarbon. At least a dozen of them are carcinogenic.
    To this is added materials which improve the passing of the kerosine through the tanks, lines, pumps, filters, and injection nozzles of the engine. These are added in fractions of a percentage of the overall constituents.
    You BADLY misrepresent this minute fraction (you’ll find the same in GAS and DIESEL roadside fuels, by the way) apparently in the style of William Thomas. That is, assertive, and without a backup that might survive analysis.

    Weather’s impact on the battlefiled has been a game changer for thousands upon thousands of years and somehow Jazzrock and Uncinus are skeptical of actual military testing of weather control? – They have probably conducted ALL the experiments they ever needed to conduct using secret places called LABORATORIES. Then there’s NO NEED to bury us all in barium! 🙂

    Seems a bit out of touch to think that we are only at the point of thinking about militarizing weather or thinking that we only have chaff or cloud seeding in our arsenal. – So don’t do it.

    Contrails are Chemtrails, have been for a long time. – Uh, uh, kiddo. That don’t wash. There’s NO MATERIAL PROOF. In fact there’s a well-known trail of evidence from hundreds of papers in atmospheric science which EXACTLY EXPLAINS the appearance of the contrails you call “chemtrails”.
    You know that I have told you this before. Then you either cannot envision, interpret, understand the science of what you see, or you do, and are carring on a cynical and useless act.

    It may not be a conspiracy to do most or any of what the chemtrail web sites claim – That’s the one. 🙂

    A better jetfuel additive is big money. – But will still be a tiny percentage constituent of JP-8, aviation kerosine.

    Alcoa. Big Multinational company. Take a look at their profile. $2.9 Billion in revenue from Alumina (stated).The only unity I see with a one world governance is that Multinational corps & banks have had the upper hand for a long time. Banks & Corporations dominate the world where it matters. Governments seem to run somewhere underneath them. This doesn’t appear to be a recent development. http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm Link is a fairly long posting on the Federal reserve. Interesting that Alcoa is mentioned in it. Global domination is their game. They are going to manufacture the science to get their product everywhere that they can including in the air. Nothing too surprising there. – Yes, that last sentence. It is standing in thin air. In a moment it’s going to do what Wil. E. Coyote does so well.

    The part that is more interesting to me are the properties that contrails can convey in the air – Er, humidity, solar reflectance and Infrared retention – because they’re CIRRUS clouds.

    and onto ground surfaces – Er, humidity, solar reflectance and Infrared retention – because they’re CIRRUS clouds.

    I have an open mind with regards to the likelyhood of the U.S. weaponizing weather. – Pull the other one… 🙂

  3. SR1419 says:

    BryanSail.

    Can you elucidate on why you think the manufacture of Alumina is alarming?

    Or why you insinuate that Alcoa is somehow complicit in the “chemtrail” theory simply because they are a large corporation who produces (only) a third of the World’s alumina (hardly global domination)?

    Isn’t that disingenuous speculation bordering on fear mongering?

    …then to fall back to the predictable “big corporations bad…big banks bad” meme seems to lead down a path of pure bias based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims thrown out with impunity…

    “Banks & Corporations dominate the world where it matters”

    Tell us…where does it matter? Should we accept your value judgement of what matters as “truth” ?

    …as for “being out of touch” – can you present ANY evidence…whatsoever…that persistent contrails are being used to weaponize the weather?

  4. SR1419 says:

    “Banks & Corporations dominate the world where it matters”

    ….have you not been paying attention for the last year??

    Who decided which banks lived and died? Which corporations lived and died??

    Other Banks? Other Corps?? …even the dreaded Federal Reserve???

    Nope.

    The US Government seems to have dominated who lived and died. The US government dominated the situation and forced big banks and corps to bend to its will…

    Just ask Bank of America if they wanted to merge with Merrill.

    Just ask Lehman Brothers who dominated matters…

    Sorry…back to Contrails.

  5. Guest says:

    bryansail33, you make some excellent points. It is sad that the close-minded “regulars” must shout you down. I will address a couple of points.

    jazzroc, why do you say that contrails are simple cirrus clouds?. They are not. They are cirrus clouds contaminated with pollutants. The questions raised are regarding these pollutants. Your denial of the existence of this “pollution” clearly demonstrates the level of your credibility.

    SR1419, Perhaps you have forgotten that the major financial decisions, plans and actions were under the control of Hank Paulson, Helicopter Ben and Geithner. Did you forget that bernanke threated congress with a crushed stock market and martial law? I think you are confusing bankster infiltrators with our democratically elected representatives (who themselves have been mostly corrupted by financial interests).

    It is very apparent to anyone with an open mind that some “doth protest to much”. Your propaganda loses steam with the detail of your rebuttals in combination with complete neglect of attention paid to opponents most pertinent valid points.

    jazzroc and SR419, are you on a base, or do you do this from home?

  6. JazzRoc says:

    Guest:

    close-minded “regulars” – Remember the “GAP in the trail” question? How can metal ions leave in the exhaust of a jet engine (at the temperature of molten copper) without glowing with emitted light? All metals do this, each with their own group of spectral lines, barium predominantly GREEN, aluminum a coruscating white flare. Yet, day or night, with airplanes flying in their hundreds of thousands, NO ONE has ever reported seeing colored jet exhaust… how’s your “open-mindedness” here?

    cirrus clouds contaminated with pollutants. The questions raised are regarding these pollutants. – It hasn’t yet occurred to you that at the centre of EVERY cirrus cloud ice crystal in the WHOLE of Earth’s atmosphere contains a “seed” molecule (methyl sulfide typically). This gas is emitted by the surface organisms of the oceans) and is POLLUTED. The same goes for water droplets lower down in the troposphere. EVERY tiny droplet or crystal is POLLUTED. All “fresh rainwater” is POLLUTED.
    But, ah, you say, you’d better define that pollution. And when tested it turns out to be “pure” – our analyzing machines cannot detect such a tiny proportion of adulterant.
    Now in your attempts to “prove” rainwater pollution to be greater than natural, you’d better not mention that KSLA video, for that sorry episode unmasked the stupidity of its protagonists faster than I ever could. Despite what you believe, rain and groundwater measurements have shown over the past few decades no concentrations of endemic basic metal salt solutions outside typical seasonal variations.

    Your denial of the existence of this “pollution” clearly demonstrates the level of your credibility. – Your exaggeration of what this “pollution” is clearly demonstrates the level of your ability.

    It is very apparent to anyone with an open mind that some “doth protest to much”. – No, it is YOU who protesteth too much. Enough already. You know nothing about what you write – such ignorance is sinful. What’s in a trail gap?

    Your propaganda loses steam with the detail of your rebuttals in combination with complete neglect of attention paid to opponents most pertinent valid points. – If “chemtrails” have NO means of transmission – then they cannot exist. Or are they supernatural?
    Yours is the propaganda. Mine is the science. Points following a LOST first point aren’t valid at all, are they? (Or maybe they are if you really believe

    do you do this from home? – No, I’m in a geosynchronous orbit hovering over Tenerife. (Look it up!)

  7. Citizen of the Cosmos says:

    The banking, financial, and Wall Street interests are now in positions of power in the US government, hence the Bailout of Banks (capitalism for the people and socialism for the corporations/banks)…

    *Either way any one views the chemtrail vs. contrail debate, and No matter what contests you play against eachother, they are all Chemtrails. Contrails are exhaust from the jet engine, all exhaust has some chemical compounds in it, hence the term “chemtrail.”

    Jets pollute our skies and air. I know JazzRoc and Uncinus you can’t stand such abstract logic, but it is true. Facts are facts.

    I know your car exhaust analogy, but I dont see cars leave 50 mile long thick white lines in the sky on A day to day basis, so it doesn’t compare visually..

  8. JazzRoc says:

    Citizen:

    I know your car exhaust analogy, but I dont see cars leave 50 mile long thick white lines in the sky on A day to day basis, so it doesn’t compare visually..

    There’s the irony. 🙂

    Contrails are large on occasion – right across your skies – and (because of extremely efficient combustion) – PURE. (Except for a barely detectable trace of pollutant.) You claim these to be NOT OK in spite of evidence to the contrary..

    Motor vehicle chemexhausts, on the other hand, are full of exotic hydrocarbons, particulates and sulfides (poisons, every last one), and invisible. You claim these to be OK, also in spite of evidence to the contrary.

    To you, the only difference is that one trail you can SEE, and the other you CANNOT.

    Ignoring science and evidence makes every statement you make WRONG, with a mind-boggling consistency.

  9. Scientists know what is in contrails – it’s the products of burning jet fuel. When jet fuel burns it produces mostly carbon dioxide and water (and small amounts of other normal combustion products). The water is what is visible.

    But that’s not what the “chemtrail” theory is about. It claims there is SOMETHING ELSE besides these normal combustion products, and further that this something else is being deliberately added. Some versions say the trails don’t even come from the engines, but are deliberately sprayed from separate nozzles.

    So, Guest, I take it you simply feel that contrails indicate pollution? Have you read any of the science on this, because there is a LOT of research into both contrails and aircraft exhaust?

    Financial conspiracy theories are an entirely separate topic, and I would appreciate it if you would go discuss that elsewhere. This site is for discussing the science behind contrails and the chemtrail theory.

  10. SR1419 says:

    Your propaganda loses steam with the detail of your rebuttals in combination with complete neglect of attention paid to opponents most pertinent valid points.

    …all this from a guy who doesn’t even want to discuss the visible trails that are the genesis of the “chemtrail” theory and the single most pertinent piece of data…

    classic.

    What is your most valid point?

    …and why must I be a paid shill simply because I think you have no evidence, that I think your reasoning is illogical, your speculation unfounded and conclusions utterly incorrect?

    Do you always resort to attacking people when they do not agree with you?

  11. Citizen of the Cosmos says:

    JazzRoc, youre funny man…

    Obviously I understand cars are pollution.. Chemtrails, which for some reason you can’t admit, leave a very noticeable thick white line in the sky. Most days, there are 30 thick white 50 mile long lines, an obvious pollution that hangs above our heads. Why do you defend such obvious pollutions?

    Nothing you say can defend the harm that thes LINES pose to us. Visible lines with chemical compounds in them, Chemtrails..

    Argue the old rhetoric til you turn blue in the face, dazzle everyone with your stated knowledge, but if we want to fix the problem there needs to be a new and radical way of viewing this.

    Time to evolve man…

  12. Nothing you say can defend the harm that thes LINES pose to us. Visible lines with chemical compounds in them, Chemtrails..

    So, Citizen, what you are saying is that “chemtails” are in fact nothing more than contrails, exactly as they have always been.

    In addition you are also concerned about pollution from jet engine exhaust?

    Is that right?

  13. Citizen of the Cosmos says:

    I am not going to argue the same old rhetoric with you, youre like a politican who will lead the public beleive that gay rights is still a current issue to argue about rather then introduce some new more current views and arguments..
    Lets take the debate in a new direction with a real reality. Obviously those lines that hang over our heads have some toxic pollutants in them, and obviously they will rain down on us, and there is no way that is good for any living creature.

    Maybe if we can admit this, then maybe we will admit the other pollution problems too on a Global Scale of activism. What makes the chemtrail pollution so unique is that it is VISIBLE. Kind of hard to not see 50 mile long lines above your head?

    We have only one EARTH, there is nothing else like it in 1,000 solar systems, and there is not another Human Being in a billion solar system. Why act dumb and argue over who is right..

    There are chemtrails above your head if you choose to see them, and instead of trying to out smart eachother and brag about how much we know about clouds and aviation, lets solve it.

    Also, I dont think we should call contrails cirrus clouds. Clouds should be Natural, and contrails are man made. On purpose, who knows?

  14. SR1419 says:

    CotC-

    Yes….contrails are jet exhaust. Pollution.

    Yet, their contribution to the global accumulation of pollution is exceptionally small compared to the pollution from other sources; the car you drive, the trucks delivering your goods, the factories emitting in your backyard…and on and on…

    Moreover, given the reality of atmospheric science there is no guarantee that they will “rain down on us” as they can sublimate into the atmosphere at large and never touch the earth.

    …so, yes, contrails are not natural…contain chemicals and contribute an extremely small portion of the earth’s overall pollution budget…

    …and they are not called natural cirrus clouds….they have their own names “contrail cirrus” and “supersaturated persistent contrail”….which clearly delineates them as being man-made.

    So, be concerned about pollution, be concerned about aviation pollution if you want…but do not confuse that concern with the myth that the earth’s skies are being purposely “sprayed” in a nefarious black ops campaign of unknown origin and unknown intent….

    …because there is no evidence of that.

  15. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Bringing pollution into the discussion just confuses the whole issue.

    I don’t think that anyone is trying to say that planes don’t pollute. Burning fuel causes pollution. It’s that simple.

    Regardless of the contrail produced by the plane, it is burning fuel. It is polluting.

    But to the persistant chemtrail crew there is no difference between the (chemical) pollution caused by a “normal” contrail and a persistant contrail. The only difference between the trails is what happens to the water in the exhaust.

    So, if you’re going to moan about the pollution caused by aircraft then there is no point in bring “chemtrails” into the debate because, regardless of the trail, the plane is polluting.

    The whole chemtrail theory hangs on there being something else in the fuel to cause the trail to persist. Therefore it’s about an entirely different type of pollution. So therefore this site is about discussing this other type of pollution, not whether planes pollute or not.

  16. Guest says:

    Planes make pollution which is visible with contrails.
    Contrails with chemicals are called chemtrails.
    Pollution is chemicals.
    Therfore, planes make chemtrails.

    The first shoutdown from chemtrails deniers is that contrails are only water.
    The second shoutdown is that the pollutants are the same as vehicle exhaust.
    The third shoutdown is that there is no “proof” that there are dual-purpose additives in the fuel.
    The fourth shoutdown is that anyone who questions the shoutdowns they must be shouted down.

    Anyone who happens on this site can see the pattern and behavior of the deniers.

    Again, I will ask my primary question:

    The government and universities have admitted to testing the effects of aerosols for weather modification and bio-warfare. What is the scale, level and significance of these tests? Maybe more than the deniers claim. Maybe less than the chemtrail supporters claim. How can it be quantified?

  17. Guest, you seem to continually be saying that all contrails are chemtrails. The actual “chemtrail” theory says that chemtrails are NOT contrails (or at least that only SOME contrails are chemtrails).

    I don’t think anyone is shouting you down. I, for one, would be very happy to see any evidence (not “proof”, evidence) that fuel additives are changing the nature of contrails. Contrails, however, are MOSTLY water – just like clouds are. They generally need condensation nuclei (aerosoles) which are found both in the atmosphere, and in the exhaust – so each ice crystal will have a tiny speck of something else at its core. The other parts of jet exhaust – carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, soot, etc, will enter the atmosphere in exactly the same way as they do from car exhaust.

    As for your question:

    The government and universities have admitted to testing the effects of aerosols for weather modification and bio-warfare. What is the scale, level and significance of these tests? Maybe more than the deniers claim. Maybe less than the chemtrail supporters claim. How can it be quantified?

    That’s rather an unanswerable question. How many cloud seeding runs have been made last year? I’ve no idea how to answer that. Perhaps a better question would be to ask if there is more cloud seeding going on that normal, and if there was, then how can you tell? As for bio-warfare, if the government WAS doing that then it would be illegal, and they would not be telling anyone, so there would be no way of knowing. But is there any evidence that they are?

    You might want to also ask yourself what these test would look like. What does cloud seeding look like?

  18. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Planes make pollution which is visible with contrails.
    Contrails with chemicals are called chemtrails.
    Pollution is chemicals.
    Therfore, planes make chemtrails.

    It’s all very well for you to have your own definition, but this is not the definition that the vast majority of people are talking about.

    By your definition there is no distinction between what most people refer to as contrails and chemtrails. To you, every trail is a chemtrail.

    Arguably, they are. As you say, there are chemicals in all of them.

    But in the chemtrail debate there is a definite distinction between a chemtrail and a contrail. The (majority of) chemtrail believers out there aren’t concerned with the chemicals in what they deem normal contrails. They are concerned with whatever it is that makes contrails persist, believing it to be something harmful.

    It’s always gonna get messy if you interpret someone’s post with your own definition that is different to the person’s who posted it.

    If I was asked if chemtrails exist using the widely accepted definition then I would say they are not. If I was asked if chemtrails exist using your definition then I would have to say they do.

    This is why it’s important to have a standard definition that everyone uses for this discussion. And why, like I’ve said, if you want to discuss the pollution caused by aircraft it is best not to mention chemtrails because it confuses the issue. We already have a word for discussing pollution. Pollution.

  19. Guest says:

    Aluminum coated fibers discharged for training purposes:

    http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad-98-219.htm

    GAO noted that: (1) chaff is used worldwide in conjunction with military
    training, testing, and other assigned missions; (2) in fiscal year (FY)
    1997, the Air Force reported using about 1.8 million bundles worldwide,
    Navy and Marine Corps aircraft used more than 354,000 bundles and 593
    rolls, and Navy combat ships used about 10,000 large bundles; (3) DOD
    records indicate that FY 1998 inventories include more than 37 million
    bundles and more than 141,000 rolls of chaff; (4) the Air Force holds
    about 77 percent of the bundles, while the Navy and Marine Corps hold
    all the rolls; (5) the Army has some mission needs but possesses and
    uses little chaff in peacetime training or testing; (6) while DOD
    components report that chaff is an effective means of defense for
    aircraft, ships, and related weapons systems, DOD and other agencies
    have identified some unintended and potential side effects of chaff; (7)
    chaff can affect safety by interfering with air traffic control radar;
    (8) chaff can also affect weather radar observations and the operation
    of friendly radar systems, especially when vehicles stir up chaff that
    has settled on the ground; (9) the services have a number of ongoing
    initiatives to address concerns about the unintended and potential
    effects of chaff; (10) for example, DOD has entered into or is
    negotiating agreements with other federal agencies to address issues
    related to commercial air safety, weather forecasting, and environmental
    impacts on public lands; (11) also, the Navy has started a program to
    develop degradable chaff that is estimated to cost about 40 percent more
    than the current chaff; (12) while intended as beneficial, the Navy has
    not yet defined the operational and environmental benefits that could
    result from this program; (13) notwithstanding DOD’s actions, some
    concerns continue to be raised by the public and federal agencies about
    the potentially harmful or undesirable effects of chaff on the
    environment; (14) also, some of DOD’s studies cite additional areas
    where questions have been raised about the unintended effects of chaff;
    (15) DOD has not systematically followed up on these questions or on the
    recommendations of these reports to determine whether they merit
    additional review; and (16) DOD continues to retain lead-based chaff in
    its inventory even though this type of chaff has not been manufactured
    since 1987 and is reportedly no longer in use.

  20. What exactly does chaff have to do with trails that look like contrails? Chaff is INVISIBLE to the naked eye from the ground, it only shows up on radar.

    Chaff is not exactly new, and is not secret. Can you explain what your point is?

  21. SR1419 says:

    Chaff???

    is that your “evidence”??

    Chaff is not secret….chaff is not dispersed at 30k+ feet….is not dispersed through the engine….does not result in persistent contrails….

    …and is certainly not what the internet masses see daily across the globe and believe are “chemtrails”….

    So…I guess the question is…what is your point?

  22. Guest says:

    debunkers say,

    Please refrain from addressing this issue purposely discharged contaminants in the atmosphere, we want to focus only on visual vapor trails.

  23. Nobody actually said that. I take it you are paraphrasing what you imagine people said, rather than fabricating a quote.

    This site is about contrails and the chemtrail theory. If you have any evidence of “contaminants” being deliberately introduced into contrails (or trails that resemble contrails), than I’d be very happy for you to discuss that. I still don’t see what chaff has to do with contrails though.

    Also, the “chemtrail” theory is about secret operations, not about cloud seeding, or chaff usage, or any of the other things we already know about.

  24. JazzRoc says:

    Guest:

    debunkers say, “Please refrain from addressing the issue of purposely discharged contaminants in the atmosphere, we want to focus only on visual vapor trails.”

    “……..nailing jelly to a wall” – What was that?

    But wasn’t the MAIN “chemtrail” argument that of: (quotes Clifford) “Normal contrails are known to continue for up to fifteen minutes – anything that persists after that is a chemtrail.” And all of that misinformational crap…

    You haven’t a hope of proof of such a non-existent idea as intentionally-distributed “chemtrails”. In fact you have no proof of anything at all. SOLID HARD EVIDENCE is something you cannot dream of, let alone having seen.

    You believe that words are all it takes to make a point. Your trouble is that, lacking scientific understanding, you haven’t a clue of what you misunderstand science to be. You don’t know how far you stand out in your ignorance.

    Well, they say it’s bliss. I can’t agree. It always freaks the hell outta me… 😀

  25. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Planes make pollution which is visible with contrails.
    Contrails with chemicals are called chemtrails.
    Pollution is chemicals.
    Therfore, planes make chemtrails.

    Water is a chemical.
    Therefore clouds are chemtrails.

  26. Citizen of the Cosmos says:

    I don’t understand why you guys won’t evolve the debate? At this point neither side will convince eachother that they are done on purpose or they arent. However, both sides can agree that they are a form of pollution, a pollution of lines that stretch for 40 miles above your head. Maybe if we try and put an end to this type of pollution, maybe we will start a push toward ridding our society of all the different pollutions.. Either way, lets stop showing off for eachother and do something constructive..
    We have one Earth and there will never be another one like it. Lets evolve and hopefully set sail for the Stars, and hopefully one day bring our beauty to other parts of the Universe. Come on guys, It is time to EVOLVE……

    I found this on google scholar:

    Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric researcher with California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) and ardent chemtrails critic at NASA’s Langley Research Center, reports that cirrus cloud cover over the US is up 5 percent overall because particulates in engine exhaust are acting as cloud-forming nuclei. As the number of flights currently exceeds 15 million annually worldwide, artificial clouds will intensify as air travel continues to climb. Perhaps the appearance of chemtrails is a “sign from on high” that our atmosphere has become dangerously burdened with pollutants.
    Copyright Earth Island Journal

  27. JazzRoc says:

    Citizen:

    Come on guys, It is time to EVOLVE…… – Hmmm.

    cirrus cloud cover over the US is up 5 percent overall because particulates in engine exhaust are acting as cloud-forming nuclei. – Duly noted. (But knew this already. All particulates in the atmosphere have always acted as condensation nucleii for atmospheric water vapor. )

    As the number of flights currently exceeds 15 million annually worldwide, artificial clouds will intensify as air travel continues to climb. – But air travel isn’t likely to “climb” when we have passed “peak oil”, is it?

    Perhaps the appearance of chemtrails is a “sign from on high” that our atmosphere has become dangerously burdened with pollutants. – Perhaps the “appearance of chemtrails” in your mind is a “sign from on high” that your brain has become dangerously over-burdened.

    Or do you really believe you can tell the difference between TWENTY cirrus clouds in the sky, and TWENTY ONE cirrus clouds in the sky?

    What would be your reason for concluding that THAT SINGLE EXTRA cirrus cloud in the sky would make all the difference?

    If aviation accounts for only 3.5% of anthropogenic combustion, then isn’t the other 96.5% rather more important?

    It’s time for you to evolve some rational thinking

  28. Citizen of the Cosmos says:

    JazzRocker

    I like the personal attacks you dish out.. I have stated twice now, that if we address the chemtrail pollution, maybe as a whole we will address all of the pollutions in society.. The chemtrail pollution is very EASY to point the finger at because they are so visible, 40 Mile Long thick white LINES above our heads.. Why is it so hard for you to think differently about this topic?

  29. JazzRoc says:

    Citizen:

    I like the personal attacks you dish out.. I have stated twice now, that if we address the chemtrail pollution, maybe as a whole we will address all of the pollutions in society.. The chemtrail pollution is very EASY to point the finger at because they are so visible, 40 Mile Long thick white LINES above our heads.. Why is it so hard for you to think differently about this topic?

    I don’t need to – YOU do. You obviously are NOT listening to someone who is well aware of ALL the ramifications of this topic.
    Pollution is a problem wherever it occurs – and NOT a problem as soon as one is aware of it and takes steps to reduce it, for it will GO AWAY. Life processes will cope with ALL of it and remove it. The trick is to not prevent them from doing this.
    And as for forty miles – it’s not impossible for a jumbo to lay a three-thousand-mile trail two miles wide and one mile deep weighing half a million tons. But that half-million tons would be made of ICE. It could be sold as ICE. PURE ICE. (Yes it would pass the tests!)
    Listen up, and try not to continue being what you presently are.
    http://www.guidenet.net/resources/wanker.html

  30. Citizen of the Cosmos says:

    JazzRocker-

    Wow man, you are pretty incredible.

  31. JazzRoc says:

    Citizen, no I’m not.
    I’m so ordinary I’m never seen. I should have used my talent and worked as a spy…
    Now I’m retired, my only ambitions are to continue making my strange music and build remote-controlled flying camera platforms for my personal use. In both cases I’m not sure why – I just want to do these things.
    “Incredible” means unbelievable. I hope not. I do want you to understand the physics of the atmosphere sufficiently for you to not wish to continue on your present path.
    Understanding the physical world is well worth the effort.

  32. Guest says:

    Time Magazine: Can Geoengineering Help Slow Global Warming?

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916965,00.html

    FTA:

    There are a number of potential approaches to geoengineering, but the most popular ones focus on controlling the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface. Climate — in its simplest terms — is the rough relationship between the amount of solar energy that strikes the earth and the amount that is retained by the atmosphere, as opposed to being radiated or reflected back into space. In this sense, the greenhouse effect is not all bad. Without a little bit of it, the earth would be a cold, dead place, with an average temperature as low as -0.4°F. Unfortunately, by adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we have, in a sense, thrown another quilt on the planet when we were perfectly comfortable to begin with. (Watch TIME’s video “The Truth About Solar Power.”)

    One way to turn down the thermostat would be to spread sulfur particles into the atmosphere, either through artillery or with airplanes, thickening the air enough so that it would bounce some sunlight back. We know that process does reduce global temperatures: when Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, it threw millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, causing global temperatures over the following months to drop by nearly 1°F. Geoengineering would work much the same way — only it would need to be done continuously, to keep up with the intensifying greenhouse effect.

  33. Geoengineering, just like this, has been talked about since the 50’s, but there’s no evidence that anyone is actually doing it. See, for example the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 1959:

  34. Guest says:

    Or maybe here:

    http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

    Welcome to the ASP website!

    The Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program has as its long-term goal developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter. The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.

  35. They are measuring aerosols. They are not spraying them. See from your first link (emphasis mine):

    An intensive cloud and aerosol observing system obtained airborne measurements during the Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC) at the ACRF North Slope of Alaska locale in April 2008. Taking place during the International Polar Year, many ancillary observing systems collected data to allow synergistic interpretation of ISDAC data. This period also provides an important contrast with the October 2004 Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE). Cloud property measurements obtained during ISDAC can be used to evaluate cloud simulations and evaluate cloud retrievals from M-PACE, and the aerosol measurements can be used to evaluate the aerosol retrievals. By running the cloud models with and without solar absorption by the aerosols, scientists can determine the semi-direct effect of aerosols on clouds

  36. I think the misunderstanding there comes from the use of the term “radiative forcing”, which you presumably think implies that people are forcing something, when actually it’s just (partially) an effect of the aerosols. Aerosols which are already present in the atmosphere.

    See the Wikipedia page on Radiative Forcing:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

    In climate science, radiative forcing is (loosely) defined as the change in net irradiance at the tropopause. “Net irradiance” is the difference between the incoming radiation energy and the outgoing radiation energy in a given climate system and is thus measured in Watts per square meter.

  37. Guest says:

    http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11572945/

    FTA:

    “The overall goal of this task is to understand and evaluate the implications of deploying porous glasses as an agent to reduce global warming,” the DOE work proposal said.

    The government project began last year and ends on April 30.

    The Department of Energy did not speak with Cybercast News Service about the project, but scientists familiar with the line of research say it grows out of a proposal first articulated by Paul Crutzen, who won the 1995 Nobel Prize for his work discovering that there is a hole in the ozone over the Antarctic.

    Crutzen proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.

  38. Yes, if you search you can find thousands of papers regarding scientists discussing climate modification. This is nothing new. As I noted above it’s been discussed since the 1950s.

    Entirely lacking in all these discussions is any evidence that people are ACTUALLY DOING IT.

  39. Hi Guest, I’d appreciate it if you would refrain from simply spamming the site with links, and instead offer your interpretation of what you read at those links, or are least your reason for posting the links.

    I would also appreciate it if you could respond in kind to the responses I made above, such as regarding “radiative forcing”, or the lack of any physical evidence for deliberate climate change projects.

    Thank you in advance.

  40. Guest says:

    I am not a scientist. I am an engineer. I have presented multiple independent links that provide means, motive and opportunity for the aerial disbursement of chemtrails. I have tried to bring this entire thread beyond a sophomoric “he said, she said” type of rhetorical fallacious argument over the visual characteristics of chemtrails.

    The links I provide substantiate claims of chemtrailers to some degree less than beyond a reasonable doubt. The debunkers on the other hand will stop at nothing short of direct physical evidence proving chemtrails.

    While I understand that one cannot prove a negative, certainly one can at least attempt to understand the accusations being leveled. For one to extend such efforts to debunk conspiracists’ claims, one must either have inside knowledge of the operations documented in Dr. Castle’s treatise, or have some other motive to vociferously fight his claims. Again, what makes you so sure you are right?

    In summary:
    I have provided documentation proving that DOD disinformation is propagated on the internet through a deliberate and ongoing campaign.
    I have claimed that some if not all debunkers on this site are DOD disinformation operatives.
    I have provided documentation proving that DOD has had and continues to have means, motive and opportunity to disburse chemtrails.
    I have provided links to PhD level “experts” in the field that share some of chemtrailers’ views.
    I have avoided addressing the very specific rhetorical traps laid to obfuscate the circumstantial evidence.
    I leave it to the casual observer to follow my claims and links to decide for themselves.

    Obviously the debunkers have absolutely no interest in entertaining even the smallest opportunity that they may be incorrect.

    It’s like when a child is left alone in the kitchen and the cookie jar breaks. – “Nobody saw me do it. I didn’t do it. You can’t prove I did it.” Perhaps the cat did do it, but the child is no less suspect.

    This is how an open mind works. It really is not worth arguing with closed minds and my posts have followed that track.

  41. Thank you for that detailed explanation of your thinking.

    I leave it to the casual observer to follow my claims and links to decide for themselves.

    Okay, but this site is intended for discussion, not simply repeating arguments. It would seem like you are trying to present a case, yet you’d don’t show strong connection between your list of claims, and the articles you link to. For example, you claim: “I have provided links to PhD level “experts” in the field that share some of chemtrailers’ views.” This seems to me that you simply note that people PhD’s have discussed climate modification, which nobody would every dispute. This is not the same thing as “share some of the chemtrailers views”. I share some of the chemtrailers views (pollution is bad, people in power not always honest), but this does not in any way support the chemtrail argument – that some trails are not contrails, and that they are being deliberately sprayed.

    Even if you assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a secret program to add aerosols to the atmosphere, then is there any evidence connecting this to any of the photos or videos of “chemtrails” on the internet? Or are you talking about a totally different thing?

  42. Guest says:

    Of course the PhD I refer to is Dr. R. Michael Castle and his white paper entitled: “The Methodic Demise of Natural Earth”.

    He outlines his belief that is 100% inline with an ongoing, concerted effort to disburse aerosol chemicals into the atmosphere. Read it here:

    http://www.bariumblues.com/methodic_demise_of_natural_earth.htm

    I disagree with his belief that “they” are doing it to prevent an environmental cataclysm. I believe that “Saving the Planet” is the ruse used to justify the systematic poisoning and weakening of the slave class by a luciferian and tyrannical technocracy – simply one more vector in an encompassing plan of eugenics. But clearly, I cannot prove any of this. It’s simply my belief – based on a lifetime of observing the types of socio-paths in political and economic power.

    You see, I am open to accepting that which is scary or beyond my own value structures. When you understand the ideals of the practicing luciferian, it makes everything much more understandable and less confusing.

  43. Thank you for that explanation of the PhD comment.

    If, as you say, chemtrails are being used to poison people, then it would be a relatively simple matter to detect these poisons in the environment.

    Why then are there no lab reports that show poisons in the environment? Why have none of the local water authorities, who test their water monthly, detected these poisons. Given that you can post on the internet without censorship, then why are there no anonymous reports of the cover-up at water authorities (given that must include tens of thousands of people, just for that one aspect).

  44. And could you comment on the “radiative forcing” issue? Would you admit that you mis-characterized those programs you linked to earlier (ACRF and ASP)?

  45. JazzRoc says:

    Guest:

    I have provided documentation proving that DOD disinformation is propagated on the internet through a deliberate and ongoing campaign.

    You haven’t. Most of what you call “disinformation” is SCIENCE TO the rest of us. I can recall NO statements made by ANY authorities which have subsequently been PROVED to be incorrect. Can you point me to where this has happened?

    I have claimed that some if not all debunkers on this site are DOD disinformation operatives.

    For a start, I’m PROUD to be a “debunker”.
    My experience of liars, confidence tricksters, bunko operators and Pozzi fraudsters has convinced me that this society does far too little to rid itself of this problem. An equal amount of damage may occur when relatively innocent people also spread misinformation and alarm. As for what you are in particular, I do not know. I KNOW that I am not a “DOD disinformation operatives”, and my experience of the others (SR, Stars, etc.) leads me to believe that they aren’t either. So who is?

    I have provided documentation proving that DOD has had and continues to have means, motive and opportunity to disburse chemtrails.

    Again I see no proof. Where is it?
    “Motive” isn’t supplied by the existence (or not!) of the “Illuminati”.
    “Means and Opportunity” haven’t been demonstrated in any way.
    Why (when there are “chemtrails”) is there such a sudden rush of them? (A question “chemtrailers” often ask each other!)
    I’ll tell you why.
    Because of the onset of HUMID STRATOSPHERIC CONDITIONS.
    THAT is why one suddenly sees them all over the skies. And the ONLY planes doing this are ORDINARY PASSENGER PLANES.
    You know. The ones you don’t notice ordinarily; the 57,000 daily passenger flights over the US, the 7,000 over minuscule Britain.

    I have avoided addressing the very specific rhetorical traps laid to obfuscate the circumstantial evidence

    Which is (apparently) your Newspeak for “I don’t answer ANY of your questions”.

  46. Guest says:

    Jazzroc, perhaps you chose to ignore my post 597 and the link in post 645. Please read those so that we can have a basis of debate.

    Again, what makes you so sure you are right? Since we cannot prove a negative and absence of proof does not disprove, what is the basis of your overwhelming confidence?

  47. nearboston says:

    If Chemtrails have been around since the ’90’s, and are so bad, why are we still all alive?

  48. Indeed, they don’t seem to be doing a very good job. They are undetectable (looking exactly the same as contrails), they have not prevented climate change, and mortality rates have gone down, not up.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf

    Here’s another spurious correlation: “chemtrails” seem to have cured cancer!

  49. Guest says:

    Uncinus, exactly how does your cancer post add to the topic at hand. Please address post 645’s link to Dr. Castle’s claims directly. He is an expert, I am not. Are you an expert? Are you a scientist? What exactly is your credential that allows you to speak with certainty? Do you admit that your position is only an opinion (as I clearly do)?

    The more I read the comments by you and jazzroc, the more I know you are part of the admitted DOD disinformation campaign that I document in post 597.

    Seriously, lay out your credentials. You can even lie if you need to, but don’t be surprised when someone calls you bluff. The level at which you contest other’s claims is suspect to say the least. Why exactly are you so sure your position is correct? This is a simple question that neither you not jazroc seem willing to answer.

    Therefore, the reader is left with no other alternative than to question you and jazzroc’s motives.

    Again, why are you so sure of your position? This seems a simple question.

  50. The cancer chart shows a correlation between the first reporting of chemtrails in the mid 1990s, and a decline in cancer deaths in women. It’s simply an illustration of spurious correlation.

    I don’t have any credentials, I’m just some guy. Don’t listen to anything I say, just look at the science that I link to.

    I’m not sure what in Dr. Castle’s paper you’d like me to address, since you yourself say you disagree with things he is saying. Can you be more specific as to the evidence that Castle offers that you think I need to address? Were there chemical tests? Was there insider testimony?

    The DOD campaign you document in post 597 is regarding foreign propaganda. There is no evidence on any covert DOD propaganda campaign being carried out in homeland USA.

    And remember we are getting seriously off topic here. The whole chemtrail argument actually hinges on if there are some trails that do not behave like contrails. If you can’t demonstrate that, then the whole argument falls apart. So where’s THAT evidence.

  51. SR1419 says:

    Guess-

    …funny, what you claim is “an admitted DOD disinformation” campaign is really an interpretation of DOD monies spent by a House sub committee…No where in your undocumented “quote” does it say or even speculate that the money is for “disinformation”…

    Your bias leads you to believe that.

    So…if all the dots you connect are accurate….wouldn’t there be some evidence of “chemtrails”?

    …the vast majority of “believers” are under the assumption that the “evidence” is in the visual behavior of the trails themselves….

    …and yet, you do everything you can to avoid discussing that.

    Why?

    …and if the “spraying” is designed to be a “systematic poisoning and weakening of the slave class”…then how do “they” protect themselves? …as they seem to breath the very same air as the “slave class”.

    Does logic have a role in your World view?

  52. This document explains what the money is for from your 597 post. Nowhere does it mention trying to mislead the American public. Only part of it is propaganda (PSYOP) against foreign adversaries, and there’s a vast amount of other stuff in there.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_13.pdf

  53. JazzRoc says:

    Guest:

    Jazzroc, perhaps you chose to ignore my post 597 and the link in post 645. Please read those so that we can have a basis of debate.

    Not at all. If you had read my two-year-old blog (easily found by clicking on my name, but I don’t suppose you’re up to that) you’d find it well-esconsed in there – both, and all of both. Well, maybe not 2010 appropriations, but the military’s the military, and isn’t going to change much, is it? And we HAVE been having a discussion, and you HAVE been avoiding my questions, so let’s not pretend we haven’t an ongoing discussion, shall we?

    Again, what makes you so sure you are right? Since we cannot prove a negative and absence of proof does not disprove, what is the basis of your overwhelming confidence?

    The fact that you haven’t come up with ANY reasonable evidence of ANYTHING in a contrail, actually.

    The fact EXISTS that you haven’t answered my question about this, which I have now asked you THREE TIMES.

    If you REALLY cannot demonstrate HOW “chemtrail” materials can cross that VISIBLE GAP, then you REALLY cannot claim their existence. There is NO statement you can make to follow this failure on your part. If the “means” is NON-EXISTENT, then NO EVENT CAN HAVE OCCURRED. Discussions of MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY have no meaning whatsoever.

    And, as a matter of fact, I have been an aero-engineer who has run gas turbines in test chambers (and measured every aspect of their performance). I have also worked as a petrochemical plant designer producing those compounds your compatriots claim (if not you yourself) are placed in aviation fuel. (They are NOT, of course!) I have also designed security equipment for various nuclear plants (passive and active), and worked on a defensive missile. I have also designed microwave masts (which is why I understand HAARP, and know how you do not).

    I have been a scientist, and still am a designer, artist, and musician.

    Throughout this time I have ALWAYS been an anarchist (anarcho-syndicalist), voting socialist, liberal, green (but never Republican or Conservative). I am a member of NO CLUB WHATSOEVER.

    Permaculture, autonomous housing, and self-sufficiency are the (only) ways of saving the Earth. And Science Education, of course.

    So what’s your bag? What do YOU know? Not science, obviously… but you must be good at something

  54. JazzRoc says:

    Uncinus:

    Only part of it is propaganda (PSYOP) against foreign adversaries, and there’s a vast amount of other stuff in there.

    http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_13.pdf

    These guys have definitely read Sun Tzu. Wow! 🙂

  55. Guest says:

    OK, I’ll just admit defeat. These are the things I have learned on this website:

    1. There is no reason to ever mistrust the government.
    2. People with diverse career experiences in apparently military and defense industries have such a commitment to truth that they are willing to spend vast amounts of time and energy defending that which can neither be proven nor disproven on an internet board.
    3. Internet boards designed to bring out the truth and direct sunshine on difficult subjects must be anonymously hidden behind doamainsbyproxy.com
    4. While DOD spends over a billion dollars per year on their propaganda machine, none of it is spend domestically.
    5. All military and university testing of atmospheric aerosols never includes the disbursement of aerosols.
    6. If one does not have indisputable proof of an event, he does not have the right to question its existence or practice.
    7. If one cannot explain how chemtrail materials cross the visible gap, that proves there is no chemtrails.
    8. If one dares to question the accepted responses to a groups legitimate concerns and observations, that one is a whacked-out, tinfoil hat wearing nut job.

    You see, I understand the recent visible expansion of contrails due to more efficient engines. I understand the effect of a contrail and its contained pollution on a super-saturated atmosphere. I understand the holding patterns and flight patterns in congested areas.

    I also understand that radiation exposure was tested on live foster children. That syphilis was tested on live black men. That hundreds of soldiers were exposed to direct nuclear blow-back. That untested vaccines are injected in 4 hour old babies. That vaccines contain sterilants and cancer viruses. That flu shots carry mercury in them to this day. That adjuvants in vaccines cause brain damage and Guillain-Barré Syndrome. That top political leaders from all over the world have called for and support an 80-95% reduction in the human population. That Obama’s top science czar Holdren’s book Eco-science was co-written with Bush’s top science advisor and lays a roadmap for massive population reduction through forced abortion, societal peer pressure and contamination of the food and water supply.

    You see, it is very hard to fight for our birth right as documented in the Declaration of Independence when you are busy caring for systemically poisoned children and parents (as many of us do). The elite hate. They hate you, they hate me, they hate themselves. They are drunk on power and control over others.

    When you understand how voodoo and witchcraft is practiced not only by many top government officials, but also inside the White House, it is not that far of reach to understand how the schools and University system are saturated with eugenicists and pagans practicing the new Gaia religion of global warming. It is through these brainwashing centers that the serfs are trained to be good slaves.

    There is a number of people who feel misplaced pride in their incorrect understanding that their knowledge is all encompassing. These are the useful idiots of those who actually do understand the darker bigger picture of luciferian practice and its prevalence in society. Those who carry most sway do so with the help of the ruler of this world. Through compartmentalization, greed and selfishness, this world is ruled by evil as demonstrated by the constant human on human destruction enacted by the power base of this world. Those who practice the evil sacrifice themselves just as they sacrifice those around them. It’s the antithesis of a culture of life.

    Has this ended recently? No, but my time on this board certainly has.

    My point is simply that this website and some of its participants have suspect motives at best or are a deliberate psychological operation of eugencists at worst. I can’t really accept it as labor of educational philanthropy at all. There’s just a few too many red flags.

  56. SR1419 says:

    1. There is no reason to ever mistrust the government.

    ..no one here ever said that and I certainly do not belief that (that is why I looked into this subject in the first place)…that doesn’t mean “chemtrails” exist.

    2. People with diverse career experiences in apparently military and defense industries have such a commitment to truth that they are willing to spend vast amounts of time and energy defending that which can neither be proven nor disproven on an internet board.

    …”vast” is subjective….doesn’t take me but a few minutes to read your post and reply…Unicinus has said he spends a few hours at most per week on this site…

    I am not “defending” anything…only exploring and learning and engaging in debate…that I do not agree with you does not make “chemtrails” real…

    3. Internet boards designed to bring out the truth and direct sunshine on difficult subjects must be anonymously hidden behind doamainsbyproxy.com

    …If it were me…I would hide my personal info too…way too many crazy people on the internet with all sorts of ideas, motives and intentions…

    4. While DOD spends over a billion dollars per year on their propaganda machine, none of it is spend domestically.

    …I cannot answer that…but it is not evidence that “chemtrails” are real.

    5. All military and university testing of atmospheric aerosols never includes the disbursement of aerosols.

    …certainly not a global disbursement that supposedly takes place daily across the the World.

    6. If one does not have indisputable proof of an event, he does not have the right to question its existence or practice.

    …You have every right. You have exercised it here with no hindrance. But if you do that you must be able to handle the fact that people may disagree with you, call you on your “evidence”, reasoning skills etc…Just because I do not agree with you does not mean “chemtrails” are real….

    7. If one cannot explain how chemtrail materials cross the visible gap, that proves there is no chemtrails.

    Again- this goes back to the fact that the very ORIGIN of the “chemtrail” theory and its growth as a belief is predicated on the visual behavior of the trails in the sky…Without those visual trails people would not look up in the sky in fear of luciferians trying to eradicate them…and thus exploring the reality of jet combustion and atmospheric physics is extremely pertinent to the discussion. That you continually evade that topic is alarming and makes me fear that you are a disinfo agent.

    8. If one dares to question the accepted responses to a groups legitimate concerns and observations, that one is a whacked-out, tinfoil hat wearing nut job.

    No one…well..maybe JR but he is a bit irascible 🙂 …called you a “whacked-out, tinfoil hat wearing nut job”…and in fact Uncinus has treated you with respect, attempted to address your concerns and engaged in meaningful discussion…

    the fact that you have not convinced anybody seems to have made you defensive, bitter and forced to resort to attacking the messengers rather than the substance of the material….

    Every single point you have put forth as been examined for its bearing on the topic…and I personally believe that none of it are convincing as to a global, clandestine, “spray” campaign of unknown origin and unknown intent.

    best of luck with that.

  57. My point is simply that this website and some of its participants have suspect motives at best or are a deliberate psychological operation of eugencists at worst. I can’t really accept it as labor of educational philanthropy at all.

    Well, I’m afraid that’s exactly what it is. I’m just some guy, and amateur pilot who is interested in the weather, and with no relevant qualifications. I write things on this site simply because it’s interesting. It saddens me to see such fear, hatred and distrust. I hope only to provide a little clarity based on real science, and perhaps a few contrail related items of general interest.

    Hopefully in a decade or so, when nothing you fear has come to pass, you’ll be able to relax a little.

  58. JazzRoc says:

    Guest:

    1. There is no reason to ever mistrust the government.
    2. People with diverse career experiences in apparently military and defense industries …………………………………………………………………………………………….. whacked-out, tinfoil hat wearing nut job.

    That’s a strong meme that has you in its teeth. If it doesn’t kill you, we’ll check out how things are in, say, 2014, shall we?

    “Whacked-out” is an Americanism I wouldn’t use. “Tinfoil hats” I have only used with William Thomas.

    The GAP, Guest, the GAP. If nothing is seen in that exhaust gap, especially at night, then NOTHING is in it.

    If nothing is in it, then nothing is being delivered.

    If nothing is being delivered, then that trail is a contrail and there is NO chemtrail.

    If there is NO chemtrail then chemtrailing isn’t occurring. (At least not with that plane).

    So take another plane and look at the gap. If nothing is seen…. etc.

  59. Suntour says:

    Quotes by Guest:
    “The more I read the comments by you and jazzroc, the more I know you are part of the admitted DOD disinformation campaign …”

    “Seriously, lay out your credentials. You can even lie if you need to, but don’t be surprised when someone calls you bluff. The level at which you contest other’s claims is suspect to say the least.”

    “Therefore, the reader is left with no other alternative than to question you and jazzroc’s motives.”

    “…this website and some of its participants have suspect motives at best or are a deliberate psychological operation of eugencists at worst.”

    It’s sad that chemtrailers frequently attack the messenger rather than discussing the message.

    “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man” or “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.”
    -Wikipedia

    Time to put on my gas mask and go for a walk outside in the thick chemical filled air. 😛

  60. carl says:

    Well ,I am happy to come across this intriguing site.I will make my points short and to the point. The first question would be …Is weather modification real or cloud seeding or geoengineering real as well. If you said no to any of these questions,Listen up,,,, First ,Hughes aircraft corporation filed for a patent in the early ’90s .Check the US patent registry Stratospheric welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming,second,,Anyone who missed the front page reports in main stream media with regard to the chinese carrying out weather modification programs for the OLYMPICS must not be an avid news reader,thirdly centre pointe learning is a very large publishing company for school books and has a wonderful spread on weather modification with a
    bright red plane with “articulate air”actually written on it.I own this book.the book
    states that along with coal burning powerplants;seeding
    the air with a”richer
    fuel mixture ” would also be a cheap method of augmenting the weather. When aluminum oxide and barium(welsbach seeding) are sprayed high in the air ,,,so high these days that it has become very tough to photograph the plane itself and by the time this noxious soup settles closer to the earth it just winds up looking like alot of haze.I am willing to challenge anyone with my public
    speaking experiences on this matter and hope the info I have provided will help all you so called conspiracy nuts learn to dig a liitle more with very specific interests. Operation Popye,,Vietnam War ,Haarp , History channel Weather warfare and the military’s own Owning the weather by 2025:Weather as a force multiplyer

  61. Of course weather modification is real. Cloud seeding has been going on for decades, there has never been any secrecy about that.

    The question is – are contrails any different now to how they were in the past?

  62. Shilltastic says:

    Only a FOOL would deny that cloudseeding is real. There is no secrecy behind it and it’s been going on for a long time. In fact, some of it is done from the ground. My WHOLE contention is that there is no LOGICAL reason to link the lines we see in the sky, with cloudseeding “operations”. It’s like assuming there is a submarine under your boat because you see bubbles rising to the surface. There is no reason to logically link the bubbles to submarines, but since some have seen movies or read that submarines cause bubbles underwater, they jump to conclusions and assume they know the cause of the bubbles.
    Also, I LOVE the way people say “dig a little more” as if we believe the way we do ONLY because we just haven’t seen the “correct” information that they have seen on the internet. I ask those who think that way to LEARN a little more about basic science, meteorology and aviation….You have NOT learned enough. It is so obvious to those of us who have!

    Again, Who told you people to link the lines in the sky to “Operation Popye,,Vietnam War ,Haarp , History channel Weather warfare and the military’s own Owning the weather by 2025:Weather as a force multiplyer”, and other ridiculous notions that have NOTHING to do with common, ordinary contrails?!?

    It’s ridiculous to do so.

  63. carl says:

    If it’s rediculous to do so than you obviously failed to research the two items you selectively left out at the end of your rhetorical diatribe. STRATOSPHERIC WELSBACH SEEDING and centre point learning 7th grade science book. Shillistic,,,isn’t that a bit ,,wellllll, obvious. All righty then,,,,,,You have opened my eyes,,,,YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A SCHILL,I stand in a far better informed spot now ,since I have had the pleasure of your response. The only challenge I have is the nearly 75 pilots and air show technicians that have not denied the PERSISTING CONTRAILS as abnormal. God Loves you too. And by the way ,I have been a pilot and aviation researcher for almost 30 years. I look forward to more of your “LOGIC”

  64. If it’s rediculous to do so than you obviously failed to research the two items you selectively left out at the end of your rhetorical diatribe. STRATOSPHERIC WELSBACH SEEDING and centre point learning 7th grade science book.

    Both those things describe speculative technologies to mitigate global warming. There’s no secret there either – that type of thing has been discussed quite openly since the 1950s.

    However, there’s no evidence that anyone has ever tried to do it.

  65. carl says:

    And I do want to add that if you think it’s a logical analogy to associate a submarine with a visible trail left by a visible plane in a clear blue sky which is produced from behind the plane and then astonishingly stops and starts and stops and starts,,,,I would advise you to keep digging a little deeper. thanks again for the responses.

  66. So carl, what evidence is there that someone is doing Welsbach seeding?

  67. carl says:

    Ok, Last transmission,You guys are obviously way smarter than I am.But as I leave you with your carefully stated rebuttles,I suggest you go to the Atmospheric sciences Program page posted by the DOE and look at the schedules of geoengineering,weather modification and cloudseeding exercises that are constantly being carried out in the skies. I have alot more in my pack of support than I care to share on this site. I do thank you for your programmed responses. signing off. No need to reply

  68. You mean this page?

    http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

    Nothing on there is about “geoengineering,weather modification and cloudseeding”, that page is about measuring aerosols in the atmosphere, and their effects on radiative forcing.

    If you could quote something from that page, then I’d be happy to address it.

    You might want to watch this video (and the related videos) as well, which explains it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq9Fa7AqGGQ

  69. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    I suggest you go to the Atmospheric sciences Program page posted by the DOE and look at the schedules of geoengineering,weather modification and cloudseeding exercises that are constantly being carried out in the skies.

    Secret government spraying agenda posted on internet.

    Something doesn’t fit, does it?

  70. Shilltastic says:

    “I do thank you for your programmed responses. signing off. No need to reply”

    And people wonder why I’m so short with these people. Again, the assumption made by them is that everything THEY read on the internet (biased information gathering) is “fact” and we have just been “brainwashed” in classrooms. Even though the science makes perfect sense, and persistent contrails are easily explained WITHOUT chemicals, I’m the moron for accepting the scientific explanation taught for decades while chemtards are geniuses for accepting the ramblings of OTHER uneducated conspiracy theorists as “fact” despite a COMPLETE lack of evidence to support their beliefs. No appreciable levels of “chemicals” have been found ANYWHERE to support the chemtrail theory, yet “they” have been “spraying” since the 90’s (earlier in MY state, by at least 30 years).

    Absolutely hilarious.

    I’m beginning to think this is all a bad dream, there is just NO WAY that so many people believe such nonsense.

  71. omg u guys are blind says:

    i live in the rural mountains of San Diego, but used to live in the city about 30 miles away. As a child, a contrail never expanded or even became what they look like today; mysteriously dry fog that smears up my windshield that popped up outta nowhere and smog. I know what I see and I know how to tell the difference between something natural and some experiment that is too damn shiny to be a naturally formed cloud, I mean come on, the poor cloud looks like its made of abalone shell. I have observed planes simply crisscrossing the sky and within hours making it overcast, for what!! Who the hell has the budget for that; except maybe the rothschilds right? I have seen trails being laid out back here in the sierra and slowly move into san diego overnight. I have seen a really low flying plane leaving behind a chemtrail, because I do live at about 4000 ft. above sea level and no, I do not wear binoculars as bifocals, and have seen a super fine film of that abalone shell shit of who knows what but I aint touchin it develop and fall from the sky. I am not blind and or crazy. Im sure as a pilot youll be useful to the NWO, but wtf is your adamantly obsessive purpose of defending the US gov besides debunking worried citizens and trying to seem smart but not wise. Im out, this websites a waste of time. Just another brick in the wall. If you really wanted to prove something show me where I can find an explanation and details for these planes that just fly for the hell of spraying the air and what they contain and ahh….fuhgeddaboutit

  72. Shilltastic says:

    It’s interesting how this “mysteriously dry fog” is never tested and shown to be anything more than silica. Oh well.
    Also, am I to understand that I’m “debunking worried citizens” and “defending the US gov” simply because I understand the science, you don’t?! Again, hilarious. I’m not “defending ” anyone, YOU are accusing someone. I am neutral. I’ll fuhgeddaboutit when you people stop accusing others of wrongdoing UNTIL you have some ACTUAL evidence. Nothing I have seen online is evidence of anything more than overactive imaginations.

  73. Shilltastic says:

    “I know what I see and I know how to tell the difference between something natural and some experiment that is too damn shiny to be a naturally formed cloud, I mean come on, the poor cloud looks like its made of abalone shell.”

    Light refraction. In fact, it’s the same principle that makes a rainbow in a sprinkler. The only difference is the droplet size (and the angle also, considering the altitude) . Have you seen the “crazy sprinkler lady” video on youtube? PRECIOUS! She is such a sweet old lady! I’m sorry, just because something in the sky doesn’t look “normal” to YOU, doesn’t mean it isn’t!

    Until your abalone shell cloud is TESTED and shown to contain whatever it is you THINK it contains, it’s an artificial cloud consisting of water droplets, ice and particles from combustion gases. It’s up to those making the accusations to prove their positions. I have yet to see any such thing. Then again, as the “chemtrail” “debate” proves, one persons garbage is another persons fact. Since I have science on MY side, I guess the “chemtrail” believers have nothing but garbage.

  74. JazzRoc says:

    Tastic:

    it’s an artificial cloud consisting of water droplets, ice and particles from combustion gases

    For sure it is.

    But it is ALSO composed of FROZEN water vapor out of the air. In the ratio ONE part of “exhaust” to TEN THOUSAND parts of PURE water wapor. (Check the “Contrails-Cirrus” LINK on the left.)

    Which makes the trail, when you think about it, PURER THAN TAP WATER.

    When “chemtrailers” get it WRONG, they never do it in short measures.

  75. shilltastic says:

    Yeah, I guess I could have worded that better. When I wrote “Ice” I was referring to the frozen droplets. My bad.

    I agree, it’s purer than tap water. Which makes the whole “debate” that much more ridiculous and ironic.

  76. Guest says:

    Hey, I was just over at your sister cointelpro site conspiracyscience.com . I was wondering how you all never got around to debunking the 20 points of charlie sheen’s imaginary conversation w/ the president. Are you too busy promoting pandemic fear?

    I’m sorry to tell you it’s time to step up your game. You’ll notice that not a single person stands on the fence with any of these pentagon mind games. It’s like a quantum leap from sleeping in comfort to wide awake. Are you all winning anyone who doesn’t suffer PTSD? You should choose to be on the right side of history and reject your masters. After all, they are killing you too.

  77. JazzRoc says:

    Hey, Guest, thanks for the link.

    I shall put it up on my site for those who are keen to see BUNKUM debunked.

    “In 1820, Felix Walker, who represented Buncombe County, North Carolina, in the U.S. House of Representatives, rose to address the question of admitting Missouri as a free or slave state. This was his first attempt to speak on this subject after nearly a month of solid debate and right before the vote was to be called. Allegedly, to the exasperation of his colleagues, Walker insisted on delivering a long and wearisome “speech for Buncombe.” He was shouted down by his colleagues. His persistent effort made “buncombe” (later respelled “bunkum”) a synonym for meaningless political claptrap and later for any kind of nonsense. Although he was unable to make the speech in front of congress it was still published in a Washington newspaper.” – Wiktionary

    I dig your quantum leap. Watch out for the quantum fall that follows it…

  78. Shilltastic says:

    Why would anyone waste their time discussing Charlie Sheen in ANY capacity? Oh crap, I just wasted 2o seconds of my time discussing how useless Charlie Sheen is! Does that make me a hypocrite?!?

  79. 1111Lightning says:

    People are starting to awake all over the world to Chemtrails, among other things. If you are interested in researching an alternate view to the explanations put forward by this site, I recommend a review of the links listed below. These are just a few that I could reference quickly. The more research you do, the more obvious it gets!

    http://www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/About_Chemtrails.htm

    http://www.rense.com/general2/scome.htm

    http://www.911weknow.com/about-the-sky/basic-facts?task=view

    http://www.carnicom.com/model1.htm

    http://www.carnicom.com/rh1.htm

  80. 1111Lightning, your third link says:

    CONTRAILS typically form behind high-flying jets in a low-humidity environment. Cold, dry conditions — exactly those found in the upper atmosphere — are prerequisites to contrail formation. The humidity level of the upper atmosphere is LOW, which is the reason clouds form in the troposphere — the lower portion of our atmosphere. Jet contrails, which occur at high altitudes (e.g., 40,000 feet) disappear quickly — much like your breath on a cold winter day. They are simply made of water vapor. (Why do contrails disappear? They evaporate in the dryness, helped along by solar radiation.)

    Which is so inaccurate I can only assume the author is joking. The only sentence that is correct is “They are simply made of water vapor”. Everything else there is scientifically wrong.

  81. Shilltastic says:

    I don’t even HAVE TO look at the links to know the information is BS. William Thomas, Carnicom, Rense and some 9/11 truther site. It is AMAZING what will pass for research these days. NONE of these people have an education in aviation or atmospheric sciences. Yet, people accept the BS they spew as “fact” simply because they call themselves “researchers”.

    “The more research you do, the more obvious it gets!”

    Are you referring to your bias?!

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

  82. Stars15k says:

    1111,
    I have seen the “barium in chemtrails” attributed to the KSLA newsreport on all of these sites. Please read the post about that here on CS. If they use bad information, easily proven as worthless on all the salient points, how can anything these guys say be trusted?
    For example, Carnicom. He states he is a science researcher, working for the USGS for a time. I have yet to find what discipline he studied. It can’t be chemistry, as he was spoofed by a lab into believing a bogus report about “dihydrogen monoxide”, or WATER, was a threat. For one of his reports he cites reports written by himself as a source. He uses chemistry books just about “Chemistry for Dummies” level and some textbooks below high school level. He uses as a source the instruction sheet of a middle-school level classroom chemistry test. And that is just on one page of his site.
    The more research you do on the sources you suggest, the less they should be believed.
    Practice critical thinking. Please.

  83. 1111Lightning says:

    I commend the site for posting my comments allowing others to investigate the matter and come to their own conclusion. I also respect the opinions of the posters who replied to my comment and wish you the best. I have provided a few more links regarding the fallout from the “contrails” among other “biased” propaganda for review by those who are interested. Thank you for the opportunity to post an alternate view on the topic. Peace and Love to all!!!

    http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soilradar.html

    http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soiltest.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIe0ZVF1rPc

    http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/keytopics/Chemtrails.shtml

  84. bab says:

    @ 1111Lightning

    In the first link it says “According to the controllers watching the scopes, both U.S. Air Force KC-135 air-refueling tankers had flown south out of Alaska. But the big Boeings were not refueling other aircraft. Instead, as Dickie, the kids and the controllers watched, the four-engine jets began making patterns over Edmonton – “circuits” the controllers called it.

    The Stratotankers were working alone in “commanded airspace” from which all other aircraft were excluded. And they were leaving chemtrails. ”

    WHERE is the proof that the KC-135s are leaving “chemtrails “

  85. bab says:

    taken from a link a the 1111Lightning

    “The signature is significant” commented one radar operator, referring to trails clearly visible on his scope extending for miles behind the KC-135s. In contrast, a commercial JAL flight on the same display left no visible trail.”

    for 1111Lightning ,and to any other that maybe knows ,”Normal” ,and not “normal” contrails ,both are visible at radar screens ??

  86. shilltastic says:

    ” “The signature is significant” commented one radar operator, referring to trails clearly visible on his scope extending for miles behind the KC-135s. In contrast, a commercial JAL flight on the same display left no visible trail”

    Same display, but not the same altitude. A difference of a few feet can result in a huge difference in the type of trail. That seems to be one of those things that the “chemtrail” believers just don’t “get”.

    Also, ALL contrails are normal. They are just deposited in varying atmospheric conditions.

  87. William Thomas seems rather prone to drawing wildly exaggerated conclusions from random data. Like from:

    http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soilradar.html

    [quote]Assuming that unusual metal content in the soil could be causing the high electrical conductivity readings, Dickie collected samples of a fresh snowfall for the city, and took them to Edmonton’s NorWest Labs for analysis.

    This reporter has obtained copies of lab tests conducted on snow samples collected by the city of Edmonton, Alberta between Nov. 8 – 12, 2002. The tests show unaccountably elevated levels of aluminum and barium. Norwest Labs lab report #336566, dated Nov. 14 2002 found:

    * aluminum levels: 0.148 milligrams/litre

    * barium levels: 0.006 milligrams/litre

    Acting like the electrolyte in a car battery, barium chemtrails developed at Ohio’s Wright Patterson Air Force Base are routinely sprayed into the atmosphere to “duct” or bend military radio and radar waves over-the-horizon, instead of continuing straight beyond the Earth’s curvature into space. “Wright Pat” is also closely connected to HAARP Experiments employing tightly focused, extremely high-energy radio frequency beams to alter the weather, disrupt communications and “X-ray” bunkers deep underground thousands of miles away the transmitter array in Gakon, Alaska.
    [/quote]

    See that 0.006 mg/L, well the EPA limit for drinking water that comes out of your tap is 2.0 mg/L, so somehow a minute level of barium, over 300 times lower than you might find in drinking water, is evidence of “”X-ray” bunkers deep underground thousands of miles away”

  88. 1111Lightning says:

    The patterns that you see in the sky above head are normal!!!!! This is just frozen water. Please stop wasting time on the internet with conspiracy theories and turn on the TV or go shopping!!!!

    [ADMIN: LIST OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES DELETED]

  89. Sorry 1111Lightning, this is not a site for general discussion of conspiracy theories. It’s for discussing the science behind contrails and the chemtrail theory.

  90. GuySmiley says:

    Here in Central Florida, these “persistent contrails” last for hours in the intense heat.
    Also, a strange oily like haze can be seen over the sun and sky at altitudes that seem quite low.
    Now I am a light year from being an expert in this area, but this does seem strange to me.
    Quick mention about this strange looking “swiss cheese holed” residue that the contrails sometimes dissolve into.
    I realize air traffic has increased and fuel may have changed, however I don’t recall this 10 years ago or so.
    And yes, my long term memory is still in tact.

  91. Suntour says:

    GuySmiley,

    Intense heat at ground level does not mean intense heat in the atmosphere. Remember it gets colder as you go up in elevation, think – snow capped mountains.

    How does this haze appear “oily”?

    Do you have a link to a picture of the “swiss cheese holed” contrails you referred to? I’m drawing a blank.

    Yes, these contrails have been appearing since the first one was spotted in the 1920’s. Luckily there are photographs and studies dating back to at least the 1940’s (think WWII) so we don’t have to count on our memories for documentation.

    Mr. Suntour

  92. Mike says:

    Uncinus, I think you have taken on more than enough for any sane mans shoulders to carry. You are arguing against a belief, blind faith with only common scene and good science as your defense. Good luck and long may you continue……. oh no the chemicals have got me, I must switch on the TV. (I’ll have to buy one first 🙂 )

    Mike

  93. Brewster says:

    This seemed a bit odd to me. Commercials are carefully edited from hours and hours of tape, by a team of trained people. Why would they possibly leave in these giant shots of contrails?

    This is a kool-aid commercial.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GS53iEJWec

    This one is from a childrens movie called “Over the Hedge”.
    Why on earth would animators leave these expanding contrails in there?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99MeNSs4rWM

  94. See also:

    https://contrailscience.com/contrails-in-the-movies/

    Why would the not leave those shots in? They have a great shot of the hands reaching for the ball, exactly what the director wanted. Why cut it? Because there are some contrails behind it? That makes no sense.

  95. Brewster says:

    Actually is makes perfect sense. If you have ever edited film or video (as I have) one would think it wise to get either a clear sky shot or a natural cloud shot. No matter how long it took. Or how many shots you had to choose from.

    OR………digitally remove the contrails from the picture. Especially with the technology nowadays, it’s simple to do!

    After all…..they are trying to condone “refreshment” here.
    Not very many refreshing thoughts in jet contrails.

    I am not a conspiracy guy at all. I don’t believe any of that crap!

    However, I did think that shot was peculiar.
    I’ve said my piece.

  96. You are not a conspiracy guy, yet you are suggesting there is a conspiracy?

    And “No matter how long it took” – what you are going to pay thousands of dollars extra, just to avoid contrails? People see contrails every day. They are just another type of cloud. And it’s just a background – a perfectly ordinary one.

    There are also some aluminum benches in several shots – should they not edit those out as well. What’s refreshing about aluminum?

    Really, it’s quite a ridiculous argument.

  97. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    I’m thirsty. Couldn’t half do with a cool aid.

    Thank you for spreading their message 🙂

Comments are closed.