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. Daniel says:

    Anon… that would mean all planes would leave a persistent trail not one kind what is what I see. And the picture shows a trail, not a persisting one.

    SR: Yes I do believe it is plausible, highly.

    Unicus: A two dimensional scaling is not the same with the eye. No one has to believe me, but those two planes were flying together like two military planes.

    Lastly, if the specific humidity, altitude and time is necessary for the persistent kind of trails to occur, all planes flying through this zone would have the same result from its water vapor being created by its exhaust.

  2. Daniel says:

    I did not mention that the planes were not flying overhead. They were about 15˚ from the zenith point. Flying at the same speed, and slight curvature.

  3. Unicus: A two dimensional scaling is not the same with the eye. No one has to believe me, but those two planes were flying together like two military planes.

    Actually, unless the object is within a few feet of you, then human vision is essentially two dimensional. After about 20 feet the differences in depths of field and stereo separation become very small. At 100+ feet they are essentially zero. The difference you would see in the planes is exactly as it would appear in the photo.

  4. Perhaps you could draw a scale diagram of what you saw?

  5. JazzRoc says:

    Daniel:

    Okay, please don’t tell me I’m not seeing what I see.
    I’m seriously questioning your interpretation of what you see.

    The two planes were not passenger planes because they were together at about the same altitude. That would be an obvious difference from the ground, 1000 feet between planes.
    That’s a 2.6% difference in size at 38,000 feet. I don’t believe you.

    If the persistent trails were completely humidity and altitude specific for a given time, then any plane passing this point would make the same trail as it entered and went higher.
    No, they’re also particulate-specific. Typical particulates being soot, and partially-burnt hydrocarbons and acids in trace quantities. Although they are trace quantities as small groups of atoms or single molecules they will still vastly outnumber all ice crystals which freeze out of the exhaust by many powers of ten.

    Ice crystals that form from the exhaust do collect more water vapor but they have a limit. Ice gets heavy and cannot grow continuously like the trails do.
    NO. You’re completely wrong. Check out the “Contrails to Cirrus” liink on the left. Scientists have discovered the growth factor to be up to 10,000 to 1.

    There is a certain point of condensation that deals with equilibrium. If the crystals kept growing they would fall into a warmer altitude and evaporate.
    Not when they are FALLING into COLDER air, which is what happens in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is the stratosphere BECAUSE it gets warmer with increasing altitude. After they have fallen THROUGH the tropopause THEN they DO evaporate.

    But if particles were being spread through the exhaust these particles would also have water condense on them and grow.
    And they DO. They greatly outnumber the ice crystals, remember? Particles are ALREADY THERE in the exhaust. You cannot back up your claim that “barium/aluminum” particles are there at all.

    Again, the only way for the trails to persist the way they do is from an added particle of some kind. If this were not true, all planes passing this area would have persistent trails at some point, not just one type.
    All engines vary in contrail response. They are ALL different. There isn’t “just one type” at all. Every engine type will behave subtly differently according to many separate design variations.

    It is definitely possible and very probable that the government would be doing something to the atmosphere without telling us.
    It is quite definitely TRUE that you “talk without listening”, don’t contest the counter-arguments you meet, repeat yourself, and bring NO EVIDENCE to the table.

    Why persist in arguing when you quite obviously don’t give credence to scientific discovery? What do you think the links on the left are there for?

  6. How close do you think these planes are:

    From:

    http://northstandchat.com/showthread.php?t=67086

    Or this:

    “3) “A Lufthansa 747-400 and a United Airlines 757-20 on simultaneous approaches. The separation requirement for flying parallel and simultaneous approaches is 225 meters. These two aircraft are at a safe distance for the approaches they are each flying. Due to the Lufthansa 747 being three times larger than the 757 plane and being slightly behind , gives us this incredible optical illusion.”

  7. SR1419 says:

    Lastly, if the specific humidity, altitude and time is necessary for the persistent kind of trails to occur, all planes flying through this zone would have the same result from its water vapor being created by its exhaust.

    That is simply not true. You are neglecting the variable of the specific engine as mentioned above.

    Moreover, can’t a “military” plane (or 2) leave a persistent contrail? Or by definition is it automatically assumed to be “spraying” something.

  8. ooooh boy says:

    Uncinus, I must admit you have faaaar more patience than I. I also commend you for your detailed and cited responses to these quires, and for sticking to the subject. It’s good to see a few more people chiming in from your side of the discussion as well. I’ve nothing to add save to say thank you and cheers for all the hard work, I’ll resume working on the moon landing folks. Anyways, have fun and carry on!

  9. Suntour says:

    Great pictures Uncinus, it’s amazing what a different perspective reveals.

    If those planes are 225 meters apart while landing…225 meters is 738 feet. So that’s 262 feet shy of the 1000 feet required when they’re out and about in the sky.

    Chemtrailers believe they can tell when airplanes are flying at the same altitude…at 25,000+ feet? They have no comprehension of what they’re even talking about.

  10. I just measured the distance between runways at LAX. 25L and 25R are about 242 meters apart, 24L and 24R are about 211 meters apart. I’ve never seen a parallel approach that close though, as they essentially have four parallel runways, and can just do North (24) and South (25) parallel (1300m). I could be wrong though.

    Anyway, yes, the image at post 800 shows how hard it is to tell how high a plane is with any accuracy, just by looking at it.

  11. nomad says:

    Beware the church of CONspiratology, they will believe any snake oil and drink any koolaid that tastes good. It’s a well known fact that 99.99999% of conspiracy theories are fake and the rest are sold in bulk.

    Chemtrails debunked, get it, got it, good.

  12. lardarz says:

    “you can confirm this by looking in an encyclopedia”

    Great – that’s a proper scientific explanation right there

  13. Encyclopedias are distillations of knowledge. They are a good starting point. Of course if you want you can dig a little deeper into the science. You could try following the links in this article:

    http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

  14. AK says:

    Unicus,

    you are a boss.

    keep tellin these people whats up and giving them the right info.

    there’s so much damn info out there these days you can pretty much make any claim about anything and have some sort of data to back it up. But the data here that Unicus has provided is PRETTY DAMN SOLID!

    thats all.

    everbody else:
    take a science class and learn something real for once.

  15. noname says:

    Unicus, great patiance, and great pictures and explanations. Keep up the good work.

  16. jojo says:

    this site is quite hilarious. 100% government dis-info agent. Obvious too a blind man. seriously thought, it is funny (your attempt).

  17. SR1419 says:

    JoJo-

    can you point out anything on here that is inaccurate, false or untrue?

    Just curious.

  18. bp says:

    Hi,and thanks for the info about this subject.I was reading some of the replies and I was just wondering why you didn’t reply to georg petur’s post on line 34?I would like to know your thoughts on this.I think he brings up a good point.It says right on their website (weather modification incorporated)that they have been “modifying and operating aircraft for cloud seeding and atmospheric research operations since 1961”.I was also reading some info about California’s LBAM eradication project going on right now? And your thoughts on the US DOe Atmospheric Science Program? Thank you. http://www.weathermodification.com/aircraft.php http://www.asp.bnl.gov/

  19. bp, cloud seeding is a well known technique that has been used for over 50 years. There’s nothing secret about it. It looks nothing like contrails, or like any of the photos that people say are “chemtrails”.

    The Atmospheric Science Program is a good thing. I think people often misunderstand what “radiative forcing is”. It’s actually simply the difference between the radiation the earth receives from the sun, and the radiation it loses into space. This is affected by aerosols from pollution, and it’s important to study it.

  20. SR1419 says:

    BP-

    cloud seeding is done using ice flares of silver iodide. The flares are released directly into clouds that are either already producing rain/snow or likely too…They are often released from the ground via small rockets.

    The use of these flares does not result in contrails nor take place from the exhaust of jet aircraft.

    You could, however, hire one or more of their planes to go sample a contrail or 10 of your choice:

    http://www.weathermodification.com/aircraft.php

  21. Suntour says:

    Oh jeeze SR1419 they wouldn’t want to do that! Then they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in the “chemtrail” hysteria.

  22. richardgazinia says:

    Those perpetually hovering streaks in the blue sky by three planes performing patterns are hardly cloud seeding. Cloud seeding requires clouds. I’ve called a professional cloud seeding company myself and confirmed it. Those were military planes spraying their mixtures to “geoengineer” and make the people sick. Why not control energy markets and make the people sick at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone while you also make money on the back end with your pharm and hospital companies and interest on the public debt for the “National Healthcare” that’s coming. Get a clue and use your friggin brain…that is if this truly is an unbiased site. I doubt that very seriously

  23. Yes indeed, contrails are not cloud seeding.

    They are not geoengineering either, at least not deliberately. They are just the same type of contrail cirrus that have been observed for 90 years.

    Or did you have some other evidence to bring up?

  24. SR1419 says:

    Really??

    I take it you didn’t actually READ the document, just saw the word “aerosol” and thought you found the smoking gun.

    Can you please point out on which page the use of “chemtrails” is discussed and admitted to?

    You do realize that the word “aerosol” refers to ANY particulate matter -as the paper states:

    “Atmospheric aerosols are suspensions of solid
    and/or liquid particles in air. Aerosols are ubiquitous
    in air and are often observable as dust,
    smoke, and haze. Both natural and human
    processes contribute to aerosol concentrations.”

    In fact, no where in the document does it even mention contrails, “chemtrails” or even aviation.

    So, please….do tell us where they admit to “spraying”.

    Unfortunately, this is typical of the “chemtrail” believer mentality…so convinced that they are being “sprayed” they simply throw out any rational review of information and simply draw conclusions to fit their beliefs.

    …and they wonder why people call them nuts.

    for brevity- here is the conclusion of the document:

    “Narrowing the gap between the current understanding
    of the contribution of anthropogenic
    aerosols to radiative forcing and that of
    the long lived greenhouse gases will require
    progress in all aspects of aerosol-climate science.
    Development of new space-based, field,
    and laboratory instruments will be needed, and
    in parallel, more realistic simulations of aerosol,
    cloud, and atmospheric processes must be
    incorporated into models. Most importantly,
    greater synergy among different types of measurements,
    different types of models, and especially
    between measurements and models,
    is critical. Aerosol-climate science must expand
    to encompass not only radiative effects
    on climate, but also aerosol effects on cloud
    processes, precipitation, and weather. New initiatives
    will strive to more effectively include
    experimentalists, remote sensing scientists and
    modelers as equal partners, and the traditionally
    defined communities of aerosol scientists,
    cloud scientists, radiation scientists increasingly
    will find common ground in addressing
    the challenges ahead.”

  25. Guest says:

    SR1419, It’s interesting that you have read the 128 page document in the 80 minutes since I posted it and can tell me what it “does not” say. This site is so obviously a cointelpro pentagon operation. What is your rank? How much do you get paid to implement DOD counter-intelligence measures?

    You do understand you are a traitor to the Constitution you swore to uphold. I bet you look forward to the day when you can use your hi-tech weapons to gun down protesting citizens on the streets of US cities. I’m on to you and I’m nothing special. The awakening has turned into a quickening and you will have to choose your final side soon.

  26. See the problem here is that you said “Government admits chemtrailing in 128 page pdf”, and the document says nothing about “chemtrails”.

    In fact it also says nothing about “contrails”, or “exhaust”, or “spray”, or “spraying”.

    What it DOES talk about is “smoke”, “pollution”, “volcano”, and “industrial”

    You can verify that in 30 seconds by doing a search of the text for those words.

    So perhaps you might want to reconsider what you think the document says. Perhaps you could at least give it a slightly more detailed read?

    If you think it says something, then why not quote it?

  27. SR1419 says:

    “guest” – did it occur to you that since it was published over a year ago and available for all to see that perhaps I had come across it before? Its not like you stumbled on some top secret document.

    Actually, you aren’t on to me…you know nothing of me…and your fear baiting misdirection and avoidance is indicative of failure.

    Could you please enlighten us as to Why you think that document is proof of “chemtrails” and Where exactly in the document the government “admits” to “chemtrailing”.

    Your lack of response to these simple queries does indeed beg the question;

    Did you even read it?

  28. will says:

    idiot!!! The british government officially admitted spraying chemicals over the population of london in the 1980’s..That’s official record!!!! your just another inept debunker!!!! people are a lot smarter than you!!!! IDIOT!!

  29. SR1419 says:

    Will-

    That the British government sprayed chemicals on its population 40 (actually it was from the 40s to 1979) years ago- (mainly from ships and the back of trucks- only 2 flights were involved) does not mean that every persistent contrail one sees in the sky is really a “chemtrail”.

    DO you see how that is an illogical conclusion?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience

  30. wonderwhy says:

    blimey, after reading all this stuff im not sure who is who and what is what. seems to me if the govt can manipulate the weather for good it will certainly try to use it for bad, and that is a supposition based on thousands of years of history that power is corrupt, and govts will abuse power. spraying the skies for whatever reason is a dangerous game it seems to me, and any suggestion that its for good is a little too trusting to say the least. someone said earlier that chinese attemts to ‘control’ the weather during the olympics was no secret, well sir i watch tv and read the news and i read years of stories on the chinese olympics and never read that. not saying it didnt happen, just saying it wasnt publicised, it was a secret in effect. the saving grace here is if the govt was trying to kill us then they are killing themselves and their kids too, so perhaps we are dealing with govt recklessness rather than conspiracy. however……does ANYBODY trust ANY govt ANYWHERE? would it surprise you? yes thats not a scientific prognosis, but my govt has proved to me many times that it cannot be trusted, it will take measures that i wouldnt approve of, and it will do so secretly, for the good of itself not of the people, for the power of itself not of the people. i have no doubt that the skies are dirty and grey and hazy, much more than in the past, perhaps just because more planes, full stop, but when you guys keep saying ‘its always been like that’ it just worries me somewhat because 1000000% it wasnt always so hazy and dirty, no science can tell me otherwise….you guys are the same ones who probably think 20 arabs really did slip though the net of the worlds most intrusive govt and blow up planes and buildings and managed to drop the twin towers like a deck of cards, plus another one the planes didnt even hit…amazing that…you know,i do admire scientific knowledge and the power to articulate it, but ignorance is really something else.

  31. someone said earlier that chinese attemts to ‘control’ the weather during the olympics was no secret, well sir i watch tv and read the news and i read years of stories on the chinese olympics and never read that. not saying it didnt happen, just saying it wasnt publicised, it was a secret in effect.

    There were hundreds of news stories on this topic over many months. See:

    http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=china+olympics+weather+control&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2005&as_hdate=2009&lnav=hist9

  32. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    the saving grace here is if the govt was trying to kill us then they are killing themselves and their kids too

    Surely the saving grace is they are doing a really bad job of it.

    Can someone please tell me what on earth the government has to do with aircraft contrails? Can someone please tell me where the government has TOLD ME what contrails are? Can someone please explain to me how they have LIED to me in respect to aircraft contrails?

    you guys are the same ones who probably think 20 arabs really did slip though the net of the worlds most intrusive govt and blow up planes and buildings and managed to drop the twin towers like a deck of cards, plus another one the planes didnt even hit…amazing that…you know,i do admire scientific knowledge and the power to articulate it, but ignorance is really something else.

    Why does this argument about contrails often result in some kind of finger pointing to the beliefs about 911? Again, what has this got to do with contrails?

    Ignorance is believing you know what other people think. Ignorance is using that to further your own beliefs.

  33. wonderwhy says:

    yes I see the news articles now on the china olympics, obviously i wasnt watching the right channels! thanks for that. i can say for sure that this was not a topic of discussion on the BBC!

    to mymatesbrainwashed. i think govts get brought into this argument, and so does 911, because there is an inherant mistrust of govt, and mistrust that they actually do protect the people they serve. i dont know much about contrails, the volcanic eruption here in europe has brought it to our attention because there are no planes in the sky. science ‘proves’ 911 was an actual terrorist attack, but there is as much, if not more science that ‘proves’ otherwise, so the science doesnt always add up and the analogy of 911 is relevant to that i feel. any power is abused, and if a govt were to use tools to tamper with weather then where do they draw the line, science science science doesnt placate the tens of millions of people who believe that things arent right, things dont add up, motives arent clear, and whilst i dont subscribe to some of the vociferous theorists it is indeed ignorant to just believe every scientific explanation there is. if a govt could indeed be involved in a plot to kill its own to further its power motives (and remember we are talking dubbya bush here, the scum of the earth) then it is possible that they could want to play with the weather or ‘spray’ the skies for motives that the population wouldnt concur with. the trouble with conspiracy theorists is they undermine the whole concept of conspiracy by being a little over zealous in their beliefs, and yes sometimes daft! but, doesnt mean the govt doesnt lie to us, doesnt mean big business doesnt conspire against us, and doesnt mean every theory that falls outside of current scientific proof is wrong. i do think thats ignorant to dismiss everything, i dont think trying to keep an open mind is ignorant. i could be sarcastic and say ‘prove scientifically’ that im ignorant, you cant, its just a matter of opinion, humans are born with an instinct, and i do know one thing, we are mere fodder for the power mongers, drip fed information, reduced freedoms, lies from govts. the two wars we fight are both pointless, one for oil, the other for stragetic location, how can we say that the war is true when afghanistan still pumps out 3/4 of the worlds heroin, with hundreds of thousands of troops there coming from the countries most infected by the drug. does this add up? what are the motives here….they are not for our freedom for sure. so chemtrails, contrails, whatever they are, why they are there….i dont know, nor do you, and with respect nor does Uncinus but who could argue with a guy who has such poise when answering. answer this, would you REALLY put it past the military, the power brokers, the huge industrialists to do such a thing as spray the skies and not tell us why…? well you know what, i wouldnt, the govts lie alll the time, on tv in front of millions, lie blatantly, you cant argue that point whatsoever, so why do you believe everything science says?

  34. wonderwhy says:

    by the way, after my reply yesterday i also added a one liner following my 911 comments about the plane that went into the pentagon…or rather the plane that didnt….where did the comment go..??

  35. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    because there is an inherant mistrust of govt

    So what? It’s a strawman argument.

    The government lies, therefore fairies exist. Prove they don’t!!!!! Go on!!!!! Man, I bet you think that terrorists brought down the twin towers too!

    See how stupid it is?

    i do think thats ignorant to dismiss everything

    Yet you dismiss that the towers could’ve been brought down by terrorists.

    so why do you believe everything science says?

    Regarding chemtrails, it’s a lot more believable than the crap that’s peddled that proves that chemtrails exist.

    It’s not just about believing science. It’s about understanding the lies that are used to suggest that chemtrails exist.

  36. wonderwhy says:

    Fair comment, i am open minded to accept facts as they are, but no, i dont think terrorists brough down the towers….thats another argument. i say again, the plane that hit the pentagon, absolute fantasy, there was no plane. i dismiss the govt stance on 911 after coming to my own conclusions, i CANNOT trust the US govt to tell me the truth so i make my own mind up on that one, too much long term gain for the govt, no long term gain for the terrosists. proof? no, of course, no one will be able to prove it, but remember 3/4 of the planet believe in a God we cannot prove exists, are they all mad too? dont you just feel something is wrong there?

    chemtrails don’t exist….well perhaps your resistance is based on the premise that chemtrails are there as some conspiracy to kill us all off and you just cant subscribe to that idea, agreed, makes no sense in reality, as i said earlier whilst they are killing us they are killing their kids too. but, alot of chemtrail theorists suggest that the spraying of the skies is in some way to protect us from an unknown (to us) phenomena….perhaps have a look at this theory below if you have not already….if you have then feel free to dismiss it but would appreciate on what basis, and that question to Uncinus too.

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

    the groundswell of opinion sways me towards thinking that something is in this theory, the motives, good or bad, i dont know.

    with reference to the comments the govts lie so fairy’s are real, good one made me laugh a little 🙂 doesnt negate the fact that when govts lie about one issue they will lie about other issues when confronted with them, and because we know govts will lie about big stuff they would potentially lie about this issue. yes, that doesnt prove anything i know, but its possible something is in this and the govt wont say, thats a fact.

    i look forward to your reposnse. im new to this chemtrail thing and im learning alot already, mostly about people personal missions to prove or disprove it, it seems to be more important than whether chemtrails are real or not!

  37. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    I’m fairly certain that governments do tell the truth sometimes too. So if they tell the truth about one issue they will tell the truth about other issues when confronted with them, and because we know govts will tell the truth about big stuff they would potentially tell the truth about this issue.

    The argument gets us no where.

    It’s not worth using.

    Look at the evidence. Weigh that up.

    If you are so interested in liars then please take time to see just how much chemtrailers have lied to try and make people believe in them. Take some time to see how many lies you can find about persistent contrails.

  38. Just assume that governments lie sometimes.

    Now, given that, what’s the evidence that there is a secret spraying program?

  39. by the way, after my reply yesterday i also added a one liner following my 911 comments about the plane that went into the pentagon…or rather the plane that didnt….where did the comment go..??

    I deleted it because it was entirely irrelevant, and I don’t want to start long debates on irrelevant material that has been covered elsewhere. Let’s you take it was read that the government does not tell you everything. Now produce some evidence for what they actually ARE doing (regarding contrails).

    Any more posts that only relate to the 9/11 conspiracy theory will be deleted.

  40. wonderwhy says:

    fair enough gents, im mostly playing devils advocate here, but i ask again, your comments on the below link, requires a bit of reading, perhaps its total bullshit, but really guys would like your comments on it. im working on the premise here that the govt may not be telling us something because they dont want to scare us, a bit different to they are trying to kill us….

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

  41. It’s a bunch of claims with no evidence. There are also detailed reports of alien abductions and meetings with Jesus. A detailed account on unverifiable claims does not constitute evidence.

  42. wonderwhy says:

    uhm….interesting reply, strange that you would use such analogies to debunk the report. so, in order for you to even consider another version of events you would need absolute hard facts and evidence, otherwise no way. thats just a bit too easily dismissive for me. you will have seen alot of ‘factual’ stuff about pollution, chemicals in the air, ecology, do you debunk that too? again im not saying im a believer, but something doesnt add up here about the way you dismiss something quite profound, scary even, and to some degree scientific, you say there is no evidence so forget it. i would say that we know pullution is there, we know about population explosion, we know about resources being low, we know about the ozone, we know we are stretched as a species. ok, you have said your piece, but a very curious way to respond to it i must say. youre a very interesting entity Uncinus, who you are and why you do this are most interesting, and why you pay such attention to this is very noble of you but also very curious. i think anyting that questions our future as a species should be considered a little more rationally than dismiss on the basis of no evidence. i dont think what i read on that link is an impossible scenario, the basis of why it is allegedly done is all on truth in terms of what we have done to our planet. in the future we are talking about giant mirrors in space to deflect the sun, we already tamper with weather, we do so for ‘logical’ reasons, we tamper with food production (GM)….we can do many things to assist our existence here, yet this is dismissed in a whim, we know the planet is f******, we know the planet is warming, we know skin cancer is increasing, fact, ok maybe proportionate to the population increase, but maybe not….do you really dismiss it so easily?

  43. I’m not dismissing it. I’m point out the lack of evidence, and the presence of contrary evidence.

    Or course there is a lot of pollution in the air, and some of it comes from planes. But the theory here states that some long lasting trails are being deliberately sprayed. I’m just saying there is no evidence to support that particular theory.

    Unless you have some evidence?

  44. JazzRoc says:

    wonderwhy: “I think anything that questions our future as a species should be considered a little more rationally than to dismiss it on the basis of no evidence”
    NO. There is enough evidence to deal with – evidence of REAL events, REAL facts, REAL propositions to concern ourselves with.

    “I don’t think what i read on that link is an impossible scenario, the basis of why it is allegedly done is all consistent with what we have done to our planet.”
    You really don’t know “what we have done to our planet. If you did, you’d know it was very little in terms of long-term changes, an amount almost too small to measure. What we have really done is to be an extinction event for many other species. Every species extinguished is almost completely unknown, as is (or was) its “ecological value”. As the pinnacle of the predator pyramid we should have known better than to have done what we have. But we didn’t. You still don’t.

    “in the future we are talking about giant mirrors in space to deflect the sun, we already tamper with weather, we do so for ‘logical’ reasons”
    Talk is cheap. “Mirrors” are just the sort of stupid idea that appeals to some people. Large areas would be “blown” by the solar wind and need constant repositioning and a constant supply of energy.

    “we tamper with food production (GM)”
    Every living thing participates in evolution, which may be rephrased as “natural genetic modification”. It has always been a risky process, whether natural or otherwise.

    “we can do many things to assist our existence here, yet this is dismissed in a whim, we know the planet is f******”
    What do you know? It isn’t f****** at all. We might be rendered extinct (if I were Gaia I’d make sure of it) but the planet would start getting better immediately. We apparently ARE “hell on earth”.

    “we know the planet is warming”
    Now that’s a surprise. People who write in about chemtrails normally are sure about one or two other things: 1) 9-11 was an inside job 2) GW is false: a taxation plot by the NWO.
    A we cannot “close” earth’s energy accounting it isn’t possible to verify this, but the best likelihood we have is that we are warming it.

    “we know skin cancer is increasing, fact, ok maybe proportionate to the population increase, but maybe not”
    There always has been and will be skin cancer. The earth’s air contains 21% oxygen which by absorbing solar UV light radiation energy offers some protection against the most damaging energies from the sun.

    “do you really dismiss it so easily?”
    Yes we do. We always dismiss the unreal. It gives us the time to deal with the real.

  45. wonderwhy says:

    🙂 you know i dont have evidence, and i never will because if its true no-one will provide me with the smoking gun, but as much as you put some of the crazy people straight regarding their crackpot theories it may be that you detract people from seeking the truth too. you have been replying to people politely and calmly for at least two years from what i read, thats a long time on a mission, may i ask what motivates you to still respond to the same old stories that people like me still talk about after all this time…?? i mean, contrails are just contrails right? nothing sinister, nothing spectacular, nothing dramatic, no conspiracies, so just curious as to why the website and why so much focus on debunking theories, at least two years of it, i mean how much is there to talk about when it comes to plain old boring contrails…?? after all, saying to each theory ‘where is the evidence’ just seems tedious. you know full well no one on here will have evidence, just ideas, thoughts, instincts, theories, you are either a very patient man, or you have nothing else to do, or you have an alterior motive, or you just love to tell people they are wrong on the basis of no evidence.

    not to detract away from the respect i have for you actually bothering to answer me, honestly, but something is just missing here and i just cant get it..

    thanks Uncinus, would love to hear your response to the above.

  46. It’s just a hobby. I’m interested in flying, clouds, weather, and conspiracy theories. This blog just combines my interests. I don’t really spend more time on it that other people do on their interests.

    Regarding evidence, I’m not asking for proof, I’m just asking for indication that there’s something worth looking into. So far the only evidence that has been presented is that some people don’t remember there being so many persisten contrails. But that’s easily countered by people who DO remember it, and the vast amount of photographic and written evidence.

    I understand not trusting the government. But why would you choose to believe in this particular theory with not even any suggestive evidence? You believe things are happening because they seem like the sort of things the government would do? Surely there are millions of such things. Why pick this one?

  47. wonderwhy says:

    thanks. well this theory right now because over here there have been no flights and its been mentioned that there are no contrails, the air is cleaner etc which led me to look into it, then found ‘chemtrails’ and here i am. i remember after 911 when there were no flights they measured the air quality around the USA and found that it had improved dramatically in just a few days, no surprise there, but what else they found is that the ground temperature increased in relative terms again dramatically, and it was the first time i heard of ‘global dimming’ where pollution possibly keeps the ground temperature from being alot hotter than it would be without all the pollution. so the report i asked you to look at in some way was a similar concept to that, that deliberately polluting the air may in some way protect us from harmful UV rays, and moderate the ground temperature, there is evidence to confirm those facts after 911 regarding air quality and ground temerature, but none to confirm that govt would resort to spraying to form a ‘shield’ to protect the earth. i hear what you say about the contrails always being like they are, and we have to account for the huge increase in flights, but it does look different up there to me, conjecture i know but anyway. so based on the fact that air quality improves after just a few days of no flying, but the average temp increased almost dangerously too, the theory of deliberate spraying to somehow protect the low level atmosphere doesnt sound so crazy to me, and i know this is distorted by the mad guys who think the govt are trying to kill us, but there really is alot of logic there as to why they would do such a thing. beyond that it is just a theory i am pondering over. problem is nowadays is anything you believe will be debunked, even god and jesus, there will always be claim and counter claim so it seems the best evidence is logic and instinct, this wont win any prizes for scientific process but it does for me in the absence of a trustable govt. and reliable information.

    i assume you are aware of those facts after the planes were grounded after 911?

  48. wonderwhy says:

    sorry jazzroc didnt see your message until just now.

    firstly, who are ‘we’….and ‘us’…i assume from your vast knowledge and evidential responses that you are some authority on all matters?

    im not sure you really respond to anything i said except to say its wrong, anyone can do that. i said the planet is warming, you directed that comment towards some theory i allegedly have, you just sounded bitter towards anyone with a theory you dont like or is not what the govt tell us, i didnt say who causes it, us, or the cycle of nature, but it IS warming. by the way there is no doubt at all that whatever the cause of global warming the govts/big business are making the very most of the tax possibilities on it, if you cant see you are plain stupid, or one of the protagonists with a very vsted interest, or you are just having a bad day, perhaps you have breathing too much polluted air.

    again i ask your authority to tell me to what degree we humans have damaged the earth. we clearly have done more to contaminate the air, the soil, the seas and rivers in the last 100 years than in the previous 5000, aside from natural disaters causing pollution we are the evil here yes i agree, how much we warm the planet i dont know, and nor did i claim to know.

    i have read your message several times now, i keep going back to it, still dont know what you are saying other than i am wrong and you are right. you have one theory, i have another, tell me youre a scientist and a specialist in these matters and i will stand corrected, otherwise get off your high horse because you are saying nothing other than ‘your wrong’.

    its not hard to find evidence that per capita skin cancer is increasing, the predictions are that it will increase per capita, why not refer to your god, the govt and tv, to tell you that, if thats where you get your facts.

    your quote ‘As the pinnacle of the predator pyramid we should have known better than to have done what we have. But we didn’t. You still don’t.’….what dont i know sir and what do you know, please enlighten me….

    the planet is f***** for us, thats what i meant and you know it, so your waffle about the planet being fine but we are not is, well just waffle. splitting hairs, mincing words…

    i think from my messages i have clearly said i am open to be corrected and informed, but you say nothing, so may i ask, unless you want to say something, then continue to say…well…nothing….and you dont need ten paragraphs to say nothing.

    by the way, the 911 govt story is flawed top to bottom, my 15 year old realised that, and whilst it doesnt prove an inside job, it does prove that the govt lied about alot of things, therefore the book is open to all sorst of theories in the absence of a consistent and reliable trail of facts. i bet you voted for george bush too. sorry that was a dig, but deserved i think.

  49. JazzRoc says:

    wonderwhy:

    “who are ‘we’….and ‘us’…i assume from your vast knowledge and evidential responses that you are some authority on all matters?”
    “We” and “us” are just those that take our sources from libraries and not the web, and especially not YouTube.

    “you are just having a bad day”
    Maybe.

    “perhaps you have breathing too much polluted air.”
    There’s not too much of that where I live.

    “we clearly have done more to contaminate the air, the soil, the seas and rivers in the last 100 years than in the previous 5000”
    Some air, some sea, some rivers. To some degree… But certainly not ALL, or even MANY, compared with all the seas, rivers and air on earth.

    “still don’t know what you are saying other than i am wrong and you are right”
    Your approach isn’t right. I’m right more often than not, but certainly not all of the time.

    “tell me youre a scientist and a specialist in these matters and i will stand corrected”
    I was. But don’t stand corrected. Seek for the right information in libraries and scientific publications.

    “per capita skin cancer is increasing, the predictions are that it will increase per capita, why not refer to your god, the govt and tv”
    Skin cancer can be easily made to decrease by keeping out of direct sunlight. It’s a social problem. I hold to no gods, dislike govts, and don’t watch TV. Why should you think I do?

    “As the pinnacle of the predator pyramid we should have known better”
    The predator at the top of the food chain is the first to disappear if times change. Check evolutionary history.

    “the planet is f***** for us, thats what i meant”
    No it isn’t. It would make a full recovery in flora and fauna (except for those species already extinguished) in 10,000 years, if we had the grace to depart. If we had the sense to act immediately, we could shorten that to 200 years, using science to assist nature (which we don’t normally do) and being sensitive to ecological and societal considerations (which we show little sign of being).

    “i think from my messages i have clearly said i am open to be corrected and informed”
    Good.

    “whilst it doesnt prove an inside job, it does prove that the govt lied about a lot of things, therefore the book is open to all sorts of theories”
    Which must rely on credible evidence to persist. Otherwise there are fairies at the bottom of your garden.

    “i bet you voted for george bush too”
    I told you your approach was all wrong. I’m a Brit resident in the Canary Isles. Did you vote for Zapatero?

  50. wonderwhy says:

    well, a fellow brit, you sounded like an angry arrogant american. sorry americans, no offense meant. my approach is wrong… youre wrong about that one because my approach is one of prodding and poking for info and opinions and finding out why people here spend so much time debunking theories, thats all.

    gladly we share the theory that information is not isolated to you tube, luckily for me i went to school therefore learnt to read books too. dont you think its a bit conceited to brand anyone with a theory of being a youtuber?

    whilst i am glad for the planet that it will recover in 10,000 years my more immediate concern is what we have done to contribute to a situation which may lead to my kids having to live on a canoe eating contaminated tree bark! please dont correct me on the science of that i think you get my drift.

    maybe my approach in THIS message is wrong, you got my back up a bit to be honest, i would say it was your approach that was wrong, lets agree to disagree on that.

    i am not going to argue on the semantics of the planet and our place in it, and what the future holds, i probably agree with you, but the problem i have here is everyone who debunks any theory seems to do so on the basis of no evidence. yes i get that, no evidence, we need evidence, but some evidence leads one to question, then find other facts, then one thing leads to another, and not to fairies in my garden, but if you wait for evidence you will wait for ever and when the shit hits the fan you will be among the most surprised i suggest.

    anyway, lets not argue over an argument. may i ask your thoughts on the post 911 clean air/high temperature points i made, then onto the proposition that govts may spray the sky for good reason but just dont tell us. please dont say where is my evidence, im asking for non conceited opinions.

    regards from the midlands, and by the way, i didnt vote for blair.

  51. i remember after 911 when there were no flights they measured the air quality around the USA and found that it had improved dramatically in just a few days, no surprise there, but what else they found is that the ground temperature increased in relative terms again dramatically, and it was the first time i heard of ‘global dimming’ where pollution possibly keeps the ground temperature from being alot hotter than it would be without all the pollution.

    In scientific discussions it’s useful to have two things: numbers and references.

    See you say that the air quality increased “dramatically”, but you don’t give the numbers (1% better? 10% better) to say what this means. You also don’t provide any way I can verify what you just said. I strongly suspect this was not the case, as I don’t remember any such measurements, I can’t find any via Google, and there’s no reason that a three days stoppage would have any impact on air quality, when air travel only accounts for a few percent of the particulates, and the particulates stay in the air longer than a few days.

    The change in temperature WAS something that was measured. The increase was actually in the “diurnal temperature range”, meaning the difference between the hottest and coldest temperatures in those days. However subsequent research has indicated this was just due to the weather at the time. You will recall that on the morning BEFORE the attacks, it was a stunningly clear day in New York.

    Now, some numbers and references:

    http://www.ottokinne.de/articles/cr2004/26/c026p001.pdf

    We determined that the average DTR for the US was 12.00°C for September 4 to 21 over 1971–2001, with a standard deviation of 1.20°C. As seen in Fig. 3 and quite consistent with Travis et al. (2002), the observed DTR was unusually high on 11 and 12 September 2001, averaging 13.24°C. Our air-mass classification system produced a predicted value of the DTR of 13.56°C for those 2 days, which is especially surprising considering the prediction system tended to under-predict days with unusually high DTR. Conditions became some- what cloudier on 13 and 14 September 2001, and the observed temperature range fell accordingly to an average of 10.96°C. However, our air-mass classifica- tion system ‘predicted’ an average temperature range of 11.81°C for those 2 days, indicating that the observed values were substantially less than the predicted values. Based on the 4 d period 11 to 14 September 2001, when air traffic was effectively halted in North America (limited service was available on 14 September), the observed DTR was 12.10°C, which was only slightly above the average value for that time of year. The ‘predicted’ value for that same time period was 12.68°C, showing that overall, the unusually high observed DTR value was likely not increased by the absence of contrails. We recognize that our model over-predicted DTR on all 4 days of interest in this study. However, 4 consecutive days of over-prediction or under-prediction is not particularly unusual over 1971–2001. It is important to note that we found no sig- nificant (r2 = 0.002) trend in the DTR time series that might have biased our study given that 2001 occurs at the end of the study period.

    4. CONCLUSIONS

    Travis et al. (2002) produced a calculation suggest- ing that the lack of contrails during the airline shut- down following the attacks of 11 September 2001 resulted in a substantial rise in the diurnal temperature range across the US. The obvious interpretation is that contrails have a strong impact on surface temperature patterns at the regional scale. However, Travis et al. (2002) did not control for the air-mass conditions across the US that may have been responsible for the observed increase in diurnal temperature range immediately following the attacks.
    By controlling for the air masses present across the US, we found that the unusual temperatures on 11 and 12 September were a result of a particularly clear weather pattern, not a lack of jet contrails. Further- more, the average diurnal temperature range for 11 to 14 September 2001 was only slightly above average, but well below what should have occurred based upon air masses present across the country. There is no doubt that contrails have some effect on the regional, hemispheric, and global climate system (Penner et al. 1999), but we conclude that the magnitude of this effect was overestimated by the Travis et al. (2002) study.

    See the pdf for a full discussion, and more numbers and references.

    Also see:

    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/245/2008GL036108.pdf

    We conclude that the increase of the diurnal temper- ature range over the United States during the three-day grounding period of 11–14 September 2001 cannot be attributed to the absence of contrails. While missing contra- ils may have affected the DTR, their impact is probably too small to detect with a statistical significance. The variations in high cloud cover, including contrails and contrail-induced cirrus clouds, contribute weakly to the changes in the diurnal temperature range, which is governed primarily by lower altitude clouds, winds, and humidity.

    Okay, your turn – if you want to make a point, please back it up with numbers and references. I’d urge you to start by looking into how much contrails contribute to global dimming. Start here:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=contrails+global+dimming

    Look at the various papers available in pdf form, see what they say, see what the numbers are.

  52. wonderwhy says:

    i will need time to study your figures. the study i recall took place in a rural area not a major city, and i will seek to find the facts i watched on that tv programme. yes it was a tv programme, didnt appear to have any agenda, just a typical documentary, with a guy and some gadgets and lots of data, but i dont see how the absence of flights over a few days would not affect the air quality to any mentionable degree, and i dont see why their measurements that average temps rose (directly attributed to the absence of flights) should be questioned, ok, your going to say show me the facts, i dont have them. i dont know about the stats you show, but i do know the guy i watched was there on the ground whilst the flights were grounded, making measurements at the time, not measuring averages taken after the fact, he measured the air quality at the time, and showed its clarity compared to normal days with flights. he made reference to global dimming, and this is now an acknowledged phenomena is it not. anyway im not going to argue the case because i dont have a book of facts and figures here, but i do know what i saw and heard and it all made very good sense to me. i respect anyone who takes the time to produce stats, but you know what, sometimes common sense prevails and thats just enough to seed an idea, and ideas turn into realities all the time.

    thanks,im signing off for tonight, its late here, i will be back for sure.

  53. Averages are the only thing worth measuring. You know that the temperature from day to day in a particular location will vary by several degrees. So how can you say that the shutdown caused a temperature change buy measuring it at one place? You need to measure it in many places, and see if they ALL vary in the same way. Otherwise you are just looking at random noise.

    i dont see why their measurements that average temps rose (directly attributed to the absence of flights) should be questioned

    Why should you accept someone’s figures and conclusions without question? Surely you’d want to verify both their measurements, and the reasoning they used to link cause and effect. The papers I referenced show that the measurements were correct, but that the DTR was actually what would have been expected anyway, based on the weather at the time.

  54. captfitch says:

    Well, it’s clear that in order to prove a direct correlation between contrails and surface temps you would need an extended period of time without contrails.

    I’m curious if there are days of the week that have less air traffic (Sunday maybe) that you could see any trends there. Maybe Sundays are always cooler/warmer then the rest of the week. Conversely, if no day of the week is any warmer/cooler despite a decrease in air traffic there could be conclusions to draw form that as well. Either way- good job producing numbers on this one Unc.

  55. JazzRoc says:

    Trails have two downsides: albedo change and dimming due to darkening the atmosphere with fine particulates.

    Albedo has been covered. The net effect is negligible as daytime losses by outward reflection of incoming solar radiation are regained by nighttime gains in reflective insulation of radiated infra-red radiation. The trails constantly use and reuse the water vapor already in the atmosphere and only a small amount of water by weight arrives from the aircraft fuel.

    So pollution… There is another way to check out these figures – by returning to what is combusted, by whom, and where, just considering the US and just a few days of time. All airborne combustion product is what we’re interested in. It is possible to research the amount of fuel consumed by power stations and refineries, the amount dispensed at gas stations, and the amount dispensed at airports, over the same time period. You could check it out, but I can’t be bothered. 🙂 Knowing the average ground speed of the atmosphere at that time it is also possible to determine the average degree of pollution within that air mass. By removing the 3.5% attributable to aviation (yes, the proportion due to air travel is one twenty-seventh – a European calculation) then we can see what we would have been left with at that time. Not much less… One problem with this assay is that we don’t know exactly how quickly the atmosphere is transporting these pollutants out of the air and into our rivers, lakes, and seas. But I reckon it’s possible to work that out.

    The 9-11 tragedy brings little to bear on the subject of contrails, in a nutshell.

    Sorry, wonderwhy, for appearing to be on the offensive. This happened because of your 9-11 statements which are highly inaccurate and offensive towards others. This was, no doubt, due to your own ignorance, which you admit needs correcting. I will back off while you strive to improve yourself.

    Bravo, Uncinus, for yet another good effort. Frequently you are my role model (not that I ever get there)…

  56. indyrocker says:

    wow…cant believe i spent like 2 hours reading some of these posts…

    great lines I love!!!

    “i dont remember seeing these when i was a kid”

    i dont remember 3-7th grade!!

    “contrails come from marked planes (commercial) and chemtrails come from unmarked planes”

    dem are sum good eyes ya gut on ya dare bud

    “There is too much lies here… I talk about you particularly Uncinus, and i think :
    a/ You are stupid
    b/ You are stupid disinfo agent”

    lol…his only post too…so nuff said

    “The visual evidence is overwhelming enough to anyone that is not blind or brain dead”

    sigh…

    I think the parts I love the best, are when people ask Uncinus a question, and he answers it, they have nothing to say, or call him an idiot or some other deflecting word. I have no evidence as to weather or not “chemtrails” exist, so I really cant argue “fact”, I have none.

    I reminds me of the great religious debate (chemtrailers being the god buddies)

    “we cant prove it, but what else could it be?? whats that you say?? i had my fingers in my ears!!!”

    this has gotta be the BEST contrail site ever!!! uncinus, you are doing a great job!! i have bookmarked this site, and will be checking it quite regularly!!!

    thanx for being so basic in asking questions with people. I guess the simple people have a hard time answering your simple questions.

  57. wonderwhy says:

    my oh my, jazzroc you strive to sound intelligent but go and ruin it by being a conceited prat, again.

  58. indyrocker says:

    anyone seen this???

    http://willthomasonline.net/willthomasonline/Obama_Considers_Chemtrails.html

    im especially interested with the “chemtrails confirmed” about 1/4 of the way down the page.

  59. Could you quote the bit you find interesting, and explain why?

  60. JazzRoc says:

    indyrocker: anyone seen this???

    Thomas, like Rense and Carnicom, dress propositions as policy and make baseless claims continually. When challenged they back off, and start trouble elsewhere. Their hokum is no different from the “bearded lady” carnival, circus, and fairground scams. They were saved from obscurity with the arrival of the internet and YouTube.

    If you work carefully through their sentences the only attributable activities and comments are made by “non-participants”. Very little science is appreciated or understood by these people, and to anyone with scientific training their powers of description, distinction, and especially interpretation, are noticeably lacking.

    They are interesting only in their psychological underpinnings and the manner in which they conceal their weaknesses – mostly from themselves.

    They have no other worth.

  61. Troubled says:

    Isn’t this enough evidence to suspend doubt until all the facts are known and studied?

    Obama’s chief scientific adviser John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview after being confirmed that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed.

    He said one such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.

    Source – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/04/08/2009-04-08_geoengineering_including_pollution_particles_to_reflect_suns_rays_real_options_i.html

    I live in an area that has persistent contrails that criss-cross the sky and slowly settle and spread until the sky goes from a beautiful blue to covered in hazy clouds.

    In my area it was just announced that the wells that supply more than 2 million Californians with drinking water have been found to contain harmful levels of nitrates over the past 15 years — a time marked by lax regulatory efforts to control the colorless and odorless contaminant. http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_15095399

    Is there a connection? I don’t know, but I believe you do a disservice to people by trying to debunk a theory that should be fully explored until the answers are provided.

    Especially when it has been proven that Obama’s chief scientific adviser John Holdren is exploring these types of geoengineering methods. Furthermore our groundwater is contaminated and as mentioned in the article not being carefully monitored due to lax regulatory efforts.

  62. “Debunking” actually IS fully exploring a theory until the answers are found.

    “doubt” is a VITAL part of the scientific process. If, in the absence of evidence, you have no doubt, then all you have is faith.

    The theories you mention have been around for over 50 years. What is missing is any evidence that anyone has ever done anything like that, and if they have that it resembles persistent contrails. There is simply no evidence.

    Why connect nitrates to geoengineering (for which there is no evidence), rather that agricultural fertilizers (which there is a vast amount of evidence for).

    It’s all very well keeping an open mind. But there are an infinite number of things you can believe. Why do you pick this one in particular?

  63. MartinH says:

    Observation is crucial in science, I live under two flight paths for local airports, I also live under a transatlantic gateway for international flights. I have seen planes all my life, contrails are not the same as chemtrails.

    Chemtrails are very real, use all the science you want, my eyes don’t lie. Military planes at 10,000 feet, circling and spraying over and over again. It’s getting worse too.

    My sky is not the same as what it was ten years ago.

  64. faithinscience says:

    Observation without knowledge is meaningless. You can’t just say “since I see something, my assumptions ABOUT what I see must be true.” I have lived in a Boston suburb for my entire life, 44 years, and have seen the different types of contrails for that 44 years. You say your “eyes don’t lie”, but your lack of understanding allows you to jump to conclusions about what your eyes see. It’s funny how I had seen the trails that people call “chemtrails” as a very young boy, but some people are just now noticing them.

  65. MartinH says:

    I have knowledge, people shouldn’t make assumptions that people don’t have knowledge.

  66. MartinH says:

    PS faith in science. Pull your head out your indoctrinated arse and you’ll see some light.

  67. MartinH says:

    I won’t be coming back on this website either, caio.

  68. faithinscience says:

    “I have knowledge, people shouldn’t make assumptions that people don’t have knowledge.”

    No assumptions made, your statements have proven what I wrote to be fact. You have provided no evidence that “military planes” are leaving these trails at “10.000 feet”. You’re mistaken in your “observation”. Don’t blame me! And of COURSE you won’t be coming here. You PREFER websites that are filled with information that you agree with. Not sites that are based on scientific reality. YOU are the one being indoctrinated by those uneducated in the subjects of atmospheric science and aviation. Maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse.

  69. Troubled says:

    In my opinion there is plenty of evidence as I have previously stated by referring back to Obama’s own chief scientific adviser John Holdren, who told The Associated Press that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. He said one such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.

    If it is being discussed, then it can easily be assumed that they are actively experimenting to determine the feasibility of such a statement. I am not a chemist by any stretch, however from my limited research it seems that nitrates can be an ingredient of the above referenced pollution particles. Furthermore barium nitrate has been considered one of the main ingredients of chemical aerosols for some time.

    You ask why do you pick this one in particular?

    Well, I’ll tell you why, up until this year I was oblivious to the possibility of chemtrails above my head. However, the one thing I was aware of was the absence of contrails that spread like I have been witnessing for the last several months.

    I found it alarming that suddenly a day with beautiful blue skies could turn into one that was hazy and dim, not from natural weather cycles but from jets. I took some pictures to reference the startling occurrences I begun seeing frequently. It was only then that I began researching the phenomenon.

    As you can see by the pictures below this is happening right above my head. So I am concerned about the health consequences associated with these jets spaying something in such close proximately to my family.

    spreading trails

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2669/4462988309_67bc987f6a_b.jpg

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2756/4463766444_0742d2d340_b.jpg

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2422/4462988511_947aede67a_b.jpg

    Crisscrossing trails

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4051/4482606707_c74c2c9175_o.jpg

    Trails that start and stop

    http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4496561765_46411ac830_b.jpg

  70. Have you considered you only noticed it several months ago, as that was when summer ended and things got colder?

    You know that this is nothing new or unexpected, right? See:

    http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

    Sure, it’s unfortunate that jets create these clouds of ice crystals that sometimes spread across the sky. But that’s all they are. Just man-made clouds. There are no more health consequence than from the cars that drive along your street (probably less).

    They crisscross because that how planes fly. There are a lot of planes in the air. See:

    http://contrailscience.com/britain-from-above-air-traffic/
    and
    http://contrailscience.com/there-are-a-lot-of-jets-in-the-air/

    For trails that start and stop, that’s perfectly expected, and also nothing new. See:

    http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/

    That’s a nice photo of broken contrails you have there. Would you mind if I used it to illustrate the article?

  71. faithinscience says:

    Yes, there is evidence that geoengineering is being experimented with. Where is the proof that the trails in the sky have ANYTHING to do with these experiments? Where is the evidence that these trails “reflect the suns rays”? What about the days that the trails persist, but don’t spread out in a blanket of white? Have they failed on those days?! Where is all of the “barium nitrate”?! Given all the trails I have seen in my life, we should be covered with the stuff! I see no evidence of that. Why do you people pretend to understand weather movement and frontal systems? Why do you assume that since the sky is blue, it’s “supposed” to stay that way?

    I see NOTHING unusual in those pictures. They are persistent contrails and nothing more. And the trails that start and stop are an indication of the atmospheric conditions. As the plane travels from colder to warmer (or saturated to unsaturated) air, the trail stops. It’s simple science. PLEASE take the time to get in touch with ANYONE (on the planet) who has actually studied the subject of atmospheric science and ask some questions. Don’t rely on the CRAP you find on the internet! Find a university that offers atmospheric studies and write some professors. Take the time to PROPERLY research this matter. The pictures that you posted, and the words that you use only prove that you have accepted the nonsense found online as fact, without looking at the other side of the coin.

  72. danP says:

    Why do Chemtrail theorists always use I saw contrails today and only post links from youtube?
    If you really want to prove your point, RESEARCH IT!!!! don’t rely on others to post their thoughts on youtube and say it’s fact. You show me chemtrails and I’ll show you how aliens are here and ready to take over. Both cannot be proven with reason or logic. So think about what you’re saying, and what cannot be dis proven is not fact. This site presents fact for the “chemtrail fact”

  73. guest says:

    Looks like one of the chemtrail operation centers has been exposed: http://www.infowars.com/evergreen-air-and-a-secret-chemtrail-facility/

  74. As well as, from the same article:

    We’ve learned long ago from inside people like Al Bielek that the secret government had available to them, as early as 1953, age regression equipment obtained from aliens that could reverse age any living being back in time.

    Which kind of makes it hard to take the rest seriously. I suspect that KrisH was trolling a little there.

  75. Prof. James Mazza says:

    I was born in 1957 and I was around as air travel was transitioning from prop-liners to jets. I also loved very close to LaGuardia and Kennedy (aka Idlewild) airports. In addition I was always fascinated by planes and helicopters and I always looked up towards the sky. That said, i have witnessed both persistent and non-persistent contrails all my life. I have seen persistant contrails produced by prop aircraft such as Constellations, DC6, DC3 right on up to modern day jetliners. It is not some new phenomenon that has appeared recently. They have been present for many decades, throughout my lifetime and before my lifetime.

    What I find amazing is that persistent contrails are constant with scientific explanations yet so many people insist on rejecting science in favor of some conspiracy theory that excludes science. It is more like some people want to believe that there is a secret and insidious game afoot and if rational science stands in the way of conspiracy theory you simply reject it and argue that the persons presenting the science are merely agents of the “dark forces”.

    It would be far more bizarre if there were no persistent contrails as science tells us that persistent contrails are normal and should be expected.

  76. Younicks says:

    “All i read here is a bunch of garbage and ostrich head in the sand stuff. You guys are exactly what they want. Fat dumb and happy. this web site is a joke!”

    I like these conspiracy folk. looking at things scientifically is “a bunch of garbage” and looking for logical scientific explanations is “burying your head in the sand”.. Heck… 2+2 = 22 and I don’t need nobody tring to tell me its 2.

  77. Anonymous says:

    “Looks like one of the chemtrail operation centers has been exposed: http://www.infowars.com/evergreen-air-and-a-secret-chemtrail-facility/

    Actually, no…it doesn’t look that way. Why do these people have to lie so much?!

  78. So a “whistleblower” reports:

    “During his time at the facility he was involved in retro fitting 727 and 747-c aircraft with liquid discharge tanks and aerosol sprayer devices.”

    Sounds like he was working on the “Supertanker”. It’s entirely possible that everything the “whistleblower” says is true. However, there’s nothing there that supports the “chemtrail” theory.

    There’s an interesting NASA report on the Supertanker:
    http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/pdf/summary.pdf

  79. JazzRoc says:

    Uncinus: There’s an interesting NASA report on the Supertanker:
    http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/pdf/summary.pdf

    Sure, they are trying to pretend they’re making a champagne supertanker, when it’s quite obvious with all that discussion about maintaining span clearances that what they’re REALLY aiming for is the whites of joe public’s eyes.
    Not content with a light drizzle of aluminum and barium from “less than 10,000 feet”, with their next move Joe is going to be washed straight into the Gulf, where BP can poison him.
    They think they will get away with it, but they have failed to reckon with the massed apathy and ignorance of the forces ranged against them.
    As I speak, chemtrailers are canoeing to the Antarctic to thwart their evil plans.

  80. Younicks says:

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

    Wouldn’t this preclude the idea of chemtrails ? Being the visible cloud is formed at a considerable altitude and assuming it were a chemical agent then concentrations of any aerosol would be extremely low (almost non-existant) at ground levels as the majority of “said substance” is remaining suspended in the upper atmosphere. This would indicate to me that it is likely that what these people claim they can “smell” or “taste” is either psychosomatic or, if it is actually real, is most likely due to some other source.

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

    Things change over time. Whay may have been unusual decades ago may be normal today. In this case there is more traffic in the air than decades ago. Just as there is much more car traffic on my road than there was 30 years ago. By the standards of 30 years ago the amount of car travel on my road would be considered “unusual”. But relative to today’s world it is “normal”. And even in the event it were “unusual” it doesn’t nesesarily mean there is anything to fear or anything wicked is happening.

    If we assume that the government (or Illuminati) is on some nefarious mission to “spray” the people then why would they do it by spraying highly visible “chemicals” way way up in the atmosphere which would be quite expensive and involves enormous numbers of personel sworn to secrecy. Seems like it would make more sense to install a few “sprayers” in a few trucks and spray some invisible “agent” at ground level.

    Sorry, I just can’t buy the “chemtrails” theory. It seems to defy logic. It simply doesn’t make sense.

  81. Younicks says:

    “I forgot one point: Try and tell me that Area 51 does not exist either. The government doesn’t tell us things because they are harming us, there are too many things that people don’t know about that get paranoid from their ignorance and wouldn’t let anything happen. Top secret is the government’s MO.”

    Wouldn’t it be more likely that there are airbases and facilities where new aircraft are built and tested and, most likely, the corporations who develop these aircraft want to keep their designs confidential and out of sight of their competitors and, that perhaps the government has a valid reason for anting to keep these things out of sight as well for reasons of national security ? Simply because something is done in confidence and it not wide open for public viewing does not mean that it’s purpose it to do evil or to harm anyone.

  82. Dip Dofus says:

    The insider: chemtrails KC-10 sprayer air to air – The proof ====✈ http://youtu.be/bSSWnXQsgOU

  83. So it begins…….. I really ought to write a post now to save time.

  84. Or maybe just point people over to the sensible folk at ATS:

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

  85. captfitch says:

    ATS is mostly correct except for the fuel dump explaination. Although it does have the ability to fuel dump, the article implies it’s fairly common. In reality fuel dumping almost never happens. You would need to have a pretty serious problem to justify it. That or landing overweight would possibly put you in a situation where the plane might run off the end of the runway and cause a larger problem.

  86. Dip Dofus says:

    Debunker said:

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

    It’s not ‘FEAR MONGERING” it’s humor. All the professionals I’ve talked to, the people who know about planes, fuel, weather, etc…the experts, laugh about “chemtrailers” and thier paranoid delusions. They enjoy doing this kind of thing. Believe it or not, “chemtrailers” are a minority fringe. Most people do not believe in them. To have pilots laughing about some idiot taking his video and claiming it’s “proof’ probably made their day.
    The only fearmongering are the doom and gloom sector, those insisting it’s poison pharmaceuticals spread to dumb-down, zombify, and sicken the populace by invading reptilians from Nibiru, who work their nefarious planes with TPTB elite Masonic Bilderberger despots running the US military, all while trying to stop global warning, making rain, using earthquakes as weapons.

    It’s the ultimate debunk. Take a video of something you KNOW the ins and outs of, post it with as little information as possible, and watch all the nutters claim it as “proof” of their conspiracy. I’ve done it myself, although sudden illness didn’t allow me the reveal. It was a reply to all the “magic eye” people who say you can “see” the difference in a trail. I had six powdery white substances, showed each to the camera, put it on a turntable, spun it and asked for everyone’s opinion which one was flour. But I kept filming, uninterupted for a reveal, then got sick and was hospitalized. I had people say they could see the flour clearly. WRONG!!! I had a can of rose dust insecticide in the flour bag, so there was no flour. My point was you can’t see anything, you must test to determine what the chemical make-up of anything unknown really is.
    I was off the internet while in hospital, and laughed at each guess a week later. And pulled it because it seemed too late to reveal.
    This pilots are doing the same thing.

    Chemtrailers were wrong, but they will believe anything if it supports their theory.

    This is what we have to deal with when questioning the status quo: People who are so sure they know the truth that they are willing to poison themselves while creating hoax videos.

    This site as well as other known COINTELPRO sites should make any casual observer wonder who has the time to give so much effort to de-bunking reasonable claims against the honesty and integrity of “THE GOVERNMENT”. Certainly it’s not the tens of thousands of admitted DOD disinformation employees or many of the 850,000+ top secret operatives exposed recently: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/one_in_three_us_spies_are_contract_0mIVNDyHb2GeWWEOaqYLFM . We truly are in an INFOWAR as William Cohen said may years ago.

  87. I don’t think he actually intended to poison himself, nor did he consider it an actual risk. It was just a mistake on his part, even if the illness was related to the experiment.. (And seems like a rather silly experiment all told).

    I spend way more time watching TV than I do debunking chemtrails. Cries of “where to they find the time” are disingenuous. That fact that your theory is interesting and common enough enough to attract debunkers no more validates it than the existence of atheist web sites validates angels.

    Think about it – what’s more likely to need debunking? Something that’s wrong, or something that’s right?

    And regarding “infowars” – you know the internet is not censored, right? Alex Jones can say whatever he likes, reveal whatever information he wants, and he’s never censored. So how is he at war? Why can’t he just post the information that proves chemtrails?

    Did that KC-10 hoax not give you pause? You were willing to accept it as “proof” right? Are you now slightly more skeptical than before? If not, then why not?

  88. faithinscience says:

    “COINTELPRO”

    Again, you make the claim…and provide no evidence. What does that make YOU!?

  89. Dip Dofus says:

    What’s your dog in this hunt? I’ll tell you mine:

    I want to know if poison is being disbursed in the atmosphere. You who argue it isn’t should differentiate your opinion and “logic” from facts. You have no ability to state unequivocally that aluminum compounds are not being spread in the atmosphere (for a number of reasons), yet you argue in favor of a proven corrupt institutions from behind the curtain of anonymized ids and domain names. All this is happening behind the backdrop of the DOD’s admission of spending tens of billions on “information warfare” and further recent admissions of a domestic spy network of over 850,000 spies. What do you think these 850,000 people are doing all day, every day?

    With regard to the previous statements, I can only surmise that you are willfully ignorant and unquestioningly loyal to an institution that would feed you to its dogs or you are being duplicitous as a function of your occupation. I hope it’s the former, but I’d bet it’s the latter.

    Also, I find it interesting that faithinscience say “Again, you make the claim..”. What is the context of this “again”?

    For anyone who might just happen on this post while researching chemtrails, I would remind you there is a large number of “science” websites that are directly tied to Department of Defense Counter-Intelligence Operations. I believe this is one of those sites.

  90. Okay, so for the sake of argument, let’s say I agree with all of that. The government is evil, I can’t prove a negative, and we live in a police state of repression, exploitation, and disinformation.

    Now, tell me of any evidence that supports the chemtrail theory.

    Do you understand the point I’m making? Even if the context you present is true, there’s no specific evidence to support a secret spraying program. The “chemtrails” look exactly like contrails. The test results show no more aluminum than before. So what’s the evidence?

  91. faithinscience says:

    My “dog in this hunt” (if you were asking me) is nothing more than a deep appreciation for aviation and science. I spent several years of my life learning these subjects from an actual school and I was an commercial pilot for a few years (courier)! And honestly, I LOVE aviation and all aircraft and have since I was a very young boy of around 4. It’s what I dream about! Everything in my house is about aviation! “dog in this hunt”?!~ Give me a break!

    What is YOUR dog in this hunt?! You see white lines in the sky and you have decided to rid the world of them?! Do you “believe” that these trails are full of poison and are harming us? Evidence? Do you miss your blue sky and want all airplanes grounded?! LOL! Good luck!

    “Again” as in, here comes another person who has “learned” about atmospheric science from someone, or many, unqualified to teach it (or probably anything else) and is challenging the information on this site as part of a cover-up, and then provides NOTHING to support the ridiculous claim.

    Please provide a single instance where the information isn’t correct. If you can’t, apologize to the man for your paranoid outbursts.

    The only reasons this site exists is because the man loves aviation and he’s trying to help those who have been fooled into accepting a ridiculous (and I do man that, it’s just plain silly!) hoax. It doesn’t matter if sites like this exist or not. The people that actually MATTER in this world are well aware of the fact that these trails are water vapor deposited in varying atmospheric conditions, and nothing more. Personally, I enjoy all of this for the humor, and nothing else. The things you people come up with are hilarious!

    Please do yourself a favor and learn about BASIC aviation, atmospheric science, jet engines and air saturation. The pieces may fit together if you actually take the time to learn these things instead of taking the lazy route and watching youtube videos made by OTHER people who aren’t educated in these subjects. Go to the library and learn about these things from NON-FICTION books please! The reason I suggest the library instead of the internet is because there is no filter on the information found on the internet. People will accept anything as fact if it agrees with what they believe to begin with. CONFIRMATION BIAS (look it up if you don’t understand) . Luckily for those of us who love aviation, we don’t NEED to use confirmation bias when learning about aviation. The basic principles of science can’t be “manipulated” as part of a lie/cover-up. If you knew atmospheric science or aviation, you would know what I mean…but, since you don’t, you don’t!

    Do you have any idea how silly it makes you people look when you make paranoid claims about this site and then provide absolutely NOTHING to back the claims up? You may not understand…But I sure do! And so do all intelligent people. Thanks for the laughs. Again, the information here is basic stuff…please provide us with a SINGLE instance where there is any kind of manipulation.

    Also, why would anyone who runs a site like this, and is accused of being everything from a liar to an “evil government shill”, post his actual name anywhere on the site. He’d be INSANE to do so! Some of these “chemtrail” hoax believers are crazy (and boy is it obvious!) and have made threatening remarks. I know that I have been threatened numerous times, why would I give my name?! Also, I don’t want my friends knowing that I waste my time like this. It would be embarrassing to admit that I enjoy arguing with “chemtrail” conspiracy nuts (I mean that affectionately).

    So, one last time…please feel free to find false information on this site. I’m sure Uncinus would love to edit anything that’s in error. The truth is the only thing that matters. Wouldn’t you agree?

  92. faithinscience says:

    Also, can you provide me with ANY official information that shows that the DoD would NEED to spend a single penny to pay anyone to refute the “chemtrail” hoax?! As I have said, the information is readily available, easily verified and mostly common sense… if one had passed the 10th grade. WHY would “they” need to watch you people at all?! There are enough pilots, atmospheric scientists, independent researchers, career scientists in many different areas of study who could easily explain the subjects to the world, if they felt it was necessary. But, as far as I can tell, there aren’t more than 10,000 “chemtrail” hoax acceptors on the planet…small potatoes…lunatic fringe….just don’t matter. But, if you can’t find evidence (other then the fact that someone won’t post their name) that shows that someone is trying to manipulate others as part of some DoD plot, please stop acting as if it’s a fact. It’s simply your “belief”. Which of course, is what you said…”belief”.

    Everyone has beliefs. My 4 year old “believes” there are fairies in the woods across the street. There is no convincing her that there aren’t. But, I don’t try….no one is being harmed by her beliefs and she will grow out of them. YOUR belief is harmful! It panics people and makes them suspicious of so many other people. Pilots, weathermen, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, aircraft mechanics, aircraft manufactures, firefighting companies that use airplanes, crop dusters, those in the cloudseeding business, the entire US government are being maligned based on the collective ignorance of the “chemtrail” hoax believers. I’m glad that Uncinus created this site! It’s a pillar of truth in a sea of ignorance.

    Sorry if the tone was a bit rude. The word “ignorance”, as I use it, does NOT mean “stupid” or “retarded”….I use it as it’s used in the dictionary. It simply means that one hasn’t been properly educated about something. Properly educated refers to learning facts from someone trained and qualified to instruct others. I am COMPLETELY ignorant about so many things simply because I haven’t take the time to learn the facts. It is NOT an insult to refer to a group of people as “ignorant” and I will defend my use of that word ’til the day I die!

  93. Dip Dofus says:

    If a group can rain depleted uranium from one end of a country to the other in order to more efficiently kill people, I can hardly doubt their willingness to disperse aluminum or silver in an attempt to affect the weather. More importantly, I can hardly doubt their willingness to disburse heavy metals or biological agents in pursuit of technological advancement.

    I have never argued that all contrails are chemtrails. That is a fallacious argument of a strawman that you erected. I simply state that I believe some experiments and possibly even campaigns entailing chemtrailing are taking place. Top government “officials” admit it, but the naysayers on this site still argue it’s not happening.

    That is how I know this site is simply propaganda chatter designed to make the weak-mined deny the obvious. The US government has sprinkled radio-active dust on school children from airplanes in the past and I highly doubt that was a one time event. I think it’s patently silly for anyone to argue that aerosol disbursement of toxic or poisonous agents never occurs as certainly it has and certainly it still does.

  94. captfitch says:

    Dip- I just can’t get over all the holes in this theory of yours. Why would I do this to my own children? Why would I live here knowing it is going on? Where are the chemicals on my plane? How do they get there? By truck? Were are the trucks? By the fuel? How does that work? Military only? Why then do I see soooo many trails? Why at night? Why over the ocean? Why am I so freaking healthy? Why no direct consequences? I have so many questions and nothing in the chemtrail theory answers them?

  95. faithinscience says:

    “I think it’s patently silly for anyone to argue that aerosol disbursement of toxic or poisonous agents never occurs as certainly it has and certainly it still does.”

    Of course it does! Industry has been doing for over 200 years. And my car has been doing it since 2003…Women put make-up on their skin that contain hazardous chemicals. I add chemicals to my lawn to make it green. As plastics are heated they off gas hazardous chemicals. We put chemicals on our faces after we shave. Now, think about these things and then look at the ingredients lists. It’s a fact of life…we are LITERALLY surrounded by chemicals of all kinds! When I spray bug killer…I’m spraying poison in my own house…intentionally. Do you understand the water cycle and how things we use down here end up in our atmosphere? What is your point?! What concentrations are you talking about? What chemicals for what purpose? Your vague and general statements don’t go very far to convince me that I should be worried.

    This site is about those who see long lasting trails in the sky and make assumptions as to what is IN the trails. If that’s not you, why are you arguing?! It’s the trails that are in question, not the FACT That poisonous agents are sometimes released for whatever reason by someone…somewhere. What the hell does that have to do with the trails I have seen in the sky for over 40 years?! You are speculating and assuming and then providing NOTHING to the discussion but your own “beliefs” and a history lesson. Yeah, we get it…people do shitty things to each other and have done so in the past. I see no evidence that anyone is spraying anything down on me from persistent contrails. THAT is the whole point. If you have ANYTHING other than the relentless speculation and assumption we get from the chemtrail hoax believers, please provide it.

    “More importantly, I can hardly doubt their willingness to disburse heavy metals or biological agents in pursuit of technological advancement.”

    Of course this has happened. But where and what concentrations? And for what purpose. I’m all for technical advancement as long as they don’t harm us all in the process. Which is what you seem to be suggesting someone is trying (willing?) to do. Do have ANYTHING to support that belief other than a vague fear? And it’s that vague fear that worries me more than the chemicals in my air! So many people are convinced that that are somewhat of a “target” of some evil government plot. That is just creepy! These are your own people and you (“you” used as a general term referring to anti-government/anti-military conspiracy theorists) fear, judge and accuse them of so much, and then provide NOTHING as far as evidence. Yeah, we can ALL look into the past and find a reason to dislike/distrust any group on the planet… That doesn’t mean we should! Sorry, I require actual evidence of wrongdoing BEFORE I judge others!

  96. michael says:

    my music teacher is a little nutty, but, if you actually listen to what she says it seems to make sense. She is a strong believer in chem trails. She says that she finds dust appearing on her window sill and even though she cleans it off within a few days it will be there again. suspecting that this had to do with chem trails she hired a private contractor to test the substance. There was a high content of barium in the substance and she had 300 the normal amount of barium in her blood. How can this be explained?

  97. Monte says:

    Article: Atmospheric Geoengineering: Weather Manipulation, Contrails and Chemtrails
    A Review of the “Case Orange” report

    by Rady Ananda (30 July 2010)

    Excerpt:

    At an international symposium held in Ghent, Belgium May 28-30, 2010, scientists asserted that “manipulation of climate through modification of Cirrus clouds is neither a hoax nor a conspiracy theory.” It is “fully operational” with a solid sixty-year history. Though “hostile” environmental modification was banned by UN Convention in 1978, its “friendly” use today is being hailed as the new savior to climate change and to water and food shortages. The military-industrial complex stands poised to capitalize on controlling the world’s weather.

    “In recent years there has been a decline in the support for weather modification research, and a tendency to move directly into operational projects.” ~World Meteorological Organization, 2007

    The only conspiracy surrounding geoengineering is that most governments and industry refuse to publicly admit what anyone with eyes can see. Peer-reviewed research is available to anyone willing and able to maneuver the labyrinth of scientific journals. So, while there is some disclosure on the topic, full public explanation is lacking. A brief list of confirmed cloud seeding events is produced at bottom, starting in 1915.

    Going under a variety of names – atmospheric geoengineering, weather modification, solar radiation management, chemical buffering, cloud seeding, weather force multiplication – toxic aerial spraying is popularly known as chemtrails. However, this is merely one technique employed to modify weather. The practice of environmental modification is vast and well funded.

    Hosted by the Belfort Group, which has been working for the last seven years to raise public awareness of toxic aerial spraying, the Symposium included chemtrail awareness groups from Greece, Germany, Holland, France and the U.S. Belfort published five videos covering only May 29,[1] when filmmaker Michael Murphy (Environmental Deception and What in the world are they spraying)[2] and aerospace engineer Dr. Coen Vermeeren [3] gave the most dramatic presentations.

    Dr Vermeeren, of the Delft University of Technology, presented [4] a 300-page scientific report entitled, “CASE ORANGE: Contrail Science, Its Impact on Climate and Weather Manipulation Programs Conducted by the United States and Its Allies.” [5]

    (end of excerpt)

    Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20369

  98. Monte, that seems to be confusing cloud seeding for rain making, with contrail cirrus formation.

    Everyone knows there’s cloud seeding for rain making, it’s never been a secret.

Comments are closed.