Home » contrails » Fake, Hoax, Chemtrail Videos

Fake, Hoax, Chemtrail Videos

Most of the supposed “chemtrail” videos out there are simply videos of persistent contrails that the video maker somehow has decided are part of a giant world-wide conspiracy involving spraying something for some purpose.

But some videos are actually deliberate hoaxes, either by pranksters poking fun at the chemtrail community, or by people looking to promote the theory for one reason or another.

The above video comes from TankerEnemy, an Italian chemtrail proponent.  It very clearly shows aerodynamic contrails coming from the wings of a KC-10.  The pilots on the cockpit are heard joking about it being “chemtrails”.  TankerEnemy, not being a native english speaker, misses this and thinks they are being serious. He then goes on to “analyze” the video, and points to the flap mechanisms as being nozzles.

The original video was posted by USAFFEKC1OA as a joke (on July 14th 2010, under his original account USAFFEKC10, see here).  He later updated the description to read:

USAFFEKC1O | July 17, 2010

It was fun playing with all the chemtrailers but you guys are way to gullible!! 🙂

And commented:

You guys who keep saying “TOO LATE” need to think before you open your mouth…I don’t care that the videos are still out there and going viral. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PRANK!!!! …for all of you chemtrail idiots to get all excited as if these videos are the holy grail of chemtrail videos and for me and my friends to laugh at you while you spread them. The more passionate you guys are about this, the more entertaining it is for those of us who live in the real world. Keep on spreading!!

The video has indeed “gone viral”, at least within the chemtrail community. This means TankerEnemy will ether have to admit he was wrong, or continue to assert that the video is real evidence of spraying, even though it’s painfully obvious that it is not. Unfortunately he’s chosen the latter.

He later uploaded the original video, commenting:

This is the original unadulterated video that started all the fuss. It is completely authentic and no camera tricks were used. It is simply a couple of KC-10’s in formation and the audio you hear is just us poking fun at all the “chemtrail” conspiratorists. I knew when I shot the video that this would be catnip for all the conspiratorists out there. Yeah, the contrails have an odd way of “starting” and “stopping” but that is easily explained with physics. It’s no different than the lenticular clouds that form over a mountain or the fog that flows from an open freezer. So, stop being so gullible, kids. There are truely bad things in the world but this isn’t one of them!

Air Force Pilots Chatting While Filming A Chemtrail Being Sprayed

This is an interesting one. It’s NOT FAKE, but it just shows a plane leaving contrails. The pilots are chatting, but just about some test they are taking.

The reason it’s even listed as a “chemtrail” video is the unusual perspective of the shot. It looks rather unusual, and impressive. So some people think it’s either chemtrails, or a fake. But it’s just contrails. That’s what they look like when you are closely following a plane.

CHEMTRAILS – THE ULTIMATE PROOF – LEAKED INSIDE COCKPIT VIEW

This one is less popular, perhaps because it’s more obviously fake. It shows some video from inside a cockpit (looks like an Airbus A321) with someone flipping a switch labeled “CHEMTRAIL ON/OFF”. The video then intercuts the cockpit view with a variety of shots of contrails, implying that the switch created contrails.

It’s hard to take the video seriously. The “chemtrail on/off” labels is obviously hand made, and simply stuck over the existing “Foot Warmer” switch on the switch panel on the right size of the Airbus panel.

Germany becomes the first country to admit chemtrail ops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiUMfsR28SM

That’s a real news story about chaff interfering with the weather radar. However the english subtitles have been faked to make it look like it’s a story on “chemtrails”. See full explanation here:

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

Ultimate Proof – Chemtrails

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh332-Z82q0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwRR3d1HDiE

Those two are clearly just jokes by PogoPoint99, but are amusing takes on the whole chemtrail culture.

People are just posting these videos for their own amusement. It’s a bit unfortunate that they then “go viral” and are used to support the chemtrail theory. But the silver lining here is that the videos are very easily demonstrated to be fake, and I would hope that any chemtrail believer that gets initially taken in my them might pause for a few moments after they discover what the videos actually are.

If you so quickly and easily believed these videos, then how many other things are there that you have quickly and unquestioningly believed in the past? Perhaps it’s time to start questioning things?

510 thoughts on “Fake, Hoax, Chemtrail Videos

  1. Beyond says:

    Ehhh.

  2. Beyond says:

    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/Chem_con-1.jpg[/img]

  3. Beyond says:

    One is long, one is short. Same hight, same conditions, different trail. Says it all.

  4. Beyond says:

    Eh! ‘CON’trails out of the tail wing, oops…
    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/chemy.jpg[/img]

  5. Beyond says:

    Yes, not all planes spray. This does not say spraying does not exist. Yes, contrails exist. This does not say chemtrails don’t. Yes, contrails can stay visible for some time but when one dissipates and the one next to it doesn’t there are 2 different trails. Yes, contrails should come out of the engines but often they don’t. Governments have acknowledged spraying in the past, it’s just the reason they give that incorrect. So debunking is useless. It confuses, diverts, and is a waste of time and energy.

  6. Beyond says:

    Yes, loads of people don’t have a clue what they talk about on-line. This does not mean spraying does not exist.

  7. #304 Not the same height, see:
    http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

    #306 Contrails start some distance behind the engines, so they often line up with the “tail wing”, (Usually just called the tail, or the horizontal stabilizers)

  8. John says:

    Beyond –

    You obviously go to alot of effort with your ‘research’ and posts.
    This is obviously something you feel very strongly about.
    So if it concerns you so much that the government is trying to kill you and your family,
    Why not devote some of your precious time reading & researching on contrail formation?
    I.e. look at both sides of the argument…
    Not on chemtrail websites or youtube, but books, scientific documents ect. Something that can be verified by yourself. Just use your brain mainly mate. Its not hard.

    Because all the youtube vids, and chemtrail sites are just other peoples opinions.
    No independantly verifiable informaion whatsoever can be found on these sites.
    You must be able to see that right?

    Anyway, enough of being nice.
    Heres something interesting to think about, which you cant possibly dis-agree with, which blows the chemtrail idea out of the water…

    You think that a contrail can only last for a few seconds/minutes right?
    Because a contrail is just water vapour, agreed?
    If it lingers, spreads out, starts/stops ect then its a chemtrail ok?

    Are we also in agreement that a normal cloud can linger, spread out, start/stop??
    And what is a normal cloud made of???
    WATER VAPOUR.

    There you go mate,
    You have just admitted that a contrail CAN spread, linger, start stop, do whatever a bloody cloud does,
    because they are the same thing.
    You have therefore also just admitted that there is no such thing as chemtrails.

  9. Amyblameme says:

    You are censoring Beyond so he can’t reply, what a cheap shot SHILLS…

  10. Stupid says:

    Amyblameme,
    (great name , btw)

    “Beyond” went 9 posts in a row, all on his own.
    I think this site’s management has let him speak his mind.
    How is that censorship ?
    Beyond has put a lot of words into his own mouth, and only one person replied.

    I don’t know if “Beyond” had more posts, but if he/she did, it is entirely possible the comment rules were being violated. Again, I don’t know this, it is just a guess.
    What makes you feel he is being censored anyways ?

    If you have some more info on the subject, I’d love to hear it.

  11. Amyblameme is Beyond, according to ip address.

  12. John says:

    Holy cow Uni. You know his/her IP adress???

    Don’t say that, you definatley work for the CIA.

    Despite my clear sarcasm, showing that anyone can see anyone elses IP adress,
    AND despite me just SAYING that anyone can see anyone elses IP adress,

    Do you think that anyone will read both your comment, then my comment, and STILL think that this shows you work for the CIA?

    It annoys me, because some of these people make me feel like i am from some sort of superior race, because it’s all pretty basic stuff here, yet they dont understand it, even if it’s spelled out for them.
    I feel as though theres no way on earth we can be from the same species, because there is clearly something different between our brains.

    It’s not that i consider myself to be particularly bright, but i feel as though the chemmies MUST have something wrong with them.

    I’m not just slagging them off for the sake of it, I’m wondering if anybody else feels the same as me??

  13. tryblinking says:

    As Sagan would have said, we simply lack that deepseated need to believe.

  14. Ross Marsden says:

    Here is a video that may you help to understand…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFMEdHC7xlA
    (I’m not laughing or pointing. I’m just sayn’, watch right to the end.)

  15. tryblinking says:

    Obviously she’s a shill, working for ‘Big Vinegar’…

  16. Alexey says:

    I think it beats the Sprinkler Rainbow Conspiracy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c6HsiixFS8

  17. pogopoint99 says:

    I’m a little disappointed that the discussions in this thread have drifted away from Pogopoint99’s very informative and most excellent videos depicting incontrovertible evidence of a massive government chemtrail conspiracy.

    However, you guys should be commended on your disregard for the other videos featured at the top of this page as they are crap and should be scorned… especially the one by the immoral drunkard known as USAFFEKC1OA.

  18. pogopoint99 says:

    I agree 120% with the previous comment.

    5 stars out of 5.

  19. JFDee says:

    I think these invisible chemtrails in pogopoint’s videos are particularly disturbing. I figure they are laid out by invisible planes, no?

    Gosh, they could be ANYWHERE …

    Furthermore, using animals as chem carrier is devilishly ingenious. I suspect they were fed fried onions enriched with barium. That would work with ME anyway.

  20. pogopoint99 says:

    Yes, they could be anywhere! Not only are the invisible chemtrails laid out by invisible planes, but the chemicals in the chemtrails are completely undetectable.

    BTW, Pogopoint99’s YouTube channel now offers Blackjack and cheap hookers. Come check it out!

  21. ContrailsRreal! says:

    What I have always wondered about chemtrails is why do these people bother to make some elaborate scheme of taking hundreds of planes to the sky in total secret so they can crop dust the population from 30K feet up if you can do the same much more practical and effective on the ground?
    I mean crop dusting from that altitude, its impossible, wind changes, the sheer volume of the sky, the logistic impossible feat. Wouldn’t it be far more effective to crop dust the planet with cars? You know, just drive a thousand cars day and night with all kinds of nasty chemicals. Nobody is going to notice that, the effectiveness is infinitely better and it doesn’t take a whole elaborate scheme to make hundreds of thousands of pilots, scientists, air traffic controllers, amateur and professional metreologists keep their mouths shut.

    Talk about Ocams shredder.

    Just wanted to add that, has been a very interesting read on this page. Chemmies are my grandpa’s favorite subject. He flew planes for over 60 years:P His favorite plane was the boeing 747 which he flew for over 20 years.

  22. anony mouse says:

    First off apologies for the length of this comment. But I suppose with the length of this thread, what difference will another massive comment make? I’ve spent the best part of the day reading and researching the information on the page and have a lot of work to get done over the next few weeks so may not be back online for a little while. Hit and Run I think you guys call it, but I will be back, don’t worry… I came onto your site, believing the chemtrails weren’t natural, didn’t happen more than very occasionally before the 90s and were a major concern. After spending hours and hours reading all the posts, I read your scientific arguments and understand what you are saying. I now realise that naturally occurring chemtrails can and do, in certain conditions, exist. Thanks for broadening my knowledge… Thats why I read ‘debunking’ sites, its essential to hear both sides of an argument objectively and Im always happy to be proven wrong…

    However the thing is, when I got to “IMOTECH” post #193, I followed the link and listened to a half hour interview with an AC Griffith (right to the end). At one point he mentions Wright-Patterson Air force base as being the base where a lot of this was going on. So I google that, then find articles about a reporter called Bob Fitrakis who spoke to a scientist from there who said –
    ““The scientist claims that the two most common substances being sprayed into chemtrails are aluminium oxide and barium stearate. When you see planes flying back and forth marking parallel lines, X-patterns and grids in a clear sky, that’s aluminium oxide, according to the scientist. The goal is to create an artificial sunscreen to reflect solar radiation back into space to alleviate global warming. In some cases, barium may be sprayed in a similar manner for the purpose of “high-tech 3-D radar imaging.” (Columbus Alive Dec. 6, 2001)

    Heres a few pages reporting this from May 2011 –
    http://tinyurl.com/3cdthkr

    pretty compelling evidence… Especially when coupled with the film “What in earth are they spraying?” where they go to a geo-engineering conference where the scientists say they want to put huge amounts of aluminium and barium into the atmosphere to combat ‘global warming’. Despite your page debunking this film, the conference happened the scientists want to do this, Im pretty sure they will have tested it out. Wont be the first time the government has done secret tests on the unsuspecting population. Heres a link to a story about the UK government doing germ warfare tests on the public from 1940 – 1979… Sure they say it was all harmless, but governments lie constantly….

    Then there’s the patents for the spraying technology (patent number 3899144 for one). We got Obamas science advisor John Holdren advocating geo-engineering.

    Heres a brief history of it for anyone interested.
    http://www.aei.org/aei-website/managed-content/site-pages/geoengineering/geoengineering-history.html

    and the holdren article
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/science-adviser-lists-goals-on-climate-energy/

    And now we have this scientist from the airbase responsible, certainly in that area, (Im sure they’re not the ones doing it in the UK, Germany, Holland or anywhere else Ive been), admitting that they are spraying barium as part of a geo-engineering project to help with ‘global warming’. Look at the comment you left in #194 Uncinus, you ‘might’ have learned something if you’d watched it all instead of assuming it was all conspiratorial nonsense, …

    Mike C in #195 then dismissed AC Griffith with no good reason. What makes Mike instantly assume the guy is lying about what he’s saying? He offers no explanation for his dismissal of Mr Griffith. Then he says that –
    “but not making any mention that they can only “spray” what is in the fuel tanks – ‘cos that’s where they spray the fuel from….duh! so if they’re spraying something evil then they do not have fuel in the tanks…boy that’d limit operations – I wonder how they get transoceanic with no gas in their wing tanks??”
    I don’t pretend to know as much as you do about how the fuel tank system works and Im sure you’ll no doubt correct me but SOME people think that the aluminium and barium is mixed into the jet fuel, thats how the pilots don’t know that they’re helping take part in all of this. You assume the contrails you see are just naturally occurring contrails, and laugh at anyone stupid enough to disagree with you. Its called compartmentalisation. Not many people are suggesting pilots are knowingly doing this or that ground crew at airports are all, ‘in on it’. As much as chemtrail believers call you guys shills or disinfo agents (I don’t think that btw) you guys called them / us crazy, stupid and morons… Just because people don’t believe what you all say, doesn’t make them stupid. How arrogant are some of you people? Interesting how quickiy you banned beyond. He wasn’t saying anything out of order. What was the problem there?

    The fact is that even if there were persistent contrails since the invention of planes, no-one can deny there has been a massive change in the skies since the late 90s or so. I know you’ll say that its down to the increase in air traffic, I saw your page on air traffic since the 80s. There obviously have been a lot more planes and routes opened up but that doesn’t explain how its gone from a very rare occurance to an almost daily occurrence in some places. Theres no way there was such a massive jump suddenly during the 90s, to bring us from, as kids, seeing the very occasional cross in the sky, to now where the sky is covered in ‘contrails’ a lot of the time… I don’t think my lack of memory is to blame… It was never ever like that growing up, I know it wasn’t… I never ever saw horizon to horizon chemtrails growing up and often looked at the sky. Ive always loved cloud formations and sky watching. Thats why when this first started happening, it struck me as odd… Sorry. but I just don’t buy it. Been looking for a graph to see if there was a MASSIVE spike during the 90s but cant find one. Anyone have a graph of this?

    Always wondered why people like Uncinus spends so much time devoted to disproving something he doesn’t believe in. Cass Sunstein recently said this in
    “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.” (J. Political Philosophy, 7 [2009], pp. 202-227).,
    “[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.:
    So trolling against “conspiracy theories” is likely already happening. Im not suggesting that Uncinus is a troll, a shill or a government agent. I saw your comment about it being a hobby of yours to argue with people with strong opinions online, I like arguing with folk online too when i got the time, so I know where you’re coming from and gotta give you the benefit of the doubt. Must say though, liking a good online debate is a different thing from going to all the time and hassle of building up a pretty big site as you have done, there are easier ways of getting an argument, makes me wonder…. You can see how people are suspicious when people in power say the things Sunstein has and guys like you go to so much effort to debunk a certain theory…

    To summarise, you’re likely right that contrails can and do occur naturally, but theres no way there isn’t’ a geo-engineering project going on by spraying aluminium and barium into the atmosphere… Would be easy to hide all that aluminium since its the third most abundant element. Thanks to the guy who posted that, didn’t know that one…
    Even if the contrails are as you all say and are not part of geoengineering, surely it cant be good having this going on in the sky… You’ve said the trails are water and exhaust fuel, wont there be chemicals in this, so no matter what this is a concern no?

    Has been an interesting read.

    All the best

  23. Despite your page debunking this film, the conference happened the scientists want to do this, Im pretty sure they will have tested it out.

    Why?

    Why are you sure they have tested it out? They very explicitly deny having tested it. There’s no evidence that why have tested it.

    Are you saying that if a scientist has proposed something as a possibility that they might do in the future, then it’s automatically the case that they must have already tried it out? That makes no sense at all.

    The fact is that even if there were persistent contrails since the invention of planes, no-one can deny there has been a massive change in the skies since the late 90s or so.

    Yes they can. Meteorologists can. Every single scientist and meteorologist in the world seems to somehow have not noticed this. There’s no indication of it in the weather records (which go back daily for many decades). There’s ample descriptions, photos, and videos of persisting spreading contrails from decades earlier. Often described as a common sight.

    All you have is the perception of a few individuals. Maybe for them they live under a new route, or they moved, or they simply don’t remember persistent contrails before they started to pay attention to them.

    Heck, I have no specific recollection of persistent contrails from before 2007. Yet I’ve lived in LA for 20 years, and plenty of people here say they saw them before 2007. So maybe I just did not pay much attention to contrails until 2007?

    And it’s not my hobby to argue with people with strong opinions. It’s my hobby to debunk. To point out things that are wrong. It’s not about opinions, it’s about facts.

  24. MikeC says:

    Anony mouse wrote:
    “Mike C in #195 then dismissed AC Griffith with no good reason. What makes Mike instantly assume the guy is lying about what he’s saying? He offers no explanation for his dismissal of Mr Griffith. Then he says that –
    “but not making any mention that they can only “spray” what is in the fuel tanks – ‘cos that’s where they spray the fuel from….duh! so if they’re spraying something evil then they do not have fuel in the tanks…boy that’d limit operations – I wonder how they get transoceanic with no gas in their wing tanks??”

    clearly I did give reasons for dismissing Griffith – you have even quoed part of my reason – if there is something there you don’t understand I’m happy to do my best to explain it.

    For the section quoted – I was replying to a comment that a plane that looked like it was dumping fuel was supposedly spraying chemtrails.

    I was noting that if they were spraying something through the fuel dump system, then their fuel tanks must have been full of the “something”, and not the fuel – hence they would have had to carry a minimal fuel load in auxiliary or centre-section tanks.

    That bit was not actually about “chemtrails” coming from engines at all.

    Could they mix “something” into eth fuel? Sure – in which case there are a number of possible ways of getting evidence of what the “something” is:

    1/ get fuel samples – if it is delivered to the aircraft already mixed in then you can probably go to your nearest FBO (fixed base operator – a service provider for itinerant a/cs that will sell tehm fuel and other services such as catering, passenger lounge facilities, etc) or fuel company, and get it tested

    2/ If you think it is mixed after it arrives at the a/c then ther needs to be some sort of delivery mechanism to the aircraft, and probably some sort of storage for it onboard the a/c – so there might be unexplainable vehicles, or hose connections or bottles or containers. There would be some sort of documentation for fitting, storing and using the “somethnig”.

    And in either case, if it is in the fuel you’d expect it to be present in environmental samples all around airports – since a/c use a lot more fuel in takeoff than when cruising.

    These are all logical corollories of the supposition that there is “something” in the fuel – but no one is finding any such evidence.

    There IS such a thing as evidence of absence – if there SHOULD be evidence that something is happening, and that evidence is NOT present – then you can be justified in concluding that the “something” is not actually happening.

    For a simple example – if you turn out a pocket you can find evidence of absence for anythign that it not in your pocket – if any giv en thing was in yuor poscket then turning your pocket out would provide evidence of it – if there’s no evidence then you can reasonably conclude that the “something” is not in your pocket.

    So it is with chemtrail theories – they should be proveable through evidence of something in the atmosphere – but consistently nothing is found – hence I feel justified in concluding they do not exist.

  25. captfitch says:

    Anony-

    So is it the military then? If so shouldn’t there be copious videos of military aircraft (transport or otherwise) leaving the trails? I can only find a few.

    Speaking from personal experience- in the decade that I’ve been flying in the flight levels I can only remember maybe ten total times that I even saw a military aircraft over the states. Of those times I can’t remember ANY of them leaving trails of any kind. Shouldn’t I be seeing something?

    And if it isn’t military wouldn’t there be literally thousabnds of people who would have to be in on it?

    A company like American Airlines probably has a team of dozens of people who’s job is solely to monitor fuel quality. I’m sure with independent testing as well.

  26. anony mouse says:

    Hi Captain Fitch (and Mike and Uncinus). I don’t think is exclusively the military. I reckon it may well have started out with the military as they perfected the technology. Once that was done it would’ve been rolled out to commercial planes. Wouldn’t make sense to have the military do it alone since you guys are out there flying every day anyway. Would make much more sense to engineer the stuff to be added to jet fuel and expelled as contrails. (Im not a scientist but am sure someone smarter than me could’ve figured out how to do this…) I dont know if or how this could be done without finding traces at the airport, or how it would be delivered. I don’t have all the answers but that doesn’t mean I cant think something may be going on. Of course Im always open to the possibility than Im completely wrong and there is nothing to worry about. That would be nice, like I say thats why I look at sites like this one to see if I can educate myself more and get to the bottom of a particular question… Which i have on some aspects of this issue thanks to al lot of your help… I still have concerns though…
    Since there is so much aluminium in the earth and contrails occur naturally, they’d have a steady stream of people, like you guys, to defend what they’re doing… Again, if the stuff was mixed into the fuel, then pilots wouldn’t have to know they are doing it. I wouldn’t suggest for a second airline pilots are knowingly taking part in this… Of course, this is admittedly speculation on my part, I, or no one else, yourself included, can say for sure how a secret program this this would or wouldn’t work on every level… Doesnt mean it not true…
    So do you guys think the reporter Bob Fitrakis is lying or have you just ignored that part because its harder to debunk? Check his wiki here –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Fitrakis.
    Looks like a pretty credible source to me. Has a history of exposing government cover ups, guess that makes him a conspiracy theorist eh? Whats he gaining by lying? Funny how you pick holes in what you can but ignore anything that might make you think differently. Any of you guys listened to the whole AC Griffith interview and read the Fitrakis stuff? I know the guy who made the AC griffith video had a shot of fuel being dumped, they werent denying that in the video, but this had nothing to do with what AC Griffith was saying and still no reason to dis-believe what he was saying was real. Sure just because geo-engineerists want to do something, doesnt necessarily mean they are already doing it but Im sure youd agree youd be pretty naive to assume secret military programs dont exist…
    Unicus you did say that it was a hobby of yours to argue with people with strong opinions in post number 298. Out of interest what other issues do you like to debunk?

  27. captfitch says:

    All good points Mr. Mouse.

    Please keep in mind that we’ve been doing this for a long time so many of the things you suggest we’ve already considered.

    The whole problem with jet fuel is it’s just too delicate a system to start messing with without some indication or malfunction.

    If you begin adding enough aluminium or barium or something to the fuel it has to go through at least two filters before it gets to the fuel control units where it’s metered and sent to the nozzles where it’s atomized and ignited. After it ignites it leaves the cans and passes through the high pressure and low pressure turbines. If there was something in the fuel that could make it past the filters it would be deposited all over the turbine blades as it exited the rear of the engine. There would be engine failures all day long.

    Not to mention the fact that the fuel tanks are looking at the fuel to see if it’s contaminated as well.

    So just looking at the actual aircraft there are too many systems that depend on very clean jet fuel to work properly.

  28. anony mouse says:

    Hi captain, what you say sounds reasonable… To be honest I don’t pretend to know how they are doing it… Only a fool believes they KNOW exactly whats going on, you guys included. I can say what I think to the best of my knowledge, but no-one really knows… I only said SOME people think thats how its done. Im not one of those people, I don’t know how they’re doing it. Im not gonna get too bogged down with details that I dont know enough about. I prefer to look at the big picture…
    The fact that you’ve been flying and looking into this for a long time, (been looking into it myself for a good number of years) doesn’t explain the Bob Fitrakis interview with the scientist. Did you check Mr Fitrakis’s page on wiki and look at the link with the reports on what the scientist said? Is an interesting interview, I can re-post the link to the AC Griffith interview if you like too. I don’t feel that has been suitably discredited either…

  29. captfitch says:

    You can’t just look at the big picture however.

    The devil is in the details and you have to be willing to do the work yourself for the details.

    And I don’t pretend to know everything which means of course I’m open to the possibility that something COULD be happening. That, however, does not mean something IS happening.

  30. So do you guys think the reporter Bob Fitrakis is lying or have you just ignored that part because its harder to debunk? Check his wiki here –
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Fitrakis.
    Looks like a pretty credible source to me. Has a history of exposing government cover ups, guess that makes him a conspiracy theorist eh? Whats he gaining by lying?

    It’s not so much that it’s hard to debunk, more that it’s impossible to verify.

    He claimed (In Dec 2001) that:

    A scientist working at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, who insisted on anonymity, told Columbus Alive that two different secret projects have been conducted. One involved cloud creation experiments to lessen the effect of global warming. The other involved radiation reflection off clouds in conjunction with the military’s High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska.

    The scientist claims that the two most common substances being sprayed into chemtrails are aluminum oxide and barium stearate. When you see planes flying back and forth marking parallel lines, X-patterns and grids in a clear sky, that’s aluminum oxide, according to the scientist. The goal is to create an artificial sunscreen to reflect solar radiation back into space to alleviate global warming.

    In some cases, barium may be sprayed in a similar manner for the purpose of “high-tech 3-D radar imaging. The barium can be used for a ‘wire’ to shoot an electromagnetic beam through to take 3-D images of the ground far over the horizon,” according to the scientist.

    If he’s not lying, then the most likely explanation is that someone hoaxed him. All he has there is some unsubstantiated claims by an anonymous source.

    He also has some things in that article that are just blatantly false:

    What’s the difference between a “chemtrail” and a normal contrail (or vapor trail), the wisps of condensation you expect to see in a jet’s wake? Typically contrails can only form at temperatures below negative-76 degrees Fahrenheit and at humidity levels of 70 percent or more at high altitudes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration meteorologist Thomas Schlattes. Even in most ideal conditions, a jet contrail lasts no more than 30 minutes.

    It’s -40F, not -76F, and normal contrails can last for hours.

    And who’s to say how much Fitrakis actually wrote of that article. It’s co-authored by “Fritz Chess”, a pseudonym (Fritz Chess is the name of a computer chess game).

  31. anony mouse says:

    Assuming there is a secret project like this, he’d hardly be able to tell us the name of a source who would likely be killed if his identity got out. So kinda hard to verify yeah, kinda like all the aluminium not being put there by the ‘contrails’. Thats how no one knows for sure. You guys havent convinced me that there ISNT a geo-engineering project going on.
    Ive just emailed Bob Fitrakis, Ill let you know if he confirms that he wrote it. Oh, you never did say what other issues you like to debunk uncilus…

  32. Debunking is not really about convincing people that something does not exist, it’s about idenfying and explaining bunk. Of course there’s always a possibility that unusual things (UFOs, ghosts, CHemtrails, etc) can exist – but that does not mean we should not examine the evidence presented.

    So, I’m not trying to convince you that there isn’t a geo-engineering project going on. I’m trying to explain that there’s no evidence of such a project.

    I like debunking all kinds of things. I just specialize in chemtrails. See my other site, metabunk.org

    http://metabunk.org/

  33. Strawman says:

    Please, Anony Mouse, please review your arguments. “Nobody can know, I don’t claim to know, but since noone knows it’s possible that…” is a non-argument. Ignorance about something cannot be an argument. And ignorance cannot be an argument for falling back onto mere speculation.

    Usually, people review the evidence that is there. If there is no evidence at all and you still insist on your position, that’s not critical, that’s dogmatic.

  34. Strawman says:

    Btw. claiming general ignorance and using it as an argument against someone who just argued on the basis of evidence and scientific knowledge, do you really think that helps your position? Moving from the knowable, from evidence-based discussion to the unknowable is an extreme case of moving goalposts. Effectively, it ends the discussion. So, if you find points in your position untenable, don’t just skip or move to a different (more obscure or speculative) argument, but review your position on that basis. Because that’s what honest discussion is.

  35. captfitch says:

    Man, strawman- your like the Yoda of reasoning and debate. You probably have valid proof that much of what I say is a falacy somehow. 😉

  36. anony mouse says:

    Yawn Strawman… Im not using ignorance as an argument. Good name Btw

    (A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position)

    I have admitted that I believe the science the folks on here are talking. So Im no longer ignorant, nor was I using it as an argument. Im not even arguing to a point, I agree with the guys on the science. Sorry if that means the end of the discussion. Just because I don’t know the ins and outs of every aspect doesn’t mean I just shut my eyes, brain and mouth. Maybe you believe everything you’re told but I don’t… Im sure there are many things you don’t have a PhD in that you hold a perceptive on… I can take a discussion Im involved in in ay direction I like to be honest. You don’t make ‘the rules’

    There are plenty of things I don’t know for sure but can still have a right to an opinion. Sorry to go off subject for a second but do you believe that on the day of 7/7 there was an exercise going on, rehearsing the exact same bombings going on at the same places and the same times. Despite the odds of this being true beings in the millions or billions, this was of course ‘entirely unrelated.’ Coincidence theorists really crack me up… A good example of not knowing exactly what was going on, yet using a little more than a few brains cells one can figure out somethings not right with that. Its like the NOTW reporter killed in mysterious circumstances, but isn’t thought to be suspicious… Sure more unsubstantiated claims but hopefully you get my point… Though probably not…

  37. MikeC says:

    How do you calculate that the odds of an exercise involving bombings of the underground going on were “millions or billions”?

    And of course the exercise did NOT rehearse “exactly the same bombings” at all – the exercise did not have a bus bombing, and the real life bombing did not hit a mainline station that was teh target of the exercise.

    So indeed there is a situation here of someone not knowing excatly what is going on – it is you. You even admit you are making unsubstantiated claims.

    But your unsubstantiated claims are actually wrong – so yes, I do nto get your point at all – you have claimed a connection to a terorist attack that proveably dos not actually exist.

    and how is it connected to chemtrails anyway?? :puz:

  38. anony mouse says:

    Im not saying these things are related to the chemtrail case. Im not gonna start a side argument on other issues Mike, than can and is done on other website perfectly well. I only brought it up to illustrate that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck. Its a duck. I don’t need proof of it being a duck to believe it so… Was the first example that came to my head. i could have asked if you believed they just killed Osama Bin Laden recently when its very likely he died long ago of kidney troubles… (again thats a little off subject so lets not have a big discussion about every little thing you can find to pick at.)

  39. Jay Reynolds says:

    anonymouse,
    I find no credibility in Fritakis or A.C. Griffith. If they had an insider they certainly didn’y give any information that could be confirmed, and nothing has emerged in the ten years hence. Not a very good track record. If you have a real insider, you don’t “out” him by making statements without somthing confirmable. This benefits no one, and puts your source in danger. What you do is to find something concrete, something that can be confirmed and is impossible to deny.

    What Fritakis and Griffith did was the complete opposite, and benefits only themselves, NOT anyone else. They may have made it up, hey may ave just believed an anonymous email somebody sent them.

    If your belief system depends on trusting someone with a second hand anonymous story ten years old, hat’s your business, but don’t expect others to follow you over the cliff.

    Here is what I know about A.C. Griffith, who I caught doing some sneaky business:
    http://metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails

    I encourage you to try and get anything concrete out of these two men, but expect nothing.

    Let me know.

  40. MikeC says:

    so Anony Mouse why not follow that with if it looks like a contrail, it is generated like a contrail, and there’s no evidence at all that it is any thing other than a contrail…….it must be a contrail – right?

    you have put up some “what if” scenarios for chemtrails to exist – but that is all they are – pure speculation without a single piece of verifiable evidence whtsoever.

    If you truely believe the duck investigative technique how can you possibly believe in Chemtrails?

    Or indeed any of the other side issues eiteehr since the overhwmeling preponderance of evidence says the conspiracy theories about them are balderdash?? :puz:

  41. anony mouse says:

    thanks for the info Jay, Doing some work just now (day job stuff) so will check it out when I get the chance. Im not basing my beliefs on either of these two men btw. Id said in post 324 that Id only just came across this story whilst reading this website. Ive had a lot of work to get done whilst commenting here and couldn’t find any articles disputing these guys. I did have a quick look… I look forward to looking into your piece Jay…
    Think Ill just have to agree to disagree with you Mike, cant be bothered nit-picking with you dude, like I say no offence…

  42. MikeC says:

    You claim to follow evidence……but somehow when it turns out your evidence isnt’ actually real it is “nt picking”??

    What is “nit picking” about deciding whether the evidence shows there’s a worldwide conspiracy to do something secret in the atmosphere or not? :puz:

  43. Strawman says:

    Anony, you misunderstood what I meant by “ignorance”. I was not using is it in a negative, derogatory way, and I was not talking about your ignorance specifically. I was saying that you moved the discussion from the evidence to the realm of speculation. The realm in which you don’t have to prove anything, need no evidence and can make up things as you want. If you need to move there to stand by your point, your point must be particularly weak.

    As MikeC already said: “if it looks like a contrail, it is generated like a contrail, and there’s no evidence at all that it is any thing other than a contrail…….it must be a contrail”. Why make up stuff with speculation? Government being seldomly trustworthy does not logically lead to chemtrails being real despite all the evidence against them. Actually, I have to correct myself, that’s not just the realm of speculation, it’s the realm of resentment and ideology.

  44. anony mouse says:

    Im not smart enough to know everything, but I am smart enough to realise what I do believe may be wrong. Thats in a way, why Im here talking to you guys. I tell you what I think of something and if its disprovable, you guys will no doubt disprove it. Im happy with that. I dont want to hold wrong information in my head. Im un-interested in, and believe it or not, I have nothing to gain from my standpoint on chemtrails. I don’t want to believe this is happening. Im not selling a book or a radio show… Im just a concerned parent whos worried about what I believe IS happening.

    Obviously I dont have any scientific proof of this program (would love to have some for you) otherwise we wouldn’t be debating it at all. It would be a generally accepted fact…. But if we discounted any of these things with no proof, without wondering about it where would we be?

    Look at the Gulf of Tomkin incident to name one but one of thousands of other examples, another unrelated occurrence. For years ‘conspiracy theorists’ (historians) as you like to call them had been saying this was a staged event to get the US into a war with Vietnam. There was no proof of this assumption but still, some people belived it to be true. Years later when this was declassified, it turned out the government HAD lied to get you guys into the vietnam war. This sound familiar to anyone. (The same thing happened in WW1 (lusitania), WW2 (Pearl Harbour) and Iraq / Afghanistan (9/11) and no doubt other conflicts. But I guess thats a debate for another time…) Of course once the gulf of tomkin was all declassified, it turned from a ‘conspiracy theory’ into a widely accepted fact. heres a page about the declassification.

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

    Knowing debunkers you’ll likely have a clever answer for this one too, I dunno.
    Who’s to say in 50 or 70 years when documents from this period are released, assuming we still live in the pretense of a free society then and can actually still get any of the documents, who’s to say we wont find out 911 was a staged attack to start a series of wars to take over the resourses of the middle east and make trillions of dollars in defense contracts, drug money and the fractitional reserve banking profits involved in laundering the drug money. A wells fargo bank was recently caught laundering $378.4 BILLION for one mexican cartel. Multiply that by the rest of the banks, the rest of the cartels and the fact that banks are be to perform the majic fractional reserve banking and you’re looking at trillions of dollars. Now tell me why drugs are illegal?

    http://tinyurl.com/2925wus

    Who’s to say we wont one day find out the banking collapse was engineered to rob america of trillions and trillions of dollars and turn your future generations into slaves? And that the Federal Reserve is a private institution issuing money at interest to profit from their stranglehold over the world. Or is this one now widely accepted?

    Again I have no proof of these assumptions but there are a lot of things with no actual proof you just know are the case.

    And Im sorry for as you say, jumping from scientific facts which Im not arguing about to as you call it speculation, Im just trying to illustrate things aren’t always as conventional wisdom might suggest,,,

    How do you pilots feel about the body scanners and TSA manhandling old men and 4 years olds. Terrorism is a manufactured threat. If terrorism was a real problem the way they and the media say then the terrorists wouldn’t be bothering going through the hassle of going to the airport, they’d just go the the near the airport with an RPG or maybe to a football match with some friends in vests. This hasn’t happened in the western world yet as far as I know, yet we’re supposed to believe its OK for the State department to get the Detroit christmas day bomber onto the plane, or for that matter for the FBI to help blow up the WTC in 1993… Again this had been admitted on the MSM.

    So whos to say the we wont find out chemtrails actually were part of a secret worldwide project to geo-engineer the planet? Just because something isnt provable, doesnt mean its not true.

    If things work the way you guys seem to think there would be no such thing as debate. One side would have varifyable scientific proof and thats that. No point arguing against it. Sorry but I dont think the world is flat no matter how many people assure me its conventional wisdom.

    None of what you say explains the fact that when I was young it was a very rare occurrence to see a saltire in the sky from contrails… Now the sky can often have horizon to horizon contrails that spread out creating a milky white sky when it should be blue. I accept that naturally occurring contrail can exist and that there is a lot more traffic, I don’t however accept the sudden rise in the last ten years, surely if it was always like that but with less planes, we’d surely have seen it happen to some degree before, only less so? No-one I have spoken to about this, and thats quite a few, can remember anything like this.

    Its a different world we live in now… And to be honest, I know where you’re coming from. If I was debating with someone Id likely ask him to prove his standpoint. Is a good way of settling disputes, but this isn’t always possible. When its not possible to prove something you can either disbelieve it, or use your judgement, taking other things into account to form a picture of whats happening… You have your approach. I have mine… Remember everyone is different and works in different ways…

  45. Thanks for that detailed explanation of your thinking.

    I think though there’s a bit of a misunderstanding, and it centers around the difference between evidence and proof

    I don’t think anyone here is saying anything like “the people in power are good, and you should always trust them”. There’s plenty of evidence that people in power are often evil, and often do evil deeds – some quite large, and necessarily in secret.

    But one cannot leap in one’s reasoning from “the PTB are evil” to “hence there’s a massive secret geoengineering project that leaves long white trails in the sky that look exactly like contrails”.

    You said:

    Just because something isnt provable, doesnt mean its not true.

    Which is entirely correct. But it doesn’t mean that it IS true either. In the absence of proof, we need to go with evidence.

    Evidence is the facts that tend to support a conclusion. Evidence can be proof, if it’s good enough, but it’s not aways proof.

    So far, your evidence seems to comprise of two things:

    A) The PTB are bad, and have a history of doing bad things.
    B) You don’t remember the sky looking like this.

    But A) does not imply any particular conspiracy – there’s an infinite number of evil things that man may do. And B) can have many explanations. You have to tally your own observations with the fact that the scientists who study the sky seem not to have noticed any change, and that other people (such as myself) also don’t have particular memories of persistent contrails (in my case before 2007) but come to a different conclusion after examining all the facts, and that many people DO remember persistent contrails.

    Perhaps people not remembering tells you more about people’s expectations of memories, rather than what actually happened. Is it not possible that if on the one hand there’s the younger you who not particularly interested in clouds, and on the other hand there’s the older you who is concerned about these clouds being some vast conspiracy that is slowly poisoning us and destroying the world, then maybe is it not possible that the older you might remember the clouds a little more intensely.

  46. SR1419 says:

    not to diverge from contrails too much but:

    “Terrorism is a manufactured threat…This hasn’t happened in the western world yet as far as I know”

    Really?

    What happened in Oslo today?

    or Stockholm in 2010?

    or London in 2005?

    or Madrid in 2004?

    or at Fort Hood in 2009

    or Moscow in Jan (at an airport)?

    or Frankfurt in March (at an airport)?

    or the Times Square bomb that didn’t go off…

    Of course, there is always 9.11…but chances are you think that was an “inside job”.

  47. Stupid says:

    Speaking on the reliability of memory, I recently scanned all my family childhood photos ( I’m 48).

    In doing so, I had the opportunity to examine each photo closely…..and here’s the important part:
    —–> there was so much information that I DID NOT remember (or recall) until I saw those photos again <—-

    …as well as things I never seemed to store in my memory.

    So I give very little credence and credit to the opinion of, "I don't remember" or "I do remember" what something was like 20+ years ago.

    Example…I have Camellia bushes now. Years ago, my grandmother also had Camellia bushes when I was much younger. Now that I am interested in Camellia flowers, I look at their structure and their method of growth. Back when I was a child, the flowers were still there in front of me, but I never noticed their structure of bud development……….but in fact those attributes were always right there in front of me…….I just did not notice these things until I decided to start paying attention a few years ago.
    The Camellia flowers never changed, but my interest in them did.

  48. captfitch says:

    hey stupid-

    Is there a name for what your describing? I think the best example is when you buy a new car and now everywhere you look people are driving that car. Same as before you just didn’t notice it.

  49. I suspect they would just call it something like “sensitization” or “priming“, or even dishabituation, but there really ought to be a proper word for it, as it’s a pretty consistent psychological phenomena.

  50. anony mouse says:

    Hi SR1419
    Should’ve made myself a bit clearer. I was talking about Islamic terrorist attacks overseas. I haven’t seen any evidence of this. Obviously there are terrorists (or freedom fighters depending what side you’re on I guess.) Living in the UK we had the IRA growing up, the Russians have the Chechyans. There are obviously other groups around the world, generally with grievances of some kind.

    Very sad day for the Norweigans, is always terrible when any attack of this kind takes place…
    The Norwegian attack looks at the moment to have been a far right extremist, (not the Islamic operation the media immediately claimed straight after the attack with no evidence whatsoever.) They seem to have a habit of this…

    None of these attacks would’ve been stopped by the TSA groping little kids or blasting everyone with terrahertz radiation at the airport either which was why I was on the subject this time.

    By the way most, if not all of the other attacks you mentioned, London 2005, Madrid, Times Square bombing attempt and the Fort Hood have very suspect official stories when you look into them.. The Fort Hood attacker was contacted by Anwar Al-Awlaki (who had been having lunch at the pentagon whist a wanted man after 911). and the Times Square attacker was also ‘inspired’ by Anwar Al-Awlaki. (again a suspected CIA asset.) Pretty suspicious to me when you had the fact that Haroon Rashid Aswat, the supposed mastermind of 7/7 was a MI6 asset.

    And 911, of course I think it was a false flag, I find it astonishing anyone still thinks it wasn’t when you look at it objectively… Reckon we could argue forever on that one…

    Im guessing you believe the Warren commission report and the magic bullet theory SR1419?

    But this blog isn’t about all that so Im gonna leave it there, apologies to Uncinus for this deviation… Promise to do my best to keep it on subject from now on.. Maybe we’ll meet some other place one time and we can go into details…

    And as for you guys saying the contrails were there 20 years ago but we just don’t remember them, how about this… Now we can look at satellite pictures and we can see the contrails on the satellite pics. Wouldn’t it be possible for someone to check satellite pictures from 20 years ago and see if it fits with your assumption. If they were there we should see them on the pics (?)… One way to get to the bottom of this one… Just an idea…

  51. The problem there is that they were not taking detailed daily satellite photos 20 years ago. There are some individual shots that show contrails, but not enough to draw a trend from.

    Related: why do you think that no scientist has spoken out about the change in contrails? Is it:

    A) They have not noticed
    B) They have all been informed of the plot, and ordered to keep quiet
    C) The change is not actually suspicious
    D) They have all been brainwashed

    Keep in mind we are talking about millions of scientists worldwide.

  52. anony mouse says:

    I suppose if we just didn’t notice them before then I suppose that would rule the scientists noticing it out. They wouldn’t have seen them either.

    I dont think all scientists are brainwashed or ‘in on it’ Im guessing a lot of them may well believe the science of contrails and so get on with their work. Seems to work that way for you guys…

    There are also other scientists who think the change IS actually suspicious. I’d look into this and confirm it for you but this isn’t my full time job… Though, having said that, I will likely get round to doing it anyway. Still not had time to look at Jays page on AC Cooper yet. 8-(

    Is a real pity no satellite pictures were taken back then. (Im sure a fair amount must have been taken) since satellites were up there. This is the real crux of the matter. If we can prove or disprove whether the trails were always here, just to a lesser extent, we’d be able to prove or disprove the whole contrails / chemtrails issue…

  53. There’s some from 1992 and 1968 (Apollo) in the comments section of this post:

    http://contrailscience.com/contrail-grids-are-not-chemtrail-grids/

    It’s not that there are NO photos, just hard to draw any statistically valid conclusions if you don’t have as many photos.

    There’s lots of photos from the ground in various old snapshots that people have scanned over the years:

    http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/

  54. anony mouse says:

    interesting photos. Is actually good to see those. My knowledge of naturally occurring contrails is again broadened. Interesting to see they did spread out a little, and looked pretty long. Is a funny one though, in a sense it proves nothing. I now agree, after your helpful information, with you that contrails can and do occur naturally. So all your pics prove is that there were some persistent contrails back then. If it is scientifically feasible for these things to exist then whats showing a photo of them pre 90s going to prove? What Im saying is that the skies now are very different from then, and I still don’t think its down to my lack of memory or the increase in air traffic. To put the memory thing into context a little. I grew up in Scotland. The national flag is a white cross on a blue background if you haven’t seen it. So when at school, it was always a big thing to notice the national flag in the sky, so we always looked out for it. I loved looking at the sky anyway, so I would’ve noticed an abundance of contrails n the sky. It was very very rare to see any contrails. I lived in the city too, with an airport nearby, once even overlooked the rinway of an airport for a few years so was always looking at the planes… Is a hard thing for either side to prove (or debunk) either way. If youre honest about it…

  55. anony mouse says:

    Obviously Im thinking now that naturally occurring contrails exist in certain conditions, then it would be easy enough to start the geo-engineering project we know the scientists and government advisors want to start. Then wait for you guys to argue that persistent contrails are real. Problem is they are a rare occurrence naturally… When we see these things day after day after day at times… The problem other chemtrail believers have in my humble opinion is that they believe you guys are government agents or paid dis-info agents. To be honest Id be surprised if none of you were given Cass Sunsteins stated plan to deal with ‘conspiracy theories’. But i know most of you are not, youre pilots meteorolgists and people with a knowledge of how climate science works. Id be a fool not to learn from what some of you are saying, but Id also be a fool to discount the possibility that the geo-engineering project is being done specially since the science of naturally occuring contrails can be argued for. It wouldn’t alarm the scientific community, people would think the aluminium comes from the earth anyway, and chemtrailers will argue the science of normal contrails with you. All seems like a good cover to allow the desired for program to me. Its what I would do if I was to implement that scheme… Don’t you ever wonder if maybe you’re wrong Uncinus? You’d have to be pretty arrogant not to surely?

  56. Wrong about what?

    Scientists alway hold out the possibility that their theories are incorrect. In fact science is based on the knowledge that theories are at best approximations as to how things work.

    The thing is you are focussing on the conclusion, but I’m focussing on the evidence. I don’t claim that there’s no geoengineering going on, I’m just saying there no EVIDENCE of geoengineering going on. And specifically I debunk the bunk that surrounds the subject.

    So I don’t think it’s correct to ask if I might be wrong, I’d always admit that I might be wrong. But is there is a single thing on this site you can point to that is wrong? Even a single thing you can point to that you doubt? Conclusions are one thing, but have I got the evidence wrong anywhere?

  57. anony mouse says:

    I havent said you have what you do have presented is wrong. (gonna have a chat about the clack beam / shadows with you at one point because that Im not convinced of at all..) If anything Im saying a lot the info you are presenting is likely correct. Im saying you might well be wrong about the non existence of geo-engineering, There is a LOT of likely circumstantial evidence (Im not a lawyer but doesn’t this all add up and count in court?) The evidence would point to contrails being real in the scenario Im envisioning but still wouldn’t discount my theory, if anything reinforces it… Yeah I know you’ll likely think Im a mad, tin-foil hat wearer. Och well…. And I know you just want proof of it, this is something smarter people than me are working on….

  58. SR1419 says:

    Mouse…

    Except the very premise of the “chemtrail” theory as its purveyed on the internet is that contrails don’t persist and spread…and never did…and so if you see one do so its a “chemtrail”.

    Thus the theory is based on an entirely false premise.

    As for satellite images older than 20yrs…here is a paper that studied contrails from sat-images between 1977-79:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0450%282000%29039%3C1434%3AASBCDO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

  59. Jay Reynolds says:

    Maybe uncinus isn’t ready to say that there is no (chemtrails) geoengineering going on, but I have evidence that allows me to come to that conclusion!

    I base my conclusions on the evidence from 30 years of satellite and ground based measurements of earth’s Aerosol Optical Thickness(AOT).

    The theory that geoengineering is taking place has already been tested and falsified.
    If geoengineering were taking place, earth’s Aerosol Optical Thickness would be increasing.

    The evidence shows AOT is NOT increasing, in fact, multiple surces document a 30 year DECREASE in AOT.

    This is the nail in the coffin of a belief that geoengineering is taking place, it just hasn’t been driven home yet.

    Have a look anonymouse:

    http://metabunk.org/threads/111-Historical-Aerosol-Thickness-Debunks-quot-Chemtrails-are-Geoengineering-quot

  60. anony mouse says:

    I appreciate that SR. I thought the same before chatting with you guys… I genuinely have found it helpful having these chats with you all… The page uncinus sent with the old pictures of chemtrails is pretty hard to dispute…. I don’t think all of the photographs are photoshopped. I accept the existence of rarely occurring natural contrails. What I don’t accept is the fact that the conditions for persistent contrail formation haven’t been changed by the amount of flights or my lack of memory. Surely the atmosphere was largely the same back 20 years ago, (lets not start a global warming debate, Ive gone off subject enough already) which means there should have been much more persistent contrails back then. Most of us know this was indeed a very rare occurrence back then, so what would explain this…

    I know Im turning the chemtrail argument on its head a little here, certainly deviating from the consensus of normal chemtrail belief, but I tend to amend my thinking with more understanding. Dot we all? Makes more sense for the geoenginnering project to be going on given my new understanding… Is much easier to hide a plot that is scientifically provable… Remember the government has announced it wants to do these plans, they have a great cover and there is lots of other facts and evidence that it is happening. Wont be the first government tests done without public knowledge and approval. I know its not proof, but you MUST be able to see where Im coming from no matter how invested you are in your current thinking?

  61. anony mouse says:

    hadn’t seen your response when posted the above Jay. Again, thanks for your help and info. Im not a scientist so Id have to verify whats been said there is correct for myself, as much as I can. Im happy I feel its now possible for me to get closer to the bottom of this one… Our chats have helped me narrow down the field of what I have to look into. Will have to take some time over and and Ill likely be busy for a few days with day job stuff, but look forward to finalising my conclusion.. Like I say, I have no need for chemtrails to be true so will be happy if I find myself with nothing to argue with you guys about…

    Believe it or not Im not keen on speculation but perhaps geo-engineering has been a cover story. They have been a little too open about this recently… Maybe it has more to do with Scalar weaponry or HAARP? Im guessing you’ve debunked these possibilities already?

  62. Strawman says:

    You are not keen on speculation? Are you for real?

  63. anony mouse says:

    heh heh. Thought some of you might find that funny. I meant getting into possible theories of this or that within a particular debate, ie possible uses for the contrails… I certainly come to conclusions on what I think of different situations or events, if you call that speculation then fair enough…

  64. anony mouse says:

    heres a good question for you all… My brother lives in China and is very interested in the chemtrail controversy for a number of years now. How come he, or anyone else there he asks, see any more than the very very rare persistent trails in the 5 years he’s lived there? Don’t the chinese have the same laws of physics?

  65. Yes they do, but they don’t have the same amount of air traffic, or population distribution.

    I’m not clear, are you saying he does not see any persistent contrails?

    Where does he live? Is it anywhere beween any major cities? Remember you want to be around 100 miles away from an airport before you’ll see many contrail originating at that airport. So if he lived in Beijing, then you won’t see any contrails related to Beijin (except small, way off on the horizon), and there’s not any obvious international routes that go over Beijin.

  66. anony mouse says:

    he lives in the centre of shanghai… He has seen them maybe 3 or 4 times in 5 years. Id have to ask him the exact number but I know he sees them very rarely…

    Pretty sure China has a fair bit of air traffic. Sure one you you will have a chart of this? Domestic flights are getting pretty big there. Im sure they wouldn’t have that fewer flights than Scotland. specially not to explain the almost complete absence of persistent trails…

    Are there ay other readers on here who dpnt see them nowadays?

  67. anony mouse says:

    apologies for some of my spelling today btw, cant find my glasses. 😎

  68. Scotland is smack bang between Europe and North America. So of course it gets a VAST amount of high altitude flyover traffic. Very few of the contrails seen in Scotland have anything to do with Scottish airports.

    [Edit – sorry, I missed you saying where your brother lived]

    Air passenger miles in 2004:

    China: 77 Billion
    USA: 480 Billion

    Source: http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=313&catid=13&subcatid=86

    So that’s just 16% of the US’s air traffic, in about the same area.

  69. Shanghai, well that’s on the coast, on the Eastern tip, so no local traffic will fly over it. Very few international routes either – maybe Hong Kong to Seoul, but really not a lot.

    I’m also not clear on China’s airspace restrictions. Do they let non-China routes fly over China?

  70. How many short, or non-persisting contrails does he see on an average day?

  71. anony mouse says:

    Ill ask him. Your answers are reasonable enough again. I guess air traffic in china is comparable to air traffic here in the past then. Would be interesting to find out how often they do get them in areas with more air traffic… Wouldn’t inland china now be much the same as here 20 years ago? Really just trying to establish how rare the conditions are for persistent contrails to form especially in the very long trails… Is it a fairly rare occurrence or not? Used to be fairly common for them to disappear really after a few seconds but never to hang around as often as they do now.

  72. Alexey says:

    I’ve just gone through the lance-modis satellite images of China (subset=FAS_China4) for the last month and noticed quite a few contrails. For example, the one going nearly vertically in the middle of the following picture is about 100 km long.

    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/Chinese_contrail.jpg[/img]

    (Google Earth KMZ file from http://lance-modis.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?subset=FAS_China4.2011196.terra.250m)

  73. Ross Marsden says:

    @anony mouse
    G Edward Griffin is a proponent of this idea that atmospheric conditions for persistent contrails rarely occurs. Is that where you have got that idea? I challenged him on that point in e-mail. He claimed he could “demonstrate” that is was so. Actually, all he could do was reiterate that he thought it “VERY rare at altitudes for most commercial and private aircraft.”

    Quoting my response to that:

    In about 30 minutes I found the following references which show that
    ice-saturation in the upper troposphere is actually quite common.
    Google: occurrence of ice-saturation

    “The mean frequency of occurrence of ice-supersaturation layers is
    about 28%.” (from the Abstract)
    “Ice supersaturation in the tropopause region over Lindenberg, Germany”

    These researchers didn’t seem to have any trouble finding
    ice-supersaturated conditions in the upper troposphere.
    “Cirrus cloud occurrence as function of ambient relative humidity: A
    comparison of observations from the Southern and Northern Hemisphere
    midlatitudes obtained during the INCA experiment”

    “The existence of cloud-free air masses supersaturated with respect to
    ice was proven more than 50 years ago. Gluckauf (1945) found from
    hygrometer data obtained over southern England that (very high)
    supersaturation with respect to ice occurs very frequently in the
    upper troposphere.” (First sentance, second paragraph, Introduction)
    “There is now direct evidence that ice supersaturation is frequent in
    upper tropospheric clear air and that it even occurs in the lowermost
    stratosphere. Such regions have been termed ice-supersaturated
    regions.” (First sentence, third paragraph, Introduction)
    “The global distribution of ice-supersaturated regions as seen by the
    Microwave Limb Sounder”

    (Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. (2003), 129, pp. 3391–3410)

    “Contrails often occur in clusters within regions that are cold and
    humid enough to allow persistent contrails to form. Contrail clusters
    observed in satellite data indicate that these air masses cover 10 to
    20% of the area over mid-Europe (Mannstein et al., 1999) and parts of
    the United States of America (Carleton and Lamb, 1986; Travis and
    Changnon, 1997), consistent with the fraction of air masses expected
    to be ice-supersaturated at cruise altitudes.” (near Fig 3.17)
    “Aviation and the Global Atmosphere
    3.4. Contrail Occurrence and Persistence and Impact of Aircraft Exhaust on Cirrus”

    I think you have to agree, based on these few search hits, that
    ice-saturation (the atmospheric condition for persistent contrails) is
    pretty common. And this is why you see so many contrails that persist
    in the skies where there is a lot of air traffic. This is most of the
    US, southern Canada, Europe, and Australia and New Zealand to a much
    lesser extent. I know; you don’t recall seeing these a few decades
    ago. No; neither do I. Some people do. That just shows how unreliable
    memory is on its own for documenting history.

    You mentioned “clack beam / shadows”. There is a thread about those here:
    Contrails, Dark Lines, Black Beams, & “Chemtrails”

  74. MikeC says:

    The lack of contrails in China is a fairly common comment from chemtrail believers & ther are several mentions of it in ATS – along with pictures of some contrails over China.

    However it is perhaps worth mentining that Chinese jets certainly do produce contrails – eg check this search of “contrails china” on Flikr – http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=contrail+china&m=text

    So if it is a conspiracy jsut in hte west, the Chinese are still aprt of it!!

  75. Ross Marsden says:

    I read on GLP that it is only the countries in the UN.
    So that narrows it down considerably.
    *poker faced*

  76. Kamran says:

    So if we found contrails over Taiwan, Kosovo, the Vatican, and international waters, then would that falsify the chemtrail conspiracy? Or would the goalposts be moved, as usual. I’ll make a wild guess.

  77. anony mouse says:

    Hi Kamran…. Yes I reckon if persistent contrails were found in non-UN countries that would put to bed some of the chemtrail arguments. On the other hand if contrails were found to be as rare as some people think then that would support the chemtrail side… To a point, I dare say areas where people think the program doesn’t happen would have lower air traffic numbers…. So the lack of trails could be explained be less air traffic rater than there being no program at all. Is like a fog chasing its tail at times this debate… Probably why its still an issue to some people… Wouldn’t be surprised if China was using weather manipulation technology. We know they are into this sort of thing. (No rain at the olympics)..
    Bear in mind Mike, I’m in agreement that contrails can occur naturally so the fact that chinese jets produce trails proves nothing to me. The issue is whether there are less persistent trails there. (taking into account the lower air traffic numbers….)
    @Ross Marsden. I didn’t get the idea that chemtrails are rare from G Edward Griffin. Formed this assumption all on my own going by the fact that I never saw anything like this when growing up. Yeah I know you say its done to my lack of memory etc, but thats how I came to that viewpoint…
    Saw the info you posted about 10 / 20% of the atmosphere was good for persistent contrail formation. Would as little as 10% good conditions account for the massive trailing we see over such large parts of the world? Would be interesting to find out how much of the sky has contrails on a given day and figure out if this was between 10 and 20% of the sky… Am I picking this up wrong?

  78. anony mouse says:

    sorry, a dog chasing its own tail… Still not found my glasses… 😎

  79. I suspect they meant NATO, seeing as how Taiwan’s the only country in the world you could really say is not in the UN (The Vatican is not really a country, and Kosovo’s exclusion is temporary).

    And of course chemtrails are everywhere you get contrails:

    http://powerpointparadise.com/blog/2010/05/chemtrails-over-taipei-31-4-10/

    Today the entire sky over Taipei was one milky haze again, as you can see behind the chemtrail! There was continual spraying going on. These pictures here were taken close to Guting station on He Ping road. Normal Taiwanese were totally oblivious of what was going on over their heads. It is so sad.

    I felt like cursing the pilot. I didn’t. I prayed that God would open his eyes to the evil he is doing! These people must know what they’re doing. It is so bad. What are they putting in our lungs?

    Is it perhaps for military purposes spraying aluminum and barium to make some anti-electro-magnetic shield against HAARP attacks by China or Russia or something? Because some say that it is only NATO or allied countries that are spraying. I don’t know.

  80. anony mouse says:

    Yeah thought wasn’t right when wrote down the UN. Nato is the suspicion Ive heard. Not necessarily a view I hold… I don’t know exactly which countries are taking part in the program… So your link to the chemtrails in Taiwan only says to me that a few people in Taiwan are also seeing some weird stuff going on in the skies above them…
    Still not heard from you yet Ross about whether 10 or 20 percent good conditions would account for the amount of sometimes daily spraying we get… Im assuming this 10 / 20% is for the entire atmosphere. Not just the flight paths of the planes? If it was for the entire atmosphere then the percentage of the atmosphere where planes travel through would be much less than 10 / 20%. This being the case it must mean that conditions for persistent contrails to form are actually much less prevalent than you seem to be suggesting… So again, how come the entire sky can be riddled with these things, day after day, yes even in the summer months, (have seen them 3 times this week in the summer)…. You guys arguments seem plausible until we apply some common sense and trust our own judgement… You have made me re-think a few things and for that Im grateful… Sorry, but Im not at all convinced there is nothing going on with these trails… If it isn’t a normal occurrence for these things to form and persist naturally then that must mean that some sort of project is underway… Specially when added to the knowledge that geo-engineers want to implement the program, patents exist for the technology, The US vetoed a ban on climate change / geo-engineering at the UN, and using your eyes and your own common sense. Always love to debate with debunkers. Usually do it in the hope they can talk me round and that things arent as messed up as they seem, but always end up more convinced in my convictions after talking to debunkers… Pity really….

  81. Strawman says:

    Funny how he’s talking about “the program” as if it were something specific, and somthing real. But while there may be experiments in geoengineering, there are no such things as chemtrails as the assumed charateristics are scientifically bogus.

    But at the end of the day, the mouse manages to shut off it’s brain and go with the stupid.

    [ADMIN WARNING: See http://contrailscience.com/politeness-policy/%5D

  82. anony mouse says:

    The same could be argued for your side Strawman, instead of trading insults like children how about addressing the question, Does 10% – 20% of the atmosphere being right for persistent contrail formation explain the massive trailing we see day after day? Im guessing you agree with me that it does not otherwise you might have addressed the question rather than resorting to insults….

  83. anony mouse says:

    Out of interest Uncinus, I notice I don’t get an email when someone comments on here. Im wondering if anyone who takes the opposing view also doesn’t get notifications that someone has replied. That would explain why chemtrail observers ‘hit and run’ as you call it. They maybe just dont know the thread is still going unless they check back like Ive been doing the last few days… Also gives the impression to the reader that you guys have the upper hand on the debate… Of course may just be a technical hitch but my suspicious mind does wonder… The contrail side of the debate seem to usually get back to me pretty quickly so Im guessing they are likely getting notification emails… Just a thought…

  84. For email notification, you need to subscribe to the comments – there’s a link at the bottom of the page.

    WordPress is a little clunky for extended discussions, which is partly why I’ve been moving over to metabunk.org.

  85. captfitch says:

    I think it seems like we have the “upper hand” because the core group on here has a unified front and we’re not just spit balling ideas at people as they pass through here.

  86. look at the actual 10 / 20% quote:

    “Contrails often occur in clusters within regions that are cold and
    humid enough to allow persistent contrails to form. Contrail clusters
    observed in satellite data indicate that these air masses cover 10 to
    20% of the area over mid-Europe (Mannstein et al., 1999) and parts of
    the United States of America (Carleton and Lamb, 1986; Travis and
    Changnon, 1997), consistent with the fraction of air masses expected
    to be ice-supersaturated at cruise altitudes.”

    All that means is that on average,at any given time, 10-20% of Europe has conditions suitable for contrail formation. It does not say that at any one location you’ll see contrails 20% of the time. Obviously it varies by location – I’ve not seen a contrail for several weeks here in SoCal.

    It’s also 10-20% of the TIME, not the DAYS. Even on days where contrails are more frequent you don’t get contrail formation all day long at all altitudes. It’s usually for just a segment of the day. (You could get contrails every day if 10% of the day had sufficient conditions).

    You guys arguments seem plausible until we apply some common sense and trust our own judgement

    How about some actual numbers? You keep saying it seems like more, but how many? Think of the new-car effect. You buy a new car, then suddenly you start seeing that model of car on the road everywhere. Are there more of that model? Or are you just noticing it more?

    Think if you were to present your case to a jury. Besides “it seems like more to me, despite what all the scientists say”, what actual evidence could you present?

    How would you explain this quote from 1970:

    The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

    Source: http://contrailscience.com/files/1970-AMS-i1520-0469-27-6-937.pdf

    Scientists thought it was a familiar sight in 1970. So what has changed?

  87. Jay Reynolds says:

    As summers warmer temps and persistent high pressure get entrenched, less persistent contrails are always noticed, by believers and scientists alike. Here are a few pages for this season, and has beenlike this for the 14 years the hoax has been extant.

    http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1572225/pg1

    and see:
    “The data indicate that contrail frequency peaks around February/March and is at a minimum during July. Annual mean persistent contrail frequency (not the cover) for the 19 sites was 12%. When related to fuel use and extended to the remainder of the country, mean annual contrail frequency for the United States of America is estimated at 9% (Minnis et al., 1997).”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/aviation/index.php?idp=38

    Also, be aware that some chemtrail believers consider practically ALL cirrus to be “chemclouds”, and attribute them to “chemtrails” even if the cirrus is non-linear and no aircraft are seen. Just google chemclouds and you will see. To that extent, some believer reports not sustantiated by evidence are non-reliable reports and simply heresay by anonymous people.

  88. Last year there was a Los Angeles based commenter, CTYForg, who started discussing the topic during February or March – which is the height of the contrail season here. Comment like:

    Its march 20th, and yes….
    there are persistent contrails creating persistent CLOUDS over me.
    In fact for the past week there has been plenty of persistent contrails.
    WTF Uncinus?

    Seems like the “rarity” of “Persistent Contrails” is pretty much a DAILY occurance.
    Wtf Uncinus?

    I told him it would drop off in the summer, and sure enough summer arrived, the contrails stopped, and he stopped commenting in around June. But then there were a few days of contrail weather in August, so he came back for a day.

    AUGUST 1st…still a spray-day.
    PERSISTANT CONTRAILS ongoing.

    Then that was it for the summer.

    There’s a very stong correlation here between contrail weather, and chatter about “chemtrails”.

    I think there might also be an aspect of projecting back short term memory. If the weather has been a certain way for a few weeks or months, then it almost starts to feel like it’s always been like this. Here in Los Angeles it’s always warm, dry, and sunny, and when the cold wet months arrive, it’s always a bit of a surprise to me. Like: what the heck – it’s raining! It never rains!

  89. SR1419 says:

    Mouse said:

    “If it isn’t a normal occurrence for these things to form and persist naturally then that must mean that some sort of project is underway… ”

    but IT IS a normal occurrence for contrails to form and persist…that fact is irrefutable…

    So, does that mean some sort of “project” is not underway?

  90. Strawman says:

    You’d think being consistently wrong would teach these people a lesson about being more careful and critical about their assumptions and ideas.

    You’d be wrong. Consistently.

  91. This site is pure GARBAGE says:

    “I’m not paid for this. I do not work for anyone in conjunction with this site. I’m just some guy.

    Fuck YOU and this pathetic disinformation site…what a piece of garbage !!

  92. MikeC says:

    wel thanks for your informed analysis of Mick’s efforts – I’m sure we all feel better informed for your insight and careful work in presenting it to us.

    Was there something in particular you think is wrong that you can enlighten us all about so we don’t have to believe a falsehood any more? It would be a public service to identify it!

  93. Ross Marsden says:

    The surprising thing to me about the valuable contribution from “This site is pure GARBAGE” is the intensity of emotion evidenced by the capitalisation and exclamation marks.
    The use of “pathetic” is also curious. This site is extensive and meticulously maintained. It can hardly be described as pathetic.

    A “hit and run”. We’ll not he hearing from that person again.

  94. anony mouse says:

    yes is a little sad… I don’t agree with you guys myself but comments like the last guys does no-one any good… If he thinks you’re wrong he should have it out with you all…
    On that note maybe you can explain something about the memory thing. How is it I can explicitly remember non persistent contrails from childhood. I and a lot of other can remember these trails but not the persistent ones we see today… Doesn’t that blow your lack of memory excuse out of the water? Got a few other issues with your last few responses but a little pushed for time just now. Will be back in a bit….

  95. That’s a very interesting question, and one I’ve pondered a lot.

    My first reaction would be that perhaps you don’t remember. Memories are not like videos. You don’t play back a memory when you remember something, instead it is re-constructed from encoded impressions. You remember blue skies, clouds, planes flying overhead. But it’s pretty unlikely you have any specific memories, and if you do, then you’ll only have one or two, when it was associated with some specific instance that fixed the time in your mind.

    Think on it – recall a specific time in your childhood where you remember watching a plane. Where were you? What year was it? Why were you there? What did you do later that day? How long did you watch the plane for? Did you watch the sky the rest of the day? What type of clouds were in the sky? What had the weather been like?

    What exactly do you remember?

    I think it’s entirely possible that for some people, this feeling of all planes having left short trails is based on JUST ONE incident from their childhood, where they were laying in a field, one glorious lazy summer day, looking at the sky, and happened to notice a plane fly over, and see that plane leave a trail. Perhaps you pointed it out to a friend. Perhaps then you watched a while longer, having fun looking for planes, and their short trails.

    Then all too soon your were back to school, and other things took your attention. You still remember that day in the field though, and over the years it becomes the archetype of your memory – an idealized representation of how things were in the golden days of your childhood.

  96. MikeC says:

    Anony mouse wrote:

    “On that note maybe you can explain something about the memory thing. How is it I can explicitly remember non persistent contrails from childhood. I and a lot of other can remember these trails but not the persistent ones we see today… Doesn’t that blow your lack of memory excuse out of the water? ”

    Actually I recall exactly the opposite – I remembe as a kid seeing long contrails from the first jetliners in the country flying overhead between 2 cities about 200 miles either side of where I lived – & sometimes the contrail from 1 flight would still be there an hour later when the return flight came back!

    Then a few years later I became an aircraft mechanic and worked on those same planes – there were only a couple of handfuls of jets flying domestic routes here at the time, and I worked on all of them.

    I have no memory at all of shorter contrails – which doesn’t mean they didn’t exist of course, nor even that I didn’t see them.

  97. And I don’t remember either long or short contrails.

    Unfortunately for many people it’s impossibly to suggest that their long term memory is less than perfect. Despite all the evidence to the contrary (eyewitness testimony of any event usually varies wildly).

    If you don’t remember something, yet history, science, and the memories of others disagree with you, is it more likely:

    A) You just don’t remember it.
    B) It never happened, every else is lying, the books and photos are fake, and science is wrong.

  98. Kamran says:

    Here’s another vote for only remembering the long contrails. I don’t think I looked up much though since I always thought they were rockets they must have been approaching from the horizon.

Comments are closed.