How many people believe in chemtrails?

How many people are interested in chemtrails? Not very many I suspect. But how to measure them? One way is to see how popular they are on the internet. You could measure how many web pages mention “chemtrails”, but that could give a distorted picture, as the people who believe in chemtrails might tend to be much more likely to post their beliefs on the internet. Lots of people knit, for example, but only a tiny fraction of them make knitting web sites.

We could count blog posts, but that has similar problems, as people who believe in conspiracy theories seem quite keen on spreading those theories, and so are more likely to blog about them

The best way that occurred to me was to measure search terms. Simply see how many people were googling for “chemtrails” vs. other words. In this Googlified world, if people are interested in something then they google it.

Here’s my raw data:


Google Google Blogs Google Images Video News Scholar Pages/Posts Groutability 2006
“Global Warming” 67500000 733828 996000 18420 32584 102000 91.98 80
Ufo 36700000 317795 3335000 163722 929 24000 115.48 80
Knitting 20600000 601088 668000 7035 1715 143000 34.27 50
Archery 11900000 95539 296000 3614 1453 12500 124.56 12
Parkour 4510000 35404 83100 39931 49 39 127.39 8
Fread 2600000 3224 8280 32 10 3580 806.45 1.6
Grouting 1600000 6873 17800 193 58 36600 232.79 1
Bboy 1210000 14443 25700 77250 10 49 83.78 3
Chemtrail(s) 791000 4828 9180 2123 5 38 163.84 1
“fox hunting” 707000 7923 15900 106 64 2380 89.23 1.2
“Killer Bees” 434000 7090 10400 195 197 568 61.21 0.8
Morgellons 236000 3756 2970 143 4 26 62.83 1
Vexillology 112000 1037 1610 0 4 34 108 0
Reborning 47000 397 1070 0 0 0 118.39 0



The columns are fairly self explanatory. They are the number of results returned by google for web, blogs, images, videos, news and scholar. The pages/posts column is the ratio of total web pages to blog posts. The “groutability” column is the ratio search volume for that word to the search volume of “grouting”. I chose grouting as it seemed like a thing people would be searching for at a fairly constant volume, but not too much.

I chose search terms that had a similar result to chemtrails. I also added some outliers, that were very popular, or very unpopular, mostly activities practiced only by a few (like reborning). I included “morgellons”, as it seems like the most similar thing I could find with a distinct name.

You can look at the numbers and draw your own conclusions. Chemtrails has more results than “killer bees”, but less than “bboy” ( a type of athletic break-dancing). It has vastly less than knitting and archery. But a lot more than “reborning” (making realistic baby dolls).

But how many people are interested in chemtrails? Well, there are about 30,000,000 knitters in the country, and 600,000 blog results. So given the 4828 blogs results for chemtrails, that would indicate 241,000 people have some interest in chemtrails. But, like I said, it’s not easy to accurately extrapolate. If you could extrapolate from blogs, you could say there are three times as many chemtrailers as there are vexillologists (flag enthusiasts).

Or you could say: a lot more people are interested in Parkour than are interested in chemtrails.

[Update] Chemtrails on Usenet (archived on Google Groups), were only mentioned in 1999.  Here are the year-to-year search results for the word “chemtrails”.  There are NO results prior to 1999

1999 – 1070
2000 – 2050
2001 – 2810
2002 – 2250
2003 – 2060
2004 – 2100 
2005 – 1570
2006 – 2450
2007 – 2230

331 comments on “How many people believe in chemtrails?”

  1. @”Faith in Science”…..

    Its a fact that contrails (contrail cirrus) have radically changed weather/ecosystems of the planet
    and that this exhaust does create aerosol particulate waste.
    thats science…
    far too late did we/they even confirm/measure this….
    on 9/11, how ironic.

    To ignore this would be to Ignore science.
    Who’s “side” are you on now?

    Do you actually see that the ARTIFICIAL augmentation of our planet
    to be a thing of concern.
    This is a very simple issue, with “crazies” on one side(waste of your time)
    and people like yourself(just as unimportant) on the other.

    You’re both “wrong” to me.

    Care to become a real thinking, feeling, caring human being?
    Ok then…be concerned about the EFFECTS YOUR ACTIONS HAVE ON THE WORLD
    AROUND YOU. Make changes daily to minimize these EFFECTS.
    end of story.

  2. @Faithinscience

    “Also, provide me with verifiable proof that “aerosol fallout” has ANYTHING to do with the death of any trees.”

    There has been a 10-30% drop in recorded sunlight reaching the ground in the past 30 years.
    Its called global dimming, now largely attributed to Contrail Cirrus aka “artificial clouds”.
    All the climate models are F’d because the moron “scientists” have been overlooking this sort of thing for decades.
    This has affected EVAPORATION RATES around the world which has 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt
    affected weather/rain etc etc etc….

    My father is a now retired US dept of Fish/Wildlife Biologist/Administrator at the Washington level.
    What did your daddy do>?

  3. There has been a 10-30% drop in recorded sunlight reaching the ground in the past 30 years.
    Its called global dimming, now largely attributed to Contrail Cirrus aka “artificial clouds”.

    Not so:

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

    It is thought that global dimming is probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.[2] Aerosols and other particulates absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. Water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles.[3] Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth’s surface. In models, these smaller droplets also decrease rainfall.[4]
    Clouds intercept both heat from the sun and heat radiated from the Earth. Their effects are complex and vary in time, location, and altitude. Usually during the daytime the interception of sunlight predominates, giving a cooling effect; however, at night the re-radiation of heat to the Earth slows the Earth’s heat loss.

    The effect varies greatly over the planet, but estimates of the terrestrial surface average value are:
    5.3% (9 W/m²); over 1958–85 (Stanhill and Moreshet, 1992)[12]
    2%/decade over 1964–93 (Gilgen et al., 1998)[15]
    2.7%/decade (total 20 W/m²); up to 2000 (Stanhill and Cohen, 2001)[16]
    4% over 1961–90 (Liepert 2002)[17]

    The dimming trend has actually been reversed recently, party due to lack of volcanic eruptions, and partly due to clean air acts in developed nations.

    Of course contrail cirrus have an effect, but not at all like you are suggesting.

    Nobody is denying or ignoring it. But if you want to discuss it, please take a little time first to get the science right.

  4. CTYF, I’m editing your posts to remove personal insults. They detract from your argument. If this seems to alter what you mean, then don’t use personal insults.

  5. What “I mean” is that you’re trying to say that POLLUTION IS GOOD.
    And what I’m saying is POLLUTION IS BAD.

    Your wiki is not proof. I’ve got other info with different numbers.

    Once again. Would you like to reiterate what I have just said.
    Why is it that you think POLLUTION IS GOOD?
    Why do you think that there is “no cause for alarm”?
    Just because you want to? Thats not proof.

  6. I laugh at these tests/figures….

    ‘The effect varies greatly over the planet, but estimates of the terrestrial surface average value are:
    5.3% (9 W/m²); over 1958–85 (Stanhill and Moreshet, 1992)[12]
    2%/decade over 1964–93 (Gilgen et al., 1998)[15]
    2.7%/decade (total 20 W/m²); up to 2000 (Stanhill and Cohen, 2001)[16]
    4% over 1961–90 (Liepert 2002)[17]”

    UNICINUS did you get the memo? its 2010 already.

  7. Well then…the POLLUTION LOVER that you are you forgot to
    continue with your WIKI on GLOBAL DIMMING:>>>>>>

    “Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.
    Deliberate manipulation of this dimming effect is now being considered as a geoengineering technique to reduce the impact of global warming.”

    Eat it

  8. But you said yourself that you’ve only noticed these new trails in the last decade, and during that time the dimming trend has reversed.

    So are the contrails brightening things? What are you claiming here?

  9. Uncinus
    Yes it’s 2010, the global dimming trend has reversed, and and we now have global brightening.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=global+brightening

    Which must raise a few questions about how the contrails are causing that.

    OMFG man!
    Its not “oh, see now you’re wrong, now we have global dimming”>.
    THATS THE LOGIC OF A CHILD!

    The whole thing (PLANET) is FUCKED up!!
    Just about as fucked up as your average american, based upon
    “rx drugs” “diet” “education” “media” “entertainment” etc…..

    That is WHY we should STOP with this wasteful pollution nonsense.
    You’re being manipulated by larger powers in the globalist game with these new
    “climate-science” buzzwords!!!
    Whats the point of the debate when YOU KNOW FOR A FACT
    that it is the larger CORPORATE/BANKING MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
    that is to PROFIT from any and all of these technologies.

  10. I think the problem here is that you are unclear what you are arguing about.

    I agree with you that the planet is “fucked up”, that we have horrible levels of pollution, that man-made climate change is a major issue, that there is a lot wrong with the pharmaceutical industry and the military-industrial complex.

    But that’s not the issue here. The question is: have contrails changed?

    You seem to want to talk about something else, something that is tangentially related, but not really the same thing.

    If you want to simply say that contrails are pollution, and that their effect on the weather is something that needs to be carefully studied, then fine, I agree with you

    If you want to say that we should stop driving cars and flying planes because of pollution, then also fine, I agree with the sentiment, but it’s not very practical.

    If you want to say something else, like there’s a covert operation going on that has changed contrails to alter the weather, then please say it, say it explicitly, and provide the evidence on which you base it.

  11. Wow UNICINUS.
    GO BACK AND RE-READ ALL OF YOUR RESPONSES>

    HOPEFULLY IF I TYPE IN ALL CAPS ONE DAY YOU WILL ACTUALLY READ WHAT I’M
    WRITING BEFORE RESPONDING WITH YOUR AGE OLD RESPONSE:
    “What are you claiming here?”.

    YOU KNOW DAMN WELL WHAT I’M CLAIMING.
    I’M CLAIMING THAT THERE ARE WEATHER/WAR/IONISPHERIC/ etc etc…
    TESTS/EXPERIMENTS ONGOING, THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
    AND THAT I AM
    OPPOSED TO THEM.

    I’M CLAIMING THAT
    CONTRAIL CIRRUS, AKA AEROSOL INDUCED ARTIFICIAL CLOUDS
    HAVE BEEN ONGOING AND
    I AM OPPOSED TO THEM.

    DID YOU GET THAT?

  12. If you want to simply say that contrails are pollution, and that their effect on the weather is something that needs to be carefully studied, then fine, I agree with you

    OK. So dont ask “what I’m claiming”.

    If you want to say that we should stop driving cars and flying planes because of pollution, then also fine, I agree with the sentiment, but it’s not very practical.

    I dont care what you THINK is “practical”.
    I thought we were talking laws of cause and effect here, not what Joe Blow thinks is practical.
    Most people would probably call it IMPRACTICAL to live the way I do, but I
    get plenty of exersize, spend less money and eat fresh organic produce.
    you think I’m going to take a lesson in practicality from just anybody?

    If you want to say something else, like there’s a covert operation going on that has changed contrails to alter the weather, then please say it, say it explicitly, and provide the evidence on which you base it.

    Yes, I do think/imply/am concerned about and speculate that there are covert operations using sprayed (aerosol) particulates of different kinds around the globe for different “intended” reasons.
    you cannot DIS-Prove that.

    Pretty much end of argument.

  13. Okay, because one minute you were claiming that contrails cause global dimming, but then it was pointed out that during the years that YOU have noticed contrail cirrus, there had actually been global brightening.

    Would you care to modify your claim about global dimming being “largely attributed to Contrail Cirrus”? Or your claim about the change and increase in contrail cirrus. You can’t have both.

    Now you are being a bit vague about what you are opposed to. Of course there are tests going on in all the fields you mention. But do you think that contrails are related to any of them? You seem to separate the
    “tests” from the contrail cirrus in your response above – is that because you now think they are two separate issues? Or do you think that the contrail cirrus have been altered deliberately?

    Now, if we can clear up what you are claiming, then can we move on to what the evidence is? Even better, maybe you could help me fill in the blanks on the “Best Evidence” page, with some actual evidence.

    http://contrailscience.com/chemtrails-the-best-evidence/

    ?

  14. In fact, UNCINUS, just this past year alone
    both RUSSIA and CHINA were ON THE RECORD(in major mainstream news media)
    for claiming the wonders of their
    “Chemical mists sprayed from planes” to create favorable weather conditions at certain times and places.

    Remember,
    Yes I know what “cloud seeding” is.
    Silver iodide doesnt need to be kept top secret.
    Get what I’m hinting?

  15. Yes, I do think/imply/am concerned about and speculate that there are covert operations using sprayed (aerosol) particulates of different kinds around the globe for different “intended” reasons.
    you cannot DIS-Prove that.

    Pretty much end of argument.

    No, because the argument is not an either/or thing. It’s about the evidence. I don’t think you have any evidence that this is going on. I think that your videos show nothing unusual beyond normal contrail cirrus. That’s really what the argument is about.

    For the record, can you at least say you were wrong about contrails and global dimming? Seeing as we now have global brightening.

  16. Okay, because one minute you were claiming that contrails cause global dimming, but then it was pointed out that during the years that YOU have noticed contrail cirrus, there had actually been global brightening.

    Would you care to modify your claim about global dimming being “largely attributed to Contrail Cirrus”? Or your claim about the change and increase in contrail cirrus. You can’t have both.

    Yes, I can have both.
    “Global Dimming” and “Global Brightening” can/could be caused by
    any number as yet to be determined interrelated aspects.
    Can you understand that?
    There is no “proof” for what is yet to be attempted to explain.
    And even once an established “official opinion” is found this does not mean that it is “correct”.
    Remember back when the earth was flat?

    Yes, PERSISTANT AEROSOL INDUCED CONTRAIL CIRRUS CAUSES “GLOBAL DIMMING”!
    BUT….that doesnt mean that we’ve even truly
    DEFINED SCIENTIFICALLY WHAT
    “GLOBAL DIMMING/BRIGHTENING” IS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!
    THESE ARE
    BUZZ-WORDS!!! JUST BUZZWORDS!!!
    who do these knee-jerk terms serve?
    The scientific community?

  17. One straw man after another after another. You’re right Uncinus, he has no idea what he’s arguing about.

    Where are the chemicals? Where is the evidence? So far, I see NONE.

    I guess circumstantial BS is good enough for some people.

    Remember…if you hear about a “spray program” somewhere, at some time, that automatically means that all the trails we see, EVERYWHERE are part of the program.

    Gimme a break!

    Until I see some evidence, I will remain convinced that these trails are persistent contrails. There is no reason to believe otherwise…unless one is prone to such things.

  18. http://www.impactlab.com/2008/03/30/china-planning-massive-weather-modification-for-olympics/

    Although they possess the world’s largest weather modification program, the Chinese point to the Russians as being the most advanced. In 1986, Russian scientists deployed cloud-seeding measures to prevent radioactive rain from Chernobyl from reaching Moscow, and in 2000 they cleared clouds before an anniversary ceremony commemorating the end of World War II; China’s then president, Jiang Zemin, witnessed the results firsthand and pushed to adopt the same approach back home. As for the historical credit for starting the whole weather-engineering ball rolling back in 1946, that belongs to employees of General Electric in Schenectady, NY–most notably, scientist Bernard Vonnegut (brother of the late novelist Kurt), who worked out silver iodide’s potential to provide crystals around which cloud moisture would condense. During the 1960s and ’70s, the United States invested millions of federal dollars in experiments like Stormfury (aimed at hurricane control), Skywater (aimed at snow- and rainfall increase), and Skyfire (aimed at lightning suppression). Simultaneously, the U.S. military tried to use weather modification as a weapon in Project Popeye, during the Vietnam War, by rain-making over the Ho Chi Minh Trail in an effort to close it.

    Nevertheless, because weather is the epitome of a complex, emergent system, no analytical models or methodologies existed that produced data conclusively, proving that weather modification worked. In the United States, research funding died down and commercial weather modification efforts became hemmed in by stringent regulation. A 2003 report from the National Academy of Sciences concluded that despite more than 30 years of efforts, “there is still no convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of intentional weather modification efforts.”

    Still, according to William Cotton, a meteorologist at Colorado State University, “as far as the science of weather modification is concerned, the evidence that it works in certain situations is very compelling.” The Chinese are certainly in no doubt: once they have demonstrated their capabilities to the rest of the world at the Olympics later this year, the party’s central planners intend to expand their national weather modification program in 2010, turning the Weather Modification Office into a separate government ministry that will double the amount of rain-making and other weather engineering that China is now doing.

  19. I find it so hilarious when people suggest that since their Daddy was knowledgeable about a subject, that they automatically inherit the knowledge. Personally, I don’t rely on the knowledge of my ancestors. I rely on my own education, which happens to actually relate to this discussion.

    And “believing” there are “chemicals” in the trails is MEANINGLESS without evidence. Science doesn’t rely on supposition and assumption. Does a SINGLE chemtrail believer understand the scientific method?!? It sure doesn’t seem that way.

  20. The Russian and Chinese weather modification was just cloud seeding, really nothing new, just tried on a larger scale. None of this is secret. It’s been going on forever, and as Faithinscience notes, looks nothing like contrails.

  21. “Hmmm….I don’t see anything about these weather mods resulting in long, white long-lasting trails in the sky. But, I guess that if one “believes” it to be related to the trails I see over my house or in youtube videos, it must be true.”

    No shit shirlock, you need to go back and read every one of my post!
    “chemtrails” is a slang term, used by different people to describe different phenomenon.
    Aerosol/Contrail/Persistent Contrail/Chemical mist are more easily defined.

    PERSISTENT CONTRAIL CIRRUS does cause cloud cover which in turn effects the weather.
    This means “chemtrails”/PERSISTENT CONTRAILS are WEATHER MODIFICATION.

  22. did I write ONE DAMN THING about
    PERSISTANT CONTRAILS having ANYTHING TO DO with cloud seeding?
    DID I?

    NO. so please STOP CLAIMING THAT I am lumping
    PERSISTANT CONTRAILS in with CLOUD SEEDING!!!!
    THEY ARE 2 separate forms
    of
    WEATHER
    FUCKING
    MODIFICATION.
    are we clear?

  23. The Russian and Chinese weather modification was just cloud seeding, really nothing new

    NO FUCKING SHIT the RUSSIANS AND CHINESE USED
    SILVER IODIDE and LIQUID NITROGEN!!!
    BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE NOT ALSO DOING ANY OTHER KIND OF WEATHER MODIFICATION!!!!

    ARE WE CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR?

  24. And this is my
    CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR
    EVIDENCE
    OF
    WEATHER
    MODIFICATION…..
    Can you dispute this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4A0Io4Hyp0

    No. You cannot.
    So why do you keep saying
    “but show me some evidence”.
    I’ve done it, over and over and over.
    Its artificial weather modification.
    Its ongoing, It completely changes the cloud cover/sun/weather.
    SO FUCK OFF.

  25. It does not mean that they are either, in fact it’s totally meaningless when talking about contrails.

    Let’s try to keep on topic. Contrails. Are they different? Are you making any claims about contrails? If so, then what is the evidence?

  26. Yes UNCINUS,
    lets keep “on topic”.

    Contrails, yes, they are a part of weather modification.
    THEY ARE, in and of themselves, WEATHER MODIFICATION.
    That is the Proof.

    If you want to talk “CHEMTRAILS” the slang term for a variety of phenomenon, thats a totally different argument.
    Are you understanding this???

    Personally I consider “PERSISTANT CONTRAILS” to be “CHEMTRAILS”, because
    they TECHNICALLY are. Like you’ve proven over and over on this website.
    (once again what is the composition of persistent contrails???)
    HELLLOOOOOOOOOO earth to asshole!
    Is there more to keep talking about?
    I’ve already provided you with all the evidence needed.
    In fact your website proves this, time and time again.

  27. And this is my
    CRYSTAL FUCKING CLEAR
    EVIDENCE
    OF
    WEATHER
    MODIFICATION…..
    Can you dispute this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4A0Io4Hyp0

    In the video I see:

    – Some planes leaving contrails
    – Some quotes regarding studying contrails, and how they affect the weather.

    That’s all.

    So sure, that’s evidence of weather modification. however, and excuse my emphasis, but, NOBODY HAS EVER DISPUTED THAT CONTRAILS AFFECT THE WEATHER

    It almost seems like you are trying to win an argument by redefining it. But if all you want to say is that contrails affect the weather, then yes, I agree, you win. If you say “contrails” are technically “chemtrails” because they contain chemicals, then yes, again, I’d agree (except that’s not how most people use the term, so you are kind of inventing language there).

    However, what you really seem to be saying is that persistent contrails are being deliberately created with the specific purpose of modifying the weather, and more specifically over your house. Is this correct? Because if that’s what you are saying, then that is what we should discuss.

  28. (except that’s not how most people use the term, so you are kind of inventing language there)

    not really inventing language. Chemtrail is a non-technical slang term which revolves around the application and experimentation with plane trails/spray /aerosol in order to do a myriad of things.
    Sorry but you pick a rather slippery stance. Chemtrails are a big question mark.
    There is a mountain of “evidence”, that you dont call/accept as “evidence”. Depends on how you define it.

    For example, UNCINUS
    I’ll give you a quick Lesson on this little thing called “reality”….

    I have a cousin, now I think he’s at Langley(sp?) AFBase. He’s in the airforce.
    About 6 or 7 years ago he held a position in the Pentagon. This was like one of his first gigs into the Airforce.
    And basically, all he could “tell me” about his job was that he was the ONLY USAF Member in the room
    operating the overhead projected computer screens/etc. for representatives of 7 countries that were working together on a plan for a fighter/plane that could go into space orbit and back.

    Ok, Uncinus. Use your brain here.
    Does this prove the existence of the said plane?
    Does it prove the non-existence of the said plane?
    If the plane actually exists and is sitting in a hanger somewhere, but there isnt one
    person who can verify its existence, does it still exist?

    Truth is far stranger than fiction,and there never was a work of fiction not based on reality.
    Uncinus, how scientific IS your method?

    Do I think that “persistent contrails” are created for the “specific purpose of modifying the weather”?
    Well, as you’ve so finely made the point,
    they would modify the weather regardless of weather they were
    deliberate or not,
    SO…based upon the track records of the past century or so of human “progress”…
    you bet yer ass I think they are in some way being deliberately used. The problem is
    that you cannot disprove it. So why waste your time?

    I mean, you’re writing to someone who already grasps the far more ancient origins of life on earth.
    Hell, UNCINUS why do you go debunk aliens! Or, based upon lack of evidence, do you also live in a
    parallel dimension where there is NO life elsewhere past the edge of beyond?

    Sheesh.
    Do I think they are spraying directly over my house? No, I KNOW its over my house silly!
    Deliberately? Seriously man…I’ve taken this issue to this extent, you think I care if you deliberately or “accidently
    as a by-product of some other unrelated action” shoot ME IN THE FACE? You think I’d care why?
    No hombre, I just care to make it STOP!

  29. Deliberately? Seriously man…I’ve taken this issue to this extent, you think I care if you deliberately or “accidently
    as a by-product of some other unrelated action” shoot ME IN THE FACE? You think I’d care why?

    You seem to care. You seem to be claiming that it’s deliberate. Now if you DON’T think it’s deliberate, then I have no issue with you. If you DO think it’s deliberate, then I have to disagree with you, and point out that you’ve no evidence of it being deliberate.

    Again, I’m not arguing if contrails have an effect on the weather. Everyone accepts that they do. The ONLY question here is if it’s deliberate or not. Now the only evidence you can give is: “based upon the track records of the past century or so of human “progress”… you bet yer ass I think they are in some way being deliberately used. ” – well unfortunately that’s not going to convince anyone.

    Now can you explain why, if there is deliberate manipulation of contrails, there is no evidence of that manipulation? The contrails look and act the same. No chemicals have been detected. There are actually LESS aerosols in the air than ten years ago. So on what do you base your highly specific belief?

  30. By CTYForg:
    Ok, Uncinus. Use your brain here.
    Does this prove the existence of the said plane?
    Does it prove the non-existence of the said plane?
    If the plane actually exists and is sitting in a hanger somewhere, but there isnt one
    person who can verify its existence, does it still exist?

    Oh neat! it's your own personal version of Carl Sagan's "The Dragon In My Garage" story!

    “The Dragon In My Garage”
    by Carl Sagan

    “A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage”

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

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

    “Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

    Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help….

    The story goes on but you get the idea…

  31. CCTYForg:

    his job was that he was the ONLY USAF Member in the room operating the overhead projected computer screens/etc. for representatives of 7 countries that were working together on a plan for a fighter/plane that could go into space orbit and back

    Wait a minute…

    Have you considered that idea, and how expensive and unlikely that is?

    There is no avoiding the fact of the amount of ENERGY that you would have to impart to a fighter pilot and his weapon system to put it into orbit and bring it down again.

    Consider the X15. That gets a high-altitude bomber launch and a top speed of 5,000 mph, some 12,000 mph SHORT of orbital velocity. Not only that, the X15 cannot re-enter because its titanium skin would melt. So it would need to be a sort of TILED X15 with a BOOSTER ASSEMBLY strapped to it, air-launched by a B52.

    That makes for a really RAPID RESPONSE fighter, does it?

    How many remotely-operated drone aircraft could you get for that, do you think?

  32. Wow…It appears that someone has become quite unhinged.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong…I thought this website was created to simply explain that the lines in the sky don’t have to contain chemicals in order to persist…THE END. Of course, they DO contain some “chemicals” in the form of combustion gases which have nothing to do with persistence other than providing some condensation nuclei.

    SOMEONE here isn’t effectively articulating his/her position.

  33. I have a cousin, now I think he’s at Langley(sp?) AFBase. He’s in the airforce.
    About 6 or 7 years ago he held a position in the Pentagon. This was like one of his first gigs into the Airforce.
    And basically, all he could “tell me” about his job was that he was the ONLY USAF Member in the room
    operating the overhead projected computer screens/etc. for representatives of 7 countries that were working together on a plan for a fighter/plane that could go into space orbit and back.

    I’d say he was in a meeting about the F-35 Lightning II, the “Joint Strike Fighter”, and that someone mistook hyperbole for specifications.

  34. Oh neat! it’s your own personal version of Carl Sagan’s “The Dragon In My Garage” story!

    @ Suntour
    Sure, but my anecdote is, well, a true one!
    It is a true story! Not made up at all. I asked him for more info, that was all he would tell me.
    7 countries(obviously US is one) working on a fighter with air to space and back capabilities.

    @ Faithinscience:”SOMEONE here isn’t effectively articulating his/her position”

    What position? This isnt even a debate. There are no clearly defined terms to the debate~!
    I am an environmental activist and UNCINUS is an Am-Pilot and “contrail enthusiast” who
    obviously doesnt like “chemtrail theorists” for some reason.
    (as if it were a BAD thing to be concerned about air pollution! can you believe that?)
    Coming from Socal I’d think UNCINUS would care even more.
    I think he’s a liar, just SAYS he cares. Just another OC or westside los angelino.
    If he’d at least give us a little info on his daily life you’d begin to understand the agenda of this site.
    But he’s afraid the “chemtrail conspiracy crazies” are going to track him down! ha~
    Agenda’s are always caught up in the personal lifestyle.
    I EXCLUSIVELY ride a bicycle and primarily eat locally grown organic produce.
    (are you beginning to piece together what MY “agenda” is?….good!)

    If each one of you gave me a breakdown on your family background, job, interests, a “day in the life”…
    I’m pretty sure I could pick apart your agenda(worldview) too.

    @UNCINUS “I’d say he was in a meeting about the F-35 Lightning II, the “Joint Strike Fighter”, and that someone mistook hyperbole for specifications.”—

    Why must someone always “be wrong” with you? Is that how you go about normal conversation?
    Do you just start having conversations with people and say “no I think you’re wrong about the color of your toothbrush”…???
    I went through the wiki on your fighter. Couldnt find anything that matches what I said.
    So why do you assume,”you must be wrong, it must be this…. or that..or whatever”?
    Thats a PROBLEM you have UNCINUS.
    Thats why you’re not very good at being objective.

    My cousin doesnt make jokes or stretch the meaning.
    Also I have a fantastic memory. And pay very fine attention to detail. I remember very vividly
    asking him about the Pentagon gig. What a day in the life was like, and what EXACTLY he did there.
    What he told me was precisely what I wrote.
    And mind you he was part LINGUIST so part of his duties in this “special project”.

  35. I’m not in the least bit against people with anti-pollution views. It think pollution is a bad thing. If all the chemtrail theorists are are people who think contrails are pollution, then I’ve got no problem with that.

    What I do have, is a problem with some very specific claims – that some contrails are being deliberately, and consistently, in large numbers, modified to affect the weather, or for some other purpose. That’s what I say there is no evidence for. To that end I point out the science behind contrail formation – and how they act the same now as always.

    That is what the debate is about. It’s not about normal pollution. It’s about deliberate contrail modification with specific intent.

    I’m not sure I follow your point about the jet. No, someone on the internet saying their cousin once told them about a jet that could go into orbit does not automatically make that jet real. Now if there were a bunch of scientific papers, newspaper reports and many eyewitness accounts, then that’s a much stronger case.

    All you said was:

    6 or 7 years ago […] representatives of 7 countries that were working together on a plan for a fighter/plane that could go into space orbit and back

    I provided you with a link to the F-35, about which you said,

    I went through the wiki on your fighter. Couldnt find anything that matches what I said.

    Which is quite frankly wrong, as the page says representatives of multiple countries were working together on a fighter/plane. Not one that gets into orbit though (which is also different from “air to space and back”, so you might want to clarify exactly what you remember there)

    The details are perhaps beside the point. Can you explain what was the point you were trying to make with your anecdote about the plane?

  36. By Uncinus:
    “That is what the debate is about. It’s not about normal pollution. It’s about deliberate contrail modification with specific intent.”

    Exactly

    CTYForg, do you believe there is “deliberate contrail modification with specific intent”?

  37. OH. Ok.
    What I forgot to mention was that they “were not merely water vapor crystals” of course.

    I’ll make a bet with you.Gentlemens bet, or cup of coffee, new bike, whatever.
    Very simple.

    Here it is.
    There IS more to this “chemtrail hoax phenomenon” that what you propose.
    But I’m sure of how you see it, based upon “lack of ENOUGH(in your opinion) evidence”
    that there are, were, or could be such operations/experiments etc..
    Black ops are black ops and I’m calling our lovely military industrial complex’z bitch ass out on this bluff.
    For the 9/11 wtc building demolitions to have been, to this day still not made public record as an undeniable fact, anything is possible. Please, turn off your TV’s and really take a look at the world around you. Dig deep
    and you’ll see the obvious connections in everything that is for lack of a better word, evil. the deliberate kind.
    Ever heard of a guy named Edward Bernays?

    I’m going to bet on there definitely being something up in connection with what you call “normal”
    and “not all that often occurring persistent contrails/cirrus aka artificial cloud cover”. The phenomenon happens here in los angeles far more often that you make it seem. Total cover. Its not like old “smog days” in the late 80’s early 90’s …now its “white out” days with strange type of almost nuclear radiation like, flourescent sun glow masked by pure white mass of cloud/haze from horizon to another.
    Thats just my opinion, and as a lifelong fairly accomplished visual artist, traveller and naturalist, what I have
    noticed coupled with mountain of red flags just doesnt add up. The smoking gun evidence for or against is rather elusive. My collection of photos is beyond words to anyone who never thought to notice whether the “weather” was artificial (augmented by man) or not!

    There seems to be something going on. Its not JUST the increase in air traffic (which still doesnt account for what we’re seeing).
    If this is only a part of the reason for persistent NEVER-DISSAPATING ICE+POLLUTION FAKE CLOUDS
    http://www.carbon-black.org/safety.html
    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0102.html
    then this is a big issue regardless of whether you care that I think its deliberate or not.
    Is war deliberate? Or Is is a Given? Is it a by-product? Or a necessity?
    Theres all sorts of nanotech shit floating around out there and being sold in supermarkets as we speak.
    Give up the fight, go read a Kurzweil book and snap into it. Thats the sort of future those with the power to do so
    WILL lead humanity down.

    Perhaps its the earth that is changing in dynamic ways for any number of reasons?

    It might as well BE the US military that left the trail in that picture.
    My expression is what makes it good art. Trully effective. Thought provoking.
    There is more than just water-vapor.
    And you dont really know, for a fact.
    The only evidence IS my photo.
    So i’ll keep gathering the evidence.

  38. Three words come to mind…

    “Ignorant paranoid alarmist”

    And it isn’t an insult, if it’s true.

  39. Please, turn off your TV’s and really take a look at the world around you.

    You don’t really mean that, do you?

    You mean turn off your TVs and get brainwashed by the internet instead.

    Your views are obviously not born from taking a look at the real world.

  40. Can someone please explain to me why it’s up to to those of us that believe the trails are nothing but persistent contrails to “prove they aren’t full of chemicals”?! I keep finding folks on the internet who DEMAND that I prove them wrong. We are on the DEFAULT side… Our side has already BEEN proven to be the truth. Then the “internet educated” folks come around and demand that we prove them “WRONG” when they haven’t even BEGUN to present a decent case for “chemtrails”.

    It’s up to THEM to provide some evidence that the explanation that has existed for 70+ years is somehow, in error. I have yet to see ANY evidence that is not circumstantial or an outright (paranoid) assumption/speculation that comes REMOTELY close to “proving” the trails in the sky are anything but a normal byproduct of aviation within specific atmospheric conditions.

    And “The government has done X, Y and Z in the past, so I know they are doing this now” Is JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Yes, we get it…there are “special operations” and clandestine groups out there doing all sorts of things…but PLEASE provide EVIDENCE (also PLEASE read the definition of that word) to prove “they” are doing anything to harm us (or save us, for that matter) with the trails in the sky. The burden of proof is on the “chemtrail” believers.

  41. I’ll take the bet! Let’s say $100. You demonstrate that there’s “something up”, and I’ll give you $100.

    First of all, you might want to define the terms of the bet. I take it you mean you’ll demonstrate that a significant percentage of the trails you see over Los Angeles are being deliberately modified in a way that makes them more persistent for some specific reason unrelated to engine efficiency, that this is something new, and that it’s deliberate. (I said deliberate twice, as it’s the important factor here).

    That sound about right? I’ll give you five years in which to do this. If you don’t do it in five years, then you owe me $100. You may choose a different time period if you like.

  42. I’d love to get a piece of that action!!!!!

    Then again, how would we verify the evidence? So far, they (the “chemtrail believers”) are under the assumption that the evidence they have NOW is air tight.

    How would we find an independent party to make the final decision? They would want Carnicom to be the judge and we would want someone with actual knowledge of the subject.

    Oh well…it’s an interesting idea.

  43. Good luck getting a running bet going. It seems that when it comes down to it these people just don’t believe enough in Chemtrails to actually involve money. On numerous occasions on this site I’ve offered to STOP spraying in exchange for a fee but so far no one has accepted. Consequently I’ve continued sraying all over the country. Today I sprayed Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Arkansas. I got Texas a few times actually. Many of my coworkers were spraying Arizona and New Mexico today I noticed. I bet we’ll cause a system to go through there soon. Texas gets sprayed again on Sunday to set up for the rain on Monday.

  44. I’m actually quite serious though. I find the prospect of having to quantify your ideas in terms of betting $100 on them will greatly help in clarifying your ideas. And in the case of conflicting ideas, the specific language of the wager will help clarify exactly what the area of disagreement is.

    So CTYF, what would you like to bet $100 on? What claim can you make that you can verify over the next five years?

  45. in 5 years 100 bucks might not be worth a damn thing.
    (you know they are merely symbolic representations of debt right? and not actually “worth” anything, unless the group of people who use those notes used by enough people by social conditioning without questioning the premise on the monitary SYSTEM itself)
    You should re-consider the bet i think.
    You dont seem to be well rounded enough individual to understand the implications of this MASSIVE pollution
    problem that this is. Its just as brutal as war. I’m as much of an alarmist about war as i am deliberate or uninteded weather modification, so what makes any of you think I give a FUCK what your opinion is? Thats the funny part.
    The president lies, all these politicians lie, the military lies, the “religions” lie…and you think I’m going to
    give 2 shits as to what Uncinus thinks? sucker!

    The other irony, Uncinus, is that you havent begun to fathom what radical changes might occur on earth in
    5 years time. On any level you can imagine.
    You’re the one who thinks you pretty much “know it all” right?

    I’m beginning to think there certainly strange is occurring, and that that its not entirely in the grasp of the mighty war-machines. Thats why you, and most of the other geeks up in this place are really putting your emphasis where it
    doesnt need to be.

  46. Well, I’d be happy to take the bet in gold if you like. Say 0.1oz? Or maybe a 500 9mm Luger rounds. You choose. The point is that you actually put something behind your assertions. I’d even be willing to take the chance that $100 will be worth pretty much the same in five years and stick with that.

    So what are you willing to bet about contrails? And on what facts exactly?

  47. um….I’ve got a multimedia performance to put on at the Museum of Contemporary Art on Saturday night, so…
    I’m really far too busy for your petty nonsense Uncinus. We’re going to be imparting a message to at least 500
    teenagers from the Socal area on the dangers of…chem, er….persistent contrails. Just to start with.
    total mindblowing MoCAburger “panic central” extravaganza. sponsored by Clearchannel outdoor.
    See you there! exactly 7:30 we perform for 25 minutes. If you have any teens in your social circle bring them out
    7 to 10pm, free.

  48. I just saw some more chemtrails today..alot of activity.Trails everywhere.None of them were water vapor! This is a solid material that expands rather than evaporates.Any layman with two eyes can see that this is not normal.The skies are so messy that alot of people dont even go outside anymore.Atmospheric modification IS happening,no matter how much you scientific rationalists would like to deny it.And the plausibility for such an operation is abundant.I attended a clifford carnicom lecture in new mexico,and he had me well convinced that the chemtrail threat is real.And this is a man with credibility.

  49. “None of them were water vapor! ”

    PROVE IT!

    And who says “atmospheric modification” isn’t happening?! My position is simply that the lines in the sky aren’t linked to weather modification through “fact”, only through assumption.

    The assumption being that since weather modification happens in the sky, the trials “must be” related to such programs. I have yet to see ANY evidence to support this claim. Those who believe in “chemtrails” SHOULD require more evidence to support their beliefs. It’s sad that they don’t.

  50. Quite right, none of them were water vapor.

    They were all a solid material, which expands rather than evaporates.

    They were ICE CRYSTALS, just like any cloud is at that altitude. They expand when the weather is right, as it was yesterday.

  51. So you dodge the question?

    Put your money (gold/bullets) where your mouth is.

    Your argument is cyclical and pointless. And you dont even have a question.
    This is just a ping pong volley.

    I lead by example not by gambling. Thats what the powers-that-be do against humanities will.

  52. They expand when the weather is right, as it was yesterday

    Wow, Captain Presumptuous Asshole to the rescue again!
    The “anonymous” person who just posted yesterday…how exactly do you know the weather conditions when
    they didnt even mention where they are~?

    You just sound like a prick.

  53. You just sound like a prick.

    …as opposed to you???

    So says the guy who has to insult and swear rather than discourse in a civil manner.

    …and you wonder why you are taken for a fool.

  54. “I lead by example not by gambling.”

    Yeah, it’s SO obvious that you are a “leader”. Please lead us to some EVIDENCE that supports your claim that the trails are being “sprayed” deliberately. Wow, talk about a pretentious asshole!

    If the trails form and persist…the weather conditions are “right”. I would LOVE to see a single bit of evidence to support the claim that trails are appearing when the conditions aren’t “right”. Funny how no one has been able to present such evidence….ever!

    There is OBVIOUSLY a very good reason why.

  55. No uncinus,they were NOT ice crystals.Not in a flight altitude humidity range of less than 50%.You guys need to quit pushing this ice crystal crap.Ice crystals cannot occur under the conditions which most chemtrails occur because the moisture levels are too low.Most ice crystals would form in the middle of the troposphere,along with clouds,not higher up where the aerosols are being sprayed.Remember,we are talking man-made aerosols here,not jet exhaust.When you see how messy the skies become following heavy jet activity,it becomes evident that these trails are NOT predominately water vapor from exhaust,they are aerosol plumes coming from somewhere else on the aircraft.The photos taken of these aircraft definitely bear this out.

  56. BTW I do not “agree” with the anon posting here.
    I dont agree with the anon nor do I agree with UNCI.

    I think the truth is somewhere in between the “knows” and “what we don’t knows”….
    The “more air traffiic” doesnt account for this major increase in TOTAL contrail cirrus cover that happens…
    and there isnt one of you that can tell me EXACTLY the altitude/temp/humidity of any of these regions/times when contrail/aerosol barrage occur. and PERSIST, INDEFINITELY.
    lets say in LA, CA far more often than 2-3 times a year. Its far more frequent than that.
    I’d say at LEAST 10-25% or MORE of the time. YEAR ROUND!
    Lets just say, so often that even alarmists (like myself i guess?) get totally bored with the redundancy of these
    WHITE OUT days.

  57. Faithinscience
    “I lead by example not by gambling.”

    Yeah, it’s SO obvious that you are a “leader”. Please lead us to some EVIDENCE that supports your claim that the trails are being “sprayed” deliberately. Wow, talk about a pretentious asshole!

    Ok numbnuts. If you know how to read. Go back a re-read everything I’ve written here.

    What I just posted was this:
    “I’ve never seen a plane go and get up and start flying by itself…unless its a drone.”
    By definition, every piloted plane is piloted DELIBERATELY. right? Could someone pilot a plane by accident?

    Earth to numbnuts!!!!
    Do people deliberately spew exhaust out of their cars? Looks like its deliberate to me.
    Its your choice to turn the key!

    SO ONCE AGAIN Faithinscience. Get lost!!! or ask an intelligent question.

  58. Uncinus
    You suggested the bet. Comment 143.

    Feel free to suggest terms that are acceptable.

    This is why you are a dis-info agent, you’d actually rather talk about a stupid bet instead
    of focusing on the investigation.
    READ….this is why I keep calling you an ASSHOLE.
    its because you folks dont actually READ.
    I said, GENTLEMENS BET!!! a cup of coffee, a new bike whatever..!!!!
    You’re so concerned with what is not related one bit to the issue at hand.

    My issues are with WEATHER MODIFICATION AND POLLUTION.
    Thats what a Chemtrail is to me! So you lost, asshole!
    “chemtrailers” as you call them are far less politically significant as, lets say EVANGELICALS…?
    so…if you’re so concerned about the tin-foil hat camp, why dont you start debunking
    EVANGELICALS political beliefs? Surely you’d get somewhere, and actually do some good.

    YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAYS THERE IS ‘nothing’ to this whole
    issue? right?

    I say you havent even come close to beginning to understand what could be going on.
    And you’re IGNORANT enough to assume you think you “know it all”.

    Thats not a scientific position at all.

  59. By CTYForg

    “My issues are with WEATHER MODIFICATION AND POLLUTION.
    Thats what a Chemtrail is to me! So you lost, asshole!”

    That’s it? You don’t think the government is deliberately spewing trails filled with more chemicals than normal exhaust?

    In that case, you want a “contrails are pollution” site.

  60. Faithinscience:My position is simply that the lines in the sky aren’t linked to weather modification through “fact”, only through assumption.

    Actually its aready been pointed out by UNCINUS on this site many times
    that PERSISTENT CONTRIAL CIRRUS aka MAN MADE CLOUD COVER
    is weather modification, or lets rephrase…it modifies the weather.

    So yes, according to NASA “persistent contrails” which create “lasting contrail cirrus over 100’s of kilometers” are
    weather modification. One of the biggest sources of weather change.

  61. Suntour:That’s it? You don’t think the government is deliberately spewing trails filled with more chemicals than normal exhaust?

    Sure I do think that the “gov’t is spewing trails filled with chemicals”.
    But that doesnt mean that persistent contrails and other “spray operations” arent going on
    in tandem does it? Theres alot going on in the world that you dont know about.

    Can persistent contrail cirrus and gov’t weather modification not exist at the same time?

    There is no good reason for me to NOT believe in
    weathermod/experimental spraying/stratospheric/ionospheric/scalar etc etc tests!!!

    Personally I think that these massive “spray days” have something to do with the earth/sun/solar system…
    climate changes. I think its beyond the powers that be and that they are barely able to understand what
    could be the real scientific truth.

    I think those who have the power to do these “tests” really are just madmen!

    Just like the bomb. same old story. Madmen. Anti-human.

  62. I have faith in science and scientific rationality too,but I also know what i`m seeing with my own eyes,and it is NOT water vapor.And,in fact,its sound science(along with common sense)that tells us that we are seeing the result of aerosols,not water vapor from engine exhaust.For example,sound science tells us that real clouds and persisting contrails both need high moisture levels and that when these high moisture levels dont exist,that there must be another explanation.

  63. and there isnt one of you that can tell me EXACTLY the altitude/temp/humidity of any of these regions/times when contrail/aerosol barrage occur. and PERSIST, INDEFINITELY.

    I can. But I have to be a part of the operation to do so. Next time I’m spraying I’ll give you all the numbers. Our boxes will tell us that and much, much more about the air.

    I’m starting to get confused regarding the semantics of this argument.

    Please clarify- are you saying that simply by its natural makeup and existence that persistant contrails are naturally modifying the weather and spreading pollution (both visual and traditional)? Are you further saying that this is effect is intended?

    Are you also saying that, in conjunction with the persistant contrails there is a seperate operation to lay down different chemtrails to accomplish something elicit?

    I think we’re all in agreement here that persistant contrails are modifying the weather and that they are contributing pollution to the atmosphere and that the aircraft that are creating them are flying deliberately.

    Am I right?

  64. Argghhhh…

    There is a huge difference between a byproduct of aviation affecting the weather and a deliberate “spraying” of the byproduct to deliberately affect the weather. You have no evidence to support your position. Well, aside from “they were bad men in the past, so they must still be bad men….” Of course, that was paraphrasing….but represents the gist of your whining. CTYForg, you are just a typical ignorant paranoid alarmist chemtard. And that is all you will ever be. Please stop pretending that you arguing this from a knowledgeable platform. You couldn’t be more ignorant if you wanted to be. Science has EASILY explained these trails and there is NO REASON to believe the “gov’t is spewing trails filled with chemicals” without a single shred of evidence to suggest any such thing.

    Anonymous, HOW are you so sure that these trails aren’t the result of water vapor being deposited in varying atmospheric conditions?!? And how are you so sure these conditions don’t exist where these trails are being deposited?!

    I challenge you to provide EVIDENCE to prove this ridiculous claim you keep making about the conditions where these trails are deposited. prove the temp is too warm, or the air too dry. And don’t think for a second that we will accept “it looks too warm and dry from down here” as legitimate evidence. If ONE of you people could provide proof that the EXACT location that a trail is deposited couldn’t possibly have the proper conditions, then you would have something! But, since it has yet to happen…and never WILL happen, I’m sure you will be happy with continuing to ASSUME you know the conditions and whining about it online.

  65. OK anonymous- if you have knowlege of humidity, what IS the “moisture” level inside a cloud?

  66. Please clarify- are you saying that simply by its natural makeup and existence that persistant contrails are naturally modifying the weather and spreading pollution (both visual and traditional)?

    Are you further saying that this is effect is intended?

    Are you also saying that, in conjunction with the persistant contrails there is a seperate operation to lay down different chemtrails to accomplish something elicit?

    Yes to the former and
    how should I know?, maybe, probably, not really?…etc… to the latter.
    And to the third, most likely.

    Most of the “evidence” that is most damning are the policies, patents,experiments and legislation which so eerily
    seems to correlate with this “chemtrail”/persistent contrail phenomenon.
    I mean really, which military of the world should I site? Which policy making think-tanks?
    Give it up already. What are you defending? What side are you really on?
    I’m unclear as to Kucinich’s real position on HR2977, there are 2 conflicting reports. one says yes, the other no.

    (pop quiz:
    Without doing an internet search…try to tell me why “Santa Claus” wear’s red and white….
    take a guess if you don’t know.)

    If we know its a “big issue”(climatechange…and climateFARCE) it seems to me
    that deliberately orchestrating persistent contrail operations , even of commercial craft could be of “experimental/mitigating/modifying” potential. So yeah, its possible. And sounds like the sort of
    nutso thing “they’d” want to try.
    Think about it….if weather/ionospheric/techtonic etc etc warfare Wasnt an interest of the military, then
    we’d only assume somewhere there would be some other “foe” interested in these technologies.
    (thats what the US military says, on record)
    Nomatter what you say, “they” are going to come up with this stuff whether you think me to be foolish or not.

    The problem is wasting your energy and time arguing with people like me over trivial, but obvious things like environmental pollution.
    You should be spending that energy trying to figure out where the 2.3 trillion dollars went
    missing from the Pentagon budget announced by Rumsfeld ON SEPTEMBER 10th 2001.
    Do you get my drift yet?
    I really dont care about your opinions until you demonstrate to me that you are not brainwashed and socially programmed to think in certain ways. Only free-thinkers can be truly objective.

    Your arguments are unessential.
    If people are concerned about their sky turning from blue to white haze
    day after day, then LET THEM BE CONCERNED!
    Who cares if people get all worked up and come up with
    silly names for it. Its still very dramatic, not necessary and IMPACTFUL. am i wrong?
    people SHOULD get worked up.
    I think people should be pissed about the state of the world we’ve let corrupt people build and enslave us with.

  67. OK- so it seems we’re in agreement as to point one. Aircraft are visually and, traditionally through particulates, polluting the environment as well as altering the weather.

    Point two is a toss up and I might be convinced that someone, somewhere is pleased that persistant contrails are altering the weather somehow for some means.

    So point three is where we split. Do you contend that there are some planes producing persistant contrails and some planes producing chemtrails? Or do you contend that sometimes the same planes produsc “normal” contrails, sometimes they produce harmless persistant contrails and sometimes they produce chemtrails?

    And I’m not sure why you’re so unconcerned with my opinions. I’ve confessed on numerous occasions here that I am one of the one’s who have sprayed chemtrails from my plane. Wouldn’t you want to ask me all sorts of questions? For instance, at the end of the day I go back and wipe down my engines before we put the engine covers on. The paper towels I use are ALWAYS covered in a thick dark oily substance after I’m done. Do you want one to test? Is it that you don;t believe me? I’ll give you my tail number and you can track me. Sometimes I ask for a special chemical be added to my jet fuel- you want to know what it is?

    It just seems like, for someone who is truly interested in this theory, you would be really interested in my opinions.

    And I imagine Santa Clause is red and white because of some commercial influence. Like maybe that’s how Macy’s portayed him in the late 1800s and it just stuck. I don’t know but I’m about to find out! To the interwebs!!!

  68. Well,all I can tell you is that chemtrails repeatedly occur in very low humidity conditions(on the order of 30-40%)This would seem to exclude water vapor or ice crystals as the likely source of the persisting trail.You know,I dont know why it is so difficult for you people to accept the chemtrail/aerosol phenomenon.After all,it isnt so implausible.There are a number of military applications for deliberate and systematic aerosol dispersal into the atmosphere.

  69. “Well,all I can tell you is that chemtrails repeatedly occur in very low humidity conditions(on the order of 30-40%)”

    So, you have evidence to support this claim I’ll assume. I mean, no one would make such a ridiculous claim without being able to support the claim without proof. I’d ask you to stop making the claim, but that would be a waste of my time. You do understand that the atmosphere is a fluid and that conditions can VASTLY differ from one area to another due to thermal activity….right?! How can you say “30 to 40%” when you have NO WAY of measuring the humidity in all areas of the visual sky simultaneously. Your claim is ridiculous!

  70. On a side note, for anyone who is interested, this new flight tracking site looks pretty cool. Casper – http://casper.frontier.nl/ Unfortunately it doesn’t work over the US, but you can see how airplanes stack over Amsterdam in almost realtime. With Casper, you can mess with the date and playback time to see all kinds of deadly curved contrails, X’s and grid patterns being formed in front of your eyes. Mouse over the airplane and it shows you a picture of what the jet looks like!

  71. I’d say that if someone can’t answer a simple question like “what is the moisture level inside a cloud?” then we can’t believe any of his claims of knowledge of humidity levels ANYWHERE!

  72. Capfitch, I agree. I’m just trying to get Mr Anonymous to admit he has NO IDEA what the level of humidity is and is making claims based on nothing but assumption. It’s funny how these people convert ignorant belief into “fact” in their own minds and expect the rest of the world to accept it as fact. I just can’t do that!

  73. captfitch:So point three is where we split. Do you contend that there are some planes producing persistant contrails and some planes producing chemtrails? Or do you contend that sometimes the same planes produsc “normal” contrails, sometimes they produce harmless persistant contrails and sometimes they produce chemtrails?

    Go back. Again. Read what I wrote. AGAIN.

    In order to further dialogue with the lot of you I made the distinction that
    PERSISTENT CONTRAILS are “CHEMTRAILS” by obvious reasoning, weather modification/pollution.
    Go back and read again if your memory is too feeble. Accept and move on.

    Also, if there is ANY OTHER operation at all, whether it be cloud seeding, ionospheric manipulation or any
    other fathomable EXPERIMENT or ACTUAL “DELIBERATE EXPERIMENTAL” operations then yes.
    There can, will be, and ARE different types of weathermodification “experiments” probably using planes
    as well as any other method. If I was alive when they were setting off “the bombs” you bet I would’ve
    been pissed about that too.

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s601rs.txt.pdf

    CaptFitch, if you want to be forthcoming then do so.
    If you insist on using the term “chemtrails” satirically then just state your
    true learned opinion.
    Yes I read your post some days ago about the extra chemical you use to make sure the fuel doesnt freeze etc….
    right? thats what you’re referring to, correct?
    Well, you keep flying so you obviously must not see anything wrong with it correct?

    I think the biggest issue surrounding “chemtrails” is that most people never thought of the massive effect planes could have on the worlds weather. I didnt, until I started studying these artificial cloud white out days.
    Chemtrails is a very effective slang tem because It conveys the important factors, a)pollution b)weather .

    And yes, I was in LA in the days post 9/11. And yes, I do recall being blown away at the display of stars in the very dark crisp sky. I had never thought of the Air-traffic either!
    It would seem obvious that had there been a more noticeable PERSISTENT CONTRAIL phenomenon, then I would have discovered this longer ago.

  74. note: “purposeful or inadvertent changing or controlling”

    right? am I right here?
    yes. i am.

    more from the link I posted:
    (3) RESEARCHAND DEVELOPMENT.—The term
    ‘‘research and development’’ means theoretical anal-
    7
    ysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension
    8
    of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or
    9
    technical nature into practical application for experi-
    10
    mental and demonstration purposes, including the de-
    11
    velopment of experimental models, instrumentation,
    12
    materials, and processes.
    13
    (4) WEATHERMITIGATION.—The term ‘‘weather
    14
    mitigation’’ means the purposeful or inadvertent
    15
    changing or controlling, or attempting to change or
    16
    control, by artificial methods the natural development
    17
    of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms in
    18
    the troposphere.
    19

  75. In order to further dialogue with the lot of you I made the distinction that
    PERSISTENT CONTRAILS are “CHEMTRAILS” by obvious reasoning, weather modification/pollution.

    You seem to be willing to “win” the argument on pure semantic grounds, rather than on something meaningful.

    EVERYONE AGREES that contrails modify the weather.

    EVERYONE AGREES that jet exhaust contains pollution.

    EVERYONE AGREES that there are deliberate weather modification programs, most notably cloud seeding.

    EVERYONE AGREES that pilot “deliberately” fly their planes.

    But where we disagree is if the end result – long trails and overcast skies- is A) Unexpected, based on history, science, types of engines used, the weather, and the amount of air traffic, and B) deliberate, in that either the overcast skies are the intended result, or they are a side effect of, something other than air travel (like spraying).

    Please, by all means state your case, and PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.

  76. Convert ignorant belief into fact? Well,faithinscience,what I see you people doing is no better.I see the repeated claims of ALL chemtrails being nothing more than vapor contrails or ice crystals, regardless of atmospheric conditions.That is more absurd,in the face of just pure common sense,than anything I or any other “believer” has said.I`m a hairdresser,I have no scientific background whatsoever,and i`ll admit it.But,i have common sense and a discerning eye.And I know that i`m not looking at ice crystals or water vapor when i`m living in an arid and drought-ridden area.I also know i`m not looking at water vapor when i see several jets lay down trails over a clear sky and it becomes hazy and lasts for hours.And this is a very dry climate,remember? No ice crystals or supersaturated air here.I dont have to have a scientific background to know that what i`m seeing is NOT what you people claim it to be.My claim is ridiculous? No,you peoples repeated claims that chemtrails are the result of ice crystals or saturated air,even in the driest conditions.Thats ridiculous.

  77. Until a SINGLE trail is proven to contain “chemicals” (other then combustion gases and water vapor) then it’s a NORMAL assumption to believe that none of them do considering the fact that science easily explains the trails. I COULD “claim” that these trails are made of marshmallow fluff and act just like you people! I could make up ridiculous and unsupported nonsense and there is NO WAY you could prove me wrong. That is the problem here…Science has already proven what they are, all you people have is a claim…it’s now up to you people to prove it. I don’t see even the slightest bit of evidence to prove that these trails are part of a deliberate “spray program”.

    “I have no scientific background whatsoever,and i`ll admit it.”

    DUH!

    “But,i have common sense and a discerning eye.”

    Your eyes have failed you and your “common sense” doesn’t factor into this, at all. Without knowledge, common sense is nothing more than belief.

    How do you “know” the air isn’t saturated over your “arid” area?! That is a CLAIM that you can’t support with evidence. Do you even understand where the moisture COMES from?! Do you understand “the water cycle”, evaporation, weather movement/frontal systems?! Your common sense is USELESS because there is NOTHING “common” about this knowledge! It has to be learned and understood! Yet, you just “assume” (big surprise there) that you understand it all simply because you “believe” you do. THAT is hilarious!

    You have NO IDEA that the ground conditions (moisture and temperature) are NOT an indication of the conditions at altitude…and you argue against that fact even after admitting that you don’t have a scientific background. Yet, you have just proven that you couldn’t be MORE ignorant about your own atmosphere if you wanted to be. Thanks for the laughs!

  78. none of you are giving specifics, dates, times, location…really pointless without it…
    AND TAKE PICS/VIDS!!!

  79. Faithinscience:

    Thanks for the laughs!

    We need those to balance the tears and frustration brought about by exposure to this stuff. There has to be a little shaft of sunlight peeking through the gloomy abyss of ignorance.
    Yes, whenever you provide them, thanks very much. 🙂

  80. “none of you are giving specifics, dates, times, location…really pointless without it…
    AND TAKE PICS/VIDS!!!”

    Don’t forget temperature and humidity at altitude! Not a SINGLE video I have seen provides that information. And because it doesn’t, is USELESS in claiming that the trail shouldn’t persist where it’s deposited. In other words, I have yet to see ANY evidence that the trails in the sky are not persistent contrails….I’m waiting…and will be forever. How can people be so sure these trails aren’t normal when they don’t even have this information?! They GUESS! They ASSume! They SPECULATE! They jump to conclusions based on 100% ignorance. Chemtrails are a myth and those who believe otherwise are very entertaining.

  81. “FAITHINSCIENCE” why are you arguing with me>?
    I’ve made it clear time and time again on this particular website that, according to my definition,
    Persistent Contrails ARE “chemtrails”, which isnt a “Scientific” term, but popular slang used to describe a multitude
    of things.
    Your issue is with people who you think don’t understand what they are looking at.
    I understand but think theres alot more to the CURRENT situation. Thats why even NASA states that it is important
    to study. And I am.
    So what’s the problem?

  82. Chemtrails are a myth? What are you people trying to put over? I`m more convinced by clifford carnicom.And he DOES have a scientific background.We arent guessing or assuming or speculating..we are using our own eyes and the expertise of others who DO know that this phenomenon is real,because they`ve studied it for over a decade.You people are still evading the real plausibility of these “aerosol operations” and their military and other applications.I also think you people know the “evidence” is there and have seen it,but prefer to pretend otherwise.We believers,or “chemtards” as you people like to say,dont have to provide the evidence,because it is already there,it is public domain.And like I say,I think you`ve already seen it but stubbornly reject it in your pursuit of a scientifically “rational” explanation for everything.Well guess what?,the same science that you people claim has disproven chemtrails has also done just the opposite.Clifford`s analysis going back to 1999,has convinced me that chemtrails(or aerosols) are real,and represent a bioaccumulative danger to people and the environment.

  83. try carnicom.com or googling “aerosol crimes”.There is also a video produced by carnicom in 2005 called “aerosol crimes”(aka chemtrails)that is viewable online on at least one free documentary site.Dont recall which one.Carnicom is considered the most credible authority on the subject to date.He is a new mexico-based independent researcher and the founder of the carnicom institute.Naysayers get curiously quiet when his name is mentioned.Perhaps because he and his assertions are not easily discredited.

  84. faithinscience

    you can find this guy on youtube. His channel is like a ghost channel… he created it just to disinform people and lead them in the wrong direction. Wow, who is hiring you DUMBASS people anyway. You could not come with a new account name for youtube faithinscience, you loser.

    This whole website is DISINFORMATION, and you can find its member who oppose chemtrails on youtube bashing people, attacking them on personal levels and they always always talk around the bush, making no sense what so ever. you are parrots repeating what you were told to say.. ohhhh its the altitude and the temp and whatever else your standard statement is. You people FAIL big time.

    get smarter about this, you guys have not thought this through well enough.
    Ultima and J A Blacker MSc IMI ripped you guys a new asshole.

    This is the kind of insipid discussion that occurs when basic issues,
    such as the nature of conspirativism, are pushed under the table, by
    those lacking the courage to address fundamentals (and perhaps the
    brains).

    In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend. YOUR’S IS FALSE.
    You guys are living a false life, AND YOU KNOW IT, and that makes you inhumane.

  85. Your bullshit misinformation website can not stop this movement. More and more people are waking up to the facts of chemtrails. You can not stop this. Take this back to your boss and get back to your white boards nazis… this plan is not working.
    You can not make people believe your crap by just making claims backed by your own-made bullshit science. You are not scientific, you are liers, you perform no studies, you otsource your thoughts to those who hired you. No critical thought.

    You are attempting to mislead the population, making us dumber and more ignorant to real truth. You are hypocrites. You are Nazis worse than those of hitlers reign. Shame on you people.

  86. Stop hanging around on this site waiting for replies to address and people to dumb down.. ohhh im sorry thats right.. i forget, this is your job. Mind telling us who your employer is?

Comments are closed.

Copyright Contrail Science 2017
Tech Nerd theme designed by FixedWidget