Home » chemtrails » Persisting and Spreading Contrails

Persisting and Spreading Contrails

Do contrails sometimes persist and spread out?

Yes, see the Encyclopædia Britannica article on vapour trails (contrails):

Contrail, streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.
vapour trail. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica.Retrieved May 4, 2007,from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074829

(The above quote is from the current EB. However, a Google books search dates the inclusion on the EB back to 1983)

Also see “A Field Guide to the Atmosphere“, by Schaefer and Day, 1981:

Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus (Page 137)

Are spreading contrails a relatively new thing?

No, it has been exactly the same for decades, the only change has been the size of jet engines (producing bigger contrails), engine technology  (burning fuel more efficiently in high bypass jet engines creates cooler exhaust which is more likely to condense before it mixes with the surrounding air) and the amount of air traffic (producing more contrails). Spreading contrails have been mentioned consistently through the history of aviation, including in the popular press. Like Sports Illustrated , Nov 6th 1989:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100521104422/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1068997/4/index.htm

Now, late in the afternoon, the hatchery explored and the fishing over for the day, Crooks points to the sky. Blue all day, it has now turned hazy. “Contrails,” he says. “The haze is caused by aircraft contrails that have gotten spread out till they cover the sky. This is a major air route from the East Coast to the West.”

For scientific discussion, see, for example, all these articles on contrails. In particular the one from 1970 titled “Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget

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.
[….]
Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By midafternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.

Airborne Observations of Contrail Effects on the Thermal Radiation Budget
Peter M. Kuhn
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Volume 27, Issue 6 (September 1970) pp. 937–942

(Click on any of the images in this article for a larger view)

Then a few years later, in 1975, we have the article : Multiple Contrail Streamers Observed by Radar, which again has photos (taken in 1971) of spreading and persisting contrails, as well as extensive discussion of these observations.


Multiple Contrail Streamers Observed by Radar.
Konrad TG, Howard JC (1974)
Journal of Applied Meteorology:
Vol. 13, No. 5 pp. 563–572

Here’s a description from 1970, from a local newspaper, the Arcadia Tribune, April 29, 1970:

Aircraft contrails begin to streak the normally bright Arizona sky at dawn. Through the day, as air traffic peaks, these contrails gradually merge into and almost solid interlaced sheet of cirrus cloud – an artificial cirrus cloud that is frequently as much as 500 meters deep.

One of the earliest reference to contrails covering the sky is from the Mansfield News Journal, August 11, 1957, Page 29:

“Within the past few years, the weather bureau has begun to report the trails as actual cloud layers when there are sufficient trails to cover a portion of the sky.”

Here’s a description from 1955:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SosSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pvYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=851,1486793

An extremely persistent con trail might stay in the sky all day

But even earlier, and with a perfect description of what “chemtrail” theorist claim cannot happen comes this account from 1944:

The News, Frederick, MD, March 7, 1944

Contrails frequently have a tendency to cause a complete overcast and cause rain. In Idaho I have seen contrails formed in a perfectly clear sky and four hours later a complete overcast resulted

Below is the entire top of the page of that newspaper, in case you want to look it up.

And from the book “Flight To Arras” by Antoine de Saint Exupery, written in 1942 about a military mission in 1940:

The German on the ground knows us by the pearly white scarf which every plane flying at high altitude trails behind like a bridal veil. The disturbance created by our meteoric flight crystallizes the watery vapor in the atmosphere. We unwind behind us a cirrus of icicles. If the atmospheric conditions are favorable to the formation of clouds, our wake will thicken bit by bit and become an evening cloud over the countryside.

Another from 1958

723 thoughts on “Persisting and Spreading Contrails

  1. Jakeability says:

    I haven’t suggested you’ve disputed the shadow government, but your inability to accept this variable is the reason for your incomplete conclusions. Flat earthers couldn’t merely accept the notion of gravity without first understanding gravity thereby allowing them to factor this in PROPERLY…your position is basically this..”ok so maybe there is a shadow government, so what, show me proof chemtrails are any different from contrails” as if there would be direct PUBLIC evidence I could put in your hands to definitively prove chemtrails. Surely you don’t think Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK? And if not, could you hand me a sheet of paper proving other shooters were involved?…The answer is no, some truths have never been documented, and therefore the truth only exist in the minds of the guilty. Do you agree some things are true, and unprovable at the same time?
    I think additives have been put into jet fuel, to make contrails MORE persistent than normal, slightly increasing and perpetuating supposed global warming, but incremental enough as to encourage people like you to persuade people this has always been the case. You are correct, these are typical contrails, but probably with aeresols added, to increase the possibility and formation of cirrus-like man made clouds, maybe to promote droughts and other symptoms in order to maintain the grand hoax of “MAN MADE global warming”……Then, you go on to request documented proof……of which probably does not exist. You can’t just say a shadow government exists, you have to understand it’s implications. You haven’t done this, you may even be incapable. Some things exist that are definitely unproveable. Examples of this are all around us.

  2. I think additives have been put into jet fuel, to make contrails MORE persistent than normal, slightly increasing and perpetuating supposed global warming, but incremental enough as to encourage people like you to persuade people this has always been the case. You are correct, these are typical contrails, but probably with aeresols added, to increase the possibility and formation of cirrus-like man made clouds, maybe to promote droughts and other symptoms in order to maintain the grand hoax of “MAN MADE global warming”……Then, you go on to request documented proof……of which probably does not exist.

    I don’t want documented proof. What I would like is for you to explain why you believe this about contrails.

    It seems you accept that regular contrails can persist and spread out. But then you say that the increase in the number of persistent contrails is the result of fuel additives. But you’d also accept the since air traffic has doubled in the last 20 years, then the number of contrails would also have doubled?

    So, if the increase in contrail cover can be accounted for in the increase in the number of flights, then why exactly to you think there has also been a deliberate change in the fuel to also increase the persistence of contrails?

    I’m not asking for documented proof, I’m asking why you think this.

  3. Jakeability says:

    I believe this is happening because of the sum total of possible evidence, including senate bill 1807, and the volume of testimonials from citizens AROUND THE WORLD. Do you really believe the people of Brazil are victims of a radio hoax or just hadn’t bothered to notice? You see what you don’t understand is, these people use existing conditions as cover for their operations. So to maintain plausible deniability and to implant a reasonable doubt. I have become aware of many of their other operations, so I know how they disquise their agenda. After you begin to understand how they operate, you then have to reverse engineer each scenario…So first, you notice anomalies like MORE persistent contrails which seem to form into clouds. And then you say, ‘ok, if this IS going on, what should I expect to see under the surface’ so you look deeper, and you find many other people scratchin their heads, civilians, scientists, doctors. You find words like ‘chemtrails’ in federal legislation. Reported illnesses, reported defectors’ addmissions, reported civilian looking military aircraft, reported technology such as HAARP, reported material found on cars and sidewalks, reported changes in fuel composition and reported regular chem/contrail activity in the days following 9/11 when commercial air traffic was grounded, [with the exception of the BinLaden’s of course]. Now, are all of these things true,…probably not, but most probably are. I concede commercial air travel has increased dramatically, and that many of these reported sicknesses are self induced or not related, and that what is being seen are contrails SIMILAR to the ones that had always naturally occured under the right cicumstances. The reason they are now being referred to as chemtrails is because additives HAVE been created specifically for jet fuel to intentionally transform normal short lived contrails, into persistent, cloud forming hydro seekers, with a side effect of viral fungal infections which helps contribute to their depopulation operations. The global warming hoax will become increasingly dependent on this chem/contrail deployment, as we move into a cooling period. It’s not that I WANT to believe this, obviously, but you ask why I believe this……I believe this because I realize this shadow government disrespects the intellect of the people of this world, I’ve seen how they have intentionally brutalized men, women, and children. I’ve seen how they have created programs with the intent of increasing mortality, programs designed to perpetuate famine and sickness, and demolish economies. They use our trust and ignorance against us. They instigate wars and promote militarism. Some members of these institutions have even written books, suggesting scenarios which then occur….Can ALL of these things be coincidences?

  4. That things are not coincidences is not indication of some particular truth.

    It’s not a coincidence that Kucinich’s bill metion Chemtrails, but what does that actually mean?
    http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/

    Now, again I note that you agree that normal contrails will have increased, but then you say

    I believe this is happening because of the sum total of possible evidence, […] the volume of testimonials from citizens AROUND THE WORLD. Do you really believe the people of Brazil are victims of a radio hoax or just hadn’t bothered to notice?

    Now why is that volume of testimony not explained by the increase in air travel? (and where are these reports from Brazil?)

    You go on to say:

    The reason they are now being referred to as chemtrails is because additives HAVE been created specifically for jet fuel to intentionally transform normal short lived contrails, into persistent, cloud forming hydro seekers, with a side effect of viral fungal infections which helps contribute to their depopulation operations.

    Okay, I’ll go out on a limb here, and let’s say I accept for the sake of argument that jet fuel additives are making contrails more persistent, then, given that, how exactly do you know that there are “viral fungal infections which helps contribute to their depopulation operations.“?

  5. Jakeability says:

    I meant to emphasize the word ‘reported’. I conceded many of the cases are self induced or not related. Do you deny jet fuel, specifically JP-8, can have negative impacts on a persons’ health? Can you confirm that unknown chemical additives [for the sake of argument:) ] might pose health risks? If people are reporting this, and some doctors are confirming this, how can you rationalize ALL of this? Radio Shows?

  6. Jakeability says:

    Also, I had previously viewed your material on the substance and intent of the Kucinich bill, also coincidences I suppose. And the referrence to Brazil, far removed from American radio, was rhetorical “for the sake of argument”.

  7. Planes don’t fly along spraying out JP-8, they burn it and spray out (mostly) carbon dioxide and water.

    What doctors are reporting a correlation between contrails and illness?

    There’s been solid contrails for two days over LA, I feel just fine.

    It’s obviously not just radio shows. The internet is the prime mover in the dissemination of the chemtrail idea.

  8. JazzRoc says:

    Jakeability

    I think additives have been put into jet fuel, to make contrails MORE persistent than normal, slightly increasing and perpetuating supposed global warming, but incremental enough as to encourage people like you to persuade people this has always been the case.

    This is what you posted AFTER I posted THIS:

    any particular fuel specification is just that – a specification – or recipe – which is quite open to public view.

    Any local petro site (whether independent or part of some large corporation) is equipped to make up that specification from its discrete components and convey it to the local airfield that requires it, thus minimizing shipping costs. It is quite normal for competitors to supply each other.

    Now WHY would you do that?

  9. JazzRoc says:

    Jakeability, you’re in such a mess, with your:

    It’s not that I WANT to believe this, obviously, but you ask why I believe this

    You believe this stuff because no-one has told you anything about CONFIRMATION BIAS, the understanding of which is a prerequisite of CRITICAL THINKING. In essence, you must CLEAR yourself of all your hidden assumptions, and DELAY forming your conclusions until ALL THE EVIDENCE IS IN.

    This you patently haven’t done. I recommend you watch wonderingmind42’s vid:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A58X73GnzE (and also possibly the rest of them), giving you the opportunity to clear your WANDERING mind.

    You will find yourself more open to reason, and more able to take part in discussions without ignoring other people’s points.

  10. Jakeability says:

    Your fine, I’m fine….therefore it must not be happening. So even though the autism rate is 1 in 166, I suppose for 165 of those children, autism is a myth..Once in awhile my children bring home the flu, sometimes I catch it, usually I don’t….Now just because I didn’t catch the bug, does that mean the flu is a hoax?…of course not. Another straw man argument….As far as the doctors diagnosing ‘chemtrail illnesses’, I believe I read this story from YOUR site, maybe not, I will check later when I have more time.

  11. Sure, many diseases have increased. But why are you connecting this to contrails? Why not pesticides, or food additives, or industrial pollution, or sunspots, or televisions, or the internet, or cell phones … or any of the hundreds or other variables that have changed in the last 20 years?

    Why pick contrails? What evidence is there that links contrails, specifically, to any increase in disease.

  12. Jakeability says:

    JazzRoc-The video you directed me to was very interesting. Especially the ‘confirmation bias’ approach, which I agree with 100%. You’ve used this theory to point fingers, when perhaps you should have looked into a mirror. My previous assumptions were this; I believed in global warming vehemently, for almost 10 years. I thought our country was in a small rut politically, thanks to republican policies. I thought Barack Obama was going to change the world! I cut back on driving, turned off lights as much as I could, shopped at Saturday market, and was a true spokesperson for the need to cut back on our living standard under the valiant effort to ‘Save the World’. I’ve been in fierce debates with friends and family who didn’t accept global warming as fact. I never believed chem/contrails, dangerous vaccines, or shadow governments existed. But I couldn’t understand how these conspiracy theories still had legs. My intention was to disprove these un-American claims. So I did go into this with a bias,…just not the one you suggest, but the EXACT opposite. “No way these things could be true, not in America” I thought. But to my complete shock, the evidence and science [when NOT government funded] has been overwhelming!
    I suspect you have exhibited ‘confirmation bias’ in your approach to global warming. Or would you suggest you did not believe the original claims???. And as far as your extreme trust in a private institution’s public claims [or “recipes”]…..How about the examples set by such private, and federal organizations such as Phillip Morris’ honesty, how about Enron, or do you still believe the US Treasury actually “planned” on helping people with their mortgages?….Could science have predicted these fraudulant actions?…..You say the exact “recipe” has been made public, based on the examples I’ve cited, how can you be sure?
    Ask yourself, can science take over government?….Or what happens when government takes over science?
    You seem proficient enough in science,..you should try studying government, and how they manipulate science, and it’s followers.

  13. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-Actually, I believe all of these things have had individual, and synergistic effects….So then why do you suspect these types of programs aren’t abolished but instead increase? Stupidity? Ignorance? Beauracracy?…..I believe there is an intent invloved.
    I’m not 100% sure chemtrails effect a person’s health, but I think that it is quite likely that they do, hence the use of the term ‘reported’ in lew of ‘confirmed’.

  14. Jakeability, the problem here is that you still have not given ANY evidence that the contrails are anything out of the ordinary.

    Take the conspiracy stuff as read, for the sake of argument, then what actual evidence is there that there trails are being created deliberately?

  15. Jakeability says:

    JazzRoc-You seem to think science is the “end all be all”, as do many people who practice “Scientism”. The truth is science isn’t the reason for advanvement in humanity, science is NOTHING without TECHNOLOGY. Most of science today is the offspring of technology. And technology is the offspring of imagination. What happened to YOUR imagination???

  16. Jakeability says:

    Your arguments are circular, always leading back to “evidence”, haven’t you reiterated many times;

    “I’m not asking for documented proof”

    Your words…not mine.

  17. I’m not asking for documented proof. I’m asking for evidence to support your beliefs. Two totally different things.

    It seems so far that you believe the “chemtrail” theory simply because it seems like something that the powers that be would do. You admit they look like normal contrails. You admit contrails have increased in frequency with air traffic. You admit there are many causes of illnesses. And yet you still believe that someone is deliberately making contrails last longer and be harmful.

    Do you have ANY evidence to support this belief?

  18. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-What would amount to evidence to you specifically?

  19. Anything that suggests that there are some “chemtrails” that cannot be explained by regular contrails or other normal trails

  20. JazzRoc says:

    Jakeability

    I suspect you have exhibited ‘confirmation bias’ in your approach to global warming. Or would you suggest you did not believe the original claims???. And as far as your extreme trust in a private institution’s public claims [or “recipes”]…..How about the examples set by such private, and federal organizations such as Phillip Morris’ honesty, how about Enron, or do you still believe the US Treasury actually “planned” on helping people with their mortgages?….Could science have predicted these fraudulant actions?…..You say the exact “recipe” has been made public, based on the examples I’ve cited, how can you be sure?
    Ask yourself, can science take over government?….Or what happens when government takes over science?

    I AM somewhat surprised by your response. So you DIDN’T mislead yourself directly by confirmation bias – I will accept.

    Let me tell you that my career began in possibly the WORST possible scenario, where the administration was MORE corrupt than any administration I have ever encountered thereafter. My experience was SO bad that I quit the engineering world for a decade, being instead a bass-guitarist in a rock band, then a student designer and artist.

    Nevertheless, I slowly “migrated” back into the world of science and engineering I so enjoyed, and without much in the way of personal expectations, created a small but fulfilling world of my own within those parameters, before I retired.

    There is a natural tendency to “corruption” within all of us, I expect, but it’s unwise to “extrapolate” this in any way. A “corrupted” environment has within it many instabilities: the bigger the environment, the greater these instabilities are.

    Large corrupt organisations (like Enron) have the shortest of lifetimes. Just because you can point at SMALL (in relative terms) instances of corruption (and I agree with you: they are everywhere) doesn’t mean that there are LARGE ones that persist for sufficient time to create whatever mayhem.

    You are forgetting that there is a constant turnover of participants. Each individual is always at his/her unique phase of existence. All things come to pass.

    It is obvious to me that something (which I don’t believe you have yet mentioned) occurred in your life which “depolarised” and “repolarised” you, and I believe you have simply over-reacted.

    We live in a very large and complex world, and we have only just learned that in spite of its size, it is finite, and as a consequence, our activities over the past two centuries are causing it to swing into a change.

    There are ways to slow and nullify this change, but they aren’t the ways you suggest. Moreover, even the PTB know this (even if they ARE corrupt).

    So, you just aren’t correct. Scientists don’t agree with you, the PTB don’t agree with you, and nor do I. Your “mission” is a complete waste of everyone’s time.

    In WWII there was an expression: SNAFU: “Situation normal – all f—-d up”.

    It’s no different right now.

  21. Jakeability says:

    So you and I both concede air traffic has increased dramatically. Will you then concede that these aircraft are leaving contrails that persist LONGER than had previously been the case?

  22. Will you then concede that these aircraft are leaving contrails that persist LONGER than had previously been the case?

    Yes I would.

    Do you know why, on average, contrails persist longer now?

  23. Jakeability says:

    Flatter me

  24. Contrails persist longer now because the contrails factor of modern high-bypass turbofan jet engines is higher than the contrail factor of the older low and medium bypass jet engines.

    In addition, global warming (or some factor in the global climate change) has resulted in a more humid atmosphere (as the oceans warm up), which naturally results in longer lasting contrails.

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-10-10-humidity-increase_N.htm

    I also believe that high temperatures also result in larger vertical components in air mass movements, which hence results in greater probability of contrail formation due to the advection of moisture and aerosol nuclei from low to high altitudes. But I’ll have to check that.

  25. Jakeability says:

    Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that contrails are becoming more persistent because of global warming keeping the atmosphere more humid. I’ll also assume you’ll admit these man made cloud formations exasberate global warming, why then no talk about engine reconfiguration, if as you say, newer engines are also to blame? Why not go back to the old engines to cut back on contrails, and perhaps avoid the proposed carbon taxes and decreased commerce. I realize getting better MPG’s save on fuel comsumption, but this harldy seems like a beneficial tradeoff. And if warming is the contributing factor to the increase in persistency, shouldn’t this be a non issue in colder, or drier climates? And if we begin to enter into a cooling period [as I believe we are, thus the need for heat inducing man made clouds to perpetuate the myth] should contrails become less and less noticable?…..I think that part of your belief about the global warming scenario is this; ” Ok, so if global warming is real, it could lead to the end of life as we know it, if it’s not, but we still act as if it was, once we determine it wasn’t real, we can then regain all the liberties we gave up for this cause,..after all, this is a democracy, we ARE the government”
    This is a common misconception among global warming enthusiasts….The fact is we AREN’T the government, anything we give up for this myth, we will never be able to regain. And the ability of poorer nations to progress through industrialization will be prevented…Seriously, have you ever considered the consequences of action, if the warming we saw was cyclical, and not human induced?

  26. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that contrails are becoming more persistent because of global warming keeping the atmosphere more humid. I’ll also assume you’ll admit these man made cloud formations exasberate global warming, why then no talk about engine reconfiguration, if as you say, newer engines are also to blame?

    Why no talk? There’s lots of talk, huge amounts of talk. In fact contrail mitigation has been an ongoing topic of research for decades. However going back to the old engines is not practical due to A) the huge expense, and B) the increase in carbon emissions. So the focus has been on other techniques – such as simply flying along different routes and at different times based on the weather. See:

    http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/32460

    Using these custom reroutes, analyses were completed for 581 continental flights between 14 city pairs, and 628 international flights over the North Atlantic between 15 city pairs. Given perfect knowledge of meteorological data and no air traffic controls, if aircraft were individually rerouted, it was possible to mitigate 65%-80% of persistent contrails and simultaneously achieve an average decrease of 5%-7% of the total operating cost for the week in November 2001 for which this analysis was carried out.

  27. Jakeability, since you second post had nothing to do with contrails, and was address to Jazzroc, I deleted it and reposted it, under your name, on his blog:

    http://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/01-compendium/

    feel free to continue the discussion there. I realize you feel very strongly about the topic of bankers, but this blog is about contrails.

  28. Jakeability says:

    “Why no talk? There’s lots of talk, huge amounts of talk”

    Maybe the correct question then is; WHY NO ACTION?

    And what about my other questions? There were more than one.

  29. There is no current action because it’s not thought to be a priority. The focus is on carbon emissions, as that is thought to be a far greater warming influence, and is very hard to fix. The effect of contrails is not really understood – but there is a LOT of ongoing study:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=warming+contrails&scoring=r

    your other questions:

    And if warming is the contributing factor to the increase in persistency, shouldn’t this be a non issue in colder, or drier climates?

    Global warming is global, so the humidity rise is global. Drier climates have always had fewer contrails than wetter climates, but now they are a bit more humid, so they will have more than they did.

    And if we begin to enter into a cooling period [as I believe we are, thus the need for heat inducing man made clouds to perpetuate the myth] should contrails become less and less noticable?

    Individual flights will, on average, produce shorter lasting contrails if humidity decreases.

    Remember these are all average we are talking about – you can’t point at any one contrail and say “that’s there because of global warming”.

    Another thing to consider with global warming – if the temperature is 3.5F warmer than normal, than that means that the region in which contrails form is 1000 feet higher, on average.

    The science of contrail formation is very complicated, with a large number of variable.

  30. Jakeability, a question for you, given the huge amount of research that is going on into the climatic effects of contrails, how exactly would you think that some fuel additive has never been noticed?

    I mean, look, here’s 818 articles on the warming effect of contrails:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=warming+contrails&btnG=Search

    A vast amount of science and research. Now, if jets are making more contrails than science would indicate (for normal jet fuel), then why has no scientist noticed this?

  31. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-I appreciate your deleting and reposting of my comment to JazzRoc for a couple of reasons.
    1. Since JazzRoc justed posted a comment three days ago, on this site, a request that I give him a week to “rearrange” his site so that he can make it more “comment friendly”, I’m sure he will recieve it with no problems, since apparently you couldn’t have left it up here, even for say 24 hours and then delete. Seems reasonable.
    2.And since you’re reply to #1 is predictably going to be “It wasn’t related to contrailscience specifically”, why not delete some of his previous comment that also weren’t specifically about contrails. One of his previous posts referenced ‘confirmation bias’, and yet you’ve exhibited it by not deleting his comments also, thus promoting your own thoughts. And if he were to recieve your redirect, and respond to my post here on this site, would you then have to delete his post? How about if I post to him like this….Uncinus/JazzRoc..would that help avoid deletion?

  32. Looks like he’s finished rearranging his site, so you can just continue the conspiracy/banking discussion there.

    Now, what about all those contrail scientists?

  33. Jakeability says:

    Contrail scientists,..no thanks. I’ve learned all I can here, I’ll look for more fertile ground elsewhere. You haven’t the curiosity to check on any of these other variables I’ve suggested…Good luck with the site.

  34. So you don’t think it odd that the scientists failed to notice any unusual change in contrails?

  35. Jakeability says:

    What is your analysis of the satellite photos on this interesting site?

    http://www.bariumblues.com/

  36. You might want to give me a more detailed link. All I can see there is one small satellite photo on the lower left, of what looks like contrails over the Great Lakes and Detroit.

    Here’s the same area today, also with lots of contrails:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA3.2008328.terra.1km

  37. Ross says:

    “…lots of contrails:” and lake-effect snow after a period of northwesterlies still lying.
    Great sat pic!

  38. Jakeability says:

    Perhaps there is a logical explanation for the tanks seen in this video,..hopefully you can fill me in as to their purpose.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wye2YWRohT4

  39. Yes there is, see this post, which covers most of the photos in that video:

    http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/

    If you have another question about a video, please give me the time at which the images come up, so I can be sure I’m talking about the same thing you are. There were a few “tanks” there.

  40. Jakeability says:

    Even “if” chemtrails were real, these photos seem too incriminating to be true….Uncinus, based on all your interaction with commentors, and your own assumptions, with complete disregard to ‘chemtrails’,do you believe there is a global shadow government, and has been for many years? Or do you believe the President holds the highest office?

  41. Did you read the explanations? All those photos are of actual planes of known purpose. None of them are planes for increasing cirrus cover. What exactly is incriminating? Which photo is incriminating?

    My beliefs regarding a global shadow government are irrelevant to the subject of contrails. A conspiracy could exist with or without a shadow government.

  42. Jakeability says:

    You misunderstood me. I accepted your descriptions of the tanks, and I looked at all the other photos, I agree with your conclusion there. I only said that when I originally seen the photos of the tanks in the video, I thought there was a logical explanation for these, for if they were related to “chemtrails”, then they would have been too incriminating.
    I will also accept the shadow government is irrelevant to our particular discussion of contrails,….I was only asking your opinion.

  43. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-How old are you?, if you don’t mind me askin.

  44. Oh okay, yes, I misunderstood.

    I’m about 43,

  45. Jakeability says:

    On a lighter note,……how is someone about 43? About?

  46. It’s an approximate age, for privacy.

  47. Matt C. says:

    Uncinus. Your at it again. I’ve seen you on so many sites defending the faith. It’s Just Ice Particles! Right?

  48. Contrails are generally made of ice, yes. Since 1918.

    I don’t really post anywhere other than here and YouTube – maybe you are thinking of someone else?

  49. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-Why would a plane be headed south, then make a complete 180 degree turn and then head north?This happened about one hour ago. I believe, but am not sure, that one of the arguments you’ve made against ‘chemtrails’ was that nobody has ever filmed a plane making a complete 180. I did film it, and I will upload it for you to see. I’m hoping you have an explanation though, so that I don’t have to upload it.

  50. I saw one doing 180s just the other day:

    http://contrailscience.com/voodoo-contrails-over-los-angeles/

    There are lots of reasons why a plane might make a 180 turn. Training flights, research flights, military patrols, sudden change of plans (for executive jets, it happens).

    Still, I’d be interested in your video. Can you give the date, time, location and approximate heading of the jet?

  51. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-It actually seemed like alot of odd flight paths today, and alot of loops out above the ocean. I usually see them @30-40 miles inland, as you have said, but today there have been alot more closer to the coast, traveling almost southwest, and northeast. Why the odd activity today you think?

    I will upload the videos I took earlier when I have a little more time. Lot’s of family, not much internet. What about you, plans for tomorrow?

  52. I can’t really add much to my last comment. Planes fly in circles sometimes for perfectly normal reasons.

  53. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-Heres the video I took. It’s from 11/26/08, approximately 11 am. The plane first heads south, then north…..

    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=47283019

  54. Looks like a normal contrail, but a somewhat unusual path. My best guess would be that this is a training flight. Of course it could also be some kind of research flight. Is this over Tilamook?

    Check out this photo of the same day, sometime around mid-day:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_HJAndrews.2008331.aqua.250m

    There’s some racetrack contrails up to the north of you, and a bunch of scraggly trails off the coast. You can see how the contrails form around the edge of that huge bank of clouds.

  55. Jason W says:

    @the true believers

    I’ve noticed contrails ever since I can remember, in the early 80s, when I had them explained to my by my father, an Air Force pilot who has since become an Orthopedic Surgeon in a small scale private practice and he did not indicate that they were anything new. If someone wants to suggest that *he* is part of some grand conspiracy you’d just be digging yourself deeper and reinforcing my belief all the more that you are misguided pattern seekers. I saw them last and spread. I saw them have limited lengths. I saw planes cross paths and leave (gasp) crossing contrails.

    Your chemtrails are a modern mythology. You’ve moved on from believing that Zeus is behind lightning, Persephone behind the seasons and Apollo behind the sun’s track across the sky. Your pantheon of gods used to explain phenomena that are beyond your ability or willingness to understand is now the government, the military and deep seated conspiracies.

    It’s really scary to me how persistent you are. You will push for years and perhaps grow in numbers, demanding that the government be accountable for chemtrails. This is like demanding that Zeus be held accountable for and cease from causing lightning. He is not the cause. Some nebulous conspiracy is not the cause of contrails. Water vapor is, just as a differential in electrical charge being suddenly discharged is the cause of lightning. You will push and push and get no answers because you are wrong, but the defeaning silence from the scientific community and the government will only convince you of your own correctness. A bit sorry really.

    Seriously, isn’t it a bit sad how “everyone” suddenly started noticing contrails around the time some radio host started talking about them? How can you ignore the people who noticed them before (like me. call me a liar now and see how far you get), or the mounds of photographs from 60 years ago that show the same things? “They must be new because I just started noticing them myself” is so solipsistic as to be absurd. “They must have started around 10 years ago because that is when radio hosts started talking about them” is so ass backwards and ignorant of fact as to be ridiculous.

    Your only recourse is to extend the supposed start date of the supposed conspiracy back to World War 2. This should be easy, all sorts of crazy stuff was proposed back then, like a gigantic aircraft carrier made of sawdust infused ice (I’m serious). That never happened, just as weather control for military purposes never happened, because it *isn’t feasible*. Now I could be wrong about that, you never know. But that doesn’t change the basic facts about contrails being the same as they always have been and I refuse to entertain any speculation that this vast conspiracy sprang into being at precisely the moment high altitude flight was achieved. Some nutjob might say “this conspiracy is the reason high altitude flight was achieved!” Well, speculate until the cows come home. At that point, might as well wonder if the Wright brothers were in on it

    @[email protected]

    “I recommend that Uncinus read Jim Marrs’ book “Rule by Secrecy” & Steven Jones’ report from the physics/astronomy department of Brigham Young University regarding the controlled demolition of the 3 (not 2) buildings in NYC on 20010911. “

    I take issue with the phrasing of your sentence that implies that the report came from the physics/astronomy department of BYU. It came from one man: Steven Jones. Jones’ paper was never published in a peer reviewed journal. Jones was also, for all intents and purposes, fired. He is no longer with the university. Jones was among the faculty alone in his views and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t try to associate those views with my alma mater.

    @Uncinus

    your patience is incredible. Thanks for the site. It gives me hope that there are still people who let themselves be governed by reason, but at the same time fills me with despair at all the counter examples who come out of the woodwork to bash this site like a modern day Copernicus. Reason and science will prevail, though I shudder to see the struggle it apparently always will be.

  56. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-Do you believe “chemtrail conspiracy theorists” slander pilots? Or the Aviation industry?

  57. Are you asking for my legal opinion? I think you need to be a bit more specific, but I’d say that in general that the accusations are too broad and untargeted to be construed as slander. I don’t think you can slander an industry.

  58. JazzRoc says:

    Jakeability, you know I do…

    Uncinus seems more forgiving and cautious than myself. I think one should be at first aware of, then responsible for, one’s actions.

    He is also more sensible than myself, and keeps himself strictly within the science of contrails. This enables him to be unerringly precise. In my experience he has never been incorrect.

    I’m an exuberant wastrel of emotion and volatility compared, and am quite prepared to exaggerate a bit to prove a point, and also to read up in areas previously unfamiliar, and stamp about in them. Maybe sometimes I’m less accurate, but at least (or at most) my spelling is better.

    Different folks, different strokes…

    So why are you asking the question?

  59. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-No, I was’t asking a legal question…just curious. In a previous “session” with JazzRoc he said he thought “chemtrail conspiracy theorists” slander pilots, which I likened to anti-war protestors protesting policy, not the soldiers.

    JazzRoc-I am becoming more familiar with your particular “style”, and I definitely enjoy it! I am also more volatile than sensible, which is why Uncinus baffles me somewhat. I’m always curious about the motive of “debunkers” of this, and other subjects…….Oh, and just for the record,..JazzRoc does spell much better!

  60. Virga says:

    Jakeability, in case you want to know my motive:

    I hate it when people call me a murderer and write lies and assumptions about my profession.

    Like we say in aviation: Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups.

  61. Jakeability says:

    Virga-If someone has specifically called you a murderer, then that is wrong. I think that IF chemtrails are real, most pilots don’t even know about it. Just as most doctors don’t know [or won’t admit] that vaccines [in their present form] are dangerous. They simply believed the edited research presented by Merck. If someone protests the war in Iraq, only a fool believes this to be slandering the troops. People protest the POLICY that put the troops in Iraq, not the troops themselves!. I am a dairy farmer. When people suspect conspiracies of Monsanto to add BGH into the milk supply, this in NO way slanders me, or my proffesion, so why do you feel this way? My overall feeling about ‘chemtrails’, at this point is…like we say in the dairy business…”I smell bullshit”.

  62. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-To me, JazzRoc’s acknowledgment of our government’s sponsored false flag terrorism has leant more credibility to his position than all of the so called ‘contrail science’ you have attempted to “flex” at me. I don’t think science is “disinfo”, I believe your science has been filtered and edited. Anybody who believes the “thermal expansion” theory in referrence to building 7, as you do, forfeit almost all credibility going forward. We’ve seen Bush’s cronies edit the climate report before, and many, many people believe the government’s evidence and research into 9/11 is completely fiction. They haven’t even charged Osama BinLaden, let alone capture him. I’m still not 100% convinced chemtrails are real, but for this conspiracy to have maintained itself for this long, and continue to grow, seems a bit unusual….Are the chem/contrails being reported in every country? How about Panama?

  63. Panama? Probably not that many, as there are not that many flights over Panama compared to say, Texas. There are probably 100 times as many flights over Texas as there are over Panama. But I’m sure there are some, occasionally, depending on the weather.

    In fact, there were probably some today, based on this satellite photo:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=CAmerica_3_04.2008346.terra.1km

    Click “prev” a few times, you’ll see contrails in the region.

  64. Jakeability says:

    The reason I ask about Panama, is I know of a women who moved there, because, in her words, there are never chemtrails in Panama. I wasn’t sure if this is true…..What do you make of these “fibers” that are supposedly being found occasionally falling from the sky?

  65. I’ have to see which fibers you are referring to. But I’d suspect they are the normal sort of fibers you see in the sky – mostly spider silk, and various types of seeds. Like, for example, dandelion snow, or these cottonwood seeds:

    http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page2690.html?theme=light

  66. Jakeability says:

    What do you make of the cloud formations in this short clip,….seems like this former weather man might be going off of more than just a “radio hoax”, don’t you think?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZwh8WLTMUU

  67. Jakeability says:

    What planet is this cloud from? Could it be a product of HAARP, or weather modification,..or is this a normal cloud, under the ‘right’ circumstances?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5VUTNLI4Uo

  68. I’ll quote what someone says on YouTube:

    Looks like its a very high flying altolenticular cloud, you can tell by the way really high speed winds up at the top of the troposphere are blowing the top away from the rest

    There are always going to be odd looking clouds. Check out the cloud appreciation society:
    http://cloudappreciationsociety.org/gallery/

  69. Yes, Scott Stevens is convinced the Russians are controlling our weather. He sees patterns everywhere. Unfortunately nobody else does. He’s forever looking at normal clouds and seeing some kind of pattern in them. Really the supposedly odd clouds he points at are are just the same as back in 1905:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/Uncinus/CloudStudies1905And1925#

  70. Jakeability says:

    How can this entire area be under the ‘right’ circumstances?…seems very large to all be under the same conditions, and if the story is correct, are there really that many civilian flights every morning?

    http://www.infowars.com/print/misc/gossamer.htm

  71. That was an unusual day, but yes it was simply that the conditions were right for that area – not the whole area note, just various bands within it. And yes, there are that many flights.

    That’s a very commonly used photo – but the fact that it’s used so often speaks to how unusual the conditions were.

    Here’s the same region on the same day in 2008 – still some contrails, just not as many – you could probably look through the photos and finda similar day.

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2008029.terra.1km

  72. Here’s some days that show similar regions. Not quite as big though:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2007315.terra.1km

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2007328.terra.1km

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2007339.terra.1km

    It’s a mistake to say this is anything like typical. The original photo you linked was quite an unusual day – maybe once every few years. But of course – that happens every few years.

    This one is probably the closest:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2007358.terra.1km

  73. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-As a former pilot, do you think the pilot of the plane that hit the pentagon had the training to complete the aerial manuever as described by the planes data?

  74. Jakeability says:

    Do you understand the principle….”It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes”….Based on this principle, do you think NASA airbrushes or edits any of their satellite photos? Perhaps they feel as if…”It’s not the science that counts, it’s who’s counting the science”

  75. I have no experience of flying large jets, so I’d defer to someone who does: start reading at page 9 (or preferably at the start) of this document:

    http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

    I’m really only here for the contrails though.

  76. I don’t think they edit their photos – but why should I base my beliefs on that principle?

  77. Jakeability says:

    So if you don’t fly large jets,…then what is your day job [besides maintaining this site]?….And the 9/11 link was very interesting,….it must be true then. Check out this clip, it’s a Phillip Morris CEO on TV saying cigarettes aren’t unhealthy for pregnant women. Since I provided a link to it, it too must also be true,..cigarettes are healthy after all….Start at the begining.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwcF3Malj8

  78. Jakeability says:

    You don’t have to base your beliefs on this principal, but unfortunately this is the situation we’re in…Who has more power, the voter, or the electronic vote counting machines?…Likewise science can be supressed by scientists.

  79. Your reasoning seems a little backwards. If “they” are attempting to manipulate public opinion (by removing contrails from satellite photos), then obviously the votes are very important. You think this last election was rigged? All the polls too?

    You seem to have a lot of speculation – where the hard evidence? What, in fact, are you actually claiming? Or are you just making vague intimations that the government is bad, and that they might be doing bad things.

    (a contrails related answer would be appreciated)

  80. Jakeability says:

    No I don’t think the last election was rigged…They got who “they” wanted, but 2 out of the last 3 is pretty bad..As a global warming advocate, you too probably think Florida in ’00 and Ohio in ’04 were stolen….So if NASA edits photos, it’s not necessarily to manipulate public opionion, but to omit particular facts from the public……As far as me speculating as to the curruption of government,…..this is their own fault. You judge a tree by it’s fruits. If I pick 4 apples from a tree, and their ALL rotten,….I will then presume something drastic has happened to the tree….My reasoning is not backwards, their reasoning is backward,…”The end justifies the means”. I may seem backwards because their social engineering programs have to be reverse engineered.
    And once again, we’ve come all the way back to…wait…hold….”hard evidence”
    If I had accused the US military of spraying chemical agents [agent orange] back in Vietnam, you would have asked for “hard evidence”,…of course none existed for many, many years later, but the FACT remained. You think “hard evidence” is providing a documented link,….so then what did you think about my evidence proving cigarettes to be safe?

  81. I think you need to look at what constitutes evidence.

    Evidence consists of many things, but the most important is statistically meaningful observations. If statistics tie smoking to lung cancer (accounting for confounding factors), then that’s evidence of a causal link, regardless of there being no known causal mechanism. A CEO saying otherwise is not evidence.

    What evidence is there of some contrails are being deliberately made more persistent than others?

    None.

  82. Jakeability says:

    First you say [paraphrasing] “no plane has EVER been filmed turning around to fly parallel to it’s previous course”
    So then I film just this,..and you say….[predictably] “Training or Research” “Maybe somebody forgot something”

    In the ‘chemtrail on/off’ videos you say “They just flew through a very, very small area under different weather conditions”

    In the satellite image of the southeast, you say “Oh, that happens every few years” and can’t find a single image half as full as the one I linked to.

    So you too have proven this to be more ‘contrailspeculation’ than ‘contrailscience’
    Like OJ’s attorney’s,….they weren’t trying to prove OJ innocent, they were only trying to maintain REASONABLE DOUBT.
    You aren’t disproving ‘chemtrails’ either [“could be training, or research, or that only happens every few years”]

    You only hope to imply reasonable doubt. What evidence do you have that proves what is coming out of these jets, is exactly the same as it always has been.

    none.

    If I stand outside to smoke a cigarette on a cold day, what I exhale while smoking is very similar to what I exhale while not smoking. They look similar,…but one might cause cancer, while the other is only noticable because of the cold weather.You would argue they are the same.

    Chemtrail and contrails are similar.

  83. Jakeability says:

    It would seem that as a meteorologist, Scott Stevens would be more reliable than a blogger who refers to himself as “just some guy”

  84. Jakeability says:

    This article seems to describe your motives and perspective pretty well.

    http://www.rense.com/general30/deby.htm

    What is your day job again?

  85. First you say [paraphrasing] “no plane has EVER been filmed turning around to fly parallel to it’s previous course”
    So then I film just this,..and you say….[predictably] “Training or Research” “Maybe somebody forgot something

    I was referring to the where people say they see planes fly back and forth from horizon to horizon. I’ve discussed “racetrack” contrails several times, and had a post on them on the site for nearly a year:
    http://contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/
    My point about the lack of videos is that what people describe seems more likely to be some planes flying one way, and then other planes flying the other way- in a very busy airway (like, say, North-South over Oregon), this might look like a couple of planes flying back and forth.

    In the ‘chemtrail on/off’ videos you say “They just flew through a very, very small area under different weather conditions”

    So? That’s what all the experts say, see:
    http://contrailscience.com/broken-contrails/

    In the satellite image of the southeast, you say “Oh, that happens every few years” and can’t find a single image half as full as the one I linked to.

    You think I should go through 1000 days of satellite photos to find a similar one? I’m not sure what the problem is here. I said the photo show an uncommon situation. So what?

    Chemtrail and contrails are similar

    They look and act EXACTLY the same. There is nothing to suggest they are not the same. Cigarette smoke does not look exactly the same as your breath on a cold day.

  86. It would seem that as a meteorologist, Scott Stevens would be more reliable than a blogger who refers to himself as “just some guy”

    Heh, define “reliable”. I’ve never claimed to be an expert at anything, which is why I use so many references to scientific papers, books, etc. What references does Stevens use?

  87. This article seems to describe your motives and perspective pretty well.

    http://www.rense.com/general30/deby.htm

    What is your day job again?

    Now what does my day job have to do with anything?

    I like to try to stick to the facts, and stick to science, and preferably try to stick to contrails. If you’d like to discuss those, then I’d be quite happy to.

  88. Jakeability says:

    References? Scott Stevens was a proffesional, for all I know, you may be the proverbial “PJ blogger living in their parents’ basement”…where are your credentials? What is your day job?

  89. I don’t claim to have any credentials, nor any particular day job. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that I’m a PJ blogger living my parent’s basement.

    So? When I quote actual scientists, does that make what they have to say somehow wrong, because I copied their words while in my PJs? It’s their work I’m quoting, not mine.

    Stevens quotes his own work, promoting odd theories, simply based on him observing odd shapes in the clouds that nobody else can see:
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/weather_mod_stevens_quits_pursue_theories.htm

    “The Soviets boasted of their geoengineering capabilities; these impressive accomplishments must be taken at face value simply because we are observing weather events that simply have never occurred before, never!” Stevens wrote on his Web site. “The evidence of these weapons at work found within the clouds overhead is simply unmistakable. These patterns and odd geometric shapes seen in our skies, each and every day, are clear and present evidence that our weather has been stolen from us, only to be used by those whose designs for humanity are rarely in alignment with that of the common man.”

    This is not PJ Blogger vs. ex weatherman. It’s ex-weatherman vs. science.

  90. Jakeability says:

    Scott Stevens is completely open and honest,..he still may be wrong, but he leaves everything on the table. You make claims, but for the sake of “privacy” you won’t reveal your credentials? Scott Stevens apparently has nothing to hide,….you however? hmmmmm….So who’s more credible, the ones out in front, or people like you hiding in the shadows, supposedly “flexing their scientific muscle”

  91. That’s entirely up to the reader to decide. I claim no credentials. Make your own judgments.

  92. Jakeability says:

    The reason for the reference to the “PJ basement blogger”, is because this is the type of labels “debunkers” apply to anyone proposing any conspiracy theory, in an attempt to discredit them. Surely you are very familiar with this tactic. Your day job is relative to this discussion….would you take medical advice from a plumber? Of course not..furthermore, would you accept the assertion of a Phillip Morris’ employee that cigarette smoking is safe?..obviously there would be a conflict of interest. So when people ask for your profession, they are curious about your possible conflicts of interest….very simple….yet you evade and deflect.

  93. Jakeability says:

    You claim no credentials, but you do wish to influence public opinion,..correct?

  94. Why do you pursue my credentials when I’ve told you I don’t have any? I really don’t. I know a bit about the weather from my private pilot training. I’m interested in science and clouds so I’ve read some books and lots of internet stuff. I’m not a weatherman and I’m not a scientist. Feel free to assume I’m just some sad geek if it helps your argument.

    Really, let’s focus on the science.

  95. Jakeability says:

    I understand,..no credentials,…just out of curiosity then, how do you pay the bills. Are you a janitor, a teacher, a mechanic..whatever. Not related to contrailscience, what is your day job ? porfavor? A:_____________

  96. I’d prefer to keep the discussion here to contrails. My profession has nothing to do with contrails. It’s not relevant.

  97. Jakeability says:

    I understand it’s not relevant. You can simply delete this conversation.Just for the sake of curiosity….Hi, my name is Jake [Jakeability] I am a dairy farmer…………….[your turn….be polite]

    If you get paid to maintain this site….then it could be relevant.

  98. I don’t get paid to maintain this site. It’s a hobby.

    I’m doing this because it’s interesting, not for a social life. This is blog where I write about contrails and the “chemtrail” theory. That’s it.

  99. Jakeability says:

    alright

  100. rudedog says:

    Jakeability:
    I applaude you. You see uncinus for what his purpose really is here as I do. He cannot back up his arguments with any REAL science as the title of his disinformation website suggests. On the credibility issue, he is so quick to discredit anyone that suggests that this sickenning mutulation of our atmosphere is anything but “normal contrails”. Yet, he hides behind his username to spread his manipulated information on a website that is completely controlled by himself as the moderator. He will not reveal himself but people like Cliff Carnicum, Will Thomas and many others that he claims have no credibility have put themselves out there and are willing to personally back up their claims while uncinus hides behind his webpage calling them all liars. Of course, this is your typical website being maintained by an average guy that is just doing it as a “hobby” on the side simply because he enjoys clouds. Yeh, right! Of all the video evidence and personal accounts of millions concerned people around the globe, not one of them is of any concern to uncinus because everyone of them are nothing more than contrails behaving persistently. According to him, this is the way it has been happenning for all of your life. Bullshit! I have been an avid skywatcher since I was a toddler and this is nothing like it was then and I am nearly 50. Whenever anyone tells him the same thing he tells them they are wrong and just dont remember it correctly. It is statements like that where uncinus loses his credibility. People are not stupid. (most people). They know what they are seeing is not “normal” and have good reason to be concerned. The fact that he will not even consider the possibility of anything other than normal contrail activity is why people are suspicious of his real intentions and purpose here. I have posed the question to him several times asking him why he is so quick to discredit anyone that even mentions the word chemtrail and how is it possible that he knows more about what they are describing when he was not even there when the person wittnessed it. This is not the disposition of a mere hobbyist interested in clouds. These are the actions of a man with a mission who is determined to make sure that nobody believes anyone that thinks that this massacre of our skies is anything other than contrails. You either have to be blind, brainwashed or sponsered to not aknowledge it. I have posted many arguments on the ‘Barium Chemtrails’ thread of this website where he just repeats the same crap over and over also. I have been labeled a conspiracy theorist and called a nutjob wearing a tinfoil hat or accused of having little or no education etc…etc…etc… because this is the only method they have to promote their lies. Since they have no cridibility themselves, their only alternative is to try to discredit others that seek the truth and want real answers. Good luck. you will not get anywhere in your attempts to apply logic and reason on this website because it is here for one purpose only. What makes it so easy to accomplish is the fact that the truth is so inconceivable that no one wants to believe it. Therefore, it is much more comfortable to believe that it is not really happening. Bury your head in the sand and maybe it will go away. Unfortunately, that will not make it go away. I dont understand how so many people can ignore it while it is happening in plain site right in front of their own eyes! Wake up people! This is the future of mankind and all living things at stake here! Stop being manipulated and start believing and trusting your own eyes and trusting your own mind before it is too late!

Comments are closed.