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: 

https://www.britannica.com/science/vapor-trail

(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. My main query is; why is it that when i was younger (between 1985-2000), i did not witness ANY sustained contrails like i see today? I used to watch planes all the time and these are the same QANTAS jets they fly today (largely a 15 year old fleet).

    Furthermore, when i called the Bureau of Meteorology in my state and queried them on it; the gentleman said that the planes leaving trails were part of a science experiment tied in with Flinders University and the ARM Project (Atmospheric Radiation Measurement). All the info he provided matched the ARM’s website info. These were commerical planes.

    Consider how many days of they year before 2000 you watched jets. Then consider how many days of the year that contrails form (have you kept a record of a whole year?). A memory of watching planes for a few days might extend in your memory.

    Contrails are rarely observed in Australia, because of the sparse population, there are very few air routes over populated areas (they go BETWEEN populated areas, not over them). Do you live in the same town? If you lived closer to a city, then the planes would have been lower, and left fewer trails.

    I’m not sure what your point is about ARM. I suspect that in your describing the contrails you made them sound rather unusual, so the Bureau guy though it might be th ARM planes, which probably fly in unusual patterns at contrail altitude. But it may well have been that you were just describing contrails from Quantas jets that seemed unusual to you, but actually were not.

    Regarding 50 USC Ch 32, I suspect you are referring to the section on testing on civilians. The theorists like to quote a decade old version of this that seemed to allow for secret testing on civilian population (the old 1520). This was repealed in 1996, and now specifically prohibits testing without informed consent. See 50 USC Sec. 1520a

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001520—a000-.html

  2. cb says:

    I’m sorry, but the mainstream media i.e. Associated Press along with government websites are admitting that governments have been spraying atmosphere altering particulates/aerosols in the air for years (since 1996). It’s a bit hard to debunk the governments own admissions, when also backed by the declassified history of the governments involvement in biological/chemical experiments etc. The government has no credibility, thus it does not matter that they ‘repealed’ 1520, which i was aware of. You also have the former German parliamentarian Monika Griefahn conceding they do exist. Furthermore, there are scientists convinced that there were aerosol spraying campaigns. So there is no scientific/peer consensus on this matter, which further rings alarm bells – much like the man-made global warming debate.

    As for ARM, i did research on them and obtained literature from their websites prior to them taking it down discussing aerosol campaigns designed to alter the atmosphere and seed clouds (‘m trying to locate that file). Oh, and they were not ARM planes, they were Qantas – easy to tell by the red rear/tail wing area.

    In regards to your “contrails rarely observed in Australia” point, i travel all over Australia regularly for my work, both to cities and rural areas. Short contrails are very common, just as are persistant trails/chemtrails/aerosols…whatever you want to name them. On the same day there’s a huge mix often within minutes and at similar altitudes. I have gigs of footage. And planes here definately fly over cities too – at least mine – and leave chemtrails/persistant trails.

    With all due respect, your points aren’t convincing me. It’s hard to deny governments own admissions!

  3. cb says:

    http://www.congresscheck.com/tag/terraforming/

    A study of past and ongoing upper atmosphere aerosol programs confirms that the government has been active in this field for years.

    The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Program was created in 1989 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and is sponsored by the DOE’s Office of Science and managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research.

    One of ARM’s programs, entitled Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), is aimed at measuring “cloud simulations” and “aerosol retrievals”.

    Another program under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program is directed towards, “developing comprehensive understanding of the atmospheric processes that control the transport, transformation, and fate of energy related trace chemicals and particulate matter.”

    The DOE website states that, “The current focus of the program is aerosol radiative forcing of climate: aerosol formation and evolution and aerosol properties that affect direct and indirect influences on climate and climate change.”

    The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was discussed in a September 2008 London Guardian article entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promoted the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.

    “One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”

    Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who last year began conducting studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.

    The project is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”

    The Associated Press reports that the Obama administration has held discussions regarding the possibility of “geo-engineering” the earth’s climate to counter global warming by “shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.”

    The AP report states that Obama’s science advisor John Holdren is pushing for radical terra forming programs to be explored such as creating an “artificial volcano”. Despite Holdren’s admission that such measures could have “grave side effects,” he added that, “we might get desperate enough to want to use it.”

    **So my point is that we cannot deny the existance of aerosol programs/chemtrails/persistant trails. There is TOO much evidence that at the VERY LEAST, even to a skeptic, would be seen as pushing coincidence a little too far. Add to that the people all-over the world (millions) who believe in these trails, many of whom are scientists and the fact that there are so many chemtrail debunkers allocating alot of time and energy trying to debunk this issue, only gives further credence to the “chemtrail/aerosol” argument.

  4. cb says:

    Chemtrail spraying has now been acknowledged by the U.S. Air Force and the FAA, and was proposed to be banned in Senate Resolution HR 2977, sponsored by Congressman Kucinich, where it is named as an “exotic atmospheric weapons system.” Later versions of the bill had references to chemtrails deleted. The coverup continues.

  5. Chemtrail spraying has now been acknowledged by the U.S. Air Force and the FAA, and was proposed to be banned in Senate Resolution HR 2977, sponsored by Congressman Kucinich, where it is named as an “exotic atmospheric weapons system.” Later versions of the bill had references to chemtrails deleted. The coverup continues.

    Kucinich did not write that bill, and when he found out what was on it, he removed it. It was written by UFO enthusiasts, see:

    https://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/

  6. So my point is that we cannot deny the existance of aerosol programs/chemtrails/persistant trails. There is TOO much evidence that at the VERY LEAST, even to a skeptic, would be seen as pushing coincidence a little too far.

    Perhaps, instead of posting the interpretations of a conspiracy minded web site, you could post the actual evidence? That article you quote from is conflating two totally separate things – a program to measure the effects of aerosols, and research into what we MIGHT do in the future. Perhaps you can explain how you get from that to saying that there’s a secret program of spraying (which, although secret, is done in plain sight of millions of scientists who have not noticed it), that has been going on since the 1990’s?

  7. I’m sorry, but the mainstream media i.e. Associated Press along with government websites are admitting that governments have been spraying atmosphere altering particulates/aerosols in the air for years (since 1996).

    Since the 1920’s actually. It’s called cloud seeding, and is not a secret. It also looks nothing like contrails. But perhaps I misunderstand you – could you supply a link to what you are referring?

    It’s a bit hard to debunk the governments own admissions, when also backed by the declassified history of the governments involvement in biological/chemical experiments etc.

    And did these biological/chemical experiments look like contrails? Did they perform thousands of them every day for ten years? Besides, I thought you said chemtrails were for altering the weather? Do you have a link to this “admission”?

    The government has no credibility, thus it does not matter that they ‘repealed’ 1520, which i was aware of.

    If they have no credibility, then why are you basing your arguments on government documents?

    You also have the former German parliamentarian Monika Griefahn conceding they do exist.

    Is she not part of the government? Do you have the full text of her letter? I see nothing about contrails, only “Instead of making a concerted and determined effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, experiments of various kinds are being carried out in the earth’s atmosphere in order to cure the symptoms“, which could mean anything from carbon trading to giant mirrors in space.

    Furthermore, there are scientists convinced that there were aerosol spraying campaigns. So there is no scientific/peer consensus on this matter, which further rings alarm bells – much like the man-made global warming debate.

    Which scientists are those? Did they write any papers on the matter? There have been MANY papers written and published that throw doubt on the nature of anothropogenic climate change. So where are the papers that support chemtrails? Perhaps you could link a few?

  8. cb says:

    I am now convinced of several things (and this is contructive criticism). Mainly that a) You do not know your history b) You are not informed regarding government policy c) You cannot debunk my points d) You are not willing to find sources yourself or attempt to look for them as any ‘reasonable’ person would do so in your situation (i have given you enough info for you to google the info yourself) e) You do not understand the psychology of governments (they deny then admit = lack credibility) f) You lack the ability to think laterally i.e. connect the dots g) You probably work for the government in some way shape or form OR are brain-washed by your own beliefs – cognitive dissonance!

    I dare say that in a past life, you were one of those scientists that believed the world was flat and ridiculed anyone who thought otherwise – you do know your history right, maybe…?

    If at the very least, after analysing all of the information people have provided you with and that which is available, you are unable to, at the VERY LEAST, be perhaps slightly skeptical then i would have to question your intelligence. And ‘intelligence’ does not refer to an academic/studious ability. It refers to the ability to think, to do so laterally, critically and creatively, especially when presented with new information and/or evidence. It’s about accessing the right side of your brain more as oppose to the left-side which schooling has trained people to use, that is, simply read and regurgitate info from text books.

    I’m am being critical of your reasonings etc, but i do not intend to insult. I’m just personally dumb-found by some of your responses. Thats my opinion. Ah the beauty of free speech in this country (until the government takes that away from us soon). Oh and the man-made climate change debate – seriously i’m fully loaded on that debate (well informed) so we won’t go there – for times sake. Lol.

    I’d like your opinion; why do governments (and scientists who are funded by them) and/or large corporations/think tanks fear the so called “conspiracy minded” websites such as infowars.com and it’s host Alex Jones? If my memory serves me correct, he and his guests have predicted everything with extreme accuracy thus far and exposed many government injustices. If nothing is based on fact and is only “conspiracy” then what does the government and all those who have to gain from a certain agenda i.e. man-made global warming theory etc. have to fear. It couldn’t be the TRUTH could it?? Nooo, not the truth.

    Take care.

    Kind Regards
    CB

  9. Thank you for your feedback, and I appreciate the polite way in which you critique my reasoning skills. However, you’ve still not actually given any evidence that links these trails in the sky to any kind of government project. Nor have you shown that they are in any way different to the trails of 20 years ago.

    Perhaps you could focus here on some real science with numbers? How are the trails different now? How can this be measured? And if you can explain that, then why have millions of scientists all failed to notice this change?

  10. In regards to your “contrails rarely observed in Australia” point, i travel all over Australia regularly for my work, both to cities and rural areas. Short contrails are very common, just as are persistant trails/chemtrails/aerosols…whatever you want to name them. On the same day there’s a huge mix often within minutes and at similar altitudes. I have gigs of footage. And planes here definately fly over cities too – at least mine – and leave chemtrails/persistant trails.

    Actually you are probably right about that. I was remembering an article I had read about Perth, and extrapolating that to Australia as a whole. Contrails are very rare in Perth, and several other regions of Australia, but looking at the overall flight map, there must be many regions where you get lots of contrails. Might I ask where you see them most?

    Here’s the article:

    http://www.perthobservatory.wa.gov.au/information/contrail.html

    Contrails are rarely seen over Perth and therefore are relatively unfamiliar and often form the basis of reports of ‘unidentified flying objects’. This rarity of contrails arises because Perth is a very isolated city and most jet planes seen over Perth are at low altitude and in the process of either arriving or departing.

  11. Suntour says:

    A couple of years ago I camped in New Mexico for a week.

    I was hundreds of miles away from any town with more than 100 people in it and yet I saw multiple persistent contrails in the BLUE sky overhead, two even crossed and made an X in the sky, oh the HORROR!!! Lucky for me, they evaporated in about 2 hours because I would have had to breath all those chemicals! Ok, I’m just being catty now.

    My question to the Chemtrail believer is, if these trails were “Chemtrails” why did they “spray” multiple times over an unpopulated wasteland? No clouds were formed beyond the trails themselves, so weather modification wasn’t the reason.

    It sounds and looks like naturally occuring contrail phenomena to me.

  12. JazzRoc says:

    cb:

    I’m am being critical of your reasonings etc, but i do not intend to insult.

    You could have fooled me. 🙂

  13. ijostl says:

    Report:
    On Memorial Day from horizon to horizon there were again the familiar patterns laid out grid style with persistent trails that once again, fanned out and eventually obliterated the blue sky on a very hot day. The patterns dissipate, blend together and create an overcast haze, all from these jet aircraft trails that NEVER evaporate. During the same time, seemingly normal jet aircraft fly and have the seemingly normal short evaporating contrails. The lingering trails however fan out and blanket the entire sky dimming the sunlight, cooling the air at ground level and continuing to dim the starlight in the night sky. During sunset when the sun is viewed through this manufactured haze there appears a bronze glow around it.

    Obviously something clandestine is going on here, the obvious weather effects are enough in themselves to warrant concern, even if these trails were what you folks assert “ice vapor that never evaporates”. It’s strange how this simple assertion is not called out for what it is you are posturing, that you call defying the laws of physics “science”. But my hats off to you guys, you’re really good at pooh-poohing everybody.

    But the fact remains, those on this site pooh-poohing every idea contradicting their “everything is normal, go back to bed America” posturing are all basing their arguments on this one very unscientific idea, that ice in the sun and heat will not melt but grow. Oh it’s all very complicated science this science that, blah blah but put ice in the sun and it melts. The trails do not melt but grow, therefore they can’t be ice.

    It’s more likely that those involved with this project are under the impression that what they are doing is necessary and important. Maybe so, or maybe there is more to know than what those who think they know do. In any case, deceit is just bad from the outset in my opinion. But then again I’m an optimist and am quite often shocked by what human beings are capable of, so maybe it’s best they don’t know. After all, even you guys still don’t get how the civilization we’re trying to build here doesn’t jibe with meat industry.

    But please don’t respond and tell me ice grows in the sun. I may be stupid but I’m not that stupid.

    Gentlemen, thank you for the forum.

    ijostl

    P.S. Note to JazzRoc; please don’t respond. You seem only insulting, vulgar and rude.

  14. ijostl. Being in the sun does not automatically make something hot and melt. If this were so, then how do you explain this:

    That’s Mount Kilimanjaro, in Tanzania, Africa. Note that it’s in the sun. Why is there ice on top of the mountain if, as you suggest, the sun will melt ice?

    Of course the ice remains there because it’s cold at high altitudes. That’s how contrails, and clouds, don’t always immediately vanish at high altitudes. It’s very cold up there.

    By your reasoning, it would be impossible for clouds to EVER form, as the sun would immediately evaporate them. Perhaps you could explain how you think clouds can form out of thin air and last for hours, but contrails can not last more that a few seconds?

  15. ijostl says:

    That seems to me a poor example because the snow on that mountain top got there when it was snowing obviously. The snow in the photo did not just appear there because it is cold up there but during snowy weather.

    The jet trails however spread and grow into a haze that covers the entire sky from horizon to horizon – and all of it originating from the lines laid out by these jet aircraft. At the same time there is what appear to be normal air traffic with either no contrails or the very short ones that evaporate quickly.

    So your reasoning is that because there is snow on top of a mountain condensation now does not evaporate but grows into a blanket of thick haze cooling ground temperatures, lingering on for days?

  16. But where did the snow come from? More specifically where did the snow clouds come from? If sunlight will instantly evaporate ice crystals, then how can snow clouds form?

  17. The jet trails however spread and grow into a haze that covers the entire sky from horizon to horizon – and all of it originating from the lines laid out by these jet aircraft. At the same time there is what appear to be normal air traffic with either no contrails or the very short ones that evaporate quickly.

    Could explain why you think this should NOT happen? I mean it seems perfectly in keeping with the science. Could you provide ANY scientific reference that says that contrails should NOT spread out to cover the sky? Can you point to a science book, or encyclopedia article that explains why all contrails should evaporate quickly? Can you explain why all planes in the sky, regardless of engine type and altitude, should leave the exact same kind of contrail?

    What are you basing your theory on? What science? What books?

  18. JazzRoc says:

    CB:

    a) You do not know your history b) You are not informed regarding government policy c) You cannot debunk my points d) You are not willing to find sources yourself e) You do not understand the psychology of governments f) You lack the ability to think laterally g) You probably work for the government in some way shape or form OR are brain-washed by your own beliefs i do not intend to insult

    JazzRoc:

    you could have fooled me 🙂

    ijostl:

    You seem only insulting, vulgar and rude

    Hmmm. Quietly humorous was what I hoped for… let’s see what YOU offer up (done in a shortened form to reduce eyestrain – I hope you follow this):

    grid style – grids are caused by crossing shuttle routes – persistent trails – trail ice cannot sublime to vapor in an already vapor-saturated atmosphere – fanned out and eventually obliterated the blue sky – wing wave vortices and stratospheric layer shear do this over time, and this was first noticed during daylight bomber raids in 1943 – on a very hot day – it may be hot at ground level but it’s ALWAYS around -40 degrees where the trail is laid down.
    seemingly normal jet aircraft fly and have the seemingly normal short evaporating contrails – but the stratosphere is LAYERED and other layers may either be drier or wetter – dimming the sunlight – scientists reckon the dimming to be 40% but it’s only the sky local to the trail and not the whole of the world – manufactured haze – it may be “manufactured” but it is WATER and no more dangerous than your kettle – a bronze glow – I don’t know about yours, but my island’s Atlantic sunsets are frequently bronze – and for the same reason: water vapor.
    Obviously something clandestine is going on here – you offer no evidence for this assertion – the obvious weather effects are enough in themselves to warrant concern – not if you were to understand the science of your atmosphere – you folks assert “ice vapor that never evaporates” – you are confusing your terms. We don’t assert this, but that ice CRYSTALS CANNOT SUBLIME to vapor in the presence of an already high ambient vapor pressure.

    The trails do not melt but grow, therefore they can’t be ice.

    http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf says “The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 Kg per meter, between a thousand and ten thousand times greater than the water vapor released by the aircraft” which proves you as wrong as it is possible to be.

    ijostl:

    But please don’t respond and tell me ice grows in the sun. I may be stupid but I’m not that stupid.

    ijostl (again):

    Maybe so, or maybe there is more to know than what those who think they know do.

    In your case it is only possible to be accurate. Please take your own advice.

    You seem only insulting, vulgar and rude – bucking for the hypocrisy championship, are we? 🙂

  19. ijostl says:

    But where did the snow come from? More specifically where did the snow clouds come from? If sunlight will instantly evaporate ice crystals, then how can snow clouds form?

    The snow came from cold snowy weather. Condensation trails in the heat of summer weather are an entire different matter altogether and I fail to understand why you would make such a comparison.

    Thus far we could summarize our debate simply as follows:

    Me: Wow, look at how much air traffic there is lately and look at how their trails are lingering to blanket the entire sky, dimming the light, cooling the ground temperatures and lingering for days.

    You: It’s normal, nothing to worry about, here look at all these links proving you don’t know anything and you should go back to sleep.

    Me: But hold on a sec here dad, even if this is the result of regular air traffic why aren’t you concerned? Surely this is unnatural and can not be good.

    You: It’s normal, go back to sleep America, everything is Jim Dandy.

    Me: I think not sir.

  20. SR1419 says:

    are all basing their arguments on this one very unscientific idea, that ice in the sun and heat will not melt but grow

    Jostl. The air temp at flight altitude is anywhere from -30 below zero to -70 below zero.

    Why would you think that ice would melt?

  21. The snow came from cold snowy weather. Condensation trails in the heat of summer weather are an entire different matter altogether and I fail to understand why you would make such a comparison.

    In summer, that air above 30,000 feet is still cold. VERY cold. How cold do you think it is right now? You can find out. Over on the left there I’ve got a link to “Weather Aloft”, which you can click any time to see how cold it is up in the air above any part of America. Right now, Above San Diego, it’s -41F at 30000 feet, with a 31 MPH wind.

    http://www.usairnet.com/cgi-bin/Winds/Aloft.cgi?location=SAN&Submit=Get+Forecast&hour=06&course=azimuth

    Please, I urge you to check out this link. See what the temperature is at 30,000 to 34,000 feet. Ask yourself if a plane leaves a trail of frozen water vapor in air at -41F, then why is so unlikely that it stays there for a while, given that water normally turns to ice at +32F (73 degrees warmer)?

  22. ijostl says:

    Ask yourself if a plane leaves a trail of frozen water vapor in air at -41F, then why is so unlikely that it stays there for a while, given that water normally turns to ice at +32F (73 degrees warmer)?

    This “frozen water” doesn’t just stay there a while, it spreads out, blankets the sky, dims the sunlight, cools ground temperatures, and continues to to linger for days dimming also the starlight at night.

    But I think you’re focusing on the wrong issue, here’s why; because even if this stuff were the normal result of normal air traffic it still is affecting the weather to such a degree and constantly that we no longer know what Natural weather might be doing.

    With all the information on this site it is reasonable to expect you to understand this unnatural weather effect is indeed occurring and to champion “science” on this site and then never focus the attention on the alarming effects of constant artificial weather modification by this postured “normal” air traffic with an overall tone of sounding like you’re only interested in diminishing any concern about these effects.

    And I can’t understand why any scientist would ignore such an obvious issue.

    Anyway, be well and thank you.
    ijostl

  23. This “frozen water” doesn’t just stay there a while, it spreads out, blankets the sky, dims the sunlight, cools ground temperatures, and continues to to linger for days dimming also the starlight at night.

    Yes, it does (sometimes, depending on the dampness of the weather aloft), however a contrail from a single plane does not “last for days”. MANY planes fly the same route. Some of them are at contrail altitude. So over several days tens or even hundreds of planes could be laying contrails and contributing to the cloud layer known as “aviation induced cirrus”.

    Sure, it’s a concern. It affects sunlight, and contributes to “global dimming”. MANY scientific studies have been done into this, and many more are being done. Millions of dollars of research money has been spend on looking into this problem. I’ve written about it here. I have a link to a report on it:

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/Climate/ipcc/aviation/041.htm

    I’ve never tried to diminish the concerns, only to point out two things: 1) the effect is not deliberate, and 2) it’s not new.

    But that’s not really a focus of the site, I’m writing more about the science of contrail formation and persistence, and not so much the effect they have on the Earth. I also write about the “chemtrail” theory, and how it’s based on bad science.

  24. JazzRoc says:

    ijostl:

    it still is affecting the weather to such a degree and constantly that we no longer know what Natural weather might be doing

    http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf, which apparently you have studiously ignored, also concerns itself with this question:

    One must emphasize that, even if correct, this is a regional effect. We may summarize the various studies as follows:
    1) regional effects in the 1990s in the United States and Europe have a cover of 0.5%–2% with a maximum over Europe of 0.35%, and warming of 0.1–0.2 watts per square meter, and
    2) global effects that are about 0.1 of the regional values.
    These estimates are based upon the work of Minniset al. (1998), Ponater et al. (2002), Palikonda et al.
    (2002), and Minnis et al. (2004).
    The latter authors also project an aircraft scenario for 2050 that would produce a regional radiative forcing of 1.5 watts per square meter over Europe, a global coverage of 0.5%, and a radiative forcing of 0.05 watts per square meter.
    In short, the present-day effects are significant regionally but “in the noise” globally.

    “In the noise” means undetectable.
    Science may well remain undetectable to you if you don’t actually read replies to you here.
    And also if you search in search engines without excluding “chemtrail” and “aerosol” and “spray” in the “advanced search” option of the search engine, (due to the abuses which have been made of such words by “chemtrail” adherents).

  25. Suntour says:

    By ijostl:
    “But I think you’re focusing on the wrong issue”

    I think you are the one focusing on the wrong issue. You’re preaching to the choir, what this site is doing is debunking chemtrails, not weather alteration by contrail. I don’t know of one contrail debunker on this site or elsewhere that disagrees with the fact that large numbers of contrails have the ability to alter temperature and weather patterns.

  26. Jakeability says:

    JazzRoc-Interesting of you to point out how insignificant “0.5%-2%” is. Why don’t you apply this reasoning to the “fear-mongering, slanderous global warming” hoax? Since CO2 levels have risen from the preindustrial age of 0.02% of the atmosphere, to todays armageddon-ish level of 0.03%. Which ‘conspiracy theory’ has the most impact on our lives, ‘chemtrails’ or ‘anthropogenic global warming’.
    Third world nations cannot develop under current, let alone future legistation, requiring excessive increases in costs for things like energy,water, food production, maybe even breathing will be deemed “disaterous” for the environment….’Chemtrails’ don’t have the same legs as ‘Global warming’…Seems like you need to prioritize. 🙂

    “regional effects in the 1990s in the United States and Europe have a cover of 0.5%–2% with a maximum over Europe of 0.35%, and warming of 0.1–0.2 watts per square meter, and
    2) global effects that are about 0.1 of the regional values.
    These estimates are based upon the work of Minniset al. (1998), Ponater et al. (2002), Palikonda et al.
    (2002), and Minnis et al. (2004).
    The latter authors also project an aircraft scenario for 2050 that would produce a regional radiative forcing of 1.5 watts per square meter over Europe, a global coverage of 0.5%, and a radiative forcing of 0.05 watts per square meter”

  27. I don’t think JazzRoc said anything about it being insignificant regionally – the quote says that CURRENT GLOBAL effects are insignificant, that that may change by 2050.

    Note a change of C02 from 0.02% to 0.03% is a 50% increase in the amount of CO2, which quite obviously IS a significant amount.

    Contrails do have some effect on the weather, nobody is denying that, but that’s got nothing to do with the “chemtrail” theory.

  28. kgb says:

    “chemtrail theory” does not justify your “contrail hoax”

  29. Jakeability says:

    I hardly believe a .01% increase in CO2 over a 100 year period is significant enough to cut global population down to under 1 billion, as ‘climate change’ scientists are suggesting.

  30. I’m not sure what kind of point you are trying to make there Jake? CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 382 ppm, or 36% (meaning you are off by a factor of 3600x). The effect this will have on the Earth’s population is entirely unclear.

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html

  31. Jakeability says:

    Uncinus-At 280 ‘parts per million’ versus 382 ‘parts per million’, even though it is a 36% increase in CO2, what is the overall increase as a ‘percent of the atmosphere’?….Also, what do you think of this video?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbVZB5NlWBI

  32. 1 part per million is 100*1/1000000, or 0.0001%, so 280 parts per million is 100*280/1000000 = 0.028%, so the increase is from 0.0280% to 0.0382%

    But really the important figure here is an increase of 50% in the amount. If something has an effect, and you increase the amount by 50% then it’s going to have 50% more effect (simplistically, but you get the point).

    The video shows Dyn-o-gel, a proposed hurricane abatement method using diaper gel that did not seem to get off the ground, and personally I think was more of a scam to get federal funding (from my rather brief look into it). Then there’s a bit about “strange goo” falling from the sky, which has been happening for centuries, and then some guy’s car window covered with tree sap.

    Was there something specific in the video you had questions about?

  33. Stars15k says:

    I, too, have been given that same video to comment about on YT. Interesting, but not a thing conclusive to anything remotely part of the “chemtrail theory”. To see otherwise, requires many steps of logic that are clearly missing. I’ve researched a bit about it myself.
    1) Dyn-o-gel, was figured as requiring hundreds of tons of product delivered by hundreds of very large cargo planes to drop it, repeating the application every 1 1/2 hours. Not really very effective or efficient. Perhaps for a very small scale, but the use for hurricanes, which is what the producer was lobbying for, no. So it’s use in weather control has a proportional amount of actually working as you have heard about it recently……zero. While I didn’t originally think about a gov. grant type of scam, I agree with Uncinus on this point. It’s used in diapers, feminine hygeine, and potted plants. Nothing more.
    2) Anonymous goo falling from the sky and containing human white blood cells seems to have been forgotten about in the time since this story was produced, as the only source for “white blood cells in rain” gets no hits, other than this piece on YouTube.
    3) Ditto with the goo on the car. It happened in New Jersey just a few months ago and the only mention anywhere is the video posted on YouTube. I am not a reactionary type of person, but if I saw my car covered with goo, I would report it to be investigated to at least the press, the board of health, and the local university science department. Apparently she reported it only to YouTube. As most videos on YouTube are really there for entertainment value, or are not really to be relied upon for facts or scientific info, this video gives me great pause. Something that odd would surely have been reported on especially if more than one car/location was hit. Zero, zip, nada……nothing. I’m guessing it’s a prank, as dyn-a-gel type powder is available in garden shops at Walmart or in small packages at novelty stores to make your “friends” drinks gel into an undrinkable blob almost instantly. I admit to doing just that on many occasions. Some like minded, immature, person was pranking that person, possibly knowing it would be put down to “chemtrails” and blown up all out of proportions.

    Really, things on YouTube are as liable to be really true, clear, and factual as anything on the Comedy Channel, should be looked at with a grain of salt and needs further research done before believing them.

  34. There’s no way you can tell from the video that those jets are unmarked. Some are low flying jets, the high flying jet(s) leave contrails.

    Jets sometimes fly in patterns like this, for pilot training, or testing of the jets, or avionic equipment, see:

    https://contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/
    https://contrailscience.com/voodoo-contrails-over-los-angeles/
    https://contrailscience.com/modern-contrail-confusion/

    The trails they leave look and behave exactly like contrails.

  35. Virga says:

    Eric,

    According to US regulations in FAR part 45, registration marks on civil aircraft must be present on the aft side of the fuselage on both sides. The symbols must be at least 12 inch tall. (Read the FAR for more details)

    In case of most non-FAA aircraft, ICAO Annex 7 mentions that registration marks must be placed on the aft sides of the fuselage using 30 cm symbols and on the underside of a wing in 50 cm symbols.

    Do you really think you can spot such small letters on youtube quality video’s?

  36. Freeland says:

    How may photographs be submitted to your website? I’ve taken a number of interesting and puzzling pictures of anomalous objects emitting persistent contrails over the past few years.

    Thanks.

  37. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Just host them on somewhere like http://www.imagehosting.com/ and then post the links here.

  38. Freeland says:

    Here is the link to one set of images. The “object” producing the trails would not appear to be
    an FAA registered aircraft. I would be interested to know if anyone can explain the nature of this object —

    http://www.ufocasebook.com/2009c/laoct6.html

    Regards — Freeland

  39. What you are seeing is called “bokeh“. It’s two highlights of reflected sunlight on the plane that are out of focus. The irregular shape is caused by the aperture of your camera, the colors are color bleed caused by the lens not perfectly refracting all wavelengths of light the same amount.

  40. JazzRoc says:

    Which is what I would have said, except for the “bokeh” bit.

    It is always possible to set all but the cheapwast cameras to focus at infinity – forever eliminating such an error. A lot of UFO photography falls foul here…

  41. JazzRoc says:

    I suppose what’s interesting here is the “blue light scattering” effect.

    If the aircraft is dark in color, yet with ONE bright reflective point source of light on it, then when out-of-focus it will be rendered in such a fashion.

  42. Freeland says:

    I would have to take issue with the ” bokeh” analysis for the following reasons:

    1) the camera, a Nikon, was manually set on infinity. I have photographed hundreds of images of aircraft at high altitude and am not a total idiot. If you will look carefully, you can see that the contrail itself, although a fuzzy object to begin with, is in good focus. The examples of “bokeh” on the wikipedia page are of photographs where the focus is on a foreground object, the depth of field is shallow and so any objects further away from the camera are naturally out of focus. With focus set on infinity and a subject that is miles away, only foreground objects would be out of focus.

    2) the pictures were taken after sunset, and hence there was no source of light that would produce highlights. Having taken a lot of photographs of aircraft at altitude under widely varying conditions, I have on occasion gotten images with strong glints of light off the wings or fuselage, but I have never gotten an images where the aircraft itself was invisible and only the highlights were seen. there is absolutely not the faintest trace of an aircraft to be seen in the images under discussion.

    3) as for the lens “not perfectly refracting all wavelengths of light the same amount.” the lens is a high quality Nikon lens costing more than $1,000. In all the pictures I’ve taken with that lens, and its large number, I have never had any issues with chromatic abberation, unless shooting directly into the sun and deliberately causing lens flares, and lens flares look nothing like the image under discussion.

    Taking these facts into account, I don’t think “bokeh” will suffice.

    I am sending a couple of other images I’ve taken of somewhat similar phenomena directly to you email, Uncinus. I hope you will post them.

    Best — Freeland

  43. 1) The trail is NOT in focus. It’s blurry, compare with:

    2) After sunset high flying aircraft can still be illuminated by the sun, in fact that’s the time why you are more likely to get these kind of highlights.

    3) Try shooting some reflective highlights, say on cars in the distance, with that lens, and see what the bokeh looks like.

  44. Shilltastic says:

    Wow, it is QUITE obvious that the picture is TERRIBLE. How can anyone even TRY to justify it with a “cost of camera/lens” argument?! It reminds me of the “orb” videos I see on youtube. Especially by the user called “humanswin”. It’s just SO obvious that the picture is of VERY low quality.

  45. Freeland says:

    1) How sharp is sharp? Your bokeh analysis to be valid would imply that my image is utterly and totally out of focus. Bokeh are objects so out of focus as to simply be reduced to circular artifacts. As I said, the camera was set on infinity. Having done that, an object at distance would be properly focused. The object was many miles away, at dusk and at considerable altitude as well; under those conditions obviously you are going to get a certain amount of atmospheric light scattering and a somewhat softened image. The example you have used is of an aircraft almost overhead in bright daylight — apples & oranges.

    2) If, as you maintain, these are reflective highlights, where is the object the highlights are reflecting from? Or any trace of it? Secondly, as for the purported reflections themselves: this object was travelling south to north – the sun had set – I was viewing the east facing side of the object. If it were possible for the sun, which was below the horizon, to illuminate this object, it could only be illuminating the side facing the sun, not the side facing the camera. Further, if the sun below the horizon was illuminating anything, it would be illuminating the trail itself as well, no doubt with a red or orange glow, as we commonly see at sunset.

    3) If you can, show me any images of aircraft exhibiting “bokeh” similar to my photograph.

    Best — Freeland

  46. Freeland, I’ve uploaded your other photos and email description here:

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

    There’s really only three photos, with two enlargements. The last photo just seems to show lens flare. The previous one is probably some smaller object closer to the camera that just happened to be in frame. You said it does not show up in the other shots 0.3 seconds apart, so that seems most likely to me.

    The first photo is maybe the most interesting as it illustrates the effect of Rayleigh scattering on a dark plane on a hazy day – making the plane blend in with the sky. There’s a bright dot, but again that’s probably just a reflected highlight. You can still see the vague triangle of the plane.

    I note the images were taken with a Sony DSC-V3, a rather old and low resolution camera, which might also explain the difficulty in making out the plane.

    Now again, compare you images to the image I posted, above. It’s not difficult to get good quality images of planes – so why do you think these visual artifacts only show up on the poorer quality images? Could it possibly be that when the image is of sufficient quality, then you can see it’s actually quite innocuous?

  47. Freeland says:

    Well, Shill — In your expert opinion, what exactly did this benighted photographer photograph?

    The justification is not in the equipment. Someone made a comment about all but the cheapest cameras being able to set focus manually. I responded to that. Focus was set. The equipment is not faulty.

    If you are such a hardened sceptic, why do you waste your time looking at useless Youtube videos?

    Best — Freeland

  48. 3) If you can, show me any images of aircraft exhibiting “bokeh” similar to my photograph.

    To do that most accurately I’d need to know what camera you were using, and the exposure information. DO you have the original image from the camera?

  49. 1) How sharp is sharp? Your bokeh analysis to be valid would imply that my image is utterly and totally out of focus. Bokeh are objects so out of focus as to simply be reduced to circular artifacts. As I said, the camera was set on infinity. Having done that, an object at distance would be properly focused. The object was many miles away, at dusk and at considerable altitude as well; under those conditions obviously you are going to get a certain amount of atmospheric light scattering and a somewhat softened image. The example you have used is of an aircraft almost overhead in bright daylight — apples & oranges.

    Not true at all, it only needs to be slightly out of focus, as you would see if you did the experiment I suggested, which I just did.

    Parking lot about a third of a mile away, see the highlights on the cars:

    Same view slightly out of focus, bokeh, similar to yours

    Same view fully out of focus, no bokeh:

    A wider view of the second shot, to show it is only slightly out of focus:

  50. Freeland says:

    Yes, I have original files for all my photographs. I also have all the data, but I don’t think I am going to engage any further in back & forth here. It’s a one way street and you’ve got all the straw men set up to be knocked down.

    Time will tell.

    Best — Freeland

  51. Shilltastic says:

    Oh boy…here we go…

    I never claimed to be an expert about ANYTHING. So don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t NEED to be an expert to know that the picture is crap. And I don’t “waste my time” looking at youtube videos, I SPEND my time doing whatever I WANT to do. Someone directed me to those ridiculous orb videos and they were VERY entertaining. To know that so many people can be so easily duped makes me weep though. I also never said the equipment was faulty, I was simply suggesting HUMAN error. Again, it’s quite obvious. And it looks like the trend continues with MORE blurry pictures…Thanks for posting them.

    About “chemtrails”…I’m also NOT an expert on the subject, but I do accept the facts that I had learned through my education on the subject as truth. Being educated in a subject does NOT make one an expert. An expert dedicates their careers to a specific subject, I am far too well rounded to consider myself an expert in anything. But, don’t for a second believe that your internet education has taught you more about “chemtrails” than I know. Because if you had learned anything of value, you would understand that they are persistent contrails.

  52. That’s okay, I managed to reproduce your results anyway. See photos above

  53. Shilltastic says:

    “It’s a one way street and you’ve got all the straw men set up to be knocked down. ”

    Pot, meet Kettle

  54. That was actually quite interesting, I slapped on my 200mm lens, (only $350, but still fairly good), and took a series of photos of that scene showing the bokeh at various points. Here’s the full sequence. Note that it’s not been enlarge, just cropped, so those are actual the pixels. The bokeh seems most similar to Freeland’s bokeh in the first few images, when it’s only a bit out of focus.

    https://contrailscience.com/images/Bokeh-progression.jpg

  55. JazzRoc says:

    Freeland:

    Time will tell.

    Maybe not in your case. I don’t think you understand your camera optics (which may have a slight fault), why a high-flying aeroplane can still be illuminated by the sun after sunset, and blue-light scattering. “Straw men”, eh?

    More concerning is the “investment” you have made in these mistakes with a FOURTH mistake, all of your own.

    Good luck… 🙂

  56. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Not meaning to sound rude, but if your kit is that expensive, Freeland, then it might be worth getting some lessons to use it better.

    Or maybe you just play with the settings to get some more interesting results.

    But seriously, they’re some pretty shocking quality photos. How you can claim that that first photo is in focus is beyond me.

  57. Suntour says:

    By Freeland:
    “but I don’t think I am going to engage any further in back & forth here.”

    It takes a big person to realize when they’ve been defeated.

  58. mickey says:

    Hi Uncinus, everyone,

    Well, I’m going to say a couple of things here, you’ll all have to judge for yourself whether my words are accurate, or relevant to this discussion. There’s a lot of faulty logic and unrequited presumption going around, but I hope to circumvent addressing all that by going straight to the heart of the matter (lol that’s a funny way to put it if I may say so myself).

    The bottom line argument in favor of chemtrails seems to be that a proper conspiracy simulates ordinary events. Hehe, that’s convenient, isn’t it? But hey, you can’t blame the chemtrail believers – it’s not an excuse to need no evidence – it’s just that the nature of conspiracies will complicate matters – both for the practice of debunking them, as well as for the practice of proving them. On the other hand, I’ve found that the bottom line argument for those in favor of contrails seems to be that if the observations can be explained by contrails, they cannot be chemtrails. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, but if I’m not, I must stress that inclusion of one does not mean exclusion of the other. Too often do I hear the argument “it could just as easily be contrails, so it’s contrails”. If that conclusion was reached by the invocation of occam’s razor, I must protest – all things are not equal; the difference is that one theory is placed in the framework of a larger conspiracy theory.

    Anyway, I’m drifting off-subject. Science requires us to reproduce or falsify, or at least attempt to. Unlike in a court of law, there is no defendant, and no proscecutor to saddle with the burden of proof; it is not enough to defend one’s hypothesis – or even to discredit alternative hypotheses, for the search for understanding of the truth doesn’t stop at the before the boundary of the mind, whether that mind be deluded or enlightened.

    Therefore, from what I can understand, what we seek is proof. One could prove, on the basis of current scientific knowledge, that chemtrails cannot possibly simulate contrails. However, even that gives us no guarantees, since a distinction between public and private knowledge has been claimed. Another, perhaps easier way to go about it would be to disprove the conspiracy theory, but I understand that Uncinus has no interest or motivation to go there. On the other side of the front, what is required is the simulation of contrails by use of chemtrails, as well as proof of chemtrail spraying (whether systematic or incidential, depending on the hypothesis). If any of the above conditions are not met, tests such as atmospheric sampling, flight-plan analysis, etc. etc., are only good for deductive reasoning, which is quite inferior in my estimation.

    It seems that chemtrail believers have the natural advantage of proving the emergent theory, which furthermore is much more expansive, requiring a much wider range of observations to be disproved, whereas contrail believers are burdened with defending the established theory. Another difficulty is the fact that evidence is not automatically admissible if the source is in dispute, or if there’s reason to believe the evidence is incomplete. Regardless of difficulty or plausability, no excuses can be made.

    Unfortunately for me, chemistry nor meteorology are my forte, so I wouldn’t know the truth in this matter if it bit me in the ass. I will say that although I really don’t know what to think of chemtrails, I very much believe in undisclosed, ongoing experimentation with aerosol-based weather modification, as well as a host of other conspiracy ‘theories’. But that is not important (although I will certainly appreciate it if you can quote my errors and prejudice); My hope is merely that Uncinus and all visitors will see that it serves no one to merely content oneself with shooting down another’s arguments.

  59. Shilltastic says:

    Well, when one accuses thousands of people who work within the aviation/meteorology fields of being part of a plan to spray people like bugs, and cover it up, one should have some evidence to support the accusations. Sorry, there is ZERO evidence to back up the claims of the chemtards. Just paranoid internet based junk. The burden of proof is on those who say there are chemicals being “sprayed”. Not those who accept the scientific explanation backed by millions of hours of research. What the people online call “research”, when they accept the “chemtrail” myth, is nothing but biased information gathering. It’s sad.

    “Another difficulty is the fact that evidence is not automatically admissible if the source is in dispute, or if there’s reason to believe the evidence is incomplete.”

    Damn right! And that is the whole point!

  60. JazzRoc says:

    mickey:

    it serves no one to merely content oneself with shooting down another’s arguments

    It’s a constant source of amazement to me how “truthseekers” continually and consistently find only falsehood. Surely once in a while one might find a common agreement?
    Here’s a case in point.
    The very persistence of persistent contrails is what has begun this issue.
    Their persistence is claimed as proof of their material-bearing nature – in spite of their possessing this quality since the first time such a trail was laid down – in 1921 – by a WW1 biplane.
    We can give you chapter and verse on how these trails have always been ICE.
    We can point out the GAP in the trail as a clear pointer to ONLY GASES in the trail.
    “No” you say, “that’s a contrail, it’s the unmarked military tankers that are laying chemtrails” – and show us pictures of high-flying passenger jets trailing persistent contrails which because of “Rayleigh scattering” are rendered devoid of detail.
    The plain fact is that you understand far too little of your world to safely draw conclusions.
    That isn’t any fault of ours. Here we are concerned with the science of the atmosphere.
    Science isn’t a belief system (in fact it’s a non-belief system), and essentially it’s non-negotiable. The laws of Physics cannot be changed to conform with your “dot-joining”.
    So, if you maintain there are “chemtrails” you’d better come up with pictures of aircraft with trails OTHER than persistent contrails (and not the little dribble that comes out of the toilets, thanks), preferably with analyzed high-altitude samples.
    It’s called “evidence”.
    Science requires this, and the name of this site is?

  61. mickey says:

    I’m not accusing thousands of people of conspiring, nor do I think that’s necessary. If that’s what you’re thinking, I’d like to how you are excluding all other possibilities. Besides, you’re mixing the problem of assigning guilt with the problem of exposing falsehood with the problem of exploring the possibilities of truth. That is not wisdom.

    As for disputing evidence, this is what I meant: When it comes to conspiracy thinking, we cannot simply accept data coming from government or private institutions at face value. No matter how idiotic a crackpot’s claims, that doesnt allow us to lower our standards. The relevant example is that when government releases information on weather-modification programs and technology, we cannot simply accept that information at face value – not because we mistrust governments, but because we must adhere to scientific rigor. Those are unfair demands yes, but I think uncinus has never lost his cool in the face of them. I can’t say the same of you, Shilltastic.

    … or of Jazzroc. I don’t know if I should dignify you with a response. You seem to put words in my mouth I never said. When did I say that I believe in everything that every other chemtrail-believer believes in? Besides, the main focus of my post was the bottom-line argument, and the requirements for common agreement. You’d do well to address those things, rather than waste time on attacking irrelevant peripherals. It’s unfortunate that, due to the nature of the issue – namely conspiracy aspect of the accusations that are going around – those requirements are too steep. Does that in any way justify the way you welcome a newcomer like me?

    My point wasn’t to get to the bottom of this immediately. It was to establish the bottom line so that we don’t have to get angry over what we can’t rightfull claim we know. You claim that science gives us certainty, but I’m afraid you’re not being exacting enough. For example, electromagnetism as we know it in question as we speak. There’s much we don’t understand, and much more we only think we understand. So for the sake of civility, I’d like to directly ask you to tone it down a bit.

    Again, it serves no one when you villify someone for their beliefs, no matter how outrageous.

  62. JazzRoc says:

    Mickey:

    Besides, the main focus of my post was the bottom-line argument, and the requirements for common agreement

    And the main focus of my response was that “requirements for common agreement” are that you conform to the rules of Physics, and not the converse.
    You aren’t arguing with me, but with the rules of evidence that Physics and logic demand.
    And for your edification, to accurately describe the position you’re in is NOT to vilify you – we must all have occupied such a position before we moved on.
    You can move on by learning more about the atmosphere and gas turbines than you presently know. It worked for me…

  63. mickey says:

    JazzRoc, I hadn’t even begun to make my position clear, and you were already dumping on it. Stating that a certain fields of study are not my “forte” is all you had to go on. You never bothered to read my posts closely enough to come to the realization that I’m not putting forward the same arguments as everyone else. I never mentioned gas turbines, commercial aeroplanes, expansive conspiracies, or anything that the average chemtrail believer brings up. So what technical arguments did I put forward? What rules of physics did I disregard, specifically?

    Also, you didn’t bother to actually address the points that I DID make.

    It’s true that I gave you little to go on – I was merely testing the waters – but it has revealed much about your disposition. Presumptuousness does not befit a man of science, much less when assumed to service your prejudice towards me.

    Villify:
    1 : to lower in estimation or importance

  64. tarhim says:

    @mickey

    “When it comes to conspiracy thinking, we cannot simply accept data coming from government or private institutions at face value.”

    But most of data on this site come from peer-reviewed publications, and you really can’t explain why scientific community basically unanimously disproves any chemtrail claims without invoking vast global conspiracy.

  65. mickey says:

    While peer-review is very important indeed, it is far from fool-proof, and failure in the peer-review process does not invoke a global conspiracy by any means. In fact, there are daily findings in all fields of science that obsolete the conclusions of peer-reviewed and generally accepted research. Normally, this fact does not merit our attention until the adverse effects become apparent. For example, many of the various pollutants, pharmaceutical drugs, and other harmful products that have been banned in due course originally passed peer-review.

    Besides, while not questioning peer-reviewed publications is certainly practical in most cases, when the scale of controversy increases, so must the standards of scrutiny. Whether the controversy can be justified is beside the point – when proof is demanded, it must be supplied, or we must eventually accept that we cannot establish certain things as fact in the interests of national security (accept for scientific purposes at least).

    Maybe I should give an example. The information we have about the HAARP project is not easy to verify. Furthermore, the science that is involved, as I mentioned before, is changing as we speak. Our scientific understanding of electromagnetism seems to be on the point of a break-through, and that is starting to emerge in mainstream media. Therefore, I would hesitate to make assertions about the capabilities of HAARP, until they can be properly verified.

    I’m sorry to see that others do not share my cautious approach. I can understand – we do not live in a perfect world, but we like to imagine we do. That does not call for a violent reaction into the spectrum of paranoid conspiracy thinking, but neither should it inhibit us from questioning what is generally accepted as a given.

    Finally, I see no benefit in ostracizing the boy that cried wolf.

  66. Shilltastic says:

    Do YOU exclude the possibility that the white trail coming out of your tailpipe in the winter time is marshmallow fluff?! If so, why?! Because KNOWN SCIENCE tells you it’s NOT and you’d have to be an idiot to think it’s fluff. Correct? So why wouldn’t I accept what known science says these trails are?! Where is the incentive to believe anything else? GFo ahead and WATE your time entertaining all the paranoid BS. I have no reason to believe that the trails are anything but water vapor. I’ll even go so far as to say I can tell just by the way some of these people talk when they make these “chemtrail” videos that they didn’t even pass 3rd grade science. Why would I give their ridiculous and pathetic theories more than a minute of thought?! And i REALLY mean that. It’s OBVIOUS that 99% of the people who push the paranoid drivel on youtube about “HAARP” and “government spray programs” are ABSOLUTELY clueless about their own atmosphere. I’ll go so far as to call them stupid, because they are. It’s not MY fault they make ridiculous claims about subjects they aren’t educated in! They deserve to be mocked for posting CRAP as “fact”. There are BASICS in science that cannot be disputed, and everything that tells us that the trails coming out of jet engines are contrails, is BASED in basic science. It’s not about vague science. It’s about simple 3rd grade VERIFIABLE FACT.

  67. Shilltastic says:

    Also, and I’m still writing to Mickey, I don’t understand WHY you are defending these evil scum who go around accusing others, including members of their OWN government, of trying to harm others only to fuel their own agenda! Even those who aren’t saying it’s some sort of poison are often pushing some “anti-global warming” solution that they claim is going to harm us unintentionally, again based on the accusers COMPLETE lack of education in the subjects of aviation and meteorology. Why SHOULDN’T these people be publicly mocked and ostracized?! They are defaming VERY smart and talented people in an effort to make them look EVIL or “stupid”. when in fact, it’s the chemtards that couldn’t be more ignorant if they wanted to be. I am ALL FOR ridiculing these scientific illiterates until they take the time to learn the basic scientific facts that prove them paranoid and ridiculous! I had to spend MY time in a classroom learning the facts from people who are trained to be educators. Why should these morons, and I do mean that word with all of my heart, be able to “learn” from youtube videos and then spread the ignorance and not be called on it?! How DARE you defend the ignorance of the uneducated! Everything they whine about from grid patterns to gaps, to altitude inconsistencies has been explained to them MANY times and they just CAN’T grasp it! It’s not MY fault they are the modern day equivalent of the village idiots! But, as we know, they are much more than stupid…they are evil. They are spreading this ignorance, and lies, in a campaign to push OTHER morons into a revolution against the supposed evil that is “spraying” them. Sorry, I will NOT sit by while people I love are being accused of wrongdoing that isn’t even happening! There simply isn’t ANY evidence to back their claims…NONE! You watch some of the chemtard videos on youtube and tell me these people aren’t USING this “chemtrail” crap to make others angry. It’s OBVIOUS! Again, how DARE you defend the actions of these “people”! These people don’t use words like ” I think this and that” They claim to KNOW that “the government” is harming us! That is TREASON! I have an OBLIGATION to ostracize them!

    I apologize for my harsh language but I just can’t stand people who defend liars.

  68. Unfortunately, insulting people is not a very good way to discuss things, regardless of the lack of merit on their side of the argument. Insulting people simply serves to polarize the discussion.

    Mickey, science is ever changing. But the science behind contrail formation is very well established, tested and verified by thousands of scientists, and proven time and time again to explain exactly what people are calling contrails.

    Now, while there is obviously a faint chance that the government is spraying things, there’s absolutely no actual evidence that they are doing so. All the photos and video are fully consistent with contrails. All tests done show normal levels of chemicals in the environment. So while one should never dismiss any theory 100%, I think it’s quite safe to be 99.99% sure that what people are seeing are regular contrails.

    So given that, there really is no burden on scientists, or the government, to “supply proof” simply because a large number of people have a particular unusual idea. Should any unusual idea that has 10,000 follower require some kind of government investigation? What about all those people (and there are a lot of them) who think that they were abducted by aliens? Should there be some proof that this is not happening?

    No, in order for you to have any expectation of someone providing evidence that something is not happening, you first need to provide some evidence that it is.

  69. mickey says:

    That is a false analogy. Furthermore, how do you verify that all emission from coming out of jets are contrails? Have you somehow omnisciently analyzed every instance? If not, how did you establish this “fact”? I don’t need you to answer that. I’m merely showing that the intent behind your assertions are is to make an irrelevant point, or worse, rather than to engage in a scientific discussion.

    Furthermore, they do not deserve no such treatment, just as you do not deserve to be mocked for the way you have misjudged and mistreated me. This logic of punishing rather than discussing ignorance only leads to barbarism.

    Government spray programs do exist and have been admitted to, by government. The question is not whether contrails are chemtrails or not – that seems to be a waste of time. The question is, or in your case, should be: Are there running operations at present, and what is the nature and extent of those present and past programs? Engagin in a proper investigation seems to be a better investment of your time than writing exclamation-mark riddled posts on this website.

    For example, if you are interested in anything more than insulting chemtrail believers, you would take the time to investigate the many leads that are given. For example, regarding Monika Griefahn, uncinus writes:

    [quote]Is she not part of the government? Do you have the full text of her letter? I see nothing about contrails, only “Instead of making a concerted and determined effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, experiments of various kinds are being carried out in the earth’s atmosphere in order to cure the symptoms“, which could mean anything from carbon trading to giant mirrors in space. [/quote]

    That is sorely lacking as far as rebuttals go. Again, this seems more important to be handled as a judicial issue – the question should not be “can the proscecutor supply the evidence”, but rather: “what can be done in cooperation, to investigate these claims”.

    There’s also this:

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

    Here’s an excerpt:

    [quote]Baker said: ‘I welcome the fact that the Government has finally released this information, but question why it has taken so long. It is unacceptable that the public were treated as guinea pigs without their knowledge, and I want to be sure that the Ministry of Defence’s claims that these chemicals and bacteria used were safe is true.’

    The MoD report traces the history of the UK’s research into germ warfare since the Second World War when Porton Down produced five million cattle cakes filled with deadly anthrax spores which would have been dropped in Germany to kill their livestock. It also gives details of the infamous anthrax experiments on Gruinard on the Scottish coast which left the island so contaminated it could not be inhabited until the late 1980s. The report also confirms the use of anthrax and other deadly germs on tests aboard ships in the Caribbean and off the Scottish coast during the 1950s. The document states: ‘Tacit approval for simulant trials where the public might be exposed was strongly influenced by defence security considerations aimed obviously at restricting public knowledge. An important corollary to this was the need to avoid public alarm and disquiet about the vulnerability of the civil population to BW [biological warfare] attack.’

    Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: ‘Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

    ‘The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.’

    Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’ [/quote]

    I hope this will be enough to show you that not all is as it seems in this world. I hope it shows the gravity of the matter. A gravity that I do not detect in you. A gravity that chemtrail believers do posses, even though they fall short in other ways.

    Like many others, I came by this place by accident, and although it lacks the interdisciplinarity (for lack of better words) to compose a complete picture of all the going-ons, or even the possibilities, I truly like what I see, if only because it demands that the quality of the evidence to match the seriousness of the allegations that are made. Uncinus has contributed to one side of the issue, and has done so with rigorousness and dignity, as have a few other visitors of both convictions. I wish he would investigate the other side of the issue with equal passion, but that is his prerogative. I’m sorry I have to reserve such praise to a mere handful of individuals.

    In conclusion, it is unfortunate that people like uncinus do not have the time or inclination to pursue the matter further – to complete an exhaustive investigation. It is fortunate for me that there is more than one way to skin a cat. But what I find most lamentable is that people like you and JazzRoc have let themselves be so riled by conspiracy theorists, that you no longer make an appreciable contribution at all anymore.

    I guess that’s all I have to say. I realize that I haven’t done much more than berate you for you rancour, but this is a site about contrails after all, and there’s only so much I can say about that. Good luck to you all.

  70. mickey says:

    Hi uncinus,

    Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. I do expect that the science of contrails is well established, and I also expect that nearly all visible trails are contrails, although for all I’ve seen, neither would I be entirely surprised if the contrary were true.

    But although the science of contrails is established, there are various inquiries that I unfortunately will not be making in full. One might theorize about engine, metallurgical, chemical, and microbiological technologies that allow for implementation in commercial aviation, on various aircraft components. If such a thing were possible, I expect that, given the tests that have already been performed, it would either be on an extremely limited scale, or of a nature that does not expose itself with tests already. Then again, I find estimations of logistical difficulty in perpetrating a global conspiracy unconvincing, for they are crude and little more than logical musings.

    But this is nothing more than my imagination, since by now it should be obvious that l lack the expertise to elaborate further. I don’t require you to discount these possibilities (unless of course you enjoy doing so). Rest assured, I put little weight in them.

    I find you are a man that can be reasoned with, and I concede the argument for reasons of practicality, and (in my eyes at least) probability. The only criticism I could possibly level at you is ‘conveniently’ ignoring certain evidence, and the failure to pursue the implications. Of course, that is criticism that requires you to undertake very inconventient actions to answer, and so I feel you aren’t deserving of it at all, it in light of your composure and willingness to weather the storm, so to speak. Enjoy your site, and be compassionate. Salute and good luck.

  71. I try not ignore evidence, indeed I try to seek out as much evidence as possible. But this site is really about the visible trails that some people call “chemtrails”, but I strongly suspect are simply contrails. Hence I try to find evidence, pro and con, around that discussion.

    Now people bring up things like the MOD in the UK spreading possibly harmful tracking material as part of germ warfare tests decades ago, some from planes, and they try to link this to the visible trails all over the world. I’m sorry, but without evidence that the trails are any different to regular contrails, there’s really no reason to us this as supporting evidence.

    The MOD also used truck mounted dispensers for the same purpose – so should we now be demanding investigations of truck exhausts?

    I’d be happy to discuss evidence, but really what I’m interested in is evidence that some trails are in fact different to regular contrails. So far this evidence has been lacking.

  72. Shilltastic says:

    “That is a false analogy”.

    How so?!

    “They” say there are “chemicals” and there is no proof. I could say it’s marshmallow fluff and there is an EQUAL lack of proof. Prove me wrong. Why would I have to prove that “all of the emission from coming out of jets are contrails”?! There is NO EVIDENCE to the contrary so what is there to prove? That’s like me asking you to prove that there isn’t ONE trail out there that isn’t made of marshmallow fluff. It’s a ridiculous argument. You can’t prove my wrong, so I’m not wrong? Is that how you want to play?!

    “Government spray programs do exist and have been admitted to, by government.”

    Yes, so that means that people all around the world can make the claim that what they see in the sky is part of these “programs” without any proof. Sorry, in my book that is known as a lie (or how about a mistake?). There isn’t any evidence to support their claim. There is plenty of peer reviewed science to show that its a LOGICAL ASSUMPTION to believe any line in the sky is a contrail. And when you say “program” are you referring to the past instances where the government admits to TESTING The ability of other countries to “spray” us in war time? Please show me where ANY such test resulted in a long line of vapor that OBVIOUSLY comes from the engines on the plane. ANY evidence that states any such thing and I will never argue about contrails again.

    Please don’t stoop to my level and whine about my writing style in some lame effort to discredit me. Look at the content of my message, not the way it’s presented. I will put as many exclamation points in my post as I want. I apologized for my shortcomings, maybe you should. Let’s start with your lack of education in the fields of meteorology and aviation. Two subjects that I expect ALL who discuss this hoax in depth to have studied. I HAVE investigated THOUSANDS of leads from youtube, rense, carnicom and so on and on. I don’t just dismiss the rantings of the chemtrail believers as they do with the verifiable science. That is the point here…there just is absolutely ZERO evidence to support their claims…NONE! Please don’t assume that I haven’t looked into the claims, that just isn’t true. I have spent the last 3 years of my life looking at the ridiculous claims these people make and I see NO reason to change my mind.

    Can you prove the sun isn’t yellow because it’s made of butter? Can anyone physically prove it? If I made a video on youtube making such a claim and providing VERY circumstantial evidence to support my claim, SHOULD I expect to be ostracized for making such a claim? But that is exactly what would happen. And would you blame others for giving me the business about such a ridiculous claim if you had knowledge and understanding about the true facts about the sun? Well, now you know how those of us who understand contrails feel. Of course I can’t claim that not a single trail contains chemicals but the complete lack of evidence to the contrary is a VERY powerful truth. Yeah, bad analogies, you refuse to give me any credit simply because I refuse to give you any. I’m fine with that.

    I also find it VERY amusing that so many people focus on what is happening in the sky while ignoring the REAL problems of chemicals being introduced right down here at ground level. There are literally BILLIONS of sources of harmful chemicals all around us and so many are looking up like the trails are the only source of pollution. I’m sorry, but too many people are looking past the true dangers in their lives only to focus on the absurd. Again, prove me wrong….with actual evidence, please.

    Again, if they didn’t present their paranoid views as “facts” or “truth” and stated them as opinions, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem with these people. But that just isn’t the case. It wouldn’t have the impact they want if they actually admitted that they don’t know if they are right or wrong.

    “In conclusion, it is unfortunate that people like uncinus do not have the time or inclination to pursue the matter further – to complete an exhaustive investigation.” What a disgusting statement. It’s as if you assume those who do not see things the way YOU see them, just haven’t spent enough time researching the “facts” that you have. Sorry, you are just plain wrong. I could say the same thing to you about my sun/butter theory and would have just as much meaning.

  73. mickey says:

    Hi guys. I’ll be posting one more time here.

    Uncinus, I know you don’t mean to ignore leads, so when I said ‘conveniently’ it is from the viewpoint of taking the investigation as far as is possible, right down to the very last truck, as you imply. As I said, I don’t expect you to do such a thing, and no disrespect is intended. But yes, we should be demanding investigation truck exhausts if anomalous observations are made, no matter how farfetched they seem. That is not to say contrails have not been sufficiently investigated. In turn, that is not to say contrails are not or will never be used to spray aerosols.

    Shilltastic, I appreciate that you’ve changed your tone towards me slightly. I’ll try to answer you.

    You may believe you have no reason to differentiate a new visitor such as myself from the average chemtrail believer. You’re free to be as hostile or use as many exclamation marks as you like. However, that discourages someone like me to hold a normal, civil conversation with you. So unless your only purpose here is to offend chemtrail believers, and maybe even the incidental curious visitor who has never heard of chemtrails, I think it’ll be beneficial if you stopped to learn a little about the new guy first. If I mention the number of exclamation marks in your post, it’s only to illustrate how tedious it is to read your message, not to somehow make a connection between your writing style and the veracity of your claims. After all, how can I be writing this if I didn’t focus on the content of your message as well? Again, I hope you realize you don’t have to write like that to disprove my words. Why not write like uncinus?

    As for your analogies, I say they are false because although butter-suns and marshmellow-contrails are certainly bizarre enough to warrant looking into, I would guess that most humans will agree they are slightly more bizarre than the claims of chemtrails. More to the point, you have not ascribed any dangers to the phenomena you mentioned, whereas the reason for the outrage among chemtrail-believers is that they believe they phenomenon carries adverse health-effects.

    Remember, I’m not defending their claims – that is beyond my capacity at the moment. I was merely aware of their claims before I came here, and was defending their person for reasons I already explained. I do not believe conspiracy theorists are not evil, or that their ideas are not spawned of malice. I believe that, in the end, they are concerned citizens like the rest of us. I don’t regard them any differently than any other person who discriminates against other people – a lot of the time, they simply don’t know better, even if they should.

    So yes, I do refuse to give credit for that analogy, or for your conduct, which by your own admission is less than ideal. I refuse to give you credit for your false assumptions about me; That I somehow implied that the specific example I provided proves, rather than merely lends credence, to all or any claims that other individuals have made, rather than to unspecified possibilities (not necessarily being the ones that I proposed); That our difference of opinion creates an assumption rather than a consideration on my part. If I can’t prove you wrong, I can’t prove you wrong, that is all. I shall have to continue to gather evidence, appeal to inductive reasoning, or pursue any other course of action. I accept my shortcomings – that I have no case to present, that I possibly sounds very patronizing, and that I have I’m ignorant of any other shortcomings that I might have revealed here. (I should say at this point that during the course of a few posts here, I’ve had a lot of good laughs. It’s a pity I can’t easily share the sentiment. I might not sound it, but I’m generally good humoured). I hope that’s what you were looking for.

    Finally, if you still believe I’m the same as every other chemtrail-believer, I advise you to go back to my previous posts and read them again, carefully. Try to isolate the passages that correspond with the standard chemtrail-paradigm. I hope you’ll be able to find the differences, that I’m not a connect-the-dot theorist. I don’t force the puzzle-pieces when they don’t fit. Of course I’ll agree that there are other dangers that merit more attention, and any other proof or argument, if I can summon the will to endure the presentation thereof. and while I’ll believe you when you’ve say you’ve done your share of investigation, I can only hope that you were more diligent than in your initial assesment of myself. Maybe you will consider greeting future chemtrail stories in the same way I’ve answered you in spite of your rudeness: without compromise, but with a minimum of civility.

    Well, that’s all I have to say.

  74. mickey says:

    Just a correction:

    *I do not believe conspiracy theorists are evil, or that their ideas are spawned of malice.

  75. Shilltastic says:

    “As for your analogies, I say they are false because although butter-suns and marshmellow-contrails are certainly bizarre enough to warrant looking into, I would guess that most humans will agree they are slightly more bizarre than the claims of chemtrails.”

    Hehe, if you understood contrails and the claims of the chemtards you would agree that my analogies are perfect. The chemtrail claims are as bizarre as it gets!

    “I do not believe conspiracy theorists are evil, or that their ideas are spawned of malice”

    Oh, then you haven’t watched some of the videos I’ve watched. Especially by the so-called “patriots” who are calling for revolution BECAUSE of the “spray program that targets the people”. Do you understand that a revolution is treason?

    Believe what you want to, and I’ll believe facts.

    By the way, when you are able to find ONE bit of evidence to support the chemtard belief, please let me know. I have yet to see any. All I see are lies, assumptions and mistakes.

  76. But yes, we should be demanding investigation truck exhausts if anomalous observations are made, no matter how farfetched they seem.

    So really the question is: have “anomalous observations” been made?

    See that’s really at the heart of the matter here. Chemtrail theorists claim that these anomalous observations have been made. Yet they are unable to present convincing evidence of them.

    Take another example, there are hundreds of videos on YouTube that claim to show that people in power are actually reptilian shapshifters, for example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ve-IiOM9mM&feature=related

    Now given all these reports, would you be demanding investigations?

  77. JazzRoc says:

    I rather liked the way mickey said I insulted him – when he claimed to only represent CT interests.

    He also thought that technical points were side issues. 🙂

  78. JazzRoc says:

    Mickey, I appreciated your “Wedge” approach (“negotiate your way in”) in the manner of “Intelligent Design’s” “Teach the Controversy” campaign upon the US’s science education curriculum.
    However, the “wall” that both approaches smack into is built using the evidential tests required by Science which are absolutely non-negotiable.
    It really is true (and I’m sorry) that I will in perpetuity find your “style” impossible to like. For any future indiscretions I may commit, I apologize right now. Sorry.

  79. Shilltastic says:

    “However, the “wall” that both approaches smack into is built using the evidential tests required by Science which are absolutely non-negotiable.”

    Thank goodness for that!

  80. Jimmy says:

    Shilltastic, Jazzroc, and Uncinus,
    Have any of you actually encountered chemtrail believers in real life?

  81. JazzRoc says:

    jimmy:

    Have any of you actually encountered chemtrail believers in real life?

    Yes. I worked on a few songs with the Bard of Ely, and he filled me in, CT-wise.

    We then argued for months. He finally changed his mind:

    http://hubpages.com/hub/Chemtrails—my-story-and-research

  82. Shilltastic says:

    “Have any of you actually encountered chemtrail believers in real life?”

    No, and I hope I don’t! It would be hard not to laugh in that persons face.

  83. Jimmy says:

    Thanks, Jazzroc, good story!

  84. Uncinus.

    Your sceince is weak.
    Your theory is boring.
    Your site is great, I can say, you put alot of time in what you believe in.
    You’re not a debunker, your’re just an apologist for the official story. The official story being ” nothing to see here, move along”
    You don’t think that any part of government or military would do anything deliberatly to hurt you.

    I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
    I believe that it is possible that trails left by aircraft may contain materials that are harmfull.
    I do not fully trust our government/military. Would that be so hard to understand? Should I pepper this page with articles, links showing why we should not?

    Do you question your government?

    Wake up my friend, we could use your savv.

  85. Shilltastic says:

    “Your sceince is weak.”

    Yet you can’t even SPELL the word “science”. And what about his science is weak? No examples at all. Just a claim. And which “theory” is boring?! I see very little in the way of “theories” (used as not scientific minded people use the term) on this site. I see facts that are easily verified in peer reviewed scientific texts. Is that “boring”?! Not to me it isn’t!

    Sorry, evidence that anything is being “sprayed” to harm OR help the population is simply MISSING. When such evidence shows itself, I know I will change my tune and spread the word. Right now, I see no reason to believe that the lines in the sky are ANYTHING but persistent/persistent spreading contrails.

    Paranoia about military/governments LEADS people to make conclusions they wouldn’t ordinarily come to. I don’t fully trust my government, I’ll admit it. But, fortunately for me, I learned about contrails in the early 80’s and have no choice but to believe they are what scientists say they are. Again, when proof to the contrary actually surfaces, I will fight for the other side.

  86. So if there was this “black operation” too “seed” what would be contrials with a chemical agent to be used at the present day, would not testing be done decades prior? Therefore, seeing contrails or chemtrails in the sky decades prior to this day, would not be unreasonable.

    Do you need proof, like you need someone to tell you about it on channel 4? Cause that aint happenin.

    Paranoia doesn’t mean you shouldnt be affraid. Has our government ever conducted biological warfare on U.S. citizens/military, without out their consent? Would it not be absurd to assume they are capable of doing it again?

    “Easiest way to hide something, is in “plane” view” – Hilter, M.K.

    P.S. thanks for the spell check.

  87. I suppose you are an apologist for the “Co2 causes global warming” thing too, huh.
    I suppose you listen to the same “scientists” that back that theory up too, huh.
    I suppose even if they said they were “seeding” clouds to protect the earth from getting hot you would be on board with that too, huh.

  88. Ian Bryant says:

    Was this site put up before or after “chemtrails” where introduced for the world to suffer by?

  89. JazzRoc says:

    So if there was this “black operation” to “seed” what would be contrails with a chemical agent to be used at the present day, would not testing be done decades prior? Therefore, seeing contrails or chemtrails in the sky decades prior to this day, would not be unreasonable. – Well, it would be unreasonable.
    It would if you understand that contrail persistence has been known since 1921, and to molecular accuracy scientifically understood for at least fifty years. In those fifty years, stratospheric flight has increased by fifty times. This increase has changed the skies above you quite naturally. The “evidence”, falling ice cirrus cloud, is naturally recycled back into the atmosphere. It always happens in supersaturated stratospheric layers, which make up 17% of of the stratosphere. Therefore it is reasonably obvious that more flights over the years means more persistent contrails to be seen.

    Do you need proof, like you need someone to tell you about it on channel 4? Cause that ain’t happenin’. – Proof only exists when it is understood by everyone. The “proof” is all around you when you understand both how a turbofan engine works and the nature of the air that passes through it. No-one could ever show you “proof” because you don’t understand it.

    Paranoia doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be afraid. – Paranoia means you ARE afraid. Afraid of harmless things to the point of being unafraid of harmful things.

    Has our government ever conducted biological warfare on U.S. citizens/military, without their consent? – I’m afraid, if you look into it, almost EVERY government which has ever existed has done this, if you reach back far into history. How far do you want to reach? Personally, I’ll settle for a generation. Your need to reach back further indicates your paranoia.

    Would it not be absurd to assume they are capable of doing it again? – Are YOU capable of “doing it again”? What was wrong with the statement? Of course it would be absurd to think this when you are looking at trails.

    “Easiest way to hide something, is in “plane” view” – NO. The easiest way to hide something is to HIDE it.

    I suppose you are an apologist for the “Co2 causes global warming” thing too, huh. – CO2 and METHANE are greenhouse gases. The “greenhouse” phenomenon is scientifically understood and quantifiable. Their proportions in the atmosphere are increasing. The Earth IS warming, glaciers are receding, sea levels are rising. Do you believe in the face of this evidence the Earth is cooling? HOW do you do that?

    I suppose even if they said they were “seeding” clouds to protect the earth from getting hot you would be on board with that too, huh. – There is a way to “seed” clouds from BENEATH already known of by the scientific community. It uses wind power to spray a fine salt mist (filtered sea water) into the air to seed a nice sets of marine stratocumulus clouds.
    A whole fleet of automated trimarans sailing the souther oceans, acting as weather and rescue stations, fleeing from storms yet skirting doldrums, steadily pumping a fine mist of salt molecules into the air.
    Cheap compared to any other proposal, non-poisonous, and yet subject to delicate control, it’s Stephen Salter’s Salt Spray Trimaran:
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM

  90. Shilltastic says:

    Ian, please prove that anyone has “suffered” because of “chemtrails” (actually known as persistent contrails for 7 decades).

    I think this site was put up after it was abundantly clear that there are far too many paranoid and ignorant people out there who “believe” in “chemtrails” simply because they refuse to take the time to learn the facts from reputable sources.

  91. Ian Bryant says:

    Ok, I totally believe you now, thanks for setting me straight. Im wrong your right. The voice of reason resides in you two so profoundly.

  92. JazzRoc says:

    Ian,

    please go and check what I’ve written in a technical library. Stop taking the easy path with mendacious pro-ct websites. These are motivated to keep you in a state of fear WITHOUT telling you any real facts, even if they were to be aware of them.

  93. Shilltastic says:

    Ian What are you talking about?! I asked you to provide me with some info to back up a claim you made and you have ignored me. Why? I’m waiting for the proof that anyone has “suffered” because of “chemtrails”. Either provide such proof or admit that you read those words from some OTHER chemtard and just accepted it as “truth” without evidence. Why would you do such a thing? EVERYONE should be demanding more evidence before accepting this “chemtrail” crap. I guess many people are just easily convinced based on their own fears, paranoia and ignorance.

  94. Ian Bryant says:

    No I mean your totally right.

  95. Carl says:

    I was watching an episode of x files, I don’t take any of that stuff seriously like the ct’s do, But, When i was watching an episode from the first season, 1993, it shows two persistent contrails crossed. This was 5 years before the ct’s said chemtrails began, further proving them wrong.

  96. Benjamin says:

    People that believe in chemtrails are NOT paranoid or ignorant or believers in conspiracy theories(not all of them anyway)They just see the facts.They see how many people have become ill after “aerosol” activity in the air.This is not a coincidence.They also see how skies become “hazy” after the same activity.Its clear to them that an artificial particulate matter of some sort is being dispersed by these airplanes.It is not merely water vapor.Rainwater and air samples,revealing various metals and other materials, seem to support this conclusion.Its not only making people ill and turning the skies hazy,but common sense would tell you that when these materials make their way to the ground,they can pollute soil and water as well.Forget all the conspiracy theory stuff,just take the bare bones facts.Whatever the reason,whether it be weather modification,global warming mitigation,etc.What they are doing up there cant be good for us,our environment,or our atmosphere in the long term.

  97. Suntour says:

    Anonymous – “People that believe in chemtrails are NOT paranoid or ignorant or believers in conspiracy theories…They just see the facts.”

    By all means, present links to these “facts”, we’d be fascinated to see them!

    Anonymous – “They see how many people have become ill after “aerosol” activity in the air.This is not a coincidence.”

    Other than various internet people simply stating “yeah I got sick on spraying days too”, please present some sort of evidence to back up your claims.

    Anonymous – “They also see how skies become “hazy” after the same activity.Its clear to them that an artificial particulate matter of some sort is being dispersed by these airplanes.It is not merely water vapor.”

    If it is “clear to them” that this is “artificial particulate matter” then presenting evidence of this shouldn’t be a problem. Fortunately for us, it WILL be a problem because the basic behavior of persisting contrails (which consist of water vapor) is to spread out and become cirrus clouds. If there are a lot of persisting contrails of course it will make the sky hazy, because persisting contrails become cirrus clouds.

    Anonymous – “Rainwater and air samples,revealing various metals and other materials, seem to support this conclusion.”

    Ahh excellent! Let’s see the lab results of these samples! Please link to them! I hope you aren’t talking about the 2007 Stamps, Arkansas samples that were featured on KSLA. The lab results ended up being reported incorrectly and invalidated that “test” (if you call bowls on the hood of a car for a month a “test”). See that story here – https://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

  98. Anonymous says:

    I was referring to the rainwater and air samples taken by anderson cooper,al gore and others.Many of these were taken in the desert southwest.And natural or industrial particulate matter alone wouldnt be enough to account for what was found.

Comments are closed.