Home » contrails » Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying?

Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying?

Update: If you are looking for a debunking of Why In The World Are They Spraying, first check out this post, as the second film really depends on the first being true, then have a look at the various errors in Why In The World Are They Spraying, detailed here:

http://metabunk.org/threads/712-Factual-Errors-in-quot-Why-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot

——————————————————————————

The documentary film “What in the World are They Spraying“, by Michael J. Murphy, attempts to promote the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory (which states that long lasting contrails are actually the result of secret government spray operations), and proposes a possible explanation: that the trails are part of a geoengineering project involving injecting large amounts of aluminum into the atmosphere to block the suns rays.

Multiple parallel trails over Mt Shasta, California. Taken in 1989, ten years before the chemtrail operations were supposed to have begun.

The basic premise of the film is:

  • Normal Contrails fade away quickly
  • Scientists have talked about geoengineering using aluminum sprayed from planes
  • Since 1999, trails have been observed to persist for a long time
  • Tests in various locations at ground level have found different levels of aluminum
  • Monsanto has genetically engineered aluminum resistant crops
  • The government denies any spraying or geoengineering is going on
  • THEREFORE:  The trails are aluminum being sprayed as part of a secret government geoengineering project.

Normal contrails can persist and spread

That reasoning is somewhat suspect even if you accept all the points. But where it really falls down is that it’s based on a false assumption – that “normal” contrails quickly fade away.   In reality, normal contrails can persist for hours and spread out to cover the sky.  Whether they do this or not is entirely dependent on the atmospheric conditions that the plane is flying through, so it depends on the weather, and on the altitude of the plane. This is something that has been observed since 1921. Just look at any book on the weather, like this one from 1981:

They tested sludge, not water

So the film is based on a  false premise and builds upon it to an inevitable false conclusion.  But what about the aluminum tests? You can find the tests referenced in the film here:

http://contrailscience.com/files/chemtrails_basic_lab_report.pdf

And this is the one shown in the film, which they claim should be pure water:

Pond with low aluminum in the sediment. The film mistakenly claims the level are high by comparing them to water levels.  Note the rocks (8% aluminum) that line the edges, and the bottom.

The bottom line here is that they are testing sludge rather than water. Sludge is water mixed with dirt. Dirt is naturally 7% aluminum. That’s all they are finding.

The first aluminum result is from the pond, discussed at the start of part 3, and it’s 375,000 ug/l.  What they don’t mention is that it’s from pond sediment, sludge.  So essentially it’s not testing water, but is instead testing the amount of aluminum in soil. So that’s  375 mg/kg for sediment that has settled in a pond over several years. That’s actually quite low. Aluminum concentration in soil ranges from 0.07% to 10%, but is typically 7.1%, or 71,000 mg/kg.  The amount of aluminum found in the sludge is quite easily explained by windblown dust. It’s low, probably because it’s a new pond, so a lot of the sediment is vegetable matter.

Then there are the rain readings.  33, 262, 650, 188, 525, 881, 84, 815, 3450, 2190 ug/L. Wildly different values, some high sounding, some low.  But no details are provided that correlate these different numbers of contrail activity.  If this variation were due to aerial spraying, then surely a match would be found.  These numbers simply tell us that different tests produced different results.  It does not tell us why.   No details of the sampling procedure are given, or the weather conditions preceding the test.   Nor are we told what are the expected levels of aluminum to be found under these conditions.

Rain gauge used for the aluminum test. Note the mounting bracket appears to be made from aluminum.

Rain water contains particulates from airborne dust.  The amount of particulates will vary greatly based on the weather.  A sample from a brief intense storm after a dry period would give you more particulates than a sample taken in the middle of several days of rain. The amount of particulates in the sample would also vary with how long the container is left out in the open.  Dust will settle on the container if it’s left out for a while, increasing the amount of aluminum found.  All these tests are really telling us is how much dust the sample was contaminated with.

How much aluminum is there in the dust? Let’s say it’s about the same as the amount of aluminum in soil (although it’s probably higher). How much dust is there in rain? According to Edward Elway Free of the the United State Bureau of Soils, in his book “The Movement of Soil Material by the Wind“, in tests performed by Tissandier, rain water contained 25,000 to 172,000 ug/L of particulates.  But he notes “As the amounts of rain and snow which fell in the various cases are not given, the figures are of little value.  The first drops of a rain storm will of course contain the largest percentage of dust, and as the storm continues the air is gradually wasted clean.”.  Still if only 1% of the lowest figures there were aluminum, then that’s still 250 ug/L.  And at a quite plausible 10% of the upper range, that’s 17,200 ug/L.  A range that easily covers the observed test results.

See also the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, VOl 4, 1967, which shows Aluminum found in rain in the range 520 ug/L to 1,120 ug/L, over 13 different tests. This shows that the results in 1967 (when presumably there were no chemtrails) are pretty much the same as the results the WITWATS is getting. Nothing unusual.

Tens of thousands of time the “maximum limit” for water. Sure. But you were not testing water, you were testing dirt

The soil tests are where a typical mistake is made – conflating the percentage of the metal in one substance (soil) with the typical percentages in others.  As noted, soil aluminum naturally ranges from 0.07% to 10%, and is typically around 7.1%, which is 71,000 mg/kg.  The tests from Oregon (see sheet 16 in the pdf) list quite ordinary results for soil of 18,600 to 38,000.  But then they note the results are “Tens of thousands of times the maximun limit for water“, which is true, but they are not testing water, they are testing soil, and it less than half the normal value for soil.

They continue this on the next page, with a low soil aluminum value of 10,500 mg/kg (just 1% aluminum), and yet note: “Near playground Sisson Elementary 300‘ away”.  As if this is somehow dangerous to children.   It’s just normal soil, as found in any playground, anywhere, ever.

Aluminum is everywhere, in various quantities

  • Aluminum is the most abundant metallic element in the earth’s crust, about 8% of the ground is aluminum. In some places, like the Hawaiian islands, it’s 30-60%!
  • Aluminum is everywhere, in the food we eat, and the air we breath (as dust)
  • Aluminum is in daily contact with us, in soda cans, cookware, aluminum cooking foil, construction, transportation, baseball bats, etc.
  • The amount of aluminum in any location varies naturally. In some places there is a lot, in others there is very little.
  • Contamination of samples with aluminum is very common due to it’s abundance and common usage.  Unless careful control samples are taken, then the results are often wildly inaccurate.
  • One of the tests in the film was water collected by a schoolgirl in a mason jar.  Mason jars occasionally have aluminum lids
  • Another was taken from a ski area snow pack in early summer.  Skis, ski grooming equipment, and ski towers use aluminum. (Update: it is not an active ski area, so more likely it’s just dirt contamination, as the sample was taken in July)
  • Aluminum is a common ingredient in antiperspirants and antacids such as Mylanta.

Aluminum resistent crops have been a goal for 100 years

And knowing that aluminum is very common will also answer why Monsanto would want to develop  aluminum resistent crops.  It will increase yields in areas with acidic soil.   Given the ubiquitous presence of aluminum in the ground, and the fact that aluminum ion levels (Al3+) due to soil acidity have been a known problem for a hundred years , it’s hardly surprising that someone would try to make crops have a higher resistance to it.  Here’s the Botanical Gazette of the University of Chicago, Volume 71, page 159, from 1921.

Note the reference at the bottom: “Aluminum as a factor in soil fertility”.  Note also they are discussing how to “reduce the toxicity of aluminum salts” in the ground.  So if scientists were doing it 90 years ago, then why exactly is it somehow suspicious that they are doing it now? For more discussion, see:

http://metabunk.org/threads/341-Debunked-Monsanto-s-Aluminum-Resistant-GMOs-and-Chemtrails

Discussing ≠ Doing

Finally, what of the government discussions of geoengineering, and their denials that anything is going on? Exactly.  What of it? They discuss geoengineering because it’s something that people might actually want to do in the future, so we’d better talk about it now, so we can figure out what problems might occur.  The concerns about health effects and effects on the environment are perfectly valid concerns, but they are not evidence that a spraying program is currently underway.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has no idea what you are talking about, because there is no government geoengineering project, just a few scientists talking about it.

And the most reasonable explanation for why they deny they are doing it because they are not actually doing it.  The congressmen interviewed in the film claim they they are not familiar with it because they are not familiar with it.  They don’t want to talk about it because they don’t know anything about it.  There’s nothing sinister going on there.  The congressmen are simply not familiar with this one particular theoretical geoengineering method (or probably any theoretical geoengineering method), so when they are buttonholed by someone who rather intensely asks them if they approve of it, then it’s quite understandable they don’t want to talk to him.

The film presents the conferences on geoengineering as if they are somehow secret and clandestine operations that need to be revealed to the public.  In reality, geoengineering of this type has been discussed for at least sixty years. It’s hardly covered up, as the discussion has been constantly in the news, often front page news, since 2006, and has been making occasional mainstream news stories since the 1980s, with thousands of publicly accessible research papers over the last sixty years.   There’s no evidence anyone was doing it sixty years ago, there’s no evidence anyone was doing it in 2006, and as far as anyone can tell, nobody is doing it now. Denials are not admissions, and discussing something is not the same as doing it.

I don’t want to make this article too long, but I’ve noticed a few more problems with the documentary, see the comment section for more info.

1,142 thoughts on “Debunked: What In The World Are They Spraying?

  1. And if you wand a broader perspective of the contrails for a particular day, check out the MODIS satellite images for your region. They often show contrails in many places. For example, around Chicago a few days ago:

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=AERONET_Kellogg_LTER.2010324.terra.1km

  2. Interesting exchange on Griffin’s site:

    DEBUNKERS ARE GOOD AT PLAUSIBLE DENIAL
    2010 Nov 16 from David Cole
    The Chemtrails debunker “William” needs to answer my questions:
    1. I’ve seen planes start and stop trails abruptly. How is this possible?
    2. I’ve seen one engine clear and the other spewing a fat, DASHED (on/off) contrail. How is this possible?
    3. I’ve seen two planes nearby each other. One spewing and the other not. How?

    GEG REPLIES:
    We don’t have to send this to William because we already know how debunkers respond to such questions. They say:
    (1) Trails stop and start because there are moving air currents at different temperatures, so planes fly suddenly from warm to cold air;
    (2) Dashed patterns are unlikely, so prove it by producing the video. If you do produce the video they will claim is its doctored;
    (3) Two planes flying at different altitudes may look like they are close when viewed from the ground, so what you saw was one plane flying in warm air and one in cold air.
    These people are experts at plausible denial.

    So GEG anticipates the scientific response, but does not actually say what is wrong with it! He’s debunking chemtrails by himself.

    Dashed patterns are unlikely, but not at all impossible. It simply takes a plane to be flying close to a boundary between two layers of air. The boundary frequently forms waves, and so the plane can form a dashed line as it goes through the peaks or troughs of contrail-supporting air.

    These waves are made visible when one layer contains clouds, and we get Kelvin-Helmholz clouds:

    Imagine if the bottom layer did not contain clouds, but was simply more humid than the top layer. If a plane flew through the peaks it would leave short dashed contrails.

    It’s pretty rare though. I’d ask for the photos, not because I doubt what they saw, but because it’s such an interesting and unusual phenomena. Also because they might actually be seeing something else – like a crow instability breaking up a thin contrail on one side more than the other.

  3. TheFactsMatter says:

    “We don’t have to send this to William because we already know how debunkers respond to such questions.”

    Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt Mr Griffin!

    But, that isn’t that answer I would have given fro number 1. I would have also included the humidity level. I understand why Mr Griffin did not.

    And how am I the one in denial when NOBODY has shown me that there are any chemicals in these trails! According to the science that easily explains the trails, he’s the one in denial.

  4. Anonymous says:

    (mmmmm Kelvin-Helmholz clouds)

  5. tryblinking says:

    ^ That was me (sorry). I must also semi-apologise for posting a long summary using your arguments on ‘part 7’ of the youtube documentary. I know it’s all in a good cause, and like the American Government, I did quote you as a source :o)

  6. Ross M says:

    Have a play with this:
    http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap15/contrail_applet.html
    Place the “Environment” spot and hit “Fly”.
    The move the spot to moister and dryer air alternately while keeping the same temperature.
    You can have no contrails, ephemeral contrails and persistent contrails all at the same temperature (altitude) if you want.

  7. JFDee says:

    Ross M, this link is great !

    This should definitely go ino one of the articles.

  8. notsoscientific says:

    Hey good website and good points.

    but i honestly believe in chemtrails, and like the many others see them spraying and live right across the street from the airport. their trails mysteriously begin right after the mountains ( i live in a valley).

    anyways its strange because while i dont know much about atmospheric geography (or whatever other relevant field of academia) you’re points do seem convincing, and you have consistently provided credible research, articles, newspaper extracts etc. to back up your statements, unlike the many websites holding discussions on this issue as well.

    Is it possible that they are spraying and its impossible to prove scientifically?

    i can talk a more technical and academic discussion about current economics, and i certainly give credit to the conspiracy theorists there, as (i know you are in the US) the US government is doing everything it can to shut down the economy long and short term. they are destroying the public. which is why i think it is very possible that this may be true if the biggest shareholders in the major US banks want it to happen, after all they stole over 700 billion of your money and couldn’t have done it without congress!

    so anyways that is my point, thank you for a very informative website and your comments on the below documentary would be much appreciated.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dont-talk-about-the-weather/

  9. Is it possible that they are spraying and its impossible to prove scientifically?

    Yes, but that’s also true about everything.

    Regarding “don’t talk about the weather”, – that’s a lot of video, was there something specifically you’d like me to comment on? Segment and time please.

  10. notsoscientific says:

    well not really in my opinion it would be good to watch it all as i am very surprised a documentary cover such a big perspective and picture. not only chemtrails. but since you asked:

    segment 5 from 4 :00
    segment 8 from the beginning.
    segment 9 from the beginning.
    segment 10, from 2:00 to
    segment 23. from the beginning.

    segment 13 starting 4 :08 till 8 : 20

    that should do.. thanks!

  11. Okay, segment 5, from 4:00 says that “normal” contrails should vanish quickly. That’s patently false, and contradicts all known science and history.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSfdBiO2jjY#t=4m17s

    compare with:

    http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

    So why should I give this film any credence at all, if it contains such obvious falsehoods?

  12. notsoscientific says:

    they also stated that contrails can last for upto hours. they state the bill with chemtrails in it by that democrat senator and say it was changed in 2002 not to include chemtrails. also there’s another UK government document from the house of lords they show that mentions chemtrails by name.

    so my question would be in segment 5 from 4:00 why is there a huge contrail and a vanishing one next to it? also all the footage of the planes doing U – turns with there trails.. how can this be commercial? there is also footage of 2 planes spraying parallel to each other then one stops leaving a contrail and the other continues. also all the chemtrails in the sky in the cartoons and games and advertisements, sprayed in the same way as I see. and as he’s got on tape. also what is confusing me is why do many trails start and stop in very suspicious positions like in segment 9 from 3: 26 to 3: 50

    thanks!

  13. The say “normal” contrails vanish quickly. They say that if one plane leave a short trail and one a long trail, then one must be spraying something. This is explained here:

    http://contrailscience.com/why-do-some-planes-leave-long-trails-but-others-dont/

    U-turns are occasionally high altitude commercial holds, but more likely training or test flights. See:

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

    Trails start and stop quite naturally, have done since 1921.

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

    The bill:

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

  14. notsoscientific says:

    first of all, thanks.

    segment 23, from 1:11 to 2: 30 is still unexplained.. who are these training or test pilots who start their contrails together and fly together in a parallel way, then one of the contrails stops and the other continues, what training or testing requires this?
    segment 24 shows a similar occurence (from the beginning) also segment 26 from 4:30
    In the advertisements and cartoons why are they drawing contrails in the sky? why not just normal clouds? like the teletubbies segment 12 from 6: 30 till end…

    just doesnt make sense to me…

  15. MikeC says:

    So you are saying that drawing a contrail on a cartoon is suspicious because it is not a “normal cloud”?

    I think there are thousands of cartoons that have normal clouds drawn on them – that a handful have contrails does not seem out of place at all.

    If you want to know why the contrail was drawn you would have to ask the artist or the director or someone like that.

    You are drawing a long bow – you ask why something happens, and then suggest sinister motives because there is not an immediate and satisfactory answer.

  16. notsoscientific says:

    my logic tells me it was drawn for a reason. as a subliminal

    from wikipedia:

    “Used in advertising to create familiarity with new products, subliminal messages make familiarity into a preference for the new products.”

    not a sinister motive just the only logical explanation as to why contrails would be put in adverts and cartoons. to create a familiarity with them. that is my honest opinion even though i could very well be wrong and please correct me if i am.. after all im asking questions to learn, not to teach.

    anyways any comments on the segments anyone?

    thanks!

  17. JFDee says:

    Unfortunately I can’t watch the documentary you linked because it “contains material from Sony BMG and cannot be watched” in my country.

    However, let me make a basic remark here:
    “Connecting dots” was once the one thing that got human beings an edge over their environment. But it had side effects – dots were connected that had no relation at all. (“Let’s offer a human life to the gods so that they may send rain!”).

    There seem to be so many dots today, and there is an urge – in everyone, I believe – to connect them like crazy. We have to take it easy, can’t trust our guts and even our inspirations too much.

  18. captfitch says:

    As for the gaps- I’ve seen that one video with the three side by side jets once before and to be honest I can’t really give you a good explanation for that segment. The best I could say is that because of the apparent speed of those aircraft they are not very high (possible in the lower 20000’s or high teens. That being said i would guess that this is some type of smoke system such as those used in airshows. The on/off is obviously somehow intentional. The other alternative is that these are military and are using afterburners intermitently which would be neccassary to avoid going supersonic. Possibly these guys are just having fun.

  19. MikeC says:

    NSS – here’s some other possible reasons

    – they were unusual at the time the cartoon was drawn and so made the cartoon stand out a bit more
    – the artist thought they looked futuristic – the way the world would be (and he was right!)
    – the artist had jsut seen a contrail or 2 and thought they looked kinda cool.

    there are any number of possible reasons for drawing contrails in a few cartoons.

    Reaching straight for them being a subliminal method of getting us “used to them” for a future illicit use 40-50 years later makes me immediately think you are not so rational as well as not so scientific – sorry!

    as for cut offs in contrails – I cant’ see eth video either, but ther are suchthings as air pockets and turbulence at altitude – who has not experienced or at least heard of planes falling a significant distance because of them? And of course atmospheric conditions CAN actually vary enough over a short distance to allow contrails at one point and not at another nearby.

  20. They draw contrails because contrails are things in the sky. Why would they NOT draw contrails? Artists draw what they see.

  21. notsoscientific says:

    ok, i did not say 40 – 50 years later. Why would they NOT draw contrails? heres an O2 commercial (which was also in the doc)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtB0IzTi3Dw

    recent and shows the planes spraying, not from 40 or 50 years ago..

    and to say that artists draw what they see as a valid explanation, you may be right, but i don’t buy it.

    so anyone who can see the video any explanations please? (on the contrails not the subliminals)

    thanks again for your feedback Mike, captfitch and JFDee and of course Uncinus! i appreciate it!

  22. Again, why NOT draw contrails? It’s something commonly seen in the sky. Why would you need subliminal conditioning for something people see anyway?

  23. Stupid says:

    I work in Hollywood as a scenic artist, for the past 24 years.
    I also paint sky backdrops.
    I sometimes add contrails in the sky along with other clouds.
    No one tells me to put them in there.
    An illustrator uses all the tools available to create the scene that is most convincing.
    If it is a common element in a real sky, then it becomes a common element in the illustration.

  24. Ross M says:

    Cartoonists do not do their work in a cultural vacuum, and neither does the ad industry. I would not be at all surprised if the tyre tread styled contrails in the “Cars” animated film were put there partly as a windup aimed at the chemmies who would immediate pick up on it. The film gets more free publicity, and potentially more revenue for the film makers.
    Same with the placement of “chemtrails” in advertisements. They are a clearly a blatant windup aimed at people who think there is some danger in them, particularly where the theories involve radio communication, radar and HAARP.
    In both types of the use of these images, the intent is working perfectly by the very fact that they are being discussed.
    Now, I need to pick a movie on DVD for the kids this weekend, and I am looking for a new mobile network provider…. how to choose?
    Ah! “Cars”, and O2. Done!

  25. Stupid says:

    Ross, did you read what I just posted ?
    Me and my friends work throughout this industry..Dreamworks, ILM, Disney, etc….
    I also work with people from the at ad agencies, directors and producers.
    To my knowledge, not one of us been told to add contrails in an image.
    In fact, I have been asked to take them out !!

    Surely you don’t think this small group of us “talking” about this, will create any sort of windfall in their pockets, do you ?
    Or maybe you do…..but that is your vacuum.

  26. Ben says:

    I’ve heard many people claim to have interviewed or spoken with G. Edward Griffin about his movie. Surely, one of you must have taped the exchanges?

  27. TheFactsMatter says:

    He put our e-mail exchanges up on his website. It was a move to try and embarrass me (revenge). It backfired. I got him to admit that he never consulted a single expert in the field of atmospheric science for his ridiculous movie “What in the World are “they” Spraying”, simply because he doesn’t trust a single one of them.

    Yup, people who have devoted their lives to science, because they are passionate about our atmosphere, are all “in on” the plot to destroy the population…including themselves, their families and their friends. Or, they are in on the “plot” to “shield us” from being able to spot Nibiru…
    Or, they are all in on the plot to block solar radiation…or to trap it…
    Or, they are all in on the plot to spray us with mind altering drugs so that we will obey.
    Or any of the several nonsensical theories that are circulating through the conspiracy nut community.

    These people made a “documentary” (ridiculous farce) about a subject they are completely ignorant about…and other uneducated fools are accepting everything in it as fact. It doesn’t get any more pathetic than that!

  28. TheFactsMatter says:

    So, I went to G Edward Griffins site and found this quote from him..

    “Acquiring a jet aircraft and flying in the wake of a chemtrail is no small task and also would be a health hazard to the crew. Nevertheless, we are working with a team of experts who are attempting to do exactly that. We will, of course, widely publicize the results as soon as we have them.”

    So, he’s working with “experts” (sure he is…) to come up with a way to sample a trail. Who will be the impartial witness to confirm that nothing that nothing is contaminated/tampered with before analysis? Will there be a person who represents those of us who think these trails are just persistent contrails on that plane? I’d REALLY love to know who the “experts” are considering he hasn’t used the services of any experts up to this point in his quest for the truth about the trails in the sky. And I have to wonder why these “experts” haven’t explained to Mr Griffin that this is a fools errand.

    If they find anything in the trails, will they be able to prove that whatever it is is INTENTIONALLY added to the trail?

    Sorry, I don’t trust Mr Griffin to properly conduct this experiment. In fact, I don’t trust the man in general.

    Also from that site:

    G Edward Griffin wrote

    “….we do not claim that chemicals are added to fuel and pushed through the engines, even though there are patents for such a process. The evidence suggests that the chemicals are being sprayed by tankers that inject the substance into the atmosphere through nozzels. ”

    What evidence?! What “nozzels” (nozzles). I have seen NO evidence that any of the trails in ANY video I have seen online come from any type of nozzles. It’s OBVIOUS that the trails originate from the jet engines in EVERY “chemtrail” video that shows a plane leaving a persistent contrail (what the uninformed refer to as a “chemtrail”.). Come on G Edward, show us the “nozzels”!!!

    This guy is such a liar! That, or he’s just batshit crazy!

  29. SR1419 says:

    “no small task”?

    Just have him hire one of WeatherMod Inc.’s Planes- its not hard…Spendy maybe but not hard:

    http://www.weathermodification.com/environmental-monitoring.php

  30. TheFactsMatter says:

    Yeah, like he’d trust them…

    Remember, everyone involved in aviation has been tainted by the wrong information that has been taught to us by the evil government. You know…the same information that has explained the trails in the sky since the first one was seen almost 100 years ago. Yeah, “they” set us up with the bad information way back then because “they” knew “they” were going to start “spraying” the atmosphere with barium and aluminum several decades later.

    G Edward only trusts HIS experts. His paranoia is such that only those who agree with his beliefs CAN be considered experts. I can’t find it now, but somewhere on his site is a letter directed at me from a person who claims he isn’t “uneducated” because he has a PhD in religious studies. But, as far as Aviation goes, that PhD is absolutely worthless!

    Do these people actually believe that a PhD in ANY subject automatically gives them “expert” status in every subject?!

  31. mr900 says:

    So then what your saying is that we are all fools, the sky has always looked this way and planes “con trails” haven’t changed at all and that the government would never lie to us and do something that was bad for us, or give themselves more power, yeah so far that all sounds like the truth doesn’t it? And further more that if you question something going on in our country or from our government and ask that it be honestly and completely looked into that you are a “crazy”, yeah that sounds right too after all the government is only comprised of superior race of humans who have perfect morals and never give into corruption or greed and you should never question them, for they will always do whats best for you. And if you go to your officials and try to present them with concerns that many people have you shouldn’t expect them to treat you with respect sheesh not like they work for you or something. im not saying that it is exactly what they say it is in the video but i do know that something does seem strange about these trails and the amount of them and i will look into all possible truths and i will not just sit down and be a slave, I will ask questions and expect answers and to have my concerns treated respectfully by those who work for me and the people of this country. For you to belittle people for questioning something that seems not right to them and to want answers, shows your close mindedness, we know for a fact you would never sign a binding contract that there is no truths to chem trails in any way and that none of the politicians asked knew anything about the subject, and that if found you would be required to pay 30% of all your future earnings. Even you know you wouldnt sign it cause you dont know all the facts you dont know for a fact that nothing suspicious is going on and you cant read the minds of those who were asked, you dont know if they are lying or not, your assuming they arent based on what? a proven track record of moral actions of the government? really? These people like many arent calling for blood in the streets they just want answers to thier concerns from the government that works for them, why would you belittle them and try to stop them from that? If you attack someone personally without cause just for doing what they should and questioning what they dont understand, what type of person does that make you, whats your purpose? If you think they are wrong they state the facts only no speculation and be kind and help them find the answers, if you are right and have undeniable proof then they will most likely believe you. Well pardon my venting and bad grammar, but questioning and seeking truth is what has lead society to where we are today otherwise we would still be cavemen.

    “These are not the chem trails your looking for, move along, move along”

  32. Mike says:

    Why do you connect all those things?

    Certainly the Govt lies and does bad things.

    But there is no evidence suggesting it is doing so with contrails – only speculation and innuendo.

    Yes contrails are forming in exacly the same manner and for exactly the same reasons they have been forming since at least 1918 – except there are more of them because there is a LOT more flying going on.

    You ask for facts only – no speculation – but the whole chemtrail hoax is based upon speculation without a single fact itself.

    This site contains a plethora of facts – yet you choose to ignore them – why would anyone think that adding 1 more will make any difference to your delusion?

  33. MikeC says:

    Mr 900 – if I signed such a contract would that put your mind at rest?

    I suspect not!

    And would you sign that contract you mention if the case was reversed – that you positively guarantee there are contrails without a shadow of a doubt?

    And, to put it mildly, whether you would or not is utterly irrelevant. If you did then I still wouldn’t believe you, and if you wouldn’t then you fall for the same trap you try to ensnare others in.

  34. mr900 says:

    “Yup, people who have devoted their lives to science, because they are passionate about our atmosphere, are all “in on” the plot to destroy the population…including themselves, their families and their friends. Or, they are in on the “plot” to “shield us” from being able to spot Nibiru..”

    Yeah just cant imagine a scientist doing that, that would be like them developing a device that they, before testing it, thought could possibly ignite the atmosphere and destroy the world (that would include “including themselves, their families”) and all for the sake of creating a weapon that could kill millions of people in one shot (nuclear bomb). Or that a government would then take its own people and expose them to the harmful radiation of the bomb to test the effects , yeah just to crazy to believe so must not be true. Man sure am glad to know all this time that nuclear bombs and evil government bent on power was just a crazy conspiracy theory. You cant base an argument on that no one could be so crazy or dumb or evil especially considering the facts and track record of the same like people to which you refer.

  35. mr900 says:

    I dont have to worry about you signing it cause you wont cause you know im right, that you dont know everything and can not be 100% sure yet you claim it in your posts. The point is you wont back your words plain and simple. And the contract wouldnt apply to me cause i havent claimed that one or the other is undoubtly true or false i have only stated what is observable and true and that we have the right to question what we dont know and not be attacked for it.
    And know who is talking crazy , traps? what traps? or are you refering to the facts i stated that you cant argue so you call em traps lol. Show me where i was wrong or said that for sure chem or con trails are what the video said. My post is about people having the right to question and not be attacked for it.

  36. mr900 says:

    And have pointed out that positions of power often appeal to the corrupt and people of evil intent and that has been proven through history, so you cant use the argument that just because its the government that its ok and to trust em.

  37. SR1419 says:

    the gov’t is bad…it lies…power corrupts…scientists can be corrupt…

    that still does not change the the science- the physics- the laws of nature that dictates the behavior of jet exhaust in the atmosphere.

    All the histrionics, all the hand wringing over the Powers That Be….none of that changes the irrefutable fact that contrails behave now just as they always have…sometimes they dissipate, sometimes they persist for hours and spread…sometimes both happen in the same sky…

    This is just a simple truth that is waved away by the Believers as “disinfo”.

    The entire theory is based on a false premise

  38. mr900 says:

    The Extermination camps in Germany were just speculation and innuendo untill proven true. Everything in the world is just speculation and theory until proven true. And it gets proven by people asking and searching for the truth.

    I said for you to provide facts since you are the one telling people they are wrong and claiming to know for 100% sure what the truth is. The people wanting to know and asking the questions are asking for the “facts” thats the whole purpose they want the facts as to what seems to be going on and their concerns about what they are not sure and they are getting the run around by those who should give them the facts.

    “Certainly the Govt lies and does bad things.
    But there is no evidence suggesting it is doing so with contrails”

    Yeah but past actions show that its entirely possible that they would “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” People are very scepticle of the government due to the governments own actions and track record of lies and doing wrong and you want to fault the people for now not trusting them, really?

    “This site contains a plethora of facts – yet you choose to ignore them – why would anyone think that adding 1 more will make any difference to your delusion?”

    And first off are you talking about the one site which tells the results of government paid people finding results that favored the governments claims wow shocking yeah i take that with a grain of salt im afraid but i did read it and am looking for lil more concrete answers to all aspects, just claiming that these guys had bad sampling methods doesnt say anything about if chem trails are true or not, just that there test method was faulty. But it will hurt their credability and make people wonder if they are the right ones to look to for the answers.
    Secondly why do you feel the need to always attack anyone who wants to question, i have clearly stated i dont know for fact one way or the other and want to find the truth, only that i dont trust government to much and you even agree that they do bad things, yet you try to attack me and call me delusional and say that im trying to trap people. Why, whats your purpose, make you feel better if you attack me instead of just stating fact and discussing point to point, opinion to opinion and concede not everyone will share yours especially if not complete facts.

  39. mr900 says:

    “sometimes both happen in the same sky”

    Not saying your not right just want to know cause that is a point i find suspect , if its all about weather conditions and what not then how can two planes in same sky at same time have completely different trails? that just doesnt make sense weather conditions would be same for both planes that day. What is the fact that explains that?

  40. mr900 says:

    I have been looking at them for many years and they have changed , now i dont know what has caused the change, it could be climate change could be changes to jet engine design , or fuel change or any unknown but they have changed never when i was younger did the sky look that way, and the crisscross pattern seems suspect to but if someone could show a flight path for the commercial traffic and it shows that same pattern that would help to ease me on that point. Another thing was on one of the videos they had a close up and you could see the trail all the sudden start and it puttered a lil till it filled in full as if starting a sprayer why would water vapor be spurratic and not a constant flow?

  41. mr900 says:

    Guess the point being that no one should attack anyone else for questioning and wanting answers from or being scepticle of their government especially considering past actions, this is what keeps government in check and on track, knowing that the people are watching and seeking truth and answers and will respond if not getting them. And yes there are screwballs on both sides of any issue, nut dont just grow on one branch of the tree. I welcome any facts that anyone can point me to i want to know the truth just know that i will take anything the government says with a grain of salt unless backed but undeniable facts, so independent unbiased sources preferred.

    Thanks all and good night.

  42. SR1419 says:

    its not that the water vapor was sporadic- its that the conditions in the atmosphere changed as the plane flew…contrails form under a range of conditions and if any of those parameters change the trail can change-

    Flight paths cross all the time…70,000 flights per day in the US- 5000 planes in the sky at any given moment- isn’t it LIKELY that paths cross?

    watch a days worth of air traffic- what if they all left a persistent contrail?? :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCEM-ZcB14A

    watch from the cockpit as planes fly near each other, cross paths etc…:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95HS8VQO4ig

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAGlwFHRt-c

  43. mr900 says:

    Not disagreeing on either point but i just dont see how conditions could change so quick from one spot to the next thousands of feet up in open sky , theres nothing around all the air exposed to same conditions in that mile or so of space, now i admit i dont know much on weather but just seems unlogical to me that say within a 3 mile stretch of air there would be pockets like that without an external factor of some sorts. now obviously there are zones were you have front meeting and such but dont think that explains what i was refering to. And yes it is very possible they could cross paths but i thought they try to avoid that , and also they have to be going to an airport and just seems odd , think the pattern would seem more like a fan as threy spread out from one airport to another but i cant really fathom the true pattern without an overhead map with the airports drawn in and normal flight paths to from each would for sure show the pattern to be false or true for commercial flights. thanks for the reply will check out the links too, guess shoulda done that before reply as they might answer one of my questions lol.

  44. captfitch says:

    The following is long but worth reading (in my opinion)

    I’m often amazed at how quickly the atmosphere can change at altitude. The hard thing to visualize and explain is that the atmoshere is very different at ground level compared to at high altitude. Down low it isn’t very layered and gets mixed around quite a lot. Up high the air is layered with very distinct, greatly defined layers. Sometimes the layers are very thick (thousands of feet thick) and sometimes they may only be a few hundred feet thick or less. These layers have different temps, and moisture levels. They also often have very different speeds amongst them. When an aircraft flies above 18000 feet the aircraft doesn’t fly in reference to the ground anymore really- it maintaines its altitude in reference to pressure settings. Pressure gradients (generally) change at a very defined rate as you climb and descend. So effectively if you use pressure to maintain an altitude reference you will maintain a “level” altitude regardless of changes in temperature and other factors that are not so consistant. Also, if all the planes flying are using the same set of references to maintain altitude in the same area they theoretically should maintain a safe vertical seperation from each other.
    All this being said I hope you are all able to follow me here…

    So since all the aircraft are maintaining altitude by reference to pressure settings which stay generally unchanged as you move laterally across the ground they are subject to any changes in surrounding atmosheric conditions which may change fairly often. If you are flying in a slice of air that is uniformly the same and it is thousands of feet thick you may stay in the section for hundreds of miles. If, however, you are flying in an area that has layers that are fairly thin you may fly into and out of a few areas over the course of only a dozen miles. So you may find yourself flying in an area (layer) that is not condusive to contrail formation and, without actually changing altitude (because you are maintaining altitude by reference to outside air pressure only) you will fly into an area (layer) that is.

    Add to the mix the fact that the layers will sometimes mix together at thier boundries. So if you are flying right at the boundry between the two you can transition quickly and frequently into and out of the layers. (they often mix because of the difference in wind speed and direction that often occurs in different layers)

  45. TheFactsMatter says:

    “These people like many arent calling for blood in the streets they just want answers to thier concerns from the government that works for them, why would you belittle them and try to stop them from that?”

    Personally, I don’t mind when people ask questions. It’s when they REFUSE to accept the answers because they have accepted stupid crap as fact…and then they SPREAD that stupid crap as fact, it becomes annoying. At that point, they deserve to be belittled. And yes, there ARE several chemmies that want blood in the street. I have personally been threatened with hanging just because I disagreed with someone. He “believes” I’m in on the supposed plot simply because I REQUIRE more evidence than he does in order to accept the claim that the trails are full of chemicals ( I require ACTUAL evidence, not circumstantial [email protected]). I have also seen many express the desire to “shoot down” a “chemplane”. That might not be the way YOU feel, but trust me, there are many out there that would love to pull the trigger!

    “You cant base an argument on that no one could be so crazy or dumb or evil especially considering the facts and track record of the same like people to which you refer.”

    I wasn’t, I was merely pointing out the paranoid beliefs of others and a complete lack of evidence to support their claims. It’s not about whether or not people are capable of anything, it’s about the FACTS, not speculation or assumption. Using the concentration camp analogy was just ridiculous. People are claiming that there are chemicals being sprayed on us, and then they are providing proof of their ignorance about aviation and atmospheric science as “proof” of the “spray program”. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way! Outrageous claims REQUIRE more evidence than what has been provided. I could make all sorts of paranoid claims…and sucker many people into accepting these claims as fact using their own ignorance against them. Why wouldn’t I be required to back my words up?! Why do so many accept the word of other chemtrail believers as “fact” when there hasn’t been any evidence of chemicals in the trails?! And I mean that…there is literally NO EVIDENCE to support the “chemtrail” myth.

    Usually, someone has the evidence BEFORE they make the claim! In the case of “chemtrails”, it’s PURE speculation and ZERO evidence! Why?!

    “Guess the point being that no one should attack anyone else for questioning and wanting answers from or being scepticle of their government especially considering past actions, this is what keeps government in check and on track.”

    Actually, the people here that support the fact that varying atmospheric conditions coupled with varying types of jet engines (efficiency) are responsible for ALL the trails in the sky, are the ones who are coming under “attack” for accepting VERY basic and VERY simple science as truth. I think you need to read through the comments a little bit better to see who “attacks” whom.

    “i just dont see how conditions could change so quick from one spot to the next thousands of feet up in open sky , theres nothing around all the air exposed to same conditions in that mile or so of space, i admit i dont know much on weather but just seems unlogical to me that say within a 3 mile stretch of air there would be pockets like that without an external factor of some sorts.”

    Well, from that comment it’s obvious that you don’t know much on weather. Which begs the question WHY won’t those who “don’t Know much on weather” accept information from those who have actually studied the subject!? I think you need to learn about the power of the sun and how it reacts with the earth and the sky. The atmosphere is a fluid and as such, behaves as such. Wind blows…fronts move in and out of an area, the sun shines…or doesn’t. Humidity levels will be higher over a region where there are many lakes because the sun evaporates the water (or not). The way that evaporated water spreads through the atmosphere is NOT even. It varies based on air movement and how much water has been evaporated.
    Within a 3 miles stretch down at ground level you can have varying conditions. The temperature at the top of a mountain/large hill can vary from the temp at the base. As can the humidity. The same goes for valleys. Haven’t you ever seen a picture of a heavy fog sitting in a valley?

    Look up “thermals” and then tell me the difference between the conditions inside the thermal and outside.

    There are other variables, but let’s stick with the basics.

    “And yes there are screwballs on both sides of any issue, nut dont just grow on one branch of the tree.”

    Nuts will grow on a tree that produces nuts (on all branches), and not on a tree that doesn’t produce nuts. The “chemtrail” hoax is one of the biggest nut producing trees I have even encountered.

  46. captfitch says:

    As far as flights crossing:

    Yes- you would think that we would all try never to cross each other for fear of hitting. What you have to remember is that the sky is very, very “thick”. We have access to several different altitudes to choose from as we fly. Fortunately traffic isn’t so bad now that we are able to (most of the time) choose whatever altitude we want. Also, there is enough variety among aircraft that many of the altitudes are being taken advantage of by different types. SOme planes do better at certain altitudes than others. My aircraft does great at 41000 to 45000 feet. Most planes can’t get that high so we generally have free reign. There is a system in place that seperates all aircraft by at least one thousand feet. The rule here is that if you are travelling west you must fly an even altitude (32000, 34000, 36000 and so on) and if you are flying east you must fly an odd altitude (31000… you get the point).

    With this rule and because of the national ATC system coordinating everyone’s movement we are very, very unlikely to hit one another. When a situation arises where there may be a conflict ATC will have us turn or change speed but that is fairly rare. I may change course due to traffic once or twice a flight.

    So you see- if you were able to “look” at the sky from edge on you would see stacks of planes, not all of them in one “plane” or at one altitude as it often appears from the ground.

    As far as why they cross at all: the fanning from the airport is actually very accurate. Aircraft kind of “reverse” the fanning as they funnel back into different airports but there isn’t just two or three airports. There’s thousands. So imagine placing all of those fans and all of those funnels on a map all at once. Those lines would cross a lot!!! Each time a plane goes somewhere it uses a portion of the “fan”, flies along the airspace system and then uses a portion of the “funnel” as it lands.

    Ok- so….

    Looking at this post and remembering my previous post I mentioned that sometimes the layers of the atmosphere can be very thick and sometimes they may be very thin. Many- many times I have seen references to X’s in the sky. I even saw a good one yesterday. We just discussed how different aircraft can cross each other’s paths naturally in the process of navigating. Imagine aircraft A is flying from the northwest to the southeast at 35000 feet. He is flying at the bottom of a layer that is not condusive to contrail formation. Remember that he is maintaining altitude by reference to pressure only so if another layer starts to “rise” up into his altitude the only change would be the other factors such as wind speed, temperature and moisture content. What if that layer only bumped up for a short distance, say 15 miles. As the plane flew into and out of this boundry it would make a persistant contrail for only that time that it was actually in the layer.

    Still with me?

    Now don’t leave that 15 mile area! This area is not a line or a corridor- imagine it as more of a bulge that is 15 miles across and might be a round shape. So five minutes after the first plane came along and left its trail another plane comes along that is flying from southwest to northeast. He would stil be flying east wouldn’t he so his altitude would ALSO be 35000 feet. He would transition through the same bulging layer and leave another peristant contrail that is also 15 miles long. Voila! A perfect X that looks like it must have been on purpose but it is simply accidental.

    We don’t see nice X’s too often because, as you can see, the conditions required are fairly complex. You MUST have two aircraft at the same altitude, you MUST have two layers, One layer MUST prohibit the formation of contrails and the other MUST be favorable for formation.

    Of course, you could have a fairly thick layer of altitude that is condusive to persistant contrail formation and have aircraft at different altitudes crossing witin that layer but that scenario is less common and would rarely create thos nice X’s.

    Everyone now owes me for one hour of ground school.

  47. captfitch says:

    Facts- your example of how the atmoshere changes rapidly close to the ground is valid except he was looking for why it would change up high, in the absence of ground interaction.

  48. captfitch says:

    Reading over my last posts I realize that I’ve oversimplified things and made some ommissions that may cause confussion. Without a whiteboard and some good face time I can’t explain this well. Please ask more questions where you are confussed.

  49. mr900 says:

    Yeah but see you grouped everyone that had a concern about these trails with the extreme nut and and then belittled the whole lot not just the actual individuals who are the nuts. We dont know who you are your credentials and your sources why should anyone just except what you say as fact, you need to provide references that are unbiased (not claiming you havent) so they can see where you get your info not just say im right believe me or your a nut. And my analogy wasnt ridiculous at all it was a perfect example of why you dont stereotype and assume and follow a mold someone else tells you to follow.

    “And yes, there ARE several chemmies that want blood in the street”
    These are several people who are mentally unstable who want blood they just so happen to believe in chem trails and use it as an outlet for thier rage they might also not like peanut butter and go on nutrition sites raging against people who do, that doesnt make all people who dont like peanut butter crazy. Ill bet there are people on your side of the argument that want to kill people too , that all has to do with the individual and nothing to do with con/chem trails. I understand the basics of weather but i dont know enough to claim fact on details, thats why i asked if someone could inform me can there be a 100 foot bubble out in the middle where a con trail will skip and then resume? i just cant see the science in it but dont claim its not possible. I know there are regions of changing weather conditions and a region is a lot bigger then 100 feet or so? All i have asked is to not be attacked or stereotyped for asking questions, and to be informed with facts, (open minded chemmie here giving you the chance to explain) so far only one person has made that attempt the rest have just tried to insult me go figure, If you really just want to set people straight give them the facts only and leave the insults for the nut jobs so we can tell em apart. Thanks for the reply

  50. mr900 says:

    make that 2 people , very informative thank you.

  51. mr900 says:

    Thanks Captfitch, I think it is really hard to debate this whole topic on blogs cause most questions people have are due to visual (Video , pics) and would have to have like a video meeting to have both sides see what the other is referencing exactly to be sure they both understand what the other is trying to describe. For instance the video i saw showed one con trail skip off on rapidly then fill in and i cant explain all the details you would have to see the video, i will try to find it and link it.

  52. captfitch says:

    100 feet is too short. Most of the aircraft leaving the trails are over 100 feet long themselves. If you broke everything down the most common gaps that are shown are probably anywhere from one mile to ten miles long. Remember that we cover one mile every five to six seconds. So if the gap happens for ten seconds it is over a mile long. Now picture a stone skipping over water. As it skips it leaves a little splash as it skips on the top. Now hopefully you fully read my last few posts. Imagine the plane as the stone riding just above a layer that won’t allow persistant contrails. Now imagine that that layer is moving at a different speed from the layer above it and consequently interacts with it in the form of waves or spaced bulges. As the plane skips over that interaction it makes little gaps just like the stone makes little splashes. Can you see that? The plane is just slipping into and out of nicely defined layers.

    Why don’t these layers interact with each other and influence each other you may ask? It’s complex but just remember that there are no hills or trees or anything else up there to mix everything up and the layers like to flow in a nice laminar manner.

    Sometimes the airplanes themselves cause an interaction but that’s a whole other post.

    You mentioned qualifications earlier I think-

    Airline Transport rated pilot with over 6000 hours all over the western hemisphere. Most of that has been in modern, high performance transport catagory “private” jets.
    BS in Aviation science with an emphasis on aviation weather and human factors.
    I can’t give my name- I’m sorry but I have a career and family to consider.

  53. mr900 says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfw ok the frame at 3:52, have to pause it to see, the trail stops for like between 100 to 200 feet now i just cant see the logic in a bubble that small out there where weather conditions are so different and it does resemble if you were spraying something and had an air bubble in the line or switch on off for a sec, and i cant imagine the engines or fuel cut off intermittently unless they caught a plane with some engine trouble in the video , which is possible. But thats the bubble effect im trying to figure out hope that helps.

  54. mr900 says:

    No no i wouldnt expect anyone to give their identity on here and in fact hope they dont to many crazies , was just stating that a blog isnt the best place for people to be convinced it usually takes more such as public conferences and such. And actually that reply wasnt directed toward you. I do like your explanation of the waves and skiping off it that could be what i see in the video but you would have to tell me if you watch it.

  55. mr900 says:

    Blah when i tried to watch it again it was at 3:51 so its right in that area.

  56. captfitch says:

    I see what you are seeing. To me, this look like a couple things at play. First, you are only shown the aircraft and the area maybe 1000 feet behind the plane. The formation is a process and consequently takes time to happen. It may only take one or two seconds for the trail to fully form but that time would take up at least 1000 feet to happen so if you were able to zoom out you would see a fully formed trail some distance behind the plane.

    Second possibility: These looks like a combo of engine generated contrails and aerodynamic contrails due to a high moisture content at that altitude. It looks like the aerodynamic contrails are the ones that are “turning on and off”. In this case where there is a layer of very moist air it may be a layer that is quite a bit warmer and consequently can hold a lot more water that is just on the edge of the saturation point and only needs a rapid cooling effect to become visible moisture. A byproduct of lift is also the fact that the air going over the wings cools quite a bit. This cooling bump momentarily drives the temp down just enough to create visible moisture. The aircraft may also be pulling down air behind it (also a byproduct of lift) and that air is cooling the moist air to the point of saturation. One of the properties of warm, moist air is that it is often rising and thus “bubbling” as it rises into cooler air above it. The plane flies through the little bubbles and creates that gap effect.

    Point three: the camera is looking up at the plane. and the sun is bhind the plane to some extent. This effect exagerates the visual differences between visible moisture in the air and non-visible moisture. I don’t knwo how to explain that one better.

  57. Stupid says:

    Mr900…

    I commend you on your ability to consider new ideas. I also urge you to double-check anything said here, about the normality of long-lasting contrails……or anything else.
    I have checked, therefor I believe.

    Perhaps try joining a popular pilot’s forum, or a Meteorology forum. Ask questions there. Don’t tell them your political ideas. Act undercover. Ask them about long-lasting contrails, and why they form, and why they might last…..because you find it interesting. See what they say. Sense their genuineness.

    If you could leave the “government” out of the equation for the moment in your quest for the truth, …..try to allow science to become the decider of the truth.
    Science literally means, “knowledge”.
    In math science, 2+2=4……gov’t cannot change that answer.
    In physical science, there are the “laws of nature”…….gov’t cannot change those laws.
    If a chemist determines that water is made from an H²Ø molecule, the gov’t can’t say it’s really an H³Ø molecule….because the chemist’s tests would not agree….anywhere in the world.
    My point is, that gov’t can’t say that 2+2=5, just because they have some agenda to lie. Too many people know that 2+2, in our reality, equals 4.
    In our case, too many people know that contrails can persist….because the science has been tested, proven, and discussed by groups of scientists, students, and professionals in the field.
    If it were not true…all of these groups would claim “bullshit”….all of them.
    My point is, the basis of science is the theory of 2+2=4, proved by 4-2=2…….4 divided by 2 is 2, etc….
    I have read the claims of chemtrail believers…that contrails can never last a long time, forming into wide cirrus clouds. If you notice, this claim is NEVER followed by scientific papers proving such is true, nor is such an opinion supported any recognizable science based group.
    This claim is ALWAYS stated “as fact”….with no established references……you are just expected to take their word for it.
    Look around on this site……references are given everywhere, when a claim is made.

  58. mr900 says:

    “Usually, someone has the evidence BEFORE they make the claim! In the case of “chemtrails”, it’s PURE speculation and ZERO evidence! Why?! ”

    you asked why so just giving an example not saying its so, but if what they say is true and this is a secret op by anyone then the paperwork would be locked up and secure , and they would have super security around the equipment to insure no one could compromise them and what they are doing. Not many people have the ability to go breaking into high security places nor would they try. Only other option would be to follow a plane you suspect of it and sample the trails but for one im sure thats highly illegal to “tailgate” a airliner in flight, plus if they (the pilot) knew and had control of the device could turn it off to prevent that from working while being followed. And if they were doing it they would know how best to cover themselves from detection and would have thought of every way someone would attempt to find out and take preventative measures. So its understandable how, if what they say is true, an normal person would have trouble getting the proof of a top secret operation. And samples of water earth and snow wont do no good cause untill you can tie it to a source then your dead in the water.

  59. Stupid says:

    If I can comment on one more thing Mr900 said….

    “The Extermination camps in Germany were just speculation and innuendo untill proven true. Everything in the world is just speculation and theory until proven true. And it gets proven by people asking and searching for the truth.”

    This is true.
    But in your example, eventually the opportunity became available to “prove” the truth. (particularly when the war ended, nearly immediatly).
    In the case of long-lasting chemtrails, the “opportunity to prove their truth”, has been around for a long time, yet nothing has surfaced.

  60. mr900 says:

    Government was brought up to dispute those who claim everyone is a nut for questioning this cause they say government would never do that, i was just pointing out the flaws in that.

    “If a chemist determines that water is made from an H²Ø molecule, the gov’t can’t say it’s really an H³Ø ”
    I disagree if it served them some purpose to do so they could and would say it wasnt what it really is then would try to convince you they were right, but that wouldnt change what it really is just what everyone perceives it is. After all they call us racist and yet we elected a black man as the leader of our country go figure that one. U have seen alot of references but many are biased many are speculative and some have fact , the first two i throw out the third i keep to compare against the thoery to see if it can prove or disprove it.

  61. mr900 says:

    “In the case of long-lasting chemtrails, the “opportunity to prove their truth”, has been around for a long time, yet nothing has surfaced.”

    Yeah they have been around for a long time but that niether proves or disproves anything really, there are many secrets of the government (if it is chem spraying) both our and others that havent been proven but we know probably are true , accesability to the proof determines alot, especially the time frame in which it can be had.

  62. SR1419 says:

    Mr900-

    an easy example of a quick change in atmospheric conditions is clouds…why is there a cloud in one spot but a few feet away no cloud?

    …in just a feet the atmosphere has changed enough to not support the formation of a cloud. Its the exact same principle –

    Someone posted this before but its very useful and quite interesting- check out this applet on contrail formation- you can play with the parameters to get different trail characteristics- even change them in mid-flight to get gaps:

    http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap15/contrail_applet.html

  63. mr900 says:

    In fact i would like it if we could just leave the whole government part out this cause that just gets me on edge , and just discuss the science part. This what we have been doing on here is good, this is how people solve things and discover others. I believe that the way scientists prove science is someone comes up with a theory from what they think or believe to be true and then have to observe and try to prove or disprove all parts of the theory to make it a fact or not. Should be no anger or name calling involved, this is good for everyone to learn from.

  64. Stupid says:

    I said,
    ““If a chemist determines that water is made from an H²Ø molecule, the gov’t can’t say it’s really an H³Ø ”
    Mr900 replied,
    “I disagree if it served them some purpose to do so they could and would say it wasnt what it really is then would try to convince you they were right, but that wouldnt change what it really is just what everyone perceives it is.”

    You missed my point….the gov’t can’t convince anyone that 2+2=5……..no matter how hard they try, or method they use.
    Science and government are not interchangeable, not does one dictate the other.

  65. Stupid says:

    (edit “not”) >>>”nor”

  66. Stupid says:

    Actually, science prevents gov’t from lying, because proven science cannot be “redefined” by gov’t….the science won’t allow it.

  67. mr900 says:

    heh that was kinda a cool little app. So I guess the other real big question that gets most people is how does it stay for a day , why doesnt it return to its previous state long before that?

  68. mr900 says:

    Got this off another site but was kinda relevent to the “science is fact”
    but i do think mathmatics could be an exception to this rule but who knows
    1000 years from now it may be proven that 2+2=4.0012. truth is we dont know
    everything and can only prove what we can observe in our time.

    “To reiterate what they have said, scientific theories are always
    considered to be “works in progress.” No scientist worth his/her
    salt is ever going to say, “This is a FACT” to be carved in stone forever.

    As works in progress, many scientific theories just keep getting revised. For
    example, we base our current evolutionary theory of when humans
    diverged from apes on the fossil record. But every time a new fossil
    is found, the date gets pushed back.

    In any case, this means is that any information given in student text
    books is considered to be “true” only at the time the book is
    published. (Now you see why you always have to buy the newest editions
    of those expensive college texts?)

    But, all that said, I’ll try to hand you a list of well-known or
    commonly taught “facts” that have been revised or refuted in the last
    10 years.

    1 – There are 9 planets in our solar system

    New information: We have at least 10 planets

    Far out! Astronomers discover 10th planet
    2000 EB173 orbits sun between Neptune, Pluto
    http://www.freep.com/news/nw/orbit26_20001026.htm

    Or maybe, we have only 8 —

    “ Planetary scientists at Caltech have discovered a spherical body in
    the outskirts of the solar system. The object circles the sun every
    288 years, is half the size of Pluto, and is larger than all of the
    objects in the asteroid belt combined.

    “Quaoar definitely hurts the case for Pluto being a planet,” says
    Caltech planetary science associate professor Mike Brown. “If Pluto
    were discovered today, no one would even consider calling it a planet
    because it’s clearly a Kuiper belt object.””

    Caltech Astronomers Discover Quaoar, a Planet-Sized Object in the
    Solar System
    http://atcaltech.caltech.edu/tech-today/subpage.tcl?story_id=5881

    2 – There are 30 orders of insects

    New fact: Now there are 31

    “For the first time in 87 years, researchers have discovered an insect
    that constitutes a new order of insects. Dubbed “the gladiator” (for
    the recent movie), it lives in the Brandberg Mountains of Namibia, on
    the west coast of Southern Africa.”

    New Insect Order Found in Southern Africa
    Bijal P. Trivedi
    National Geographic Today
    March 28, 2002
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0328_0328_TVstickinsect.html

    3 – Ice Age clothing was made of crudely formed animal hides

    New Information:

    “… the warm weather clothing of at least some of our ancestors
    included caps or snoods, belts, skirts, bandeaux (banding over the
    breasts), bracelets, and necklaces—all constructed of plant fibers in
    a great variety of woven textiles…”

    Ice Age Haute Couture
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873336.html

    4 – Humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes

    New information – more likely from ground dwelling apes

    “Our study demonstrates that our earliest ancestors did not simply
    come down from the trees. Rather, they evolved from an ape already
    adapted to life on the ground.”

    THE HAND BONE’S CONNECTED TO THE WRIST BONE…
    http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/news/knuckles

    5 – There are 109 Elements in the Period Table

    New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered

    Periodic Table of the Elements
    A Resource for Elementary, Middle School, and High School Students
    http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/default.htm

    6 – The first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago.

    New information –

    “The shrew-like animal would have run under the feet of dinosaurs at
    the start of the Jurassic period, nearly 195 million years ago …
    Hadrocodium wui pushes back by another 40 million years its first
    appearance in the fossil record.”

    Fossil hints at mammal evolution
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1349763.stm

  69. mr900 says:

    Point being government scientists can say oh we have new info which changes what we thought to be true before and now this is the truth. And sure some non government scientists will disagree kinda like we have with some current issues in the world ?

  70. Stupid says:

    As new information is found, beliefs are adjusted.
    Rarely is there a “scientific fact” completely revamped.
    Quantum Theory might be an exception here…but we are really talking about known, demonstrable science here, not theory.
    To hold onto the idea that a currently believed scientific fact will soon be revamped, based on suspicion and speculation”….is living a futile dream.
    Believe what is known now, and adjust when necessary…..aka, when evidence proves otherwise.
    I fail to understand why you categorize/separate “governmental scientists” and “non-governmental scientists” ??
    Is there a difference?…and do you have proof of such a separation ?

  71. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Facts- your example of how the atmoshere changes rapidly close to the ground is valid except he was looking for why it would change up high, in the absence of ground interaction.”

    True, but…

    He was suggesting that within 3 miles, weather shouldn’t differ, and then he mentioned fronts. I was simply explaining that there are variables that he may not have considered or known about.

    “you asked why so just giving an example not saying its so, but if what they say is true and this is a secret op by anyone then the paperwork would be locked up and secure , and they would have super security around the equipment to insure no one could compromise them and what they are doing. Not many people have the ability to go breaking into high security places nor would they try.”

    Not saying this is so either…
    The chemicals would be all around us, there would be noticeable spikes and those given the task of monitoring the air/water/soil would notice it, and sound an alarm. I’m not concerned about what “they” would do with their “spray” equipment/paperwork (that most likely doesn’t exist), I want evidence that something has been “sprayed”. So far, I see no evidence. I see misguided claims that certain elements are being found in high concentrations at ground level but it always turns out that he person making the claims has no idea that what they have found occurs naturally, or has been deposited where they find it by industry or chemical dumping. I have yet to see anyone make a valid connection between what is found on the ground and the trails in the sky. The two things have nothing to do with each other. If you disagree, please provide evidence that shows that it’s logical to take a soil/water sample and conclude that anything in it “must have” come from the trails one sees when they look up. Sorry, that is nothing but ignorant speculation on the part of whoever does it.

    As soon as evidence is presented that aircraft are spraying chemicals as part of an intentional and international “spray program”, I will change sides immediately. But, I’m not someone who chooses sides based on speculation and/or assumption. I need hard evidence, and in this case there is none. Literally none. Again, it’s just a bunch of people who are confusing belief with fact.

    “In fact i would like it if we could just leave the whole government part out this cause that just gets me on edge , and just discuss the science part.”

    Why does it get you on edge? I’m a US citizen and aside from a few assholes, government works exactly as it should. We elect officials who claim they want what we want, they get into office and it’s politics as usual. What makes you believe that “the government” has ANYTHING to do with the trails in the sky? Are you suggesting that the FAA is involved? Again, is that a belief that some people have, or is it a fact? Or, are you actually referring to “military” and you believe that the military has been assigned this task by someone within the executive branch? Again, I have seen no reason to believe such a scenario simply because I understand that the trails are a normal occurrence given the atmospheric conditions.

  72. Stupid says:

    All Mr900’s questions and misunderstandings about contrails, weather, etc..are covered elsewhere in this site.
    The subject on this page is the film, “What in the World Are They Spraying?”.

    To re-explain the entire science of contrail here, is getting long-winded (pun ?).
    That’s just my opinion….because I got caught up in it too.

  73. captfitch says:

    Yes- I agree but this entire site is expansive. I just wanted to throw some specifics out there while someone was asking specific questions. I was watching a boring show anyway so typing wasn’t hard. I could have redirected but I felt like that might have been a disservice.

  74. That was a great explanation. I think though to be really clear, such explanations need diagrams. I’m going to try to add more in the future.

  75. TheFactsMatter says:

    “To re-explain the entire science of contrail here, is getting long-winded (pun ?).
    That’s just my opinion….because I got caught up in it too.”

    Agreed, That’s what I disliked about youtube, constantly rehashing the same crap over and over again. But, wouldn’t it have been more than rude to redirect mr900? He made his comment here based on comments made about What in the World are they Spraying and those behind that farce.

  76. Loose end says:

    Have somebody tried to estimate logistics for a global chemtrail conspiracy? They report high concentrations of contaminants in rain water, but, if these come mostly from planes, how much stuff does one need to spray over a large area to yield such concentrations? Note that 1 mg/l in a rainfall of just 1 mm is equal to 1mg per 1 m² of ground surface; so 5 mg/l in a 20 mm rainfall will be equal to 100 mg/m² or 100kg/km². It is about 27,000 tonnes of dry stuff spread over the area of Colorado state. And it needs to be dissolved first, so the required amount of sprayable solution will probably be ten times more than that. Therefore to carry on spraying on a national scale, hundreds of thousands, probably even millions of tonnes of spray have to be produced, delivered, stored, loaded onto planes, a great number of which also would be required. And all this is going around unnoticed for years?

    I could think of a better conspiracy theory. Persistent contrails are not man-made, they are just natural indicators of the upper atmospheric conditions. And if they are indeed on increase, this indicates some dramatic changes are going up there. What (or who) causes these changes (take your pick: global warming, governments, aliens etc.), one thing is clear – the chemtrail bandwagon is doing cover-up. 🙂

  77. SR1419 says:

    Unicinus-

    What happened to some of the older articles? You used to have all of them listed on the left and now only a few. Is there a way to access them? I use a lot of them for reference- like contrails thru history etc..

  78. They are still there. Just a little wordpress bug I’ll fix when I get back.

    I often use google rather than use the list. Just form a question like the gist or title of the article, and it’s usually the top result.

  79. mr900 says:

    “Why does it get you on edge? I’m a US citizen and aside from a few assholes, government works exactly as it should.”

    Yeah good luck with that one , Ill discuss that with ya in the future see where ya stand.

    Rarely is there a “scientific fact” completely revamped.

    I listed things in a previous post that were considered “scientific fact” and were revamped in just last 10 years, the number of planets in our solar system was a “fact” and was in every book related to the subject. All science is theory untill proven through observation to be true but being just mere humans limited in our ability to observe all things at all times means we can only give a best guess to anything. Even Einsteins theory of relativity breaks down at the quantum lvl and yet we use it for equations all the time. Relative theory and Quantum theory contradict each other yet its what scientists use to model our whole universe and all science and equations there in, point being even the best scientists are just making best guesses on what they can observe there is no true fact that a human is capable of proving definitively.

    “I fail to understand why you categorize/separate “governmental scientists” and “non-governmental scientists” ??
    Is there a difference?…and do you have proof of such a separation ?”

    Are you kinding , really? are you really that in the dark of how things are in the real world? Thats like saying whats the difference between a accusers lawyer and a defendants they both studied the same law yet in court they will have two completely different views to the case and who is right vs wrong.

    And after listening and reading some of what has been provided here i can see that it is very likely that the visual of what we see in the sky could just be normal con trails. So they may be wrong that the con trail is a chem spray cloud, but you still have done zero to disprove that someone may be spraying chemicals in the air. You know for a fact that there isnt maybe one jet up there that is spraying? How do you know there isnt something in the fuel that after burn is released , Automobile gas used to have lead in it and even though there was never any conclusive findings of high levels of lead found in earth or water supplies from exhaust, we know it to be bad so it was taken out of the fuel years later. Could be one crazy guy with money out there flying his personal jet around dumping chemicals no one knows. So to try to belittle people when you cant even disprove what they are saying says alot about you. Instead you should be pointing out that you dont know for a fact about chemicals but you do know that the visual effect they see is normal con trails and then you would be speaking true, but to claim something you dont know and cant prove and belittle them makes you as ignorant as some of them. Want to argue this point then show proof that there is no chemical coming from any plane flying over the US, if you cant then leave that point out of the argument and only discuss the visual effect they see.

  80. Theories have to fit observed facts. Which facts does the chemtrail theory fit that is not already explained by existing theory?

  81. mr900 says:

    As far as the film and people on it , sure they may be jumping to conclusions cause they cant FIND the proof and want an answer and so presume things so they can try to have something to present and get the ball rolling or get people to help them. I dont know cant read minds, so can only research what they present to try to find out for myself hense why i came to this board to get both sides, but when people attack others they only hurt their side and turn people the other way. Cause honestly why would you care and get so angry if someone claims the government is doing something wrong and they are gonna get people to look into it? Only people that would effect is people involved in such a plot, if and only if it was true. So by raging you either show you dont want people looking into it or your just an ass.

  82. mr900 says:

    “Theories have to fit observed facts. Which facts does the chemtrail theory fit that is not already explained by existing theory?”

    you need to look into Geoengineering to find were the theory presented by scientists to defend against “global warming”. It is already a plan to do chem trails the real question is just weather or not they are doing it yet or will. And in fact i think the UN told countries to hold off on the geoengineering untill it could be discussed, now that has to make you wonder why they would say that if they didnt think anyone was maybe doing it already.

  83. mr900 says:

    At last week’s meeting of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan, those who favor the first approach scored a major victory. In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member CBD closed its tenth biennial meeting in with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.

    “Any private or public experimentation or adventurism intended to manipulate the planetary thermostat will be in violation of this carefully crafted U.N. consensus,” said Silvia Ribeiro, Latin American Director of ETC Group, who was in Nagoya lobbying for the moratorium.

  84. So, the entire basis of the theory is that someone said they might do it in the future? Zero physical evidence?

    If people have been geoengineering for ten years without evidence, then I’d say they are doing it wrong.

    Are contrails different now? Any evidence?

  85. mr900 says:

    “The Chairman’s report:

    · Contains background information on the topic of climate engineering and exploratory research activities currently being conducted.

    · Summarizes the Science and Technology Committee’s public hearings on climate engineering.

    · Identifies key research needs.

    · Identifies activities, tools and skills present in federal agencies that could be leveraged for climate engineering research and provides recommendations for research priorities within these agencies. Featured agencies include the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    · Explores potential capacities for, and provides recommendations on, how research might be organized at the federal level and what lessons can be learned from past experiences.

    · Provides general recommendations about next steps, research priorities and management strategies.”

    Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN)

    Was that one of the guys they asked in the video and claimed to know nothing? I dont know just wondering.

  86. mr900 says:

    Did you read anything i posted , go back read again then comment.

  87. mr900 says:

    a 1975 U.S. Patent issued to Donald K. Werle, Romas Kasparas, Sidney Katz, assigned through the U.S. Navy, that describes a dispersion method for a “powder contrail.”

  88. mr900 says:

    there is so much evidence that they are planning on doing it, that you will find it hard to dispute, only question is have they yet.

  89. mr900 says:

    There are many patents for many different devices which could and were designed for the very task that is just a theory look em up.

  90. Stupid says:

    Be nice Mr900.
    you said,
    “I listed things in a previous post that were considered “scientific fact” and were revamped in just last 10 years, the number of planets in our solar system was a “fact” and was in every book related to the subject….”

    I also said, that facts are updated based on available information, aka — when it becomes available. As research advances, so does it’s understanding.

    Because we were not able to detect (and classify) an outer planet/object in our solar system until now…..does not erase the planets we already know about…..nor does it mean we are hiding anything. It means we are adding information.

    Mr900 said,
    “…….i came to this board to get both sides, but when people attack others they only hurt their side and turn people the other way. Cause honestly why would you care and get so angry…”

    Nobody is attacking you. Relax. If they are, forget about them.
    Some might be attacking your ideas….but don’t take it personally.

    Mr900 said,
    “So by raging, you either show you dont want people looking into it, or your just an ass.”
    (I added commas)

    We WANT people looking into it, including you….otherwise this site would not be here.
    We encourage you to go elsewhere to find independent verifiable information….about contrails….\ Really, go look for yourself.
    _______

    Mr900….

    I said……
    ““I fail to understand why you categorize/separate “governmental scientists” and “non-governmental scientists” ?? Is there a difference?…and do you have proof of such a separation ?”

    You replied…..
    Are you kinding , really? are you really that in the dark of how things are in the real world?

    Enlighten me, because yes, that’s how I feel……as explained way up^^ earlier, that because all scientists have to agree on basic principles…aka, 2+2=4.
    The private scientists and the gov’t scientists HAVE to agree.
    Otherwise 2+2 = unknown.

  91. MikeC says:

    What, exactly, is “it”?

    do you mean climate change by dispersal of various substances in the atmosphere – “geo engineering”? In that case yes, there is considerable discussion about whether to do it, what effect it will have, etc. Not quite the same as “planning to do it”, but I’ll not split that hair.

    And no one here has ever denied that it is being talked about – there are numerous public discussions and meetings all around the world about it. Congratulations on noticing! 😉

    However there is no evidence whatsoever that they are actually doing “it” at this point in time.

    Moreover I think it is also accepted here that the increases in contrails MIGHT have some effect on weather – but no real knowledge of what that effect might be, and no belief that they are being deliberately used to have any effect on weather.

    If you mean spraying various chemicals & substances to control world population then I don’t think there is evidence of either any planning or any action.

  92. But there are many geoengineering proposals. So why do people think that the one that is being done in secret looks like contrails? Why no conspiracy theory about alge blooms, or space mirrors?

    Discussing is not doing. Scientists discuss, analyze, even plan and patent thousands of ideas that never actually come to fruition.

    So why this? Have contrails actually changed? What’s the evidence that they have changed?

  93. Stupid says:

    Example…I am building a 1.35v DC standard…to repair a ‘private sector’ Null Detector.
    What will make this null meter work as it should….is a standard set by NIST….a gov’t agency…..and verified by the private sector….(and other countries).
    These standards cannot be changed on a whim. These standards are also the rule for weights and measurements…..(NIST)
    Basic scientific principles are used in these measurements.
    Basic scientific measurements are used tin both the gov’t and private sector.
    Do you now understand why ?

  94. mr900 says:

    “As new information is found, beliefs are adjusted.RARELY is there a “SCIENTIFIC FACT” completely revamped.
    Quantum Theory might be an exception here…but we are really talking about KNOWN, demonstrable SCIENCE here, NOT THEORY.
    To hold onto the idea that a CURRENENTLY BELIEVED SCIENTIFIC FACT will SOON be REVAMPED, based on suspicion and speculation”….is living a FUTILE dream”

    “I also said, that facts are updated based on available information, aka — when it becomes available. As research advances, so does it’s understanding. ”

    Well actually you said beliefs are adjusted and you said rarely is scientific fact revamped, so you kinda contradicted yourself there, between your earlier and later posts.

    “Because we were not able to detect (and classify) an outer planet/object in our solar system until now…..does not erase the planets we already know about…..nor does it mean we are hiding anything. It means we are adding information ”

    this is what i said earlier
    “I listed things in a previous post that were considered “scientific fact” and were revamped in just last 10 years, the number of planets in our solar system was a “fact” and was in every book related to the subject. All science is theory untill proven through observation to be true but being just mere humans limited in our ability to observe all things at all times means we can only give a best guess to anything. Even Einsteins theory of relativity breaks down at the quantum lvl and yet we use it for equations all the time. Relative theory and Quantum theory contradict each other yet its what scientists use to model our whole universe and all science and equations there in, point being even the best scientists are just making best guesses on what they can observe there is no true fact that a human is capable of proving definitively.”

    nope dont see where i said we were erasing planets or hiding anything. In fact you are just restating what i said in different words “untill proven through observation to be true but being just mere humans limited in our ability to observe all things at all times means we can only give a best guess to anything”

    “To hold onto the idea that a CURRENENTLY BELIEVED SCIENTIFIC FACT will SOON be REVAMPED, based on suspicion and speculation”….is living a FUTILE dream”

    Umm are you kidding, any idea of how much we have and know today was discovered because someone had a suspicion or speculation that something was so, do you think all science just gets laid in a persons lap and they go “oh yeah here look”. The Earth was thought to be flat and also to be the center of the universe, and people were ridiculed for have a suspicion or speculation that it was other wise (hrrm sounds familiar), even threatened with death. Now think were we would be if everyone never questioned the accepted norm and didnt go investigate and try to find out if there suspicion or speculation was right. Pretty sure the atom didnt jump out and say “Hey there im Atom, how you doing” someone had to suspect or speculate that it exisited then look for it.

    this is what i wrote earlier
    “And after listening and reading some of what has been provided here i can see that it is very likely that the visual of what we see in the sky could just be normal con trails. So they may be wrong that the con trail is a chem spray cloud”

    And yet you are still arguing with me but not about con trails, so its become aparent that the real issue you have is that they are saying the government might have something to do with it. So you have belittled people just for wanting answers from the government, thats what the whole movement is about (excluding the nut jobbers) is to get the government to recognize there claim and give them an answer and if its true to stop, nothing more nothing less. Thats how things should be, Question is why would you want to stop that.

    “Discussing is not doing. Scientists discuss, analyze, even plan and patent thousands of ideas that never actually come to fruition. ”

    “What, exactly, is “it”?
    do you mean climate change by dispersal of various substances in the atmosphere – “geo engineering”? In that case yes, there is considerable discussion about whether to do it, what effect it will have, etc. Not quite the same as “planning to do it”, but I’ll not split that hair.”

    i posted this earlier
    “The Chairman’s report:
    · Contains background information on the topic of CLIMATE ENGINEERING and exploratory research activities CURRENTLY BEING CONDUCTED.”

  95. So what does this report say is being conducted? Does it resemble contrails?

  96. mr900 says:

    this is what i wrote earlier
    “And after listening and reading some of what has been provided here i can see that it is very likely that the visual of what we see in the sky could just be normal con trails. So they may be wrong that the con trail is a chem spray cloud”

    It is possible it could resemble them or not but it would be released into them as the plane dispersed it and yes the sky has changed, 15 years ago it was never so covered by con trails as it is today maybe for a number of unrelated reasons such as climate change, but it has changed so people assume maybe that is why, but whether a con trail is just a con trail doesnt change the fact that there might also be chemicals being sprayed just that what we see is a con trail.

  97. mr900 says:

    And if their only argument that chemicals are being sprayed just on the fact of the visual of the con trails then they are in the wrong.

  98. mr900 says:

    Written by mr900 on December 5, 2010.

    At last week’s meeting of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Nagoya, Japan, those who favor the first approach scored a major victory. In a landmark consensus decision, the 193-member CBD closed its tenth biennial meeting in with a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.

    “A moratorium is a delay or suspension of an activity.”

  99. mr900 says:

    ““I fail to understand why you categorize/separate “governmental scientists” and “non-governmental scientists” ?? Is there a difference?…and do you have proof of such a separation ?”

    they will both come to the same scientific conclusion based on same observation, The difference can be in how they present the findings which will depend on intent and interests involved. Government scientists are controlled by government and will only tell the public what government says they can. Thought this was common knowledge.

Comments are closed.