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. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Government scientists are controlled by government and will only tell the public what government says they can. Thought this was common knowledge.”

    No matter what ANYONE says, water vapor will always act the same in any given conditions.

    And why do you assume that the trails in the sky have anything to do with “geoengineering”. “they” can stop geoengineering all they want, but as long as airplanes fly, they will leave persistent contrails if the conditions allow for them. That is the bottom line.

    “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.”

    I see claims like this so very often. But, I have yet to see any evidence that anything that chemtrail believers see in these patent lists has EVER actually been built or is in use by “them” to “spray” us. A patent doesn’t mean that the object has been built, just that the inventor has filed for the RIGHTS to his idea. And don’t you think that if there was a spray device made by “them” that it would be kept a secret and NOT patented so that everyone on the planet could know about it?!
    Google “silly patents” and have a look at what you see in the images section. Do you believe that all of these things were also built? Even if the patent isn’t for something silly, doesn’t mean that even a prototype or model was built.

    I see many patent lists being spread around as “evidence”. They’re no such thing. It’s grasping at straws.

    So many people are desperate to prove that the “chemtrails” are actually real that they will spread nonsense in an attempt to persuade others.

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

    You do that! I’m an American citizen and I have pledged allegiance to my flag thousands of times. Seems like you don’t feel the same way. Are you a traitor? The government is made up of elected officials who from time to time make mistakes. Are YOU perfect? Do you actually believe that you could do a better job running the country? I happen to believe that they’re doing the best they can given the problems we have.

    “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. ”

    No, what you listed were never scientific “facts”. It was simply incomplete information. As far as I’m aware, when scientists talk about planets, they use the phrase “known planets”. Not only in reference to planets outside our solar system, but within it as well. The word “fact” isn’t often used in science. But there ARE some. Is it a scientific fact that there aren’t OTHER planets within our solar system that we don’t know about? Nope!
    Again, water reacts in a predictable way. If you have evidence that water vapor can’t/shouldn’t behave as it does in these trails, please provide it. I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that the conditions where these trails are deposited aren’t conducive to persistent contrail creation. When that happens, I will immediately change my position.

    “but you still have done zero to disprove that someone may be spraying chemicals in the air. ”

    Who’s trying to prove that?! I’m certainly not! I’m simply asking for evidence that “they” ARE! I see all these claims that the trails in the sky are a deliberate spray program and EVERY SINGLE bit of evidence provided by the people making such claims has been nothing more than evidence of what they DON’T know about aviation and their own atmosphere. And most of the “evidence” provided is just plain ridiculous. That isn’t an insult, it’s just a fact.

    ” So to try to belittle people when you cant even disprove what they are saying says alot about you”

    Who has belittled you? And to be honest, I detect a bit of attitude in YOUR posts.

    “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.”

    So, you people are allowed to argue YOUR position without providing any evidence that there ARE chemicals in the trails, but we shouldn’t be allowed to argue the fact that no one has been able to provide evidence that anyone IS spraying chemicals on us through these trails?! Just by visual effect alone, they are obviously persistent and persistent spreading contrails. I haven’t seen ANYONE claim that they know for “a fact” that chemicals aren’t being sprayed onto us. We only say that there isn’t the tiniest bit of evidence to support the claim. I AM 99.9% sure that the trails are persistent contrails, but I’m certainly open to the idea that they aren’t. I have yet to see ANY reason to change my mind.

  2. TheFactsMatter says:

    “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.”

    What makes so many people “believe” they are qualified to “investigate” the trails properly? Do they have the correct tools to do the investigation any justice? Airplanes, sampling equipment, laboratories, knowledge? I see no evidence that the chemtrail believers are in any position to question the millions of man hours that have gone into understanding these trails over the last (almost) 100 years.

    Why are you bringing up instances of scientific discovery as if it has anything to do with these trails? Science explained these trails almost 100 years ago. Now, people are making claims that the trails are entirely different things. Can’t you see that the burden of proof is on those who make the claim? Are you actually trying to suggest that people misunderstanding what they see in the sky is on par with the discovery of the atom?! Nope, sorry. There has been a logical and unchallenged (by anyone who has actually studied the subject) explanation for the trails for a very long time. If the chemtrailers want to challenge the truth as it’s understood, they need to step up their game a bit! All I see are the same mistakes made by chemtrail believers over and over and over again.

    For instance, and this is a big one…

    I see the claim that “normal” contrails dissipate immediately and anything that lasts for more than a few minutes must be a “chemtrail”.

    That is the claim made by almost every chemtrail believer I have ever encountered…and it’s just plain WRONG! If the conditions exist for the trail to last at all, the trail will last as long as those conditions persist. But these folks are insistent that they’re right. They aren’t actually interested in knowing the facts of the matter, they just want to spread their beliefs.

    Another claim is that elements found at ground level must have come from the plains in the sky. People find something, they look up and see the trails and make a bunch of assumptions. Sorry, that’s not how it works. These are natural elements and they are found where they are expected to be found and in quantities that are “normal”. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    The people who made the “documentary” “what in the World are they Spraying” have admitted that they didn’t consult a single atmospheric scientist for their movie. They based the claims they made on their “beliefs” simply because they don’t trust ANY of the scientists on the planet who have studied the atmosphere. Right there that SHOULD send up a red flag or two! How does one make a “documentary” by leaving out the information about the subject that the WORLD has accepted as a logical and reasonable explanation for the trails in the sky?! It’s ridiculous! It also shows the level of paranoia we are dealing with. It’s extreme. And, it also shows how easy it is to manipulate people into accepting crap as fact.

    Remember, the people who made that movie want money, and they will fight us tooth and nail because we are supposedly taking money out of their pockets (honestly, I believe that anyone who would EVER consider buying into any of this crap won’t be swayed by any of the logic presented here). Look at the advertising on G Edward Griffins website! He’s a modern day snake oil salesman and suckers are lining up to buy his wares.

    And to reiterate…

    No one is saying that there is “no way” that this is happening. It’s just that the evidence presented so far is extremely flimsy.

  3. TheFactsMatter says:

    To all who use the “prove this isn’t happening” argument….

    Please prove there are no such things as pink flying unicorns. As soon as you prove that, I’ll prove that “chemtrails” aren’t real.

    I googled pink flying unicorns and it came back with 87,500 hits, with many images. It must be true!

  4. Indeed. There are an infinite number of things that you can’t prove don’t exist.

    That does not help the case for them existing, especially when there is no actual evidence.

  5. Steve says:

    Here’s an article by Cassandra Anderson who works for G. Edward Griffin and did some of the so called research on What in the World are The Spraying. Her claim is that chemtrails are part of UN agenda 21 policy of de-populating the world. Insane!!
    http://morphcity.com/home/87-geoengineering-climate-ghous-plan-b

  6. Loose end says:

    The first phase of a large-scale geoengineering project has been completed this year in Europe. Its codename was… let me check… Eyjafjallajökull! 🙂

  7. MikeC says:

    So Mr 900 what you are saying is that all those reports support the following possibilities:

    1/ we have the ability to put chemicals into the upper atmosphere, are doing some experimentation on various aspects of it, are talking about what the effects might be, have not done it yet and have a moratorium in place so that we do not start doing it unless there is a lot more agreement to do so.

    2/ the NWO is changing the atmosphere 30,0000 feet above us without anyone’s approval, without any physical evidence of it leaking, and without anyone’s knowledge apart from the gifted few who can see through their obsfucation but still can’t find a single witness or participant.

    I’m going to opt for 1/ as being moer likely here….just on the balance of probabilities……

  8. mr900 says:

    “You do that! I’m an American citizen and I have pledged allegiance to my flag thousands of times. Seems like you don’t feel the same way. Are you a traitor?”

    Wow, and here we see the very attacking and belittling i refer to, and you base your statement on zero fact zero proof just as the people you claim are crazy for claiming chem trails do. This pretty much shows that you are extremely biased and close minded to any view but your own as is proof by your lack of ability to read my previous post and retain what i said untill you make your reply. You were so much just on attack mode that you completely have missed my whole argument. And i am getting annoyed at the fact i have to copy and pate what i have already said 50 time to defend against attacks that have no foundation to start with, you continually try to pick fights over things that i have already conceded to or proven false or unprovable its obvious you just want to argue with anyone who questions your view on it.

    “To all who use the “prove this isn’t happening” argument….
    Please prove there are no such things as pink flying unicorns. As soon as you prove that, I’ll prove that “chemtrails” aren’t real.
    I googled pink flying unicorns and it came back with 87,500 hits, with many images. It must be true!”

    Really are we gonna get childish on here now, i said that if your gonna try to belittle someone for saying something is so then you better be able to prove that it isnt, otherwise your no better then those you claim a fool for having no proof to say it is so.

    “And why do you assume that the trails in the sky have anything to do with “geoengineering”. “they” can stop geoengineering all they want, but as long as airplanes fly, they will leave persistent contrails if the conditions allow for them. That is the bottom line.”

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

    “Why are you bringing up instances of scientific discovery as if it has anything to do with these trails? ”

    Again if you go up and read the posts you will see that that was a side argument that i was defending and someone kept wanting to rehash it cause they couldnt accept or retain what i wrote.

    “So, you people are allowed to argue YOUR position without providing any evidence that there ARE chemicals in the trails, but we shouldn’t be allowed to argue the fact that no one has been able to provide evidence that anyone IS spraying chemicals on us through these trails?! Just by visual effect alone, they are obviously persistent and persistent spreading contrails.

    Notice the first part there “you people” just shows you this persons mind set, this is like what racists do they they take individuals and place them into a group so they can just hate the whole lot and blame them all for the actions of a few, which would explain why this person seems to completely disregard my statements in previous posts and group me with the extremist chemies.

    here is what i wrote
    “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”

    Didnt say you cant argue your point said you shouldnt belittle and claim someone wrong when you have no proof on your side either.

    Why are you getting so upset over this whats it gonna hurt if they go looking for answers, if there are none they will go nowhere and do no harm to anyone. Only people who would have to worry and try to stop them is someone who has something to lose from thier looking into it.

    And once again as is noted in my previous posts im neither 100% for or against either side, merely that there is enough evidence from the politicle admitance that this could be happening and hence people have a right to look into it and that no one has a right to try to belittle them and or try to stop them, in fact if you point them in the right direction and give them the access to the proof (for or against) that they seek then you will only get the whole thing over with more quickly and then you can say “told ya so” at them when and if your right.

    Not to be rude but from here on out i will not respond to attacks or arguments of things that i have already posted several times its a waste of time, cause if you didnt want to listen the first time you wont any following times either.

    In fact captfitch is one of the few so far that has responded with respect and used just facts to relay his msg and if you notice it was his replies that swayed me to that con trails can and will act as they do.

  9. mr900 says:

    “2/ the NWO is changing the atmosphere 30,0000 feet above us without anyone’s approval, without any physical evidence of it leaking, and without anyone’s knowledge apart from the gifted few who can see through their obsfucation but still can’t find a single witness or participant.”

    Did you see me type anything about NWO , population control? nope sure didnt so obvious your just mumbling crap now dismissed

  10. mr900 says:

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

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

    Funny how some cant even absorb facts when presented , i wonder was it on accident or purpose you chose one meaning of the word over the other.

  11. mr900 says:

    UN wouldnt put out a moratorium unless they thought someone was seriously about to do it or already was.

  12. Loose end says:

    Written by mr900:

    “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.”

    English is not my native language, but I think I can understand this text up to the word ‘fact’. After it I can see no fact, just a hypothesis. Am I missing something?

  13. MikeC says:

    Mr900 I read your posts and fully understood them – it seems you did not. Part of the definition of moratorium was DELAY – why do you ignore that part of it?

    I do not believe the moratorium refers to a suspension because I do not believe there is a programme to suspend. I do believe the moratorium means a delay to carrying out any geo-engineering because I do believe there is research going on, and the idea is to ensure it does not actually take place without consensus.

    From what I have read the moratorium does not preclude experimentation and research, and that is what is being carried out at the moment.

    There is some climate engineering being carried out – such activities as carbon sequestration, limiting carbon emissions – but I do not think the moratorium applies to those.

    there are also other climate engineering activites that have been proposed – mirrors in space, encouraging plankton growth by iron and copper seeding of the seas, and many others. These are also, AFAIK, not yet happening and I presume teh moratorium will apply to them – and hence DELAY them.

    And given the total lack of actual evidence of anything being sprayed into the atmosphere by way of climate engineering (as opposed to pollution changing the climate for example) I think your support for the chemtrail hoax is simply mistaken.

    My reference to the NWO is a surrogate for whoever it is you think is organising the conspiracy you think exists – there must be someone “in charge”….or there is no conspiracy to identify. The NWO gets plenty of press bfrom many chemtrail hoaxers – I don’t think it exists, but I use terminology I hope will be recognisable.

    Loose end – no I don’t think you are missing anything – such jumps of illogic are the basis upon which the chemtrail hoax feeds.

  14. SR1419 says:

    “exploratory research” is a long way from a global, clandestine, daily program that has been (supposedly) fully operational for well over a decade.

    No one is denying that there is research on-going to “geo-engineer” the planet, control the weather what have you…and that some ideas even involve putting particulate matter in the atmosphere…

    …its just that seeing a contrail persist and spread is not evidence of it.

    Indeed, the entire premise of “chemtrails” – that “contrails dissipate- chemtrails don’t” is false…

    The idea that contrails don’t persist for hours and spread to cover the sky…and never have is the principle tenet of the Theory…and yet its utterly false.

    So, any discussion that is based on that false premise is highly problematic.

  15. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Wow, and here we see the very attacking and belittling i refer to,”

    Are you kidding me!?! How have I “attacked” or “belittled” you?! I guess you’re a bit sensitive. I’ll try to behave.

    “Really are we gonna get childish on here now..”

    Yes, it seems you are. It was a VERY valid point and you dismiss it as “childish”. That whole, “Prove to me something doesn’t exist” crap is what’s childish! That’s what I was trying to tell you. But, I was certainly more tactful than you are…stop belittling me!!! 🙂

    “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…”

    Maybe where YOU have lived, but in the Boston suburbs, the trails have looked exactly like the ones in the youtube “chemtrail” videos for as long as I can remember. I’m 45 and purchased my boyhood home from my folks. You do know that as more airports and more flights are created, more areas will be flown over…right?! Maybe where you have lived never had air traffic over the area before, and now they do. Isn’t it possible?

    “Didnt say you cant argue your point said you shouldnt belittle and claim someone wrong when you have no proof on your side either.”

    So, you wouldn’t “belittle” ( I still think you’re overreacting, I see no evidence that anyone has been rude to you) someone who claimed, as an absolute fact, that there are invisible pink flying unicorns flying all around us? I use that as an example because it’s just as ridiculous as the claims of “chemtrails”. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

    “Again if you go up and read the posts you will see that that was a side argument that i was defending and someone kept wanting to rehash it cause they couldnt accept or retain what i wrote.”

    I don’t give a shit if it was a “side argument”. You wrote it, I commented about it.

    “Why are you getting so upset over this whats it gonna hurt if they go looking for answers, ”

    You think I’m upset with you? Sorry, you haven’t provided me a reason to be upset with you. I’m just responding to what I read, as I read it. It’s very entertaining to be honest. But, I’m not going to belittle you with all of that. It’s against the politeness policy. I will say that I find all chemtrail hoax believers to be VERY entertaining. And I thank you. And as far as “looking for answers” goes, you aren’t. You don’t want the truth, you want someone to agree with you…and that’s ALL you want. You’ve been provided many answers, and you’re still acting like you haven’t gotten the correct ones. It’s kinda funny…you claim to want the truth, then you dismiss it when you get it and complain that you’re getting the run around.

    “…merely that there is enough evidence from the politicle admitance…”

    Uh, what?! Are you referring to “geoengineering” again?! Show me in this “politicle admitance” that anyone has said that the long trails we see in the sky have ANYTHING to do with “geoengineering”. You just assume that since “they” admit to geoenginnering, the trails in the sky must be evidence of a program. Sorry, that’s illogical. Again, people are looking up and noticing something for the first time and then jumping to conclusions.

    “Not to be rude but from here on out i will not respond to attacks or arguments of things that i have already posted several times its a waste of time, cause if you didnt want to listen the first time you wont any following times either.”

    Well, fine by me! It’s not like your going to accept anything I write anyway. Which is also fine by me. I just enjoy replying to everyone. Don’t feel you have to reciprocate. Don’t feel you even have to read what I write. I’m not forcing you to do anything. Also, please keep in mind that EVERYTHING you receive in replies here has already been posted here several times. Have you read all of the articles? What makes you so special that you get to make the rules? Then again, as I’ve mentioned…I don’t actually care if you reply to me…or like my replies to your claims. Oops…did I just attack you…or was that belittling?! I’m not sure…Oh well

    “In fact captfitch is one of the few so far that has responded with respect and used just facts to relay his msg and if you notice it was his replies that swayed me to that con trails can and will act as they do.”

    Yeah, capfitch is a great guy. No doubt about it! I’ll try to be more aware of your sensitivities. To be honest, you aren’t the most polite fellow either…

    You know…glass houses and all…

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

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

    Again, where is the EVIDENCE that the trails have ANYTHING to do with ” CLIMATE ENGINEERING and exploratory research activities”?! It’s such a strange assumption! Is it because both things happen in the sky?! Where is the logical link? ” CLIMATE ENGINEERING and exploratory research activities” can stop forever, but, as soon as the first plane hits the proper conditions for persistent contrails, persistent contrails you will continue to see. I’ll never understand that claim that the trails = climate experimentation. It’s such a ridiculous assumption. Again, there is absolutely ZERO evidence to support that claim.
    Is THAT what you’re referring to as “belittling”?! I’m sorry, but these claims ARE ridiculous! There is absolutely no evidence to support the claims, but people accept them as truth. I COULD use other words than “ridiculous”, but the politeness policy forbids me. It’s not MY fault that I understand just how silly these claims are!~

  16. mr900 says:

    “Written by MikeC on December 6, 2010.

    Mr900 I read your posts and fully understood them – it seems you did not. Part of the definition of moratorium was DELAY – why do you ignore that part of it?”

    Yeah if you recall i was the one who posted the definition of the word there smart guy and unlike others who when used it only used the part of the definition that suited there need i posted both versions to be fair and equal, but of course you dont want to and hence you use the part that suits you best.

  17. mr900 says:

    Its quit obvious now to anyone who reads all these will see your intent isnt to argue anything over the visual effect they see but your sole purpose is to tell people not to acuse the government and to try to stop them from looking into it by insulting them and attacking them , im done trying to discuss this since the only people left replying are clearly closed minded and wont concede to any proof or truth you present them and instead will resort to personal attacks since thats all they got. Already wasted too much time on here already im out and wish you all the best, and thanks captfitch being mature and polite and discussing the facts

    I dont argue with idiots because all they do is bring you down to there level and them beat you with experience.

  18. TheFactsMatter says:

    “im done trying to discuss this since the only people left replying are clearly closed minded and wont concede to any proof or truth you present them and instead will resort to personal attacks since thats all they got.”

    What a fucking whiner…

    And WHAT “proof or truth” have you provided?!

    Closed minded?! How can asking for evidence be closed minded?!

    “I dont argue with idiots because all they do is bring you down to there level and them beat you with experience.”

    I’m done trying to discuss this since the only people left replying are clearly closed minded and wont concede to any proof or truth you present them and instead will resort to personal attacks since thats all they got.

  19. TheFactsMatter says:

    Oh, and thanks for ignoring the valid points I made. I guess you probably didn’t understand them. Come back in a few years! Bye!

    Instead of whining about how you’re being “attacked”, maybe next time you’ll drop the drama and discuss this subject properly.

  20. TheFactsMatter says:

    I apologize for breaking the rules. I know the politeness policy is in place to discourage the use of foul language. I should not have used the word “fucking”. Please remove my comments if it’s what you think needs to be done Uncinus, I will not protest.

  21. Kamran says:

    @ mr900

    The thing people are taking issue with when you talk about the moratorium is that you use that as evidence that a program is being suspended. MikeC and others point out that moratorium can also mean delay.

    Now this is the important part of the argument, so pay attention.

    Since the evidence that some sort of geoengineering program is going on is essentially non-existent, then the meaning of moratorium in this context is probably delay.

    You also are moving the goalposts by saying that since there is a moratorium a geoengineering program is either going on or poised to start somewhere (which somehow means it’s going on). We are discussing whether a geoengineering program is going on AND whether contrails are related to such a program. If you can’t demonstrate both of those things then you’re right to quit.

  22. mr900 said:

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

    Well, I just read the report:

    http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Reports/EngineeringTheClimate_StaffReport.pdf

    The closest thing to “chemtrails” describe in it is:

    Researchers at Rutgers University have received a grant, through the NSF Geosciences (GEO) Directorate, to explore stratospheric injections and sunshading. The team has conducted climate model simulations of the various scenarios of artificially introduced particles in the stratosphere. And they have investigated the potential impacts of stratospheric injections on precipitation, as well as the ethical implications of some climate engineering proposals. As of November 2009 the team had produced five peer- reviewed journal articles on its research.

    It’s a computer simulation. It is indeed “CURRENTLY BEING CONDUCTED”, but it’s not making any trails in the sky. Nor is anything else described in the report (which does not even mention contrails, spraying, aerosolized aluminum, barium, or anything else that remotely supports the theory that the trails are part of a geoengineering project)

  23. TheFactsMatter says:

    Steve, that was great stuff. I love how people get all upset whenever someone talks about population reduction. The woman who wrote that article writes : “Watch this video to understand that this is a depopulation program and this NOAA scientist advocates “doing whatever we can to reduce population”. It’s not a “depopulation program” It’s a population management program recommendation! There is a huge difference! In depopulation, people have to be eliminated, in a management program, intelligent planning is recommended. Personally, I see NOTHING wrong with encouraging birth control and smaller families. There are far too many kids who are having kids and then just keep pushing out babies so they can collect from the government. The quality of life for these people is disgusting, even with the government assistance. I also don’t want to see people thrown out on the streets with their kids. Having less children is a way to reduce the population over time. Believe me, the only reason I have 3 kids is because I had twins. Two would have been more than enough!

    Again, thanks for posting that link. It was very entertaining.

  24. MikeC says:

    Mr900 – thank you for the name calling – but it is misplaced – I do actually think I am a smart guy, and so your sarcastic insult is merely a reflection of the truth 🙂

    and yes, I know you posted the definition – and I was asking why it is that you are ignoring half of it?

    I did not ignore half of it – I wrote 2 explainations of why I think the moratorium means a delay rather than a suspension. I thought I had done enough to show you my reasoning – I guess not – which part of my argument did you not follow?

    You, on the other hand, have made no effort to explain why you think the moratorium must be a suspension of something that is currently happening. By which I mean we have all read your previous and subsequent comments……but they offer no actual evidence of anything that is going on that might be suspended.

    By all means offer some evidence – but quoting a report that says a moratorium is applied isn’t evidence of something happening – sorry – it jsut does not follow.

    Here’s another example of why not – there is a treaty from long ago that prohibits nuclear weapons in space (Outer Space Treaty from 1967). Do you know how many nuclear weapons there were in space when it was signed?

    0. Zero. None. Nada.

    And yet they signed a treat prohibiting them.

    By your reasoning that could not have happened. This is just an example showing that there does NOT need to be something happening in order for there to be legislation to prohibit it. Personally I despair that an example needs to be shown at all, but such is life.

    Note: No Mr900’s were insulted in the making of this post.

  25. TheFactsMatter says:

    You may not have insulted him…but you may have belittled him. I’m not actually sure.

    Judges?

  26. MikeC says:

    Plausible denial….it’s all part of the conspiracy…..and just wait until this post is quoted as proof….;)

  27. TheFactsMatter says:

    So, I finally brought myself to begin watching “What in the World are they Spraying” and I literally could not get through the first claim without feeling sick to my stomach. They claim that fall streaks from the trails are chaff! They show people describing chaff, and then they cut to the scene of some fall streak/virga. Chaff looks NOTHING like that in the sky! There is absolutely NO WAY the two things could be confused for each other!

    I know i’ll never be able to watch that entire video.

  28. Steve says:

    Factsmatter, you must view pts. 6 and 7 for pure hysterical entertainment. The scene where members of We are Change LA attempt to hand out their “geo engineering report” to actual members of congress in the halls of congress may be one of the funniest scenes ever recorded in film history. One congressman asks if these strange reporters have credentials and Mike Murphy replies “we got by security didn’t we?” Please just check it out, it’s great for a real laugh.

  29. jasper says:

    what in the world are they smoking?

  30. TheFactsMatter says:

    Steve, I don’t think I can stomach another second of that ridiculous farce. I’ll try t watch those parts at some point. Thanks for the heads-up.

  31. (Anonymous) Zeke Daniels says:

    You know, with all the reports of people experiencing a metallic taste right after chemtrail spraying, could it be that they are spraying statins and not metals? Statins help deprive the circulatory system of LDL cholesterol, which in turn induce a condition known as ketosis. One of the side effects of ketosis is a metallic taste in the mouth. By limiting bad cholesterol, statins reduce heart attacks. Perhaps this spraying is doing us some good, and maybe our nanny state is indeed looking out after us.

    On a totally different note, I believe what that guy who invented the razor said about the simplest explanation being the best one. All these complicated explanations about atmospheric conditions causing “contrails” to persist just don’t cut it. Come on, the best explanation is someone flipping a switch on and off!

  32. Zeke Daniels says:

    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_4557a.JPG[/img]
    Hey there Mr. Anonymous,
    I agree. As you can see from this here photo, that’s what all three planes did when they were laying down their chemtrails. They flick they spray switches off, then back on again as they didn’t want to spray over a certain area (most likely the upper class neighborhoods in my city). As you can see, the one on the far right got his nozzle clogged or something and so it was sputtering after he turned it on again as he was flying toward the horizon.

    I bet some of them chemtrail deniers will say there was a horizontal pocket of dry air up there. All right, I’m willing to listen to you, but show me the measurements!

  33. You’d think someone would notice of all of a sudden a hundred million people developed unexplained ketosis.

    Zeke, you know what Occam actually said. It was not that the explanation with the fewest words was correct. It was “don’t invent new things to explain something’.

    Is a cloud not just a region of air with different temperature and humidity than the surrounding air?

    If so, then why can’t a region of air the size of a cloud (which can be very small) either support or not support a contrail.

  34. TheFactsMatter says:

    “I bet some of them chemtrail deniers will say there was a horizontal pocket of dry air up there. All right, I’m willing to listen to you, but show me the measurements!”

    Find the measurements yourself! Why should we have to show you anything when you haven’t shown us the “chemicals” in the “chemtrails”?!?

    “They flick they spray switches off, then back on again as they didn’t want to spray over a certain area (most likely the upper class neighborhoods in my city). ”

    Are you kidding?! You actually believe that “they” can pinpoint target an area to “spray”, or not to “spray”, from 30,000 feet up and “know” where the “chemicals” will wind up?! That’s absurd.

  35. Kamran says:

    Was Zeke trying to sock puppet?

  36. Alexey says:

    “You know, with all the reports of people experiencing a metallic taste right after chemtrail spraying, could it be that they are spraying statins and not metals?”

    Regardless of what “they are spraying”, it would require huge quantities of a “spray” to cause the reported alleged effect on a large scale (state, country, continent etc.)

  37. Alexey says:

    “I bet some of them chemtrail deniers will say there was a horizontal pocket of dry air up there. All right, I’m willing to listen to you, but show me the measurements!”

    Not necessarily dry, just somewhat below the threshold for persistent contrail formation. I observed a few times how a long contiguous contrail have been formed, and then some of its middle sections rapidly dissipated while others persisted, leaving a broken line. I was not at all like a flipping ‘on-off’ switch.

  38. captfitch says:

    Zeke is totally baiting or just being funny.

  39. MikeC says:

    There’s another option – he’s completely serious and uncurable 🙁

  40. I think Zeke is just messing around.

  41. dz says:

    Hey everyone. I am an aviation meteorologist. Zeke is my alter ego.

    Unicus, I LOVE your website. It’s a treasure trove. By the way, thanks for clarifying Occam’s razor. I think Zeke “unwittingly” contradicted himself by bringing that up right after his statin explanation.

    TheFactsMatter, you are absolutely correct when you mention that my (excuse me, Zeke’s) argument is absurd.

    MikeC, your hypothesis is 50 percent correct, Zeke is incurable.

    “Mr. Captfitch”, if baiting occurred, it was unintentional. As far as being funny, that can only be evaluated subjectively. By the way, do you still have any of them chembuster kits for sale?

    As for the photo, it was taken shortly before sunrise looking approximately east. The 3 aircraft producing the trails flew from the eastern horizon more or less towards the observer (me), and not vice versa. The trail starting in the lower right that Zeke referred to as “sputtering” had actually been solid right up to the discontinuity, but it was breaking up by the time I had gotten to my camera.
    ~dz

  42. TheFactsMatter says:

    Oops..

  43. dz says:

    Uncinus, please forgive me for butchering you name. That was an unintentional “zekanism”.

  44. captfitch says:

    I’m so confused

    I didn’t really think there was such a thing as Aviation Meteorologists aside from those who work for large private companies. I believe FedEx has a large staff of weather men. I’m sure all of the airlines have them. I’m pretty sure the METARs and TAFs as well as al the charts are written by regular weather people. Could you clarify TZ?

  45. MikeC says:

    Maybe it’s just a local terminology thing – the local public Meterorology service (not in the USA) has an aviation division or unit, which is who produces METARS and TAF’s and the rest. The meteorologists who work in it are generally termed “Aviation Meteorologists”, according to my colleague who used to be one.

    They could move to the marine division and then be termed “Marine Meteorologists”, or to any other division similarly.

  46. dz says:

    Capfitch,
    In the U.S., at any National Weather Service forecast office on a given shift there is usually one person who does aviation weather, including the TAFs, and one person who does the public desk. There are also the CWSUs (central weather service units) co-located with the ARTCCs. Those meteorologists are totally dedicated to aviation weather, as well as those that work at the AWC (Aviation Weather Center) in Kansas City. Are you a U.S. pilot?

    By the way, I’m going by dz and not tz (no big deal). “dz” is a transposition of Zeke Daniel’s “zd” initials to differentiate between the real me and the “alter ego” me. Disclaimer: the choice of using the name “Zeke Daniels” has nothing to do with any living or deceased person with the same name and is totally coincidental.

  47. Zeke Daniels says:

    Hey, is somebody out there usin’ my name???

  48. TheFactsMatter says:

    Has anyone who believes we are being sprayed ever had themselves/their air/water/soil tested for aluminum and/or barium poisoning/exposure?

    I would love to see some reports. Then I’d like evidence that the levels today are higher than they were 30 years ago.

  49. captfitch says:

    Of course they haven’t had themselves checked. If they have had themselves checked it probably came back negative and we would never see them posted.

  50. That depends on who the they check with. There are lots of “doctors” out there who are perfectly willing to tell you that your toxins are a bit high,

    http://www.hairanalysistest.com/elements_tested.html

    and then sell you something like a fake foot-bath

    http://www.chem1.com/CQ/FootBathBunk.html

    (Amusingly that first site will test your hair for Molybdenum, and then sell you a “ProToxi Clear” multi-vitamin that contains 200% of the RDA of Molybdenum, and that’s supposed to detoxify you)

  51. TheFactsMatter says:

    “If they have had themselves checked it probably came back negative and we would never see them posted.”

    Are you suggesting that these folks aren’t pursuing the truth in this matter?! Of COURSE they HAVE had themselves checked out! How can they claim that we are being poisoned without showing that they’ve been poisoned?!

    So, all those with barium and aluminum poisoning, please share your stories!

  52. SR1419 says:

    Rosalind Peterson has a new movie out-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxvWLrUeE8

  53. She doesn’t say anything new, unfortunately. Just misidentifies a bunch of “odd” contrails, and fails to recognize that spikes in rainfall correlate with spikes in water mineral content.

  54. TheFactsMatter says:

    I see our old friend Skywitless is still at it! Did you REALLY have to tell him/her to “get lost”!?! How rude! LOL!

    Skywitness said I should be “hanged for my crimes” as a “shill” simply for accepting the scientific explanation for the trails in the sky. That’s what I love about these witch hunters! So polite! Skywitless is the reason I don’t bother with youtube anymore. That is one special person…

  55. SR1419 says:

    Uncinus-

    Is there a more formal treatment of Rosalind’s “data” on here somewhere? I thought I recalled something…??

    As for SkyWitless…yes, that is one interesting individual- seemingly NO capacity for a rational dialog – all they can offer is insults and mindless parroting of the party line.

  56. I mentioned the rain spike thing briefly in the KSLA barium story, with some links.

    http://contrailscience.com/barium-chemtrails/

    The amount of barium will also vary based on the weather. Very heavy rains will leach more barium out into the groundwater. So you’d expect more barium after very rainy seasons. This is actually what you find if you look at the historical records in California (which has very uneven annual rainfall). You see spikes in barium whenever there is a wet year after a dry year. Recent years like these are 1991, 1995, 1998 and 2004 (2001 and 2003 also spiked to a lesser extent). The expected peaks were confirmed by the results of Rosalind Peterson at California Skywatch.

    http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtpre.pl?casand

  57. TheFactsMatter says:

    I have to wonder why Rosalind doesn’t consult with experts in these fields BEFORE she makes her beliefs public.

  58. Ross Marsden says:

    Same applies to G Edward Griffin, Alex Jones, any number of people who are “active” in this area.
    Expert help is not necessary, just someone who knows the science; competent advice.

  59. Mike says:

    Becaue if she consulted with someone who knows something she would have to either accept that she’s wrong, or enter into an argument with them.

    Now some people like arguing….but if you know that you’re wrong then argument with experts is not a productive activity. Except insofar as it polarises your supporters and hardens them against also listening to experts who are “obviously” part of the conpiracy. That may get you a few fanatical fans, but it is probably better for the ego to have a wider circle of adoration.

    So not consulting experts is selfserving and circular.

    But you didn’t really need me to tell you that, did you?! 🙂

  60. Ross Marsden says:

    Maybe you did. I really don’t understand their not consulting competent practitioners in the “search for truth”. It’s irrational.

  61. Griffin claims to think that all the experts are somehow compromised.

  62. MikeC says:

    The behaviour pattern is, I think, logical enough, even if the hoax is not – it serves to boost the hoaxer’s standing in the community – everyone does that, regardless of the soundness of their position.

  63. TheFactsMatter says:

    “Griffin claims to think that all the experts are somehow compromised.”

    Hmmmm…There’s a word for that…can’t quite remember it right now…any help?!

  64. Here’s what he said again:

    It may surprise you to know that I agree with some of what you said. I agree that it would be helpful to have input from professionals in the field of atmospheric phenomena, but we are not enthusiastic about the opinions of those whose livelihood depends on government money or universities that, themselves, are dependent on such funding. We are equally skeptical about those working for or hoping to benefit from contracts with corporations that are positioned to make huge profits within the geo-engineering industry. In fact, we already have those people in our documentary and have given them ample time to state their case. In doing so, they have thoroughly discredited themselves. Why do we need more of these people when we already have the top men in that field?

    On the other hand, if you can locate atmospheric scientists who are not tainted by the very industry we are exposing, please let me know so we can include them in any follow-up work we may do. At the very least, I would publish their analyses in Unfiltered News – yes, even if they do not agree with ours. All we ask is that they not be on the payroll, directly or indirectly, of governments or the geo-engineering industry. Fair enough?

    I think the “indirectly” is the catch there. I suspect that he finds all university scientists (that disagree with him) to be “on the payroll” somehow. Otherwise he would trivially have been able to find one.

  65. Faithinscience says:

    So, anyone who has been formally educated in the subjects that explain the trails in the sky has been tainted. I love it! Only the uneducated can REALLY understand the trails in the sky!

  66. Alhazred The Sane says:

    Waiting for some of the loons to upload the second photo on this page as the definitive proof that chemtrails exist: http://www.cracked.com/article_18878_17-images-you-wont-believe-arent-photoshopped-part-7.html

  67. Oh, several people have pointed to roll clouds, clouds streets, and morning glory clouds before.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mmnUdOX780

  68. Steve says:

    Latest article displaying the continual saga of the effects that this little chemtrail video is having on the citizens of the world especially those who reside in Arizona. Have fun with this one.
    http://www.wmicentral.com/news/latest_news/article_dfb9deac-0edb-11e0-b19d-001cc4c03286.html

  69. Arizona Skywatch have had some “tests” on their site for nearly three year which are just plain wrong, and demonstrably wrong. They tested dirt instead of air. I’ve pointed this out several times, but they don’t listen. If anything some broader attention to their site might help burn out the pseudoscience.

    See:

    http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/

    (Although, looking at Arizona Skywatch again, it seems they have gone further down the rabbit hole, and it’s unlikely the Senator will take them seriously)

  70. TheFactsMatter says:

    “I’ve pointed this out several times, but they don’t listen.”

    Hmmm…I wonder why.

  71. Steve says:

    Skywatch had this must see gem of a video on chemtrail activist Kathy Ornstein spreading the word of the dangers of chemtrails on Venice beach. Her singing rendition of “blue sky” had me laughing so hard that I almost blew out my aorta.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kWc2L64OVI

  72. TheFactsMatter says:

    OMG Steve, that video was fantastic!

    Can you imagine that somewhere out there are people who have been influenced by that woman. To be honest, I thought she was poorly prepared and sounded a little off her rocker.

  73. TheFactsMatter says:

    She makes a lot of claims and accuses many people of many things. I think people should have to provide evidence and back up their ridiculous accusations/character assassinations of so many people. Why isn’t evidence as important to others as it is to me?!

    Don’t these people believe in being innocent until PROVEN guilty?! They haven’t even come close to showing that the trails are anything other than persistent contrails. They seem to hate so many people who are doing absolutely NOTHING wrong! I’m disgusted.

    Oh, the shame…

  74. Steve says:

    She runs this meetup group out of Los Angeles that I’m sure Uncinus would love to join.
    http://www.meetup.com/environment-391/

  75. TheFactsMatter says:

    Yeah, she has some videos of those meet-ups on youtube. Again, more exaggerated claims and nothing to back them up.

  76. That video was just a couple of miles from my house.

    See here we are getting to the meta problem. It’s all very well to point out the inconsistencies, mistakes, and lack of rigor in people like Kathy. But I think most people would agree that she’s a “true believer”, who will not change her mind, regardless of the evidence.

    Given that, if your goal is to increase the usage and understanding of science and reason, then what is one to do with such a person?

    – Ignore them?
    – Engage them in debate directly?
    – Indirectly debunk them by explaining their points?
    – Say how ridiculous they are being?
    – Something else??

    What would be most effective?

  77. Steve says:

    The most effective way is to engage them in a polite conversation while recording with your own video camera. Here’s an event close to you that Mike Murphy is hosting where you could engage him in a conversation about chemtrails or building 7.
    http://www.meetup.com/WeAreChangeLA/calendar/15803518/
    I was planning on shooting this event myself but if you could show up, all the better.

  78. TheFactsMatter says:

    “The most effective way is to engage them in a polite conversation while recording with your own video camera.”

    I’d love to witness that. Imagine what Kathy would have done if one of those people in her videos challenged her…politely, of course.

    But, as Uncinus points out, what do you say? “You’re wrong”? Do you ask questions about her statements? You don’t want to put her on the defensive, but you want her to defend her points with logic and evidence. How does one engage these people in debate in public? I’ll be honest, after watching Kathy, I’d say she’d fold immediately. I have no real evidence of that, but she seemed scattered. She also doesn’t seem articulate enough to last in a debate.

    I’d say ignore that one, but others at the meet-up may be worthy.

    Good point Uncinus.

  79. Julie says:

    Monsanto would benefit by paying off politicians then engaging in their own aluminum spraying program in order to raise the PH of the soil. Its not a conspiracy, it’s what people in power have done throughout the ages. As long as we have a ‘secret government’ (ie the CIA, etc) they will be out of our control (the people of the constitution) The CIA was created by nazi supporters identified by Hoover. When JFK announced shutting them down, he was shot. Another timeless scheme and simple. Despite this people think but those things wont happen to us? Willful blindness. We are just as open to these things as any other nation in history. The forefathers even stated this when they warned us that democracy was temporary and will eventually consume itself w/ tyranny like every other government. …It will just happen slower as long as the people are in control of it.

  80. MikeC says:

    Except aluminium does not raise the pH of soil – if it did it would be the perfect counter to the acidic soils that cause aluminium poisoning!

    Here’s how it works – aluminium is a common element – it is about 8% of the crust of the earth, and so, on average, is present in all soils. There are obviously variations in its concentratoins – that’s why we mine bauxite in some places and not simply in everyones back yard.

    Aluminium oxide is insoluble in water (as is Aluminium Hydroxide, another very common form of aluminium in nature) When the soil pH drops below about 4.5 (acids are low pH!) the acidity allows aluminium to become soluble in the form of Al3+. Al3+ is acidic – but it cannot form without conditions being acidic or alkaline already.

    High pH’s also make aluminium soluble – and aluminium is used as an acidity regulator in those circumstances, because it forms salts with various other elements and removes them from solution – thus dropping to pH!

    Eg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_neutralizing_capacity or http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/water/aluminium/aluminum-and-water.htm

    there is so much aluminium in nature that the concept that it can be changed by spraying relatively small amounts of it at 30,000 feet requires some extraordinary evidednce to support it! And so far there is none at all – either for it being sprayed, or that it would ahve any effect if it was.

    But by all means do show us some verifiable evidence – that is what this site is all about – it provides it, and asks for any more that you may have.

  81. Alhazred The Sane says:

    That video Steve posted, have you noticed how few comments there are and that all the comments are pro the nutter? That’s because if you try to post anything it awaits moderation. First time I’ve come across that on youtube, and I make comments on stuff quite regularly – almost always very positive comments on music or videos that have impressed me, if I don’t like something I tend to move along.

  82. MikeC says:

    I’ve been banned after only 1 comment on another one & am awaiting approval now on this one too – but they can’t hide the “dislike” figures 🙂

  83. Alhazred The Sane says:

    Arf! Indeed they can’t. I must remember to dislike stuff. Usually I only offer positive reinforcement, unless I come across hate or racism. I’ll pop back and dislike it! Thanks for the heads-up, I wouldn’t have thought of it.

    I really like this site, so many sound minds struggling against the nonsense. It’s all new to me, usually I only argue with nonsense face-to-face. Which might explain why I’ve had my nose broken twice in the last year!

  84. Steve says:

    Break out the gas masks it’s chemtrail-awareness-day:

    http://chemtruth.ning.com/forum/topics/world-chemtrail-awareness-day

  85. MikeC says:

    Thanks for the heads up – according to that link here in the Sth Island of NZ “we” use cloud seeding to create snow for skifields.

    Maybe someone tried it once long ago, but these days snowmakers are pretty much ubiquitous – making cunning use of the gas laws to create snow on demand, and in exactly the right place – no need to worry about the vagiaries of the atmoshpere that way!

  86. Ross Marsden says:

    The correct link for “World Chemtrail Awareness Day” is this:
    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=131766303549040

    Oddly and coincidentally there is “Supersaturation with Respect to Ice Awareness Day”
    http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=141062672616577

  87. Hamburger says:

    I was reading until Posting Number 178,
    so please excuse me if someone mentioned my statement already:
    I don’t care if they (the trails) are filled with Aluminium,
    even it is “just Water” it is not healthy for us and the environment
    because they change something, they altered our Atmosphere.

    I doubt really that it will be healthy for Sun-Depended Creatures
    to get only this Silver-Sky instead of the deep Blue like we cant remember anymore!

  88. TheFactsMatter says:

    “they altered our Atmosphere.”

    So? And now we are asking for evidence that the alteration is harmful. I see claims of chemicals in these trails, but I see no evidence that a trail that lasts for a while is any more harmful to me than one that doesn’t. In fact, I would be willing to be that the so called “normal” contrails contain just as much hazardous ingredients as the long lasting ones.

  89. TheFactsMatter says:

    I would be willing to bet that the so called “normal” contrails contain just as much hazardous ingredients as the long lasting ones.

  90. Alexey says:

    Hamburger said:
    “even it is “just Water” it is not healthy for us and the environment because they change something, they altered our Atmosphere.”

    Well, the contrails are made mostly of water that is already in the atmosphere. Water vapor resulted from the burnt fuel by the jet engines is negligible addition. For example, Boeing 747 produces about 20 kg of water vapor (20 L of liquid water) per 1 km flown. Conservatively assuming the cross-section area of its contrail is about 1000 m2, it is just 0.02 g/m3, or less than 1% of the absolute humidity of saturated vapor at -10 °C. For other temperatures, see http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/misc/klima.htm

  91. My comment will be very short —- > author of this article is obviously trying to turn this movie back into conspiracy theory, but the facts are pretty clear to millions of people. Only ignorant will believe you.

  92. captfitch says:

    Millions? Really? I think maybe millions have heard of chemtrails but as far as those who actually believe in them is probably in the lower thousands.

  93. Yes really, it is a simple math.
    90% population of the world is not aware of this phenomena, that means 10% is.
    We currently have 6,897,380,020 people on the planet. 10% of that is almost 690 millions 🙂

  94. Alexey says:

    Correction: 99.99999…% population of the world is not aware of this phenomena. I have heard about this conspiracy theory for the first time in November 2010, after finding this website in connection with “LA mystery missile”.

  95. For me it was September 2008. I was than in the States and a massive chemtrail spraying begun just one day and it continue till today. The problem was with Americans as always is, that they do everything “big”. What I mean by that is, that they have been spraying so much, that it was hard to notice what is happening. At that time millions of people where moving from state to state to escape from chemtrails until they figure it out what is happening. Now am back home Poland and we do have chemtrails to. But Europeans are usually smarter than Americans and they do it in a way that is not so much noticeable. They slowly increasing amounts of metals in the air. So if someone is an ignorant and it is not familiar with this phenomena he won’t notice anything, unless someone will shake his arm point the finger in the sky and tell the story. That’s why we need to talk about it and that’s why THEY don’t want us to talk about it. And that is why I run a blog about chemtrails and am doing everyday documentary.

    p.s This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.

  96. Alexey says:

    “This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact.”

    It’s a fiction. There is not a single verifiable fact to support the claim that alleged spraying of aluminum compounds causes the jet trails to persist and spread.

  97. TheFactsMatter says:

    “It’s a fiction. There is not a single verifiable fact to support the claim that alleged spraying of aluminum compounds causes the jet trails to persist and spread.”

    Nor will there ever be. It’s a hoax. Anyone who feels strongly, feel free to prove me wrong!

    “But Europeans are usually smarter than Americans..”

    Except the Polish, of course.

  98. TheFactsMatter says:

    “That’s why we need to talk about it and that’s why THEY don’t want us to talk about it. ”

    Who has asked you not to talk about it?! Feel free to spread your fairy tale beliefs far and wide! Just keep in mind, intelligent people WILL require some evidence to support your claims. Will you have any anytime soon?! So far all I see is assumption and paranoid speculation.

    The ONLY reason I would ask anyone not to discuss “chemtrails” is I would feel bad because they are making a fool out of him/her self. Feel free to carry on! As far as I’m concerned, tell the world! Tell everyone what you know about the subject.

  99. Looks like this web site is a bunch of NWO lowers and disinformation.

    IQ statistics

    USA 103.44

    Poland 106.77

    Or maybe this is conspiracy…

  100. TheFactsMatter says:

    Can SOMEONE provide evidence that there are more elements in the air (higher concentrations) than there was 40 years ago?! Go ahead, provide evidence that NATURAL elements have been placed in our air by airplanes, and not through normal, industrial or natural means, WITHOUT making a single stupid assumption. This challenge is for everyone!

Comments are closed.