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. djoesta says:

    One word; CARNICOM…

  2. That wasn’t geoengineering, that was low altitude dispersions tests, and they did very few of them. It also looked nothing like what people called “chemtrails”.

    You might as well say crop dusting is evidence of chemtrails.

    Of course they could be doing something, there’s just no actual evidence that they are. Certainly no admissions.

  3. Carnicom proved clouds can’t exist. So why do you give his site any credence?

    Have you done his red wine test? You have Morgellons, according to him everyone does.

  4. djoesta says:

    Disinfo, misinfo, spinning, spreading confusion, bad mouthing Carnicom. Says it all. “Clouds can’t exist”? Lol. “Crop dusting”? Has nothing to do with chemtrails, lol. “just no actual evidence”? Depends if you actually want to find evidence I guess. There’s no theory in facts…

  5. djoesta says:

    The only reason I can think of to ‘debunk’ the chemtrail facts is when one aids the very agenda…

  6. Would the fact there’s bunk there be sufficient reason to debunk?

    Pick one Carnicom page you think is correct, and I’ll pint out an error on it.

    And/or you point out one error here, I’ll fix it.

  7. djoesta says:

    Stating there’s no evidence is an error. The link I posted is for a documentary (which is full of evidence), not a website. Most of your info about contrails is probably correct, that’s not the issue. It’s the demonizing of people who are aware of aerosol spraying that is incorrect. Ridicule is step one towards acceptance. Classifying those who question things as “tinfoil hat wearers” is the oldest trick in the book to divert…

  8. I’m sorry, where is it that I said “no evidence” in error? I can’t find it on this page.

  9. honoluluskies says:

    I will refrain from characterizing djoesta as a breathless paranoid tinfoil chapeau-wearing conspiracy-addicted feeb and focus on the irrationality of the argument that there MUST BE an ongoing worldwide conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people who are fervently poisoning their OWN ATMOSPHERE, their own air, the air of their families, Cocker Spaniels, and friends, and haven’t raised a peep about it in, what, fifty years? Not one credible leak?
    On top of that, if this is MASSIVE spraying, as is so often alleged, and the materials are well known and durable, then why don’t the hundreds of thousands of environmental scientists happen to notice the vast amount of barium or strontium or aluminum or radioactive elephant snot or (fill in the blank for your personal bogeyman) in the world’s air/snow/sea/lakes/soil or LUNGS????????? WHY IS THIS? Do some ‘splainin’, Lucy.
    Please try to make sense while you’re at it.
    Nice day in Honolulu, with a faint contrail off to the south of Hickam AFB and Honolulu International.

  10. djoesta says:

    You people will know one day, until then keep your heads in the sand. You seem not to be able to see the bigger picture. In a comment you stated that “there’s just no evidence” Uncinus. Whatever…

  11. djoesta says:

    BTW; It’s called Project Cloverleaf…

  12. djoesta says:

    And I don’t have to explain anything to you Lucy, I’m not here to convince anyone. Believe what you wish to believe as long as you know whatever there is…

  13. djoesta says:

    THIS IS A SHILL PROPAGANDA SITE!

  14. djoesta says:

    Have a nice life everyone, consider getting a hobby or a real job…

  15. Beyond (formerly djoesta) says:

    I’m with djoesta; get a real job!

  16. honoluluskies says:

    So, these WW2 B17s are obviously spraying chemtrails and just using the incredibly dangerous daylight bombing of Nazis as a flimsy cover story, eh?

    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/B17.jpg[/img]
    [img]http://contrailscience.com/wp-content/uploads/B17s.jpg[/img]

    I repeat my simple and essential questions. If enough “chemtrail” material is being sprayed willy-nilly around the world by some vast and unbelievably long-lived, tight-lipped, self-destructive conspiracy, then presumedly it’s for some purpose. What?
    If there is enough spraying to actually change some aspect of the environment, external or internal, then there would have to be detectable amounts to effect the change desired and it would be detectable world-wide, since the stuff is at the mercy of the winds. We would see it in our food, water, air, snow, ice cores, lakes, seas, soil, bodies, beer…..oh god, NOT THE BEER!
    But there are no credible reports of any of the suspect elements showing up in vastly (or even significantly) higher concentrations world-wide. NO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS AT ALL from the hundreds of thousands of environmental scientists in countries around the world, all with different agendas. Like this would be the ONE thing in the world on which ALL the scientists would be willing unite upon. Fat chance.
    These are ELEMENTS. They don’t break down or become something else, they LAST FOREVER, at least until we are gobbled up by the sun in a dozen billion years or more.
    You post photos of contrails with NO attendant measurement of the conditions under which they were formed, time of day, angle of the sun, or what sort of plane or engine is making them. It would be reasonable to expect that different engine sizes and designs and different aircraft sizes and designs would produce somewhat different contrails and affect the dispersal of said contrail due to differing turbulence patterns, as would the operation of the aircraft….if it is climbing or descending or just flying straight and level.
    So, in conclusion, your “extraordinary claims” like yours REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. No one here, that I have seen, has produced any. We can bring back samples of the solar wind from tens of millions of miles in space, then I would think that it wouldn’t take all that much to find one if these planes which is equipped with a sprayer and follow in it’s wake, collecting the evidence directly. There appear to be enough of you people who also seem to have enough passion for the quest to fund it and get the information that would settle this. Go for it.

  17. Beyond says:

    Who’s talking about B17s? Only you are. You obviously do not understand what “covert operations” mean, lol. You should learn some history lessons about it. Keep your head in the sand, I don’t care about that. I don’t even want to convince you. Stay docile eh, love your government, and your vote counts, lol. Meh, common sense should be enough but no, no sense at all.

  18. Beyond says:

    You are trying too hard not to see, this is very suspicious. Have a nice life.

  19. honoluluskies says:

    I tried to attach some photos of flights of B17s making hundreds of contrails looking very much like the “chemtrails” somebody posted just above. They didn’t show up in the post [Admin: Fixed, see above] . If just looking at the physical traits of these contrails was enough to identify them as “chemtrails”, then you would have to conclude that this massive conspiracy has been going on for seventy years, as the B17s .
    My late wife served over twenty years in the military and had a stack of secret and top secret clearances as thick as a phone book. Add her commendations and the stack is knee high. We know something about “covert ops”. Do you?
    “Common sense” convinced the world for thousands of years that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Science, on the other hand, convinced us that those “common sense” observations were WRONG.
    So, I’m a fan of science. Do some. Get some evidence. I’m all in favor of that. Until then, it’s just a far-fetched, inexplicable, and unlikely conspiracy theory.
    Another nice morning in Honolulu…..still too dark to see any contrails.

  20. John says:

    djoesta –

    Stop talking in riddles “keep your head in the sand” “love your government” “blah blah”

    No matter how many riddles you mindlessly copy and past from other paranoid internet idiots, it doesn’t make you any more (or less) right.

    This website is dedicated to facts, and rationality.
    And if you cant find ANY errors or mistakes WHATSOEVER on this site, then you either:
    1. Agree with the information, therefore chemtrails cant possibly exist in your head.
    Or:
    2. Don’t understand the information, therefore cant possibly begin to understand what you think the difference between a contrail or a chemtrail is.

    Untill you point out what you think to be false on this site, then those 2 points above are your only options. That is literally it.

    So I will ask again:
    Is there ANYTHING on this site which you believe to be an error.

    If your answer is no.
    Or if you (as i suspect) avoid the question,
    then you have just proved yourself to be a liar and/or (as i suspect) a total idiot.

    I look forward to (but dont actually expect) your reply.

  21. djoesta says:

    Ah, “your comments await moderation”, says it all indeed. Beyond is getting censored after Johnny boy writes; “I look forward to (but dont actually expect) your reply.” You cheap shills, your exposed, hehe…

  22. Admin: djoesta/Beyond has been flagged for moderation after repeated violations of the Politeness Policy, and using multiple “Sock Puppets”.

    http://contrailscience.com/politeness-policy/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

  23. John says:

    So is that you agreeing that i’m right DJ?

    Because your not saying i’m wrong?

    And even if i am a “shill”… you still just agreed with me didnt you?

  24. joshua says:

    you sheep are so easily fooled by this idiot’s posting. Learn to think for yourselve’s. He’s doing to you EXACTLY what he claimes the documentry-makers have done…mislead people!
    He’s misleading you with the report about it being “pond sludge” …surely you can see that the report is too blurred to make out anything? (Funny how it’s not blurry in any other website’s postings, but then I doubt you sheep would have bothered to look. Jesus Christ-don’t let this sock-puppet mis-lead you. Use your own eyes to see what’s up in the skies above you…use your own brain, not someone like this idiot’s.
    I can’t believe so many of you are praising him up when he’s deliberately lying to you.
    Bahhhh bahhhhh

  25. Stupid says:

    @ joshua…

    Is he really misleading us….or are you ?
    see the first page in the actual report…it’s not blurry…

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

  26. Stupid says:

    Joshua, if you indeed are…

    Thinking for yourself
    or
    Using your own eyes
    or
    Using your own brain

    …then I suggest you stay off the internet, and heed your own advice.
    Or, if you would like to ask a constructive question, or point out any mistakes on this site, feel free to do so.
    We’ll be here.

  27. honoluluskies says:

    To Joshua: Your frustrated chest-thumping post is completely devoid of any information. Did you happen to notice that? You apparently think you are privy to some superior source of information which you can’t seem to convey to us, for some reason. We’re listening. Yes, we’re skeptical, but that is a good thing in science. If your information is able to convince skeptics, then you are doing good work. If we set a high bar for proof and you can get over it, you will convince a lot of people. Most people, in fact. So far, you’re just a lame “believer” who takes the existence of “chemtrails” as a matter of faith and concludes that anyone who actually DOES use their own brain is then brainwashed because they don’t blindly believe, too. How goofy a contention is THAT?
    “Looking up in the air” DOES NOT constitute “research” or “thinking for yourself”. It’s just LOOKING AT STUFF.
    Let’s say that all these tests referenced DID show an elevated amount of these suspect minerals. That STILL doesn’t address the SOURCE. If you managed to prove that there is barium, strontium, and aluminum ALL OVER THE PLACE, that still doesn’t prove it’s from “chemtrails” which were deliberately dispersed, does it?
    Science is hard, it requires you to be rigorous in thought and process. So, here is what would be necessary for me come to your side. Get airborne and take samples of multiple contrails from various times and places that you suspect are “chemtrails” and have them analyzed by several credible testing labs. REPEATABILITY is one of the hallmarks of science. If you’re going to invest money and credibility in scientific tests, make sure the tests are relevant to answering your question and therefore are relevant tests of your theory.
    Go for it. It needs to be done to get anything that could be considered “proof”. The ball is in YOUR court to provide proof. Extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims.

  28. tryblinking says:

    Well said Hon :o) Hrumf!

  29. outsider says:

    ‘Honolulu Rose’ posts some loverly pics of B17 chemtrails; yep, not a typo, chemtrails.
    On this occasion it wasn’t aluminum, barium or strontium, but magnesium strips, to foil enemy radar and ack-ack.
    Thanks, Honolulu, for such a nice example of chemtrails.
    And by the by, perhaps you might like to read Robert B. Stinnett’s ‘Day of Deceit’, re Pearl Harbor attack? Stinnett, a highly-decorated retired naval officer proves Rooseveldt & Co. not only had foreknowledge of the attack, but had instigated it intentionally, as a way to swing US public behind their desire to enter WWII (which the likes of Prescott Bush, ‘W’s’ grand daddy, had helped precipitate by running a Nazi front bank in the US).
    Lots to learn, before you tackle the ‘biggy’, 9/11.
    Talking of ‘tinfoil hats’, get a load of this:

    Top secret technology

    WINDOW was the code name for small metallised strips, like tin foil, designed to be dropped in bundles from RAF bombers. The result was a gently drifting cloud of metallic strips that created confusing signals on German radar screens and concealed the position of the actual bombers.

    For some time, the British government had delayed the use of the top secret WINDOW. The fear was that as soon as the RAF used it, the Germans would find the metallised strips on the ground and take up the idea – using it on raids against Britain and disabling Britain’s own vital early warning radar that had been crucial in the winning of the Battle of Britain in 1940. However, Bomber Command’s losses were becoming unbearable. ‘Bomber’ Harris insisted the RAF be allowed to use WINDOW to save aircrews’ lives. The British didn’t know that the Germans had already thought of the idea of WINDOW anyway – but had not used it for exactly the same reasons as the British.

    ‘Tin foil’ proves a success

    PB, London UK

  30. That’s called chaff, or Duppel in german.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)

    It does not leave long visible trails, in fact it’s usually dumped in bursts.

  31. honoluluskies says:

    Since these bombers are climbing out and forming up, they are still over England or the Channel. They are NOT dumping any chaff at this point.
    Most chaff was aluminum….aluminium for our Brit friends, as magnesium was far too expensive and dangerous to carry in an airplane in a combat situation.
    So, NO, not “chemtrails” either.

  32. MinderBinder says:

    I’ve been a skywatcher my whole life and I scan the skies like people check their watches. I personally would love to believe the chemtrail program wasn’t real. However, I first noticed them, in 1996 or 1997, based on where I was living at the time and from then on it’s been a regular thing. I remember thinking, “Hmm, wonder what they’re doing now?” and expected to hear something about it at some point.

    About a year later, the first time I heard or saw any media attention about it was when a local radio morning program started talking about it. I remember one day listening and they actually followed a plane to it’s landing site and they asked the pilot what his plane was dumping. I don’t remember too many specifics of what was said, after all, it was a new topic. I do remember filing it away as this is something actually going on and pretty shady at that, since this program has no official recognition to this day.

    In any case, I see in this site either a disinformation campaign or someone who is presumptuous enough to think no subversive black gov’t/military project could be going on without your knowledge or consent. Of course, I’m not here to argue my observation. We can just agree to disagree. However, I would like to link to you the following video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSSWnXQsgOU&feature=related

    I’m mildly curious how a “debunker” explains THE PURPOSE of this particular aircraft spraying the atmosphere from that altitude. That is, if we can agree that this plane is spraying in the first place lol

    WTF is it doing up there man??? 😛

  33. It’s not spraying. That’s an aerodynamic contrail. See:

    http://contrailscience.com/fake-hoax-chemtrail-videos/

  34. captfitch says:

    That video is a great example of ignorance in aviation leading to a false conclusion. “Spray nozzles”? Those are are just the flap tracks or whatever. So why should I believe anything else in that video when they can’t even get the basics right?

  35. MinderBinder says:

    I re-read my question and I apologize for not wording it clearer. My question essentially is, if we all could hypothetically agree on footage where we can definitely say a plane was shown spraying at that altitude in that situation, what’s homeboy doing up there like that? Are there any presently known official reasons for such activity?

    I’m trying to gauge whether or not such a question could be answered right now. If we could agree on a hypothetical video of spraying that resembles a similar situation as in the link I gave, would that kill the debate right there or would it incite another round of argument based on why it’s up there spraying? Could it be “easily” explained away?

  36. captfitch says:

    You’re trying to put the cart before the horse as it were. We’re all here arguing whether or not there’s actually any “spraying” at all. So far, no one’s proven that any spraying is occuring. The video you referenced is not spraying.

    I suppose if we all agreed that an aircraft was shown to be spraying we could move on to why for that particular video but I’ve yet to see one.

    Are you trying to figure out if “our” side is open debate or if we’re so entrenched that nothing could ever sway us?

    I, for on, am very open to the possibility that the government or some organization was spaying for some reason. I can’t speak for the others here but I find it exciting to think there may be some secret plan going on right before my eyes. I’m a sceptic by nature but I’ve seen nothing thus far to prove anything is going on and I’m closer to being on the “inside” of this debate than anyone else here so if I haven’t seen it…

  37. MinderBinder says:

    Yeah, I didn’t mean debate the voracity of the claims made in that particular video. Youtube is replete with crap along with the good. I was trying to find out where the boundaries of the debate are as expressed on this site and others. So, I jumped the gun/put cart before horse/overstepped the boundaries to find out where the boundaries are. Your answer clears that up for me. As I understand it the “debunking” side is claiming there is no spraying whatsoever and there’s not a slew of ready made answers to the question of why they are spraying if evidence could be agree upon that a plane in a similar situation to the vid was spraying. All I wanted to know. Thx

  38. MikeC says:

    The trouble with “if they were spraying why would they do it” questions is that almost invariably rapidly forget that they start with “if”.

    dicussing hypotheticals is fine as long as you can remember they are hypotheticals – but what use is it really?? If you ahve some evidence for anything at all then it isn’t hypothetical – you’re into determining actual existence of a programme.

    And if you don’t have any evidence then why bother with the hassles of discussing such a contentious topic??

  39. MinderBinder says:

    Mike whether or not you believe there’s evidence or not really doesn’t matter. What you’ve “rapidly forgot” is some people out there have already satisfied themselves with enough evidence to believe spraying IS happening and they ARE “into determining actual existence of a programme.” My question was to gauge the boundaries of the debate on this site. Is it simply on to spray or not to spray? Or is does it also get past that question in any way?

  40. Nobody claims there no spraying. Just that there’s no evidence of deliberate high altitude spraying that leaves long white trails that spread out (i.e. the chemtrail theory).

    This site is mostly about examining the evidence presented to support the chemtrail theory. Motivation is sometimes presented as evidence – but usually very weakly, and quite circumstantial (like the old CBW dispersion tests).

  41. MinderBinder says:

    Perhaps I should have given a personal example. In fact, I will give two.

    The first one is in 2007 in Northwestern Georgia in a small city, where the nearest metropolitan area would be Atlanta, about 2 hours drive away. Before work one day, my friend I told this subject to left a message on my phone saying to check the chemtrail pattern on my drive to work. What I saw was the most obnoxious and ridiculous trail pattern left in the sky I’ve seen up to that point. I first saw it at 11am and it didn’t even start to dissipate out of pattern until about 3pm. It consisted of a Roman numeral Ten with a horizontal line thru the middle of it or a HUGE X with 3 horizontal lines running across it. Since, I haven’t owned a camera in many a year and wasn’t able to get a picture of it, people will have to indulge me that this account is true. In fact, that area routinely would have big, clear and obnoxious patterns to the trails. But, I’m saying instead of trying to hunt down the right pic, there’s a simple question that can be asked. How in the hell could someone explain that kind of pattern from a pilot of any craft? If that came from a commerical jet, that pilot would be rightly fired. Is there any known programs where pilots run off and get chemtrail effects into large recognizable patterns in the sky? Answering that question, I believe, would be helpful. No need to draw major conclusions.

    Another example, earlier this year I drove through Texas with my brother. We were still in Louisiana at sunrise, but we arrived in Houston right before noon. It had been 4 years since I was last in the city and I will say the sky was absolutely littered with “long white trails that spread out (i.e. the chemtrail theory).” We were only driving through on our way to Austin. As soon as we left the Houston city limits, nothing. No trails. For the whole 2 hour drive to Austin we didn’t see a single trail. Yet, once we get to Austin, BOOM!, someone has s*** these things in the sky again. Again, no pictures, but if the account is taken as it is, is there any reasonable explanation for such a discrepancy?

    Anyway, two examples of what I was referring to about asking if there’s any programs where this seeming chemtrail activity can be explained already, rather than arguing a trail from a picture or video. Just another approach to the issue.

  42. MikeC says:

    Mindbender AFAIK you can debate any level you like on here…….but since there’s no verifiable evidence of anything being sprayed at all it’s fairly contentious to simply launch into “WEll we know they are sptraying so what is it for?” – because most ppl here will say “No we dont’ know they are sprayng at all – what is your evidence for that?”

    So any attempt to debate anything that presumes spraying is happening is going to hit that same obstacle.

  43. MinderBinder says:

    Mike this is the last time I will tell you that what you believe is evidence or not is irrelevant. You won’t draw me into that fool’s game where you simply don’t allow anything to be “evidence” to you.

  44. honoluluskies says:

    MB….. If this is supposed to be a clandestine spraying operation, why would they spray in “suspicious” patterns? I would think that making a giant symmetrical figure in the sky would be the LAST thing they would do. Not to mention the immense amount of planning and flying skill that would take.
    Presumedly these hundreds of thousands of people in this seventy year old conspiracy who have managed to keep this secret would be smarter than that.
    The figure you described consists of five straight lines. Planes usually fly in straight lines. Many flight paths are parallel, some inevitably cross. This particular confluence of lines seems to be unique, as you never saw one before and I haven’t seen anyone else claim to have seen one and I haven’t seen any photos, either. So, what would be the significance of this shape to the “sprayers” and why would Though it’s unique, it’s made up of perfectly normal components, straight lines.
    As for the intermittent nature of contrails, they are the creation of the weather at the altitude they form, or don’t form. The weather varies from place to place. Look at clouds. They are usually spotty, form and disperse, only to reform later. Sometimes there are NO clouds. Sometimes you have cloud cover for days or weeks. Talk about “lingering”. Sometimes you have very distinct cutoff points. Think about coming into Honolulu….down through the clouds then POW you’re in the clear air. I can see the bottoms of the cloud cover stretching out for tens of miles. Coming into LA, I’ve come down INTO a flat-topped “marine layer” and on down through gradually thinning clouds until you land in a fog. Clouds right to the ground. Inverted conditions, but still made of clouds and naturally occuring.

  45. Janet Detwiler says:

    It’s been a few weeks since I’ve visited this site and I hope everyone’s been well.

    I believed very strongly in the chemtrail conspiracy theory a while back, roughly late 2006 to early 2008. I was a hard-core believer, and I still have hundreds of pictures I took of what I believed at the time to be evidence of something sinister going on. There were a lot of people on my social networking site who believed in chemtrails too, and after a few months most of the people on my friends list were chemtrail believers. I wanted something done about it. The subject of chemtrails really mattered to me, so I started reading chemtrail debunking sites, to “learn about the enemy”. Like I said, I was hardcore, and I’d been lead to believe that anyone debunking chemtrails had to be a bad guy. I also started reading more scientific articles at some point in time, and I began to doubt parts of the chemtrail conspiracy theory. I started checking the credentials of many of the “experts” on “chemtrails”, and I was unimpressed. It was around that time that I found this contrail science site.

    Uncinus has built a really great site here. I can’t think of anything I used to believe in that I haven’t found answered somewhere on contrail science. My first few visits here I didn’t read much, and I was still convinced there was something very wrong with my sky. But I was still curious enough about the subject (chemtrail or contrail), and eventually I read through most of the material.

    If you still believe in chemtrails, please explore this site, and spend some time doing it. There’s a lot of good info here. Thanks again to Uncinus and friends ~ Janet

  46. tryblinking says:

    You’ve probably heard Uncinus, but there could be another ‘documentary’ coming out next year, from a self-educated journalist, ‘Roxy Lopez’, called ‘The Truth Denied’. Here’s her forum:
    http://thetruthdenied.lefora.com/

    Ironically, I think she’s chosen a very apt title.

  47. honoluluskies says:

    Looks like a rehash of Murphy’s stuff and the same old “barium-aluminum-aluminum-resistant genes” caca.
    Very little traffic at the site. As it should be.

  48. MinderBinder says:

    I think the Captain had the strongest grasp of the question I was asking. Thanks to everyone that responded.

  49. Ross Marsden says:

    @MinderBinder: So do you know what aerodynamic contrails are now?
    Do you know why contrails persist sometimes, and not at other times, and why sometimes you don’t see any contrails at all, at all?

  50. JFDee says:

    MinderBinder,

    if you see strange patterns in the sky, then you have indeed evidence. Clear evidence of patterns in the sky – but nothing else.
    How can you be sure that the patterns were deliberately formed ? Can you exclude the possibility that they were just coincidental ?

    Basic atmospheric science explains how trails behind planes can appear and sometimes persist in local spots. The atmosphere is far from homogenous in places.

    Quite a number of people around here – meteorologists, pilots, aircraft technicians – have a good picture of how these trails are developing or how they fail to. They have studied the scientific findings to use the knowledge for their everyday work (or hobby). They can apply it.

    If somebody wants to present a different explanation for the trails, the evidence has to be really good because there is one already that works quite well.
    You need more than some broken trails over a country where air travel has all but replaced overland coaches.

  51. guy says:

    Ask yourself this: If weather modification programs were going on right now as the gov’t proposed years ago, using aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight as they their specialists presented to us…. how would you know the difference between a normal contrail and one that contains toxins? How could you prove it?
    You wouldn’t.

    You probably didn’t know about this patent from 1990 by Hughes Aircraft either: http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Chemtrails/Hughes.html Note the intended element that would be sprayed as, “oxides of metals which have high emissivity (and thus low reflectivities)”.

    Or, that the EPA website notes that in 2002 “multi-agency Climate Change Technology Program” was established to accelerate the development and deployment of key climate change technologies. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html

    Or, that weather modification is already documented: http://www.californiaskywatch.com/documents/htmldocs/weather_mod_map.htm pdf’s document experiments covering hundreds of thousands of miles.

    Or, that while aluminum is a common element (as the website owner notes), it has also serious health affects: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/al.htm

  52. If you can’t tell there’s a difference, then why do you think there is one? Are you saying the trails look the same, but you suspect something is going on?

    Patents get patented, that does not mean they are used. There are lots of patents for spaceships, and bases on the moon. Besides, if they wanted to keep it secret, then why patent it?

    The EPA group you link to is solely about greenhouse gas emissions. Check their web page.

    Of course weather modification is documented. It’s never been a secret. It’s called cloud seeding.

    Everything has serious health effects in sufficient quantities. Dirt is 7% aluminum.

  53. honoluluskies says:

    Another question, Guy. If these are toxins being sprayed willy-nilly into the atmosphere at large, then what are the sprayers, the aircraft support and maintenance crews, and their Uberlords breathing? Their families? Their friends? Their Dachshunds? Are they suicidal …….really?………all of them?
    The whole thing is just too loopy to be taken seriously, at least for me.
    What to do? Research. That sciencey stuff. Get a network together, kind of like the stormchasers, to find suspected “chemtrails” and direct a bizjet equipped with sampling equipment to them and GET SAMPLES. Get a LOT of samples. Have the samples tested by several independent accredited testing labs.
    If you get stuff that you would not expect to find in jet exhaust or in plumes of vented fuel, then you would have something to hang your argument upon.
    I understand that it’s easier and cheaper to stand and look up at stuff than it is to actually get quantifiable data, but just looking at stuff and then setting off on a speculative ramble about what a bunch of unrelated bits of trivia MIGHT mean once you make the fundamental assumption that there is spraying going on isn’t going to convince any rational people. And what is the value of convincing gullible people?
    Or, if you contend that this has been going on for a long time and over a large area, there must be some of this which has made it’s way down to earth. If you want to look at something, look at ice cores from glaciers, even Antarctica. They provide a very reliable record of atmospheric phenomena. If stuff is being sprayed in quantity, it WILL show up there. More sciency stuff.
    These are doable experiments. No need to speculate. Get going.

  54. MikeC says:

    mindbender there is a well established standard for evidence called verifiability.

    I have never said that there is no evidence for chemtrails (for example) – I have often said that there is no verifiable evidence (or paraphrased using such terms as credible, known, etc – I mean the same thing whichever I use)

    And it doesn’t matter whether you want to debate evidence with me or not either – you will have to debate it with everybody who doesn’t know of it, or who doesn’t believe it based on whatever their criteria is – personalising the issue to me isn’t going to make that go away.

  55. honoluluskies says:

    Just thought of something. Rig up a laser to zap a suspected “chemtrail” and run the returned light through a spectroscope to get a reading on the elements present in the target. Here is a version of “looking at something” which can be done from the ground and, while not conclusive, would be useful to determine if the next step, collecting samples from a “chemtrail” would be worth the effort and expense.

  56. guy says:

    Thank you for the great recommendations of how to research chemtrails. Hopefully there’s someone out there willing to donate their time, expertise, equipment to follow through. It’s my point exactly, not many individuals have the capital to fund a research project like that…. explaining why it has not been done, to anyone’s knowledge.

    Uncinus, if one assumes that contrails are formed without the aid of oxides and other chemicals being sprayed…. then, should also ask themselves what the difference in appearance would be if those chemicals were added to a contrail. My point is that they probably appear the same, which leaves no contrail expert knowledgeable enough to offer a point of view either way on the subject.
    What quantified research/data have you presented to prove contrails don’t contain hazardous chemicals? None.

    I’m trying to look at this subject from an objective point of view, unlike many people participating in this discussion…. So far, Uncinus invested large amounts of time to explain how contrails form, build simulated contrails, offer his knowledge as to why they support his opinion and cannot be used for spraying oxides into the atmosphere as Govt proposals and patent suggest.

    Aluminum is found in dirt but in large quantities is a serious health concern… asbestos also naturally occurs in dirt but, who would want it sprayed in the sky in large quantities?

    With the info that does exist on persistent contrails (chemtrails), why aren’t more of you interested in also validating your own anti-chemtrail point of view by paying for your own research?

    Also, the term “cloud seeding” is noted in the Hughes Aircraft patent when referring to spraying Aluminum Oxide. Has there been any disclosure of what materials these companies that you agree are indeed “seeding clouds” happen to be using?

    honoluluskies , I asked myself the same question as to why the people responsible spraying could live with themselves but could only speculate…. I’m more interested in facts that document intentions like the patent, numerous presentations and disclosures by Govt specialist…. etc….

    Why would someone patent something they wanted to keep secret? Well, for the same reason a software company patents a proprietary innovation that will be kept secret for years to come. Why would they not? History documents many hazardous gov’t tests that were never known to the public- would they really want the population to be aware this chemtrail test? No.

  57. honoluluskies says:

    Thank you for the great recommendations of how to research chemtrails. Hopefully there’s someone out there willing to donate their time, expertise, equipment to follow through. It’s my point exactly, not many individuals have the capital to fund a research project like that…. explaining why it has not been done, to anyone’s knowledge.

    >>>>> It wouldn’t be that expensive. You don’t have to BUY the plane. Maybe you could get one of those “mythbuster” TV shows interested. Hell, there are at least two or three “ghosthunting” TV shows on right now. I’d think this would get as least as much support.
    You could probably get someone at a university to help you with the spectroscope, using used parts. It’s not rocket science.
    It shouldn’t be an individual, anyway. You want as many “witnesses” as you can get. Minimizes the phenomenon of tunnel vision, or seeing what you want to see.
    And, if it’s as important as you claim, then why NOT devote your time and money to getting the science behind this out? What price to save the world? >>>>>>>

    Uncinus, if one assumes that contrails are formed without the aid of oxides and other chemicals being sprayed…. then, should also ask themselves what the difference in appearance would be if those chemicals were added to a contrail. My point is that they probably appear the same, which leaves no contrail expert knowledgeable enough to offer a point of view either way on the subject.

    >>>>> If they appear the same, then NO OBSERVATIONS are useful either. >>>>>>

    What quantified research/data have you presented to prove contrails don’t contain hazardous chemicals? None.

    >>>>> You need to take a logic course. It’s almost impossible to “prove a negative”. You can always postulate more conditions and possible variables, currently unknown, to expand the realm of the possible. The burden of proof is always on the person making the definitive claim. “Extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims”. >>>>>>

    I’m trying to look at this subject from an objective point of view, unlike many people participating in this discussion…. So far, Uncinus invested large amounts of time to explain how contrails form, build simulated contrails, offer his knowledge as to why they support his opinion and cannot be used for spraying oxides into the atmosphere as Govt proposals and patent suggest.

    >>>>>> The people in this discussion on this site are THE MOST OBJECTIVE you will likely find.

    No one says that the govt. CAN’T be spraying stuff. It’s obvious that they COULD be. Hell, the Salvation Army COULD be spraying chimpanzee boogers into the atmosphere. The Korean business cartels could be spraying a chemical which makes us crave kim chee, kal bi, and Kias. Now you prove that they AREN’T. See the problem with proving a negative? >>>>>

    Aluminum is found in dirt but in large quantities is a serious health concern… asbestos also naturally occurs in dirt but, who would want it sprayed in the sky in large quantities?

    >>>>>> Aluminum IS usually found in dirt in LARGE QUANTITIES….up to 15% of some rocks and soil consists of Aluminum in some form. I have a five gallon bucket of aluminum oxide in my garage for sandblasting motorcycle and tool parts. I have sandpaper belts and sheets all over the place and the abrasive is aluminum oxide. Aluminum oxide forms on the surface of ALL aluminum exposed to air. IT’S EVERYWHERE! Including in the massive amounts of dust picked up from the Gobi desert and blown across China to the US. It’s in the massive amounts of dust picked up in the Sahara and blown across the Atlantic to the US. It’s in our own homegrown dust storms. It’s in volcanic dust and ash. If you’re worried about breathing aluminum in the dust, stop breathing. Or wear a HEPA mask all the time. >>>>>>>>

    With the info that does exist on persistent contrails (chemtrails), why aren’t more of you interested in also validating your own anti-chemtrail point of view by paying for your own research?

    >>>>>> I also don’t believe that invisible Unicorn-riding Leprechauns are perpetrating mind control by sneaking into government buildings and spreading pixie dust to addle the world’s leaders. While current events might suggest something like that is going on, you’d think I was nuts if I cashed in my IRA and 401K to fund “research”. You’d be right.
    “Persistent contrails” are persistent clouds. With the source of the moisture being the exhaust of an aircraft engine. The same conditions that lead to persistent clouds (hello Seattle) create persistent contrails. >>>>>>>

    Also, the term “cloud seeding” is noted in the Hughes Aircraft patent when referring to spraying Aluminum Oxide. Has there been any disclosure of what materials these companies that you agree are indeed “seeding clouds” happen to be using?

    >>>>> Various materials, with silver iodide being the most common and one of the more effective. Other metal halides have been tried, as well as some organic molecules, but none are as effective, yet. Silver is mildly toxic. Ingest enough, and it leaves you skin silvery grey. Weird looking. >>>>

    honoluluskies , I asked myself the same question as to why the people responsible spraying could live with themselves but could only speculate…. I’m more interested in facts that document intentions like the patent, numerous presentations and disclosures by Govt specialist…. etc….

    >>>> I wasn’t talking about their CONSCIENCE, I was talking about their desire for SELF -PRESERVATION, which is FAR MORE powerful. They, their co-workers, their friends, their kids, ALL ARE BREATHING THE STUFF THEY ARE “SPRAYING”. According to you, they’re poisoning themselves and their entire world. WHY? Are there that many self-destructive pilots, technicians, millionaires (somebody is funding this, if it’s actually occurring) and environmental scientists WORLDWIDE who are willing to participate in suicide and take everybody they know along with them? Who have all been doing this in secret for maybe SEVENTY YEARS???????
    PLEASE make sense of this. If you can.
    Patents, presentations DO NOT signal INTENTIONS, only capability. >>>>>>

    Why would someone patent something they wanted to keep secret? Well, for the same reason a software company patents a proprietary innovation that will be kept secret for years to come.
    Why would they not?

    >>>>>> You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. A patent is a public document. It makes the patented item public. It shows drawings and specifications. What it does is to reserve rights to the item or idea for the inventor for a period of time, last I heard it was 17 years. Why would the “sprayers” need to patent something, thereby drawing attention to something that they didn’t plan to sell to the public, but to keep secret? Makes NO sense. >>>>>

    History documents many hazardous gov’t tests that were never known to the public- would they really want the population to be aware this chemtrail test? No.

    >>>>>> Which tests? What patents were involved? Show me the documents. Do you think the government patented Stealth technology? Or the Hydrogen Bomb? NOPE. >>>>>>

  58. With the info that does exist on persistent contrails (chemtrails), why aren’t more of you interested in also validating your own anti-chemtrail point of view by paying for your own research?

    Because research would prove nothing. You can’t prove an absence.

    Suppose I had a theory that there were no unicorns. How would I go about proving it?

  59. guy says:

    >>>>> Various materials, with silver iodide being the most common and one of the more effective. Other metal halides have been tried, as well as some organic molecules, but none are as effective, yet. Silver is mildly toxic. Ingest enough, and it leaves you skin silvery grey. Weird looking. >>>>

    So, after reading your response I think you might be believing in invisible Unicorn-riding Leprechauns sooner rather then later because ‘Cloud Seeding’ and ‘Chemtrails’ are both starting to sound awfully similar…. They both use aircraft to spray Oxides and/or other chemicals above the public to control the weather. We both agree with this, so what’s the real debate? Over whether or not what they are spraying is toxic? Convenient how both of you shrug-off Aluminum Oxide and silver iodide.
    I looked into health concerns over silver iodide and found that it in-fact is pretty concerning:
    “The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil.(8) It has been found to be highly toxic to fish, livestock and humans.(6,7,8,9) Numerous medical articles demonstrate that humans absorb silver iodide through the lungs, nose, skin, and GI tract.(7,8,9) Mild toxicity can cause GI irritation, renal and pulmonary lesions, and mild argyria (blue or black discoloration of the skin). Severe toxicity can result in hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, shock, enlarged heart, severe argyria, and death by respiratory depression.(8) Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows: Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10) Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.”

    Considering that you disclosed that a toxic chemical is the most effective material and most commonly used for Cloud Seeding, and that the manufacturer itself warns of negative health effects, maybe you should ask yourself some of the questions you posed for me about the how self-preservation would affect an individual’s decision to work for a company that sprays…. I too would love to know how these people live with themselves.

    >>>>Other metal halides have been tried, as well as some organic molecules, but none are as effective, yet. Silver is mildly toxic. >>>>

    So, they have indeed tested various materials among the public?

    >>>>>> You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. A patent is a public document. It makes the patented item public. It shows drawings and specifications. What it does is to reserve rights to the item or idea for the inventor for a period of time, last I heard it was 17 years. Why would the “sprayers” need to patent something, thereby drawing attention to something that they didn’t plan to sell to the public, but to keep secret? Makes NO sense. >>>>>

    The use for the patent isn’t a secret- it’s disclosed in the patent itself….. and Cloud Seeding is currently being tested and used.

    >>>>> You need to take a logic course. It’s almost impossible to “prove a negative”. You can always postulate more conditions and possible variables, currently unknown, to expand the realm of the possible. The burden of proof is always on the person making the definitive claim. “Extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims”. >>>>>>

    Cloud Seeding.

    >>>>> If they appear the same, then NO OBSERVATIONS are useful either. >>>>>>

    Exactly, not even yours which in your opinion show that Contrails are not currently being used with potentially hazardous chemicals to control weather…. wait a minute, yes you do… ‘Cloud Seeding’… what do you believe? Contradiction?

    >>>>>> Aluminum IS usually found in dirt in LARGE QUANTITIES….up to 15% of some rocks and soil consists of Aluminum in some form. I have a five gallon bucket of aluminum oxide in my garage for sandblasting motorcycle and tool parts. If you’re worried about breathing aluminum in the dust, stop breathing. Or wear a HEPA mask all the time. >>>>>>>>

    Do you wear a mask when sandblasting with Aluminum Oxide? I bet you do. Which is my point… too much of it is not healthy… if you don’t wear one, then I can see why your negligence drives your disregard for the health of our public.

  60. honoluluskies says:

    >>>>> Various materials, with silver iodide being the most common and one of the more effective. Other metal halides have been tried, as well as some organic molecules, but none are as effective, yet. Silver is mildly toxic. Ingest enough, and it leaves you skin silvery grey. Weird looking. >>>>

    So, after reading your response I think you might be believing in invisible Unicorn-riding Leprechauns sooner rather then later because ‘Cloud Seeding’ and ‘Chemtrails’ are both starting to sound awfully similar…. They both use aircraft to spray Oxides and/or other chemicals above the public to control the weather. We both agree with this, so what’s the real debate? Over whether or not what they are spraying is toxic? Convenient how both of you shrug-off Aluminum Oxide and silver iodide.
    I looked into health concerns over silver iodide and found that it in-fact is pretty concerning:
    “The Office of Environment, Health and Safety, UC Berkeley, rates silver iodide as a Class C, non-soluble, inorganic, hazardous chemical that pollutes water and soil.(8) It has been found to be highly toxic to fish, livestock and humans.(6,7,8,9) Numerous medical articles demonstrate that humans absorb silver iodide through the lungs, nose, skin, and GI tract.(7,8,9) Mild toxicity can cause GI irritation, renal and pulmonary lesions, and mild argyria (blue or black discoloration of the skin). Severe toxicity can result in hemorrhagic gastroenteritis, shock, enlarged heart, severe argyria, and death by respiratory depression.(8) Moreover, a key manufacturer of silver iodide for weather modification, Deepwater Chemicals, warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet as follows: Chronic Exposure/Target Organs: Chronic ingestion of iodides may produce “iodism”, which may be manifested by skin rash, running nose, headache and irritation of the mucous membranes. Weakness, anemia, loss of weight and general depression may also occur. Chronic inhalation or ingestion may cause argyria characterized by blue-gray discoloration of the eyes, skin and mucous membranes. Chronic skin contact may cause permanent discoloration of the skin.(10) Under the guidelines of the Clean Water Act by the EPA, silver iodide is considered a hazardous substance, a priority pollutant, and as a toxic pollutant.(10) Some industries have learned this all too well.”

    Considering that you disclosed that a toxic chemical is the most effective material and most commonly used for Cloud Seeding, and that the manufacturer itself warns of negative health effects, maybe you should ask yourself some of the questions you posed for me about the how self-preservation would affect an individual’s decision to work for a company that sprays…. I too would love to know how these people live with themselves.

    ******** Silver Iodide is used to seed clouds to precipitate rain or snow. Since it is mildly toxic in the concentrations generally used, the US EPA requires a permit to use it and since it is QUITE costly, as you may guess, it is rarely used, unless there is a serious drought coupled with sufficient moisture and low enough atmospheric pressure to warrant the attempt. If successful, then the ensuing rain dilutes the moderately soluble salt to the point where it is barely detectable after the rain. There is no MASSIVE SPRAYING of silver iodide going on.
    Chronic lack of water in your pipes is also pretty toxic. ********

    >>>>Other metal halides have been tried, as well as some organic molecules, but none are as effective, yet. Silver is mildly toxic. >>>>

    So, they have indeed tested various materials among the public?

    ****** Yes, they have. THE PUBLIC tests various materials in the environment all the time. We “test’ them on ourselves. We burn gasoline which we have fortified with additives, mileage enhancers, rust inhibitors, moth balls, nitromethane, ethanol, methanol, Marvel Mystery Oil, Tetraethyl lead, the list is nearly endless. Then there are all the aerosol propellants which have been tried. We spread asbestos fibers from brakes and clutches for a century.
    We use household cleaners with NO idea of the toxicity. We eat fatty meats from animals fed on corn which fatten us up. We consume huge amounts of high-fructose corn syrup which fatten us up and attacks our livers.
    We burn charcoal and starter, propane, natural gas, old tires, coal and on and on. Did you know that a properly operating coal or natural gas fired power plant puts out WAAAAAYYYYY more radiation than a properly operating nuclear power plant? Most of this has been tested and approved by governments and also protested by lots of citizens. But it goes on. And it’s measurable. What’s your point? ******

    >>>>>> You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. A patent is a public document. It makes the patented item public. It shows drawings and specifications. What it does is to reserve rights to the item or idea for the inventor for a period of time, last I heard it was 17 years. Why would the “sprayers” need to patent something, thereby drawing attention to something that they didn’t plan to sell to the public, but to keep secret? Makes NO sense. >>>>>

    The use for the patent isn’t a secret- it’s disclosed in the patent itself….. and Cloud Seeding is currently being tested and used.

    ****** There is no particular “use for a patent”. The patent is an end in itself. Cloud seeding MAY be used to try to enhance rain, somewhere and sometime, but since it requires an EPA permit, it’s not SECRET. *******

    >>>>> You need to take a logic course. It’s almost impossible to “prove a negative”. You can always postulate more conditions and possible variables, currently unknown, to expand the realm of the possible. The burden of proof is always on the person making the definitive claim. “Extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims”. >>>>>>

    Cloud Seeding.

    ****** So, are you now claiming that persistent contrails are the product of rain making attempts using, probably, silver iodide? Why, then, is silver never mentioned in the list of suspect metals in the “chemtrails”? Additionally, the altitude at which seeding is most effective is much lower than that at which the “chemtrails” are seen. *******

    >>>>> If they appear the same, then NO OBSERVATIONS are useful either. >>>>>>

    Exactly, not even yours which in your opinion show that Contrails are not currently being used with potentially hazardous chemicals to control weather…. wait a minute, yes you do… ‘Cloud Seeding’… what do you believe? Contradiction?

    ******* My contention is that looking at two things which appear to be identical can never provide the information to differentiate one from the other. I’m not assuming that any two contrails are the same, just that there is no logical way to claim that one is a chemtrail if it looks just like a contrail and the only criterion you use is “how they look”. *******

    >>>>>> Aluminum IS usually found in dirt in LARGE QUANTITIES….up to 15% of some rocks and soil consists of Aluminum in some form. I have a five gallon bucket of aluminum oxide in my garage for sandblasting motorcycle and tool parts. If you’re worried about breathing aluminum in the dust, stop breathing. Or wear a HEPA mask all the time. >>>>>>>>

    Do you wear a mask when sandblasting with Aluminum Oxide? I bet you do.

    ******* You lose. Most of the blasting takes place in a cabinet, which isn’t airtight. Usually there is sufficient Trade Wind to keep the dust away. If I start to sneeze, I put one on. Also, I’m more concerned with the paint dust and weird stuff which I’m removing than the Al2O3. *******

    Which is my point… too much of it is not healthy… if you don’t wear one, then I can see why your negligence drives your disregard for the health of our public.

    ******* Since virtually all dust contains some Aluminum oxide, you are breathing it all the time. Are you worried? Do you wear a mask to bed? Do you keep track of the massive dust storms which wash over our country every few years? Have you checked the concentrations in your water and air at home? If not, why not? You should be worried about your family and the public in your community. Get busy. *******

  61. SR1419 says:

    Guy-

    Cloud seeding as practiced in this country and around the world for the last 60yrs does not involve persistent trails at high altitudes…

    In fact, it does not involve “spraying” anything. They shoot ice flares of silver iodide into already existing rain clouds from small planes or even from the ground.

    It has nothing to do with what is claimed to be a supposed “chemtrails’

    The various private companies that are hired by local water agencies for their services do have planes available for hire that could sample a suspicious trail or 10 of your choice:

    http://www.weathermodification.com/aircraft.php

  62. guy says:

    honoluluskies said

    ******* You lose. Most of the blasting takes place in a cabinet, which isn’t airtight. Usually there is sufficient Trade Wind to keep the dust away. If I start to sneeze, I put one on. Also, I’m more concerned with the paint dust and weird stuff which I’m removing than the Al2O3. *******

    So, you take precaution and put a mask on when you feel that your health might be compromised while using Silver Iodide…. so, you do have health concerns regarding the material. That’s great, so what if you had no choice but to inhale this poisonous air because no one alerted you to the fact that it was being released on you?

    ****** Yes, they have. THE PUBLIC tests various materials in the environment all the time. We “test’ them on ourselves. We burn gasoline which we have fortified with additives, mileage enhancers, rust inhibitors, moth balls, nitromethane, ethanol, methanol, Marvel Mystery Oil, Tetraethyl lead, the list is nearly endless. Then there are all the aerosol propellants which have been tried. We spread asbestos fibers from brakes and clutches for a century.
    We use household cleaners with NO idea of the toxicity. We eat fatty meats from animals fed on corn which fatten us up. We consume huge amounts of high-fructose corn syrup which fatten us up and attacks our livers.
    We burn charcoal and starter, propane, natural gas, old tires, coal and on and on. Did you know that a properly operating coal or natural gas fired power plant puts out WAAAAAYYYYY more radiation than a properly operating nuclear power plant? Most of this has been tested and approved by governments and also protested by lots of citizens. But it goes on. And it’s measurable. What’s your point? ******

    Also, considering that you suggested I take a logic course, you may want to look into the same because using the argument that because there’s toxins around us all the time it justifies the use of another toxin is ridiculous. Because people are being murdered every day, we shouldn’t consider it wrong to murder.

    ******** Silver Iodide is used to seed clouds to precipitate rain or snow. Since it is mildly toxic in the concentrations generally used, the US EPA requires a permit to use it and since it is QUITE costly, as you may guess, it is rarely used, unless there is a serious drought coupled with sufficient moisture and low enough atmospheric pressure to warrant the attempt. If successful, then the ensuing rain dilutes the moderately soluble salt to the point where it is barely detectable after the rain. There is no MASSIVE SPRAYING of silver iodide going on.********

    >>>>Other metal halides have been tried, as well as some organic molecules, but none are as effective, yet. Silver is mildly toxic. >>>>

    Cloud Seeding is a technology that is not well known to the majority- it’s not something commonly disclosed as a common tool used to manipulate the weather, even though it is used frequently. You hold the OPINION that Silver Iodide is mildly toxic, but the contrary is supported by the documentation I noted. You also mentioned that, “If successful, then the ensuing rain dilutes the moderately soluble salt to the point where it is barely detectable after the rain”…. so what happens when it’s not? You can not claim that it is always successful- so the outcome is toxic material which are not diluted released upon the public. Right?

    I think the majority belief of Chemtrails comes from not only observation, but the many govt proposals to use this technology to combat global warming, The American Association of the Advancement of Science conference that discusses using this globally and the in their view any Geoengineering firm will say “this is easy” to implement and “is so cheap that cost is not an issue”, their experts see this as quote: “not a moral hazard but Free Riding on Our Grandkids”, their experts say: “it will likely negatively impact some people but we might find ourselves in the situation where those risks are worth taking”, numerous meteorologists that agree the persistent contrails are man-made, the patent I referenced, an increased adverse respiratory health effects on days when persistent contrails are abundant, and INCREASED (not existing) levels of Aluminum in soils according to farmers and conservationists…. among others….. so, yes- we should definitely verify with quantified testing that this is occurring as a very large perspective contends. Shoving all that this info aside without a tidbit of objective questioning seems negligent… regardless of what the similarity/difference in appearance of contrail/chemtrail photos and your textbook education tells you.

  63. You also mentioned that, “If successful, then the ensuing rain dilutes the moderately soluble salt to the point where it is barely detectable after the rain”…. so what happens when it’s not? You can not claim that it is always successful- so the outcome is toxic material which are not diluted released upon the public. Right?

    I think it will actually get MORE diluted if not successful, as it will remain in the air longer, and hence get more spread out before it finally makes its way to the ground.

    Either way, it’s a minuscule amount, compared with regular pollutants.

  64. MikeC says:

    It seems to me that the argument that yuo need to protect yourself against varios chemicals is missing the point somewhat.

    you need to protect yourself against too much of everything – including oxygen, iron and water.

    You wear a dust mask when using aluminium oxide for mechanical abrasion because dust is bad for you – not because Aluminium Oxide is poisonous – you wear dust mask for any dusty environment.

    If there was enough silbver iodide in the atmosphere yuo are breathing to be hazardous then there would be enough to detect – so is any being detected?

    There is also plutonium in the air you are breathing……

  65. Alexey says:

    guy said:

    “…if one assumes that contrails are formed without the aid of oxides and other chemicals being sprayed…. then, should also ask themselves what the difference in appearance would be if those chemicals were added to a contrail. My point is that they probably appear the same, which leaves no contrail expert knowledgeable enough to offer a point of view either way on the subject.”

    Let us assume for a moment that those chemicals are sprayed on their own. What kind of trails would they form? Would these trails persist and spread indeed as the chemtrail proponents suggest?

    They would look just like smoke trails released by planes during air shows and military exercises and would dissipate and fade at a similar rate, in other words, quite rapidly. This means that a hypothetical chemtrail would look very much like an ordinary short contrail.

    In contrast, to imitate a hundred-mile long persistent contrail that goes ‘”from horizon to horizon” and to keep the trail still being visible after it have been spread by diffusion and convection into a few miles wide strip would require huge amount of those chemicals, many more times than the total weight of a fully loaded jumbo jet.

    So what would be the point to add those chemicals to a contrail? They are not likely to make it to persist and/or to spread significantly longer and/or wider than the contrail itself would do in the same conditions. In principle, some chemical could do just the opposite. The B-2 ‘Stealth’ bomber was designed “with a tank outboard of the main landing gear to store a chemical that would be mixed with the exhaust flow to suppressed the formation of a contrail. This scheme wasn’t actually used in practice, with a “lidar” (laser radar) system instead eventually developed to detect the formation of a contrail and alert the pilot to descend to lower altitude.”

  66. outsider says:

    @ 538 honolulu: The coils I played with shortly after the war in London were magnesium.
    And Prop planes don’t leave con (or vapor) trails.

  67. Prop planes leave contrails if they get high enough. That’s why there were so many in WWII.

  68. honoluluskies says:

    Outsider, scroll up to post 523.
    There may have been some magnesium used for radar interference, but almost all of the stuff I read about was aluminium. Far less expensive and less dangerous. A magnesium fire in a gasoline and bomb laden aircraft was considered very bad juju.
    Plus, the magnesium foil oxidized very rapidly and didn’t have the protective coating that aluminium formed. It would get brittle and powdery.

  69. sick of "chemtrail" bs says:

    Thank you Uncinus for sharing the facts of the matter. I love it when conspiracy theorists stumble onto this page and realize it goes against their beliefs. The FACTS ARE CLEAR chemtrails are a hoax concocted by paranoia. The real winner is people like Alex Jones.
    To all you theorists out there I have a theory for you. Alex Jones is being contracted by the federal government to find the mentally simple and mark them for euthanasia. Maybe you all should move to the hills of Montana and start a “club” or “church” and spread your religion. Unless you fully understand the phenomenon, don’t use google quotes, and youtube videos made by people as confused as yourselves. STOP SPREADING LIES!!!

  70. outsider says:

    I was wrong about prop aircraft leaving chemtrails; sorry about that.
    However, there is not a chance in hell I’m wrong on chem-trails.
    Check this whistleblower out; 5-part video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEtOc2IFO8&feature=related

  71. honoluluskies says:

    It’s impossible to assess whether you are right or wrong “about chemtrails” since you haven’t stated a position or given a rationale for your opinion. The one post you made about contrails was, as you admitted, WRONG.
    So, your record here is pretty piss poor. Let’s hear what you think and then we can make a better judgment.
    Another lovely day in Honolulu, with no contrails.

  72. Jay Reynolds says:

    Outsider wrote:
    “Check this whistleblower out; 5-part video”
    This video interviews AC Griffith.
    He claims to be associated wth the National Security Agency and the CIA, none of which is true.
    Griffith was a US Air Force radioman who imagned he was a top spy for the CIA/NSA:
    http://www.clarkab.org/organizations/6925thrsm/griffith/03.html

    He wants you to think that chemtrails are sprayed to duct radio transmissions.

    Griffin began his hoax here ELEVEN YEARS ago:
    http://chemtrails.yuku.com/topic/985/ENEMY-RADAR-VIEW?page=1

    He made no attribution, but I found that he had lifted his information from Popular Mechanics magazine:
    http://books.google.co.vi/books?id=QmYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Wright-Patterson+AFB,+Ohio+-+What+could+be+more+useful+to+a+pilot+than+seeing+what+the+enemy+sees?&source=bl&ots=sI85TmykSv&sig=r3GtlsQWGarWC_Z6PRggAYnf5Zg&hl=en&ei=MRcXTubPFune0QHDpN1C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Wright-Patterson%20AFB%2C%20Ohio%20-%20What%20could%20be%20more%20useful%20to%20a%20pilot%20than%20seeing%20what%20the%20enemy%20sees%3F&f=false

    Note carefully that in the video Griffith says he got inside of a secret program, but if you google it you will find that the computer model he speaks of is no secret at all:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=variable+terrain+radio+parabolic+equation+model&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    Similarly, he says the MOST SECRET ting he found was the Radio Frequency Mission Planner. If it’s such a secret, why is the contract posted for all to see?
    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=03312d2065c5cdaa4ef7201bc541a4ae&tab=core&_cview=0

    Best of all, if this RFMP is so secret, why is it wholly explained in this video?
    http://www.prismnet.com/~atc/movies/rfmp.mov

  73. tryblinking says:

    Great post Jay. Nowhere to hide with that one.
    Now, if only you could send all that to Griffin – or even re-post on his site – it and get an honest, responsible reply.

  74. JFDee says:

    Careful with that “n” and “th”. A.C. Griffith is not G. Edward Griffin – or is he ?

  75. Jay Reynolds says:

    Correction. All of my post above refers to A.C Griffin. I have amny Griffin and Griffith friends and sometimes make typos with their names.

  76. Dude says:

    The first reports of ChemTrails were of a stringy substance that fell like webbing. It made people sick and even killed crops. It was tested in remote farmlands of America. They have come a long way in the research since then, it is now nano scale technology.

    By ‘they’ I mean PROJECT CLOVERLEAF, look it up.

    We won’t be told what it is Top Secret, you will however find a lot of mis-information and so called debunkers throw so much bullshit into the pile, that it will be hard to find any truth amongst it.

  77. Jay Reynolds says:

    Dude, the first reports were that jet fuel contained ethylene dibromide.
    That failed- not true.
    Carnicom was sent a cobweb like material in 2000, claimed he had it analyzed, but never showed his analysis.
    Wonder why?

  78. tryblinking says:

    Dude, I think you need to understand what the word “debunking” actually means.
    Why would you want bunk?

  79. Dude says:

    tryblinking

    Is that the best comment you can think of?

    de·bunker n.
    Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning “to remove,” and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated “to make a speech for Buncombe.” Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.

    I guess it refers to dull speech, by an American Congressman. In Australia we call it, “bull shit”. Or you are a “bull shit artist”.

    Who looked up the name I mentioned?

  80. MikeC says:

    I find it amazing that you can write the appropriate definition – “that nonsense is removed”, and hten promptly ignore it.

    Back to Tryblinking’s question, now that you are aware of what the word means – why would you want nonsense as part of your “evidence”?

    Cloverleaf is another conspiracy with no credible or verifiable evidence to support it – mentioning it as “evidence” for chemtrails is kind of circular!

  81. Ross Marsden says:

    I don’t think Project Cloverleaf actually ever existed.
    A bunkum creator made it up.
    It’s part of the bunk.

  82. DonnT says:

    I was watching a plane fly across a clear blue sky the other day, trailing the common “chemtrail” that is being discussed on this site. Halfway across its path, the plane immediately stopped spewing out the white trail. I find it hard to believe that the plane all of a sudden hit an extreme change in atmospheric conditions, or that it turned its engines off, as it was still flying the same course.

    This, I would think, kinda debunks your explanation of atmospheric conditions making it so that a regular contrail would persist.

    I’m glad that you have ultimate trust in government and the scientific community – you probably believe that it’s possible for skyscrapers to fall into their own footprint when hit by planes, and that when you borrow money from a bank that you’re borrowing other people’s money… I guess it’s psychologically safer to believe that there is no evil in the world, makes it easier to sleep at night and ignore anyone being oppressed on the planet.

    Most of the comments on this thread confirm the effects of the “education” that has been fed to the general public in the developed world – parrot this information without questioning its validity or origin. Good science folks!

  83. DonnT says:

    Come to think of it, many of your past presidents were big conspiracy theorists. Kennedy thought that there was a secret organization that was going for world control through the use of military and corporations, as Eisenhower predicted. Many other presidents made strong comments criticizing or condemning private bankers, especially the collective group that became the Federal Reserve.

    As for secret organizations being out in the open or easy to find on the web, sometimes the best place to hide is in plain sight. Some ideas, like how private banks are the ones creating the world’s currencies, are so unbelievable, that most people don’t believe it. Yet all that takes is to ask a bank manager where the money comes from for the mortgage you’re about to sign onto. Most people don’t, because they have been conditioned to believe that if it’s been going on for this long, and in plain sight, that everything must be fair – how could the government endorse it and allow it to happen if it wasn’t?

  84. I find it hard to believe that the plane all of a sudden hit an extreme change in atmospheric conditions

    Really, why do you find this hard to believe? That’s what meteorologists believe. For example, the National Weather Service in Flagstaff:

    http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/contrail.php?wfo=fgz

    Occasionally a jet plane, especially if ascending or descending, will pass through a much drier or more moist layer of atmosphere which may result in a broken pattern to the contrail, with it appearing in segments rather than in one continuous plume.

  85. Regarding Kennedy and “We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy”, if you’d like to discuss that, I have debunked it here:

    http://metabunk.org/threads/162-Debunked-quot-We-are-opposed-around-the-world-by-a-monolithic-and-ruthless-conspiracy-quot

    Please discuss it there on metabunk.org, contrailscience.com is about contrails and chemtrails.

  86. captfitch says:

    DonnT-

    Would you believe that his power setting at one moment was 76% and then he pulled the power back to 65% or increased power to 90%?

    Or possibly he bagan a descent- thus flying from one layer of atmosphere to another. The atmosphere can differ wildly vertically- think about the bottom of a cloud. One hundred feet below the cloud it’s perfectly clear. Clouds anyway are a perfect example of atmospheric change in a short space.

    I guess my “education” beats your ignorance. Maybe you shouldn’t be parroting other bunk sites and start learning things from a better source.

  87. TheDutch says:

    Thanks for this site I got my sanity back.

    The guy from Hawai mentions the sky at night isn’t as bright as it used to be, can this be explained by recent vulcanic activity around the world?

  88. treasurecoastskywatch says:

    you guys are nuts !!!!!!!!!!

  89. MikeC says:

    Dutch I think the first thing to ask about a statement like that is how is he measuring the brightness of the sky at night?

    A lot of statement like that seem to be purely subjective – ie the person says that they think it is not as bright now as it used to be. If they are making such statements then they can be “debunked” by finding information that uses objective measurements and shows otherwise.

    So do some research on the ‘net to see if anyone else has done any work on the subject.

    And if you find that objective measurement SUPPORTS the statement then you might also find the reasons why it has happened.

    And if you find no other information whatsoever then you can state that that is the case too – that it might or might not be true – there’s simply nothing that supports or counters his subjective perception.

  90. MikeC says:

    I found this site quite quickly – http://www.ing.iac.es/Astronomy/observing/conditions/skybr/skybr.html

    It gives historical comparisons for La Palma up to about 1997 or 98 – there may be more applicable ones, but the subject is of dear interest to astronomers, so that’s where i’d be looking..

    There are several more apparently appropriate sites on google when you search for “measuring the brightness of the night sky”

  91. dogg says:

    Great disinfo site, guys. Call yourself scientist, and you can say any stupid thing. And you do. And I suppose haarp is a figment of “conspirators” imaginations. Chemtrails and haarp go hand in hand as you watch the chemtrails be manipulated before your very eyes into formations that nature cannot form.

  92. Like what? I’d suggest you first have a look at this book of cloud photos, that is over 100 years old. See if what you are seeing is in there:

    http://contrailscience.com/clouds-before-planes-cloud-studies-1905/

    Here’s the album of photos:

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

    Note these photos were taken before planes were invented!

  93. Jay Reynolds says:

    dogg wrote:
    “Call yourself scientist, and you can say any stupid thing. And you do.”
    I don’t call myself a scientist, though I did bet a science degree.
    But since you brouht it up can you name me one scientist who has actually published
    research on chemtrails? You brought it up.

    Which real scientist published, “Chemtrails and haarp go hand in hand as you watch the chemtrails be manipulated before your very eyes into formations that nature cannot form.”?

  94. captfitch says:

    Yeah- I think my aviation sciences degree trumps dogg’s youtube degree.

  95. tryblinking says:

    Yeah, but you must have got that from the Government, like my Meteorology degree.

    We all know they changed the science they taught us so that we would graduate as sheeple and tell everyone contrails are normal.

    Oh wait, science only works because everyone uses the same rules.

  96. captfitch says:

    I guess I forgot you had a Meteorology degree…

    Hey quick question then- if I am underneath an fairly isolated rain event like a small high base layer cell and the rain doesn’t reach the ground (like virga) will the cooling effect of the evaporation cool the air enough to overcome the heating caused by compression as that cooled air decsends? Or do the two things cancel each other out?

  97. SARA says:

    You guys are all insane! The aluminum has already gotten to your brains. You can’t even see the forest before the trees.

  98. Jay Reynolds says:

    SARA, I have a question for you:
    If you were to appear before the highest court in whatever land you live in, what single indisputable evidence
    would you present to the jury to convince them that what people are seeing are trails consisting of aluminum?

    I really want to know!

  99. captfitch says:

    forest for the trees…. not forest before the trees

    in this case the word for can be used instead of the words because of.

    carry on

  100. tryblinking says:

    Well, the cold of the united falling parcel would usually be a much more dominant effect than any small heating by compression within those turbulent boundary layers below.

    By continuity, if that parcel of cold air is descending, even strengthening it’s descent by cooling from partial or total precip evaporation, the air beneath isn’t compressed, so much as pushed out radially as the colder parcel meets the ground.

    You can see this effect on a larger scale from above with isolated Cb cells; as the updraft fails and they drop all that suspended moisture, they drop huge parcels of cold air, forming an outflow boundary, sometimes called a ‘gust front’. As you probably know, the turbulence they create causes all kinds of tomfoolery for pilots.

    As for your question, SARA, you might like to look up the phrase ‘burden of proof’. Somewhat incidentally, scientists on this site and elsewhere have asked those who believe in the chemtrail theory to put forth their single ‘best’ piece of evidence. The scientific community has yet to be presented with anything unusual, or indeed unexplainable.

    Really read this post from the top, and hopefully you’ll start to understand on whose shoulders that ‘burden of proof’ really lies.

Comments are closed.