Home » contrails » Fake, Hoax, Chemtrail Videos

Fake, Hoax, Chemtrail Videos

Most of the supposed “chemtrail” videos out there are simply videos of persistent contrails that the video maker somehow has decided are part of a giant world-wide conspiracy involving spraying something for some purpose.

But some videos are actually deliberate hoaxes, either by pranksters poking fun at the chemtrail community, or by people looking to promote the theory for one reason or another.

The above video comes from TankerEnemy, an Italian chemtrail proponent.  It very clearly shows aerodynamic contrails coming from the wings of a KC-10.  The pilots on the cockpit are heard joking about it being “chemtrails”.  TankerEnemy, not being a native english speaker, misses this and thinks they are being serious. He then goes on to “analyze” the video, and points to the flap mechanisms as being nozzles.

The original video was posted by USAFFEKC1OA as a joke (on July 14th 2010, under his original account USAFFEKC10, see here).  He later updated the description to read:

USAFFEKC1O | July 17, 2010

It was fun playing with all the chemtrailers but you guys are way to gullible!! 🙂

And commented:

You guys who keep saying “TOO LATE” need to think before you open your mouth…I don’t care that the videos are still out there and going viral. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PRANK!!!! …for all of you chemtrail idiots to get all excited as if these videos are the holy grail of chemtrail videos and for me and my friends to laugh at you while you spread them. The more passionate you guys are about this, the more entertaining it is for those of us who live in the real world. Keep on spreading!!

The video has indeed “gone viral”, at least within the chemtrail community. This means TankerEnemy will ether have to admit he was wrong, or continue to assert that the video is real evidence of spraying, even though it’s painfully obvious that it is not. Unfortunately he’s chosen the latter.

He later uploaded the original video, commenting:

This is the original unadulterated video that started all the fuss. It is completely authentic and no camera tricks were used. It is simply a couple of KC-10’s in formation and the audio you hear is just us poking fun at all the “chemtrail” conspiratorists. I knew when I shot the video that this would be catnip for all the conspiratorists out there. Yeah, the contrails have an odd way of “starting” and “stopping” but that is easily explained with physics. It’s no different than the lenticular clouds that form over a mountain or the fog that flows from an open freezer. So, stop being so gullible, kids. There are truely bad things in the world but this isn’t one of them!

Air Force Pilots Chatting While Filming A Chemtrail Being Sprayed

This is an interesting one. It’s NOT FAKE, but it just shows a plane leaving contrails. The pilots are chatting, but just about some test they are taking.

The reason it’s even listed as a “chemtrail” video is the unusual perspective of the shot. It looks rather unusual, and impressive. So some people think it’s either chemtrails, or a fake. But it’s just contrails. That’s what they look like when you are closely following a plane.


This one is less popular, perhaps because it’s more obviously fake. It shows some video from inside a cockpit (looks like an Airbus A321) with someone flipping a switch labeled “CHEMTRAIL ON/OFF”. The video then intercuts the cockpit view with a variety of shots of contrails, implying that the switch created contrails.

It’s hard to take the video seriously. The “chemtrail on/off” labels is obviously hand made, and simply stuck over the existing “Foot Warmer” switch on the switch panel on the right size of the Airbus panel.

Germany becomes the first country to admit chemtrail ops


That’s a real news story about chaff interfering with the weather radar. However the english subtitles have been faked to make it look like it’s a story on “chemtrails”. See full explanation here:


Ultimate Proof – Chemtrails



Those two are clearly just jokes by PogoPoint99, but are amusing takes on the whole chemtrail culture.

People are just posting these videos for their own amusement. It’s a bit unfortunate that they then “go viral” and are used to support the chemtrail theory. But the silver lining here is that the videos are very easily demonstrated to be fake, and I would hope that any chemtrail believer that gets initially taken in my them might pause for a few moments after they discover what the videos actually are.

If you so quickly and easily believed these videos, then how many other things are there that you have quickly and unquestioningly believed in the past? Perhaps it’s time to start questioning things?

510 thoughts on “Fake, Hoax, Chemtrail Videos

  1. Artist says:

    Chemtrails are obvious and real to people that usually watch sky. Suddenly there is stuff that has never been there…You dont have to be a genius, or conspiraci believer to see the sky and compare it to what you used to see. I mean, come on people look at sky and try to remember how it looked like

  2. MikeC says:

    I sure remember long white contrails overhead as a kid on the beach – which was right underneath the flight path between 2 cities. And then you’d see the return flight an hour later and the old contrail would still be there offset some.

    So what is the problem?

    and how come there is all this photographic and literary evidence from as early as 1940 that tells us of:

    1/ Persistant contrails
    2/ Expanding contrails forming clouds
    3/ Contrails at ground level

    Contrails are certainly obvious, and there are more contrails than before – it follows really, since there are a lot more flights there would be a lot more contrails.

    there is not a shred of evidence of anything else happening.

  3. Chemtrails are obvious and real to people that usually watch sky

    So why have the millions of meteorologists around the world not noticed it then?

  4. Ross Marsden says:

    “I mean, come on people look at sky and try to remember how it looked like.”

    I know! My memory is just as bad as yours!

  5. rising sun (previously imakeOPSname2?) says:

    So, why exactly would you want to dump fuel?

  6. TheFactsMatter says:

    So there will be less of an explosion during an emergency landing.

  7. captfitch says:

    Well- aside from that, the possible cost of inspections, tear downs and possible replacement of landing gear parts as well as the time out of service for the aircraft as a result of landing too heavy may be much more expensive than the cost of the gas that was dumped over. If you had to return for something you would just have to weigh out those costs. Obviously if it’s for a safety issue just let the fuel go.

  8. It’s all explained on Wikipedia:


    Aircraft have two major types of weight limits: the maximum takeoff weight and the maximum structural landing weight, with the maximum structural landing weight always being the lower of the two. This allows an aircraft on a normal, routine flight to take off at the higher weight, consume fuel en route, and arrive at a lower weight. (There are other variables involving takeoff and landing weights, but they are omitted from this discussion for the sake of simplicity.)

    It is the abnormal, non-routine flight where landing weight can be an issue. If a flight takes off at the maximum structural takeoff weight and then faces a situation where it must return to the departure airport (due to certain mechanical problems, or a passenger medical issue), there will not be time to consume the fuel meant for getting to the original destination, and the aircraft may be over the maximum structural landing weight to land back at the departure point.

    Some planes need to be lighter than when they took off to land safely. So they have to dump fuel if the flight is shorter than expected.

    Not all planes have fuel dumping capability.

  9. MikeC says:

    Yeah – cost of overhaul has nothing to do with it sorry Capt – it’s the ability of the landing gear, tyres & a/c structure to take the weight on landing that is the sole determining factor whether to dump fuel or not.

    note that it is not just the ability to support weight – the aircraft is at it’s heaviest taxying out from the gate with a massive load of fuel on board, so clearly supporting the static weight is not a problem.

    It is the ability to absorb the vertical speed when the aircraft hits the ground and has to go from a descent rate of some feet per second (I don’t know what a typical descent rate would be at touchdown) to zero in the space of the travel of the oleos, tyres and structure flex.

    All that force is transmitted through the aircraft structure, and absorbed by a combination of the structure flexing and the oleo’s and tyres compressing – I dont’ know what the proportions are, but I would guess the oleo’s would take a large majority of it.

  10. MikeC says:

    Sorry – when i say “it has nothign to do with the cost of overhaul” that’s not quie a simple as I try to make it.

    Aircraft have to operate withing their certification limits – that is the law. And things like the maximum rated landing weight are determined by manufacturers and approved by the certifying authority (the national aviation authority of the country they are made in – such as the FAA, or CASA, or CAA).

    So the direct requirement to land at the approved landing weight comes from legal obligations.

    aircraft DO land overweight on occasion, and there are always “Overweight landing inspections” and “ahrd landing inspections” in maintenance manuals that have to be carried out whenever it occurs (or is suspected to have occured).

    If these show any sign of overstressing then there will be some maintenance, which will cost money – anything from replacing wheels & tyres up to and including scrapping the aircraft!!

  11. captfitch says:

    Well- maybe not overhauled then. But if I know I’m landing heavy and I know that an inspection is the result of landing heavy I might also assume that during the inspection something might be found that needs to be replacedand will cost money.

    Now I’ve only flown a couple types that have dump valves so I’ve never really thought too hard about scenarios but I would say it would have to be a pretty dire situation for me to warrent dumping fuel. On the other habd- the other option to dumping is simply burning it. I don;t know- you would have to ask someone who flies a bigger plane to walk you throught that decision tree.

  12. Remember the Jet Blue plane that had a stuck-sideways landing nose landing gear. They had to burn fuel for three hours before they could land.


    Of course there the weight would have been a bigger issue with the risk of the gear collapsing, and there were a few sparks, so probably a good idea to, as TheFactsMatter said, reduce the size of the potential fireball.

    I remember watching that on TV. They say “circling the sky over Los Angeles”, but in reality they were out toward Catalina. Unfortunately it was too hazy to see from my house.

  13. captfitch says:

    That’s Airbus for ya. Can’t even convince those planes to go in the right diresction even on the ground. The plane probably thought it was doing just fine.

  14. See that Gravatar banner below? I’d like it if people could sign up with that, just use the same email address as you use here, and whatever image.

    It makes it harder for people to spoof, and easier to see who posted what.


  15. captfitch says:

    ok- I’ll try

  16. Is that the view from your cockpit?

  17. captfitch says:

    No- that ‘s the view from the last seat in the back. We can see the wingtip but it’s pretty far back from where we sit. That and I see the other one from where I sit on the left side.

  18. JeffT says:

    I have asked this question on Truthers sites about the non-selectivity of Chemtrails spraying.
    “If the contrails we are seeing are caused by spraying of the usual culprits Aluminium, Barium Strontium etc. minerals as well as pathogens – of whatever the imagination can prescribe”
    Why doesn’t the anointed such as the POTUS, Bilderberg members, Al Gore, von Rompuy of the EU, HRH Elizabeth 2 and her consort Philip and of course HRH Charles of the Green Mind be affected by all these chemicals etc. As they are not wearing contamination suits when appearing in public.

    The answer I get back dismisses this with ” That why they have detox units, to rid their systems of these toxic chemicals and pathogens”.

    All very fine and marvellous, but lower your eyes a bit and look at inground ornamental fish. These fish can be quite old, with the larger, older ones being also quite valuable. They are also in the open, and could be destroyed by chemical imbalance, changes in ph, even accidental events such as spraying herbicides or fertilizer, that would contaminate their environment.
    So what of these “chemtrails” ?

  19. I like to ask why none of the thousands of municipal water companies have ever detected any of these chemicals in the water supply, despited doing yearly published test.

  20. imakeopsname2 (now "rising sun") says:

    well plants around my house are being layered with a powdery white substance distributed it what appears as water spots and finer water spots. there are evergreen hedges and other bushes having THE STRANGEST and sometimes lethal diseases. my herbs died, my rosemary is blooming in the winter in freezing conditions but right after the nodes bloom they soon die making my rosemarus look more brown than pink. the only parts of the bushes affected like the large hedges, is the perimeter leaves and whatever holes the ground winds penetrate. the reason i know this is not from my water system (although if chemicals were being sprayed the water system would also be affected) is because i have a narrow passage of over hanging hedge where the leaves more hidden from the sky are healthier regardless of where the sprinklers would hit them. on top of that ive gathered about a gram of a similar white substance found on many of the large sand stone rocks that are used for landscaping in desert homes. im not sure what to do with the sample

  21. rising sun says:

    leaves that are curled like a cradle tend to gain more white substance to amounts only found on your teachers chalkboard

  22. rising sun says:

    i can take many pictures and send samples into various institutes. many plants being diseased by a similar fungai and/or bacteria and/or chemicals. i can take pics of multiple species of plants, with similarities and differences in diseases amongst those plants and also show you or send you the white powder from the plants and/or rocks

  23. rising sun says:

    please dont remove my previous comments about plant disease because i believe them relevant to contrails and your title “fake, hoax, chemtrail..” because it is evidence against it being a hoax

  24. If you think it’s relevant to contrails, then how are you correlating them to contrails? Why are they not relevant to, say, car exhaust, local mining operations, or local crop spraying? How do you link it to contrails specifically?

    And what causes have you ruled out?

  25. rising sun says:

    nice pics uncinus. my initial thought was thats not it but let me take a step outside to confirm this “spotty” looking white mildew…

  26. MikeC says:

    If you don’t know what it is then how can you come to any conclusion about where it comes from??

    Presumably you can actually take samples and have them tested? Then at least you will know what it is.

    but even then – even should it prove to be barium or aluminium of Managanese di-something-or-other that still says nothing about where it comes from. You would ahve to investigate all possible sources from the ground level on up – and there are many known sources at ground level to eliminate!!

  27. rising sun says:

    its not the mildew you speak of. mike im going to ignore you because your whole demeanor sits on a defense side of the court and all your saying is prove this and prove that. im not as capable as you criticize me to be, at least uncinus has the courtesy to contribute something to the conversation other than hate

  28. rising sun says:

    its not consistent with much of the wind patterns and geometry required. the angles at which the plants are being affected are very consistent with something coming from the sky

  29. MikeC says:

    In what way are “the angles at which the plants are being affected are very consistent with something coming from the sky?

    Plants are generally optimised for photosynthesis, which means leaves more-or-less point skywards, so it seems pretty obvious to me that _any_ damge to them has some aspect of “from the sky” involved.

    However on a basic logical note – “consistent with” has some pertty severe limitations as evidence:

    1/ it does not preclude anything else
    2/ it admits that the link between the 2 things is not actually known – if there is a known link then yuuo say so.

  30. MikeC says:

    As I see it you are going to ignore me because you can’t actually answer the questions.

    this is not a court, there is no defense or prosecution. there are questions and answers – those that are based on verificable facts are generally accepted. thsoe that are based upon speculation, supposition, hearsay and fantasy get attacked.

    Uncinus’s questions are no different in intent than mine – you may feel otherwise, but your continued lack of actual answers shows that you really havent’ learned anything nor changed your approach from last time I said I was done with you.

    So please – do ignore me, it makes me feel that I have contributed something useful!

  31. Consider: if you have mysterious white powder on the leaves, and it was falling from the sky, then everyone else in the vicinity will also have it. Obviously it’s not falling just on your house. Why not take a trip along the highway (Bluff St?), and see how far it extends?

    That would be some nice solid evidence.

  32. rising sun says:

    “Plants are generally optimised for photosynthesis, which means leaves more-or-less point skywards, so it seems pretty obvious to me that _any_ damge to them has some aspect of “from the sky” involved.”

    your mistaking the behavior of descending particles of matter for light, mike…

  33. MikeC says:

    lol…ignoring me huh?

    I’m not mistaking anything – I’m saying that if particles are descending onto your plants then you should have no trouble at all getting samples of them for testing.

    so why dont’ you do it?

  34. rising sun says:

    hmm you chop my speculation into solid bricks as if the problem werent fluid. i see how the logic of your mind can only pertain to one state of matter (eg one state of perspective.) why dont you just try thinking like me for 5 bloody minutes and think about the connections that may occur. im becoming sick of your only-brick-walls thinking. there are other walls you may have not even thought of like steel walls or cement walls or electric or energized walls. you see my talk about walls is not relevent to subject but more to psychology. i hope my metaphor made sense of how some minds may and may not be as greatly consciouss in areas where some facts have already been accepted as “absolute”

    all i ask is that you forget what you know and for 5 minutes try it.
    if you still dont see anything then this is the crossroads.

    even through the frustration and the debate and the research it was still much enjoyed. when i look at all thats been said i walk away with more comprehension. so for that i thank you uncinus and those who have been remotely helpful

    good day

  35. Consider that 20 miles to the west of you is Gooseberry Mesa, an elevated region of eroding limestone. Any dust whipped up from there that lands on your plants will also come “from the sky”.

    And the land five miles to the west of you also has a lot of what looks like whitish rocks:

    So what’s to say its not just dust?

  36. rising sun says:

    i have collected samples as i have previously said. up to a gram easily from one spot of rocks. i have sent the pictures and if you would like them uncinus and mike then i will put them up but other than that i think this is over for me.
    good day

    p.s. ill check for requests of the info. and if you would like a sample of the powder then request then send some return mailing to my p.o. box and id be more than happy

  37. MikeC says:

    If you have samples then a lab would be the place to send them – that’ll tell you exactly what they are – pics on here would jsut tell you what we think they are.

    You ask “us” to think like you – why should we? we reject the use of “connections” to prove anything – we ask for verifiable information – verifiable connections are also fine as far as they go – but supposition from them is just that – suppositoin.

    how about you think like “us” instead?

  38. Ross Marsden says:


  39. imakeopsname2 says:

    repost it

  40. imakeopsname2 says:

    pathetic. you guys can’t even explain “Persistent contrails at below 5000ft” it must be a conspiracy then

  41. Alexey says:


    AFAIK, your presented no evidence that they were below 5000 ft and that they did persist.

  42. imakeopsname2 says:

    look up 80 percent of flights from the airport on the plateau in saintgeorge utah enterprise was skywest i believe. they were flying below 5000 before the airport closed down around this last new year. look up the satellite pics then check the planes altitude’s records and its true.

  43. imakeopsname2 says:

    with “the increase in air traffic over the last two decades” its easy to develop the percept of TWO different flying altitudes since im from san jose and live in rural southern utah. the flying altitude of most airliners passing by is usually pretty high and difficult to recognize from ground (30,000-40,000 is an accurate estimate i believe) the other from rural utah and an intown small airport not fitted for landing commercial airliners with many prop planes flying under 5000 ft at a very recognizable distance from the ground. now explain persistent contrails. ive looked around the www and found similar low altitude persistent contrails falling to the ground like myself and you say im the only one and its simply physically impossible and im dellusional. what other reason than conspiracy? explain to me what their releasing or figure it out yourself CAPTAIN.

  44. Alexey says:


    yet again, you presented no evidence of a contrail from a low flying plane that [i]persisted[/i] for a sufficiently long time after the plane gone.

  45. what other reason than conspiracy?

    Considering that nobody has ever photographed or videoed it, I’d suspect a very good explanation would simply be that people are misinterpreting what they are seeing.

    “Persistent contrails falling to the ground” would have been highly unusual looking things that millions of people must have seen. Nobody thought to take a photo or video?

  46. captfitch says:

    I’ve yet to see any video of a low altitude chemtrail that falls to the ground. Please provide a link that shows that or please post a video you yourself have shot. That would be very helpful in identifying such an event.

  47. Here’s a video that claims to show a “chemtrail” “falling to the ground”.


    Here’s one that says “Another marking trail at 13:43, see how the trail falls to the ground.”
    (The time refers to the actual time, not the video time, which is less than two minutes long).

    Obviously these contrails are simply being blown over the horizon, exactly the same as the clouds later in the video.

    imakeopsname2, is this what you are referring to?

  48. imakeopsname2 says:

    you do not know whether everyone has seen/photographed low altitude conspiracy trails. you scan a few pages of results and then go from there

  49. imakeopsname2 says:

    ive photographed it but you cant see it cuz it was at night likely others would encounter the same problem. for all we know preemptive war tactics couldve been taken to modify the engine to help increase persistent water vapor trails to disguise when they’re “attacking”

  50. imakeopsname2 says:

    you want those night photos however?

  51. imakeopsname2 says:

    i only watched the first one and it didnt appear low altitude. these trails were like a race track over my head and town it doesnt look like the white fluffy bullshit your picturing

  52. Alexey says:


    So you have no evidence to support your story.

  53. imakeopsname2 says:

    i do. pictures and samples and i think i took a vid of another spray

  54. Where is the evidence? Can we see it?

    feel free to post it here, or email [email protected]

  55. Casey says:

    There are two CT videos which I suspect to be fake. They claim to be of Ted Gunderson a retired United States Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent In Charge. Here they are:


    I’ve seen some photos, and other videos of Ted. And he looks and sounds different than the man in these videos. Am I nuts? Are the chemtrailers really that desperate? I’d love to hear other folks opinion on whether that is the real Ted Gunderson or not.

  56. imakeopsname2 says:

    desperate? the irony

  57. imakeopsname2 says:

    ok ive got them. ive got a pic of one of many prop planes that were flying at the now inactive airport. this picture of a prop shows him pulling a 90 degree turn from ground level. ive got several pics and one video of the night flight trails but i cant see them on my computer. if you had some visual enhancing software perhaps.. but ill send all of it. i also have pictures of plants becoming diseased from the trails and the residue left over on them. if you have the software maybe im getting somewhere. if not youll probably see alot of black. even if i did set my cam for night its difficult to pick up the trails/clouds

  58. captfitch says:

    90 degree turn from ground level? The only plane that consistantly does that is a crop duster.

  59. imakeopsname2 says:

    my eyesight from ground level and the wings were pointed vertical indicating a 90 degree turn of the cockpit

  60. imakeopsname2 says:

    hes flying sideways.

  61. imakeopsname2 says:

    well i sent it

  62. Janet Detwiler says:

    @imakeopsname2; You sent what? You know you can post pictures here, and links, don’t you? I’m personally all for seeing what evidence people have. I think everybody is. Do you have a YouTube? I am MrOoppoddoo on YouTube, and my email address is, [email protected]. I’m just a 53YO woman who believed strongly in “chemtrails” for a while, from 2006 though 2007.

  63. imakeopsname2 says:

    why dont u believe anymore? if u ask uncinus he has my pics and vid. their not very good. it was a night flight. but i do have what i stated previousl. again-why dont u believe anymore?

  64. MyMatesBrainwashed says:

    Well I’m sold. Normally it’s pictures of white lines in a blue sky. But these pictures of black really tell the whole story.

  65. captfitch says:

    Yes- I would give it an F for effort. Which is still perplexing because I would assume that if someone is truly concerned about something they would take the steps neccassary to document the proported actions. If plants are becoming diseased whay aren’t you allerting the media or telling the EPA? Why are you here showing us pics of nothing?

    Sadly- I’m wondering now why I’m here arguing with you actually. I think I’ll quit.

  66. I appreciate that you’ve tried to provide evidence, it’s more than many people do.

    Unfortunately the photos are of very low quality (not really your fault), so it’s hard to make out anything. The only two that I can see that show something of interest are:

    Which shows the underside of a two-engine plane, probably banking to the left. It’s at 90 degrees to the viewer, but not at 90 degrees to the ground (it would fall out of the sky if it were). It’s not leaving a trail.

    Then there’s (contrast enhanced)

    Which shows what look like high altitude cirrus. Possibly the result of spreading contrails, especially the large band just above the center of the image.

    The clouds/contrails at the bottom of the image are closer to the horizon. This does not mean they are closer to the ground. If the wind at altitude (often 100mph) is blowing away from the viewer, then even the highest clouds will quickly “drop” over the horizon, especially if the horizon is a hill, as appears here.

    I tried enhancing the other images, but there’s nothing there. The black images with lights remain like that, and the images of leaves are too blurred to see anything. The video does not show anything, it’s too dark, low resolution, and compressed. This photo (and some others) maybe shows a contrail:


    The plane above has a distinctive shape, on Google maps there were a couple that looked similar parked at the North end of the airport (St George, UT). If you are interested in investigating, why not go and see the plane on the ground, find the N number, and look it up.


  67. captfitch says:

    Those are (mostly) all spotter planes for fire fighting aircraft. Bob Hoover used to use a plane like that (the twin commander) to do all sorts of airshows. And I’m sure it can go knife edge no problem (90 degrees to the ground) Technically any aircraft can do that for short periods of time. SInce those aircraft are required to do all sorts of things very low level to guide the big water bombers in I imagine that for training they go out and practicea all sorts of things low level. If those planes are present at that airport I have no doubt that the big planes are there sometimes too which is how you would see planes dropping something at low altitudes.

  68. Alexey says:

    I’ve checked the date and time stamps on these pictures. What I do not understand is why all of them are colorless (black-and-white)? Many of them have been taken at day time.

  69. MikeC says:

    Re teh 3rd photo in post 269 – mountains in background, town in the foreground, maybe a high contrail – is there some ground mist on the bottom slopes of the mountain?

    It looks like there’s a couple of lighter patches – one is thicker and not very wide just to right of centre, the other starts just above it and stretched left. I think they show up better in the original.

  70. Probably just had the camera (Blackberry 8330) set to black and white mode.

  71. Yeah that does look like mist. It certainly would be easier to see in color. I’d increased the contrast trying to bring out the high contrail.


  72. imakeopsname2 says:

    sorry i didnt document enough, yes thats the phone, i set it to auto and night so idk why it would be black and white, i was thinking the same thing when i sent them in. your best bet is the black pics those are the low alt drops but id givemyself an f for evidence but i cant do anything about it now that the airport is shutdown

  73. imakeopsname2 says:

    hey uncinus if that second picture you posted of mine is one of the blacks could you enhance all of the black ones for me and dropbox them with the link? please im curious to see the other ones enhanced

  74. The second picture is not one of the black, it a grey one IMG00411

    The black ones like IMG00397


    come out like:


    There’s just no detail in them.

    Unfortunately, you really need a better camera. One with mega-zoom, and good low-light ability.

  75. Janet Detwiler says:

    @ imakeopsname2; I apologize. You said you had posted them but I hadn’t seen them yet. My bad. I am still unclear as to what they show, but I do understand how difficult it is to get pictures at night. I also had a lot of trouble getting good pictures of high altitude aircraft back when “chemtrails” were a concern of mine, but I do have a pretty huge collection of good persistent lingering contrails shots. We get a lot of them where I live.

    I started researching the history of contrails, found out this phenomenon goes WAY back, and then started learning what I was able to about atmospheric science. I started talking to pilots and listening to what they had to say. I also couldn’t help but notice that the people trying to sell the idea of “chemtrails” really didn’t know what the heck they were talking about. The reason I “don’t believe in chemtrails” anymore is because after much study, they are obviously not “chemtrails”. They are persistent lingering jet contrails, but these days I just call persistent contrails, well, persistent contrails. There is no evidence, not anywhere, of there being any “chem” involved, unless you’re speaking of the water and fuel vapor.

  76. Janet Detwiler says:

    I’m pretty sure I should take this thought to metabunk, because I think I might have figured out one of the many “whys” of this hoax. Obviously, there are people selling things, chembusters, vitamins (from very dubious sources claiming to guard against the “effects of chemtrails”), and of course every hit on one of those hoax sites makes someone money. Click the adverts, and that traffic is noted and paid for also. But besides that, I think that entity’s such as Koch Industries and that ilk might have a hand in this and other hoaxes. By keeping a portion of the population in fear over something that really does not exist, and by lying that climate change is a hoax, well, there is a lot of anti-science web sites, and it’s a down side of the internet. You can pretty much say any outlandish thing you want to online, and for some reason that appeals to some people. Myself included. Mea Culpa. Ha ha…

    Apologies for bringing this up here. I’ll take this up on the other site sometime soon. My computer is giving me a lot of problems recently, plus I’m doing the job search and looking for employment. But I am very grateful for contrail science. It’s part of the up side of the internet.

  77. captfitch says:

    What- did everyone totally miss what I posted? All that’s going on is some fire fighting training and/or this is a base of operations. Give me a second and I’ll find out what company was flying out of this airport. Stby…..

  78. captfitch says:

    So it looks like the Bureau of Land Management uses/used St. George as a a base for its single engine fire bombers primarily. This fact came up in about 5 minutes of the Googling. I’ve had a few beers otherwise I would look some more but it I suspect that with some more research one could verify further what ops are going on here.

    So what’s the point of continuing this further and looking at more blury photos? This is/was a fire fighting base. That’s it. End of story. If someone has a hard time putting two and two togehter regarding this it’s too bad.

  79. MikeC says:

    Capt that may be so……….but unless we can actually identify it in one of imakeopsname2 it remains unconfirmed as the source of his angst – sorry dude….but the same rules of evidence apply both ways…….

  80. captfitch says:

    What are you getting at? He brought the evidence to the table in the form a pic of a plane that I identified as a plane that is often used for fire fighting support. He has, on a couple occasions, described what is certainly fire fighting training or regular ops. it seems like we have ample support to close this case.

    Are you saying we need to see something else to prove our points?

  81. imakeopsname2 says:

    haha so their fire fighting the people at night with no fires? the fires are miles from town when the monsoon season comes around so i can understand that as a legitament reason however, the previous question stands unquestioned.

  82. imakeopsname2 says:

    although i often become hyperactive at the plateau of my high. i usually meditate with competitive online games then get bored in an hour, sometimes two. when im completely sober i have a constant anxiety, undue to strictly weed and alcohol consumption in early teen years. this constant anxiety was hyperactive, explorative, analytical, anxietal, and a constant conscious awareness of things around me. theres my personna so you dont have to diagnose me if theres a military psychologist analyzing me or not. the reason i suspect the worst like i just said is because although i may be inebriated im never unbalanced and ready for battle however they calm me down in the constant situation that this doesnt occur because that is a new society to the animals the humans. not ingrained within their genetics, for most societies. this is just my budda high and my beer speaking, not so critically unless challenged upon notes to be battled.

  83. imakeopsname2 says:

    ah and the reason i suspect the worst is because chemtrails are possible and now that ive seen this airports activity from a well placed vantage point their very well most likely captain.

  84. Cyberknight2010 says:

    this site is total trash, you try to debunk everything
    the main contrail video is real
    a couple “we made a joke” comments from the youtube site just before it’s taken off mean nothing.
    the nozzles on the plane (none exist’ on any other plane) proof number 1
    the colored chemtrails (not 1 color contrails) proof number 2
    are caused by seperate chemicals (different chemicals used in spraying)
    the on and off of the chemtrails – proof number 3

  85. captfitch says:

    I sort of work for the FAA- don’t worry- I’m here to help.

  86. this site is total trash, you try to debunk everything

    Debunking just means removing the bunk. If I debunk everything then there will be no bunk, which would be a good thing, right? You don’t actually want bunk, do you?

  87. Ross Marsden says:

    OK, Cyberknight2010, I’ll play.
    *sculz one*

    Let’s say they are nozzles.

    1) Why is the “spray” all across the wing?
    2) Why does it appear to come, already spread out, from in front of the nozzles?
    3) The on/off behaviour seen there is not consistent with the spray coming from the nozzles. Why is that?

    Now, you go. Scull first, then type.

  88. MikeC says:

    Cyberknight –

    1/ What nozzles?
    2/ I guess white is a colour…..but doesn’t that make clouds chemtrails too?
    3/ What chemicals are those then?
    4/ Just like clouds again – on and off all across eth sky.

    So apparently clouds are a nasty plot to do something?

    What is it you think they are trying to do?

    I work for a foreign Govt (since I assume you live in the USA it is foreign to you – just as you are foreign to me) – one which is not in Europe or Asia, is not in any military alliance with the USA, does not have any foreign military bases here, has no nuclear reactors, has a free trade agreement with the PRC, and is a constitutional monarchy.

  89. Casey says:


    That sounds like a riddle 😉

    New Zealand?

  90. MikeC says:

    Busted! Happily my family in Chch is all OK!

  91. Casey says:

    Happy to hear that Mike. I spent the better part of a year in New Zealand a few years ago.

  92. tryblinking says:

    someone directed me to this video as evidence of constructed clouds and weather modification.

    I think its a reflection in a window, maybe of a white card shape illuminated in an otherwise dark room. Looks good tho, and at first site had me really puzzled.

  93. jason says:

    wow, I spent maybe 8 hours reading 75% of the posts on this site. It was entertaining to say the least. I think you must have had prior experience Uncinus dealing with irrational people and trolls (mmorpg gaming?). Can’t wait to try out some of your Google Earth analyses of my own.

  94. Thanks Jason, arguing with strongly opinioned people on the internet is just a hobby of mine, going way back to modem BBS days.

  95. djoesta says:

    I have to give it to you, the site’s owners must have been very busy and still are so it seems. Creating confusion and misinformation conform the agenda. Shame. GOVERNMENTS AREN’T EVEN CONTRADICTING THE FACT THAT SPRAYING IS GOING ON! Who are you debunking here? Useless site…

  96. Beyond (formerly djoesta) says:

    Shill propaganda this website is. Sure, aerosol spraying does not exist, go back to bed poeple, everything is just dandy. Shame.

  97. Beyond says:

    Eh! Those “CON”trails don’t come out of the engines, oh my.

Comments are closed.