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:



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:


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:


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. JFDee, very few US soundings are accurate enough to predict contrails. They have significant dry bias, and often stop working below -40 degrees. I was writing about this today:


    Only Wallops and Vandenberg seem to be accurate.

  2. Jay Reynolds says:

    One more answer you won’t find on chemtrails websites. Yes according to scientists, high altitude temperatures are falling as they expect would happen in a scenario of global warming. There is some uncertainty, and most of the cooling seems to be in the lower stratosphere, above where most aircraft fly, but it is difficult to get high quality temperature global measurements at these altitudes.
    here is some discussion:

    This is mainly pertaining to contrail formation, which is a function of temperature. Contrail persistence is a function of moisture. More moisture is expected to be introduced if higher temperatures are in the lower atmosphere, and also more clouds as a resulting feedback. Personally, I think that the 80,000 flights which take place over the earth each day account sufficiently for an increase in the number of contrails you see. Aviation has grown exponentially during our lifetimes.

    For an amzing visualization, watch this in HD:

  3. JFDee says:


    I have probably not made my point clear enough in my answer to Twiglymcgee. I recommended a look at the diagrams in a general way; they illustrate how little correlation there is between conditions on the ground and conditions up in the ‘jet’ levels, which was one of T.’s questions.

    And while the diagrams certainly can’t predict contrail formation, they are a good vizualisation fo how (sometimes wildly) variable the conditions are between altitude levels, which is a point often met with incredulity by chemtrailers.
    These variations become obvious when looking at a random selection of diagrams, even without further knowledge about the diagram details.

    A quick example from the Vanderberg (it does not take long to find similar diagrams):

  4. Good point JFDee. It’s a shame though that the Skew-T diagrams are a bit hard to read for the average person.

  5. Darren says:

    Just like 2 say, quality disinformation. Wake the f up u sheep. Or in a word u might understand baaahhhh.

  6. JFDee says:


    please point to the specific “quality disinformation”. Where exactly did you find errors?

  7. Ian Todd says:

    Thanks for the interesting article. I’m no scientist and aluminium in the chemtrails is news to me. Having said that, what do you believe the chemtrails are, and for? I believe we are right to be suspicious of a world where corporate profit seems to over rule pretty well any other consideration. And when I see Monsanto’s involvement, we have a duty to be suspicious!

  8. Strawman says:

    Yeah, be suspicious. But being afraid of clouds?

    Come on!

  9. AtleastIKTT says:

    Hughes Aircraft Patent #5,003,186… nuff said.

  10. Royston says:

    I would be very interested to know if you have contacted the film maker’s so that they can put their point of view across after your debunking.There is no doubt that there has been a massive increase in these so called chemtrail’s. In Bournemouth England where I live the bright blue day’s are ruined by this activity with the sun blotted out by a white murkey veil.And it did seem to happen really quickly.

  11. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    Well I would have loved to send you this in a private message over at Metabunk Mick, but seeing as how you banned me I cannot. I was going to ask that you post this over there so that people do not think I just disappeared, or did something impolite to get banned. If you are not a coward then you should not be ashamed of your reason for banning me. I just think everyone should know what you did and why you did it. Your decision has no merit whatsoever and I guess if this comment gets erased then not only does it have no merit, but you are embarrassed to stand by your decision in the public view..

    You have been banned for the following reason:
    Just keeping you honest

    Date the ban will be lifted: 10-18-2012, 11:00 AM

  12. SeriouslyDebatable says:

    And I was done talking in that forum thread… not every forum. I was also not rude to call someone ignorant when they say they will not give me credit when credit is due. That is ignorance. Thanks, oh hasty one.

  13. It’s rude if people are offended by it. Calling people ignorant is always going to offend them.

    Anyway, you’ve been unbanned, so let’s get back to science.

  14. Jay Reynolds says:

    Yes, the makers of this film know that it has been debunked. They chose to create another movie based on the exact same bunk with some more bunk added. Try asking the makers why they keep doing this, and you will be banned for asking. Mnay people have tried and that was the result. I challenged the makers to a face-to-face debate on much of this and they refused. Have any ideas why they would do so?

  15. Anonymous says:

    So, if chemtrails didn’t destroy the farmland, or repel plants from growing across acres of land. Then what caused the land to be infertile?

  16. Strawman says:

    Could you please be a bit more specific? Which farmland? Where? When?

  17. Jay Reynolds says:

    Probably he’s speaking of the false claims by Francis Mangels that he has garden problems. Other people in the same town have no such problems.
    He also claimed that tomato crops have failed in California, when they keep getting record crops.
    His claims have already been debunked, but he still repeats them as if he didn’t already know, but he does, because he has been informed of all this a year ago. He challenged anyone to debate his claims, but when I responded, he would not debate.

  18. Strawman says:

    That may very well be true. I still think they should provide their information. That would make possible a critical review of the extent of what they are claiming is happening and make for a better researched and contextualized “debunking” than merely putting statement against statement.

    I understand you have done that many times. I thought I’d try it myself.

  19. Jan says:

    Thanks for this page. There is one thing I dont understand. The suggested levels of aluminium vs the high values measures. Why this huge difference? How do it get that high, fexample without spraying?

  20. MikeC says:

    Jan – basically the levels are not high for soil.

    Aluminium is the 3rd most common element in the earth’s crust – on average the earth’s crust is 7-8% aluminium – that’s 70-80,000 parts per million.

    So the soil in your back yard probably has anything up to that amount in it already.

  21. Jay Reynolds says:

    There is no suggested level of aluminum in rainwater, because theamount of aluminum in rainwater depends on how much dust is in the air when it rains. Dust comes from soil and almost all soil contains
    aluminum. As you can see above, the levels of aluminum being found are no higher than the levels found 30 or forty years ago, natural levels from dust containing aluminum in the air.

    The film tries to say that no aluminum should be in rainwater, but since aluminum is in the dust, that is why it is found in rain.

    I averaged all the rainwater tests shown in the movie, and compare them to what was found many years ago. See my study here:

    This summer, more tests were taken of snow on Mt. Shasta. The results showed that the snow was dirty in July and had dust on it, but the fresh snow underneath, and the meltwater from the snow had drinkable quality water, not poison like the movie said.
    See the results here:

  22. Nick says:

    So why did the populace of Espanola Ontario Canada get sick and then told to go blow when they tried to
    get answers. Their MP was told to stand down and shut up.
    Why can I watch this happen in our skies every day if it’s bunk?
    Go de bunk yourself-

  23. JFDee says:


    I have looked up the place you mention. It has a large paper mill nearby which is causing air pollution.
    Did anybody establish a proven link between the short period of low aircraft overflights and people’s sickness? Is there any evidence that the “brown substance” was something other than exhaust smoke?

    And why does all this relate to contrails which usually exist at high altitude?

  24. Mel Cameron says:

    Lets accept that efficient, modern jet engines produce more spreading contrails than ever before to the point where we observe upper atmosphere white-outs. That’s a realistic observation is it not? Given that it is possible to to “white out” large areas of atmosphere, what is the effect of this on local weather patterns? Could it conceivably affect weather patterns and rainfall in particular? Any research on this?

  25. JFDee says:

    Mel Cameron,

    first we would need to establish that there is indeed more spreading than ever before. Usually, it’s not enough to rely on personal memories. If this is something that can be monitored, there should be numbers somewhere.

    AFAIK, the scientific discussion about the effect of contrails is ongoing and still hot. There seems to be a common notion that day contrails are almost neutral regarding cooling (sun reflection) and warming (ground reflection), whereas in the night the warming effect is winning.

    I like this summary about the (semi-current) research:

  26. White-outs have been observed back to the 1940s.

    There’s plenty of research on the topic, a google search will bring up quite a bit. Here’s some from 1981.

  27. Paul says:

    ya nice review, next youre going to say Monsanto is a completely trust worthy company that only wants to help the planet. And that the government has never been involved in a hidden agenda. And that our fiat money system is perfectly fine.
    I would keep doing research before you read this review and take it as truth any more than only watching that one documentary.

  28. ya nice review, next youre going to say Monsanto is a completely trust worthy company that only wants to help the planet. And that the government has never been involved in a hidden agenda. And that our fiat money system is perfectly fine.

    No, I actually think the opposite of all those statements.

  29. Strawman says:

    Seems Paul would rather engage in burning straw man than discuss the issues. Too bad.

  30. rude bastard says:

    So Mick, you believe that Monsanto is completely untrustworthy and is trying to destroy the planet?

  31. No, I believe that Monsanto is not a completely trustworthy company and they do not only want to help the planet. I don’t think the government (or more particularly people in government) are always honest about their agenda, and I don’t think the money system is perfectly fine.

  32. I have read numerous articles and watched both videos and am convinced that there is indeed an active program of spraying. In October of 2011 I attended a conference at which Daniel T. Heggem, USEPA Acting Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory was a speaker. After his presentation I asked a pointed question about chemtrails which he dodged. A second question got a little bit of detail from him but he still squirmed. The third question which asked about the potential harm from the pollutants sprayed in the name of geoengineering and what the EPA was doing to protect us from that harm frustrated him and his response in justifying the spraying program was “well, we have to do something” and he strongly emphasized the word “something”. This left no doubt in my mind that he was well aware of the spraying program and that he felt it was necessary to save the earth. No question for me that it is happening, the real question is what reasons are behind the program. There is more to it than simply geoengineering and humanity is going to pay a horrendous price for what they are actually accomplishing. I believe that this site is part of the process of duping the sheeple so they will shut up and let the agenda continue unabated. The outcome is not going to be pleasant.

  33. I suspect by “something” he meant reduce CO2 emissions. He’s “squirming” in response to your questions because he thinks you are a conspiracy theorist, and he wants to get away without being rude.

  34. Uncinus:
    You are most likely going to be successful at duping many people because you are using the tried and true method that keeps so many people stupid. Berate any person for observing a reality and use terms that are intended to marginalize them until the agenda gets so far along and people are so used to seeing the topic bantered about that there is no true fight against the agenda. I am convinced that you are funded by the same people pushing the geoengineering agenda and helping to keep the masses brain-dead to what is being done to them. You seem to be earning your money with several readers, but then many of the supportive posts are most likely part of the same pre-paid, pre-planned duping process. There was no question regarding the response from Mr. Heggem and his intention certainly was not to avoid being rude.

  35. I don’t make any money from dong this, it’s just an interest of mine.

    I’d be more than happy to address the science if you like. Do you see any errors in the articles on this site? Please point one out, and I’ll correct it.

  36. Uncinus:
    In a sense the “science” in the articles you posted is comparable to the Clarence Thomas prove-you-didn’t-molest-that-woman scenario. How can you “prove” something isn’t happening, especially when it is in your face? You can try to pretend it away or be paid to make others think it is not real but that does not change what is happening. The so-called science trying to prove it away is comparable to the so-called science that proved cigarettes were good for us and that fluoride in our water is beneficial and not harmful. Money can buy a lot of scientific facts and there is a lot of money behind the geoengineering program and the motives behind that program. I wish that you would find an interest in understanding what is being done and why it is being done because you obviously take your interests seriously. The outcome of what is being done is not going to be pleasant.

  37. I’m not trying to “prove it did not happen”. I’m just demonstrating the problems with the supposed “evidence” presented by the chemtrail promoters.

    Would you agree there’s no physical evidence that the trails are anything other than contrails?

    If you disagree, then what is that physical evidence? In what way to the trails differ from contrails?

  38. There are a lot of things that go into forming a belief – at least ideally. My belief that the geoengineering program of spraying of pollutants into the atmosphere is a reality is based on a great deal of cross-referencing and seeing how numerous pieces fit together. A common practice of those who attempt to marginalize people of higher discernment who are not afraid of seeing things as they are or are not as opposed to what we wish they were or were not is to grab one of the concepts that form the belief and attempt to make the entire belief appear to be wrong based on shooting at that one piece of the belief-forming foundation of observations. Unfortunately, most Americans are not able to think scientifically or rationally and therefore it is not too difficult to lead the sheeple into oblivion with that technique of focusing on one thing and claiming that there is no validity to the belief if you can make at least some headway in rebutting that one thing.

    The difference between particulates and water vapor can be seen when driving past a plant that has a smoking flare and a cooling tower. The smoking flare emissions can be seen for miles whereas the cooling tower vapor will dissipate and not be visible for miles. While you may be able to show an example of a true vapor trail that spreads comparable to a particulate trail, such occurrences are rare. Chemtrails, unfortunately, are not rare. The outcome of this program and the agenda behind is not going to be pleasant.

  39. Ground based emissions are totally different from high altitude emissions, as they are at very different temperatures and pressure. Try taking your cooling tower to 35,000 feet.

    But, why do you say persistent spreading contrails are rare? The science books say they are a common occurrence, see the various references here:


    Like this 1970 paper:

    The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.

    So why do you think it’s rare? And how do you define “rare”, how many would that be?

  40. Uncinus:
    I am not sure what motivates you to bury your head in the sand when you have a website about clouds but it is most likely that you are a paid plant to help keep the sheeple ashleep. You will be able to make numerous rebuttals that will keep you pretending there is nothing going on and/or to keep intentionally duping the readers. To me this is not a criminal court scenario in which we walk away from it if there is a counter argument but instead is a preponderance of the evidence which is quite strong. I am done wasting my time with this site because I don’t get paid for it.

    The outcome of this program you are pretending doesn’t exist and the agenda behind it is not going to be pleasant.

  41. Does finding you were mistaken about the contrail’s rarity change anything for you?

  42. Strawman says:

    So, who’s dodging now, huh, Greg?

    Seems you are dodging. Dodging how Mick shows you stuff. You can ignore it. You can call Mick names and talk about sheeple and disinfo. But in the end, you know, deep in your “mind”, that you position is scientifically untenable.

  43. Strawman says:

    And that’s why you dodge, dodge, dodge.

  44. Jay Reynolds says:

    I don’t believe that Daniel T. Heggem was ever acting director of the NERL. Their organization chart does not currently list him at all. They are headquartered in North Carolina.
    I do find him listed as a scientist and acting director of the NERL’s Division of Environmental Science,
    in Las Vegas.

    Usually, chemtrail believers approach public servants with what Greg admits was a “pointed question”
    and the question is an accusation. That is too bad because a scienist like Mr. Heggem is far more informed thatany chemtrail believer ever will be about the environment. Likely Greg got what he wanted, some statement which he could re-frame as he wishes to fit his precoceptions.I note that Greg didn’t actually quote any of this purported conversation, from either his nor Heggem’s. I also doubt that Greg got any of this recorded or took down any contemporaneous notes. Been there, done that, Greg. Your accuracy is brought into enough question simply by looking into it as far as I did.

    Well, I’m not buying your story, but if you insist on repeatingit, well, wecan go to Mr. Heggem and ask, if it was a public meeting probaby there were witnesses, so if you want to go there, bring it on.

  45. The sheeple speak! No, your head in the sand ignorance doesn’t change anything for me. My research into the matter goes well beyond what you can post in your anger at people who see things as they are rather than as you wish they were or were not. For you, just keep believing that there really aren’t any bad things going on and you won’t have anything baaaaad happen.

    Here is the link to the program agenda at which Mr. Heggem spoke and answered my questions. And typical of sheeple, you ask if I recorded it or took notes. I was standing up asking a question and wasn’t planning on using the question to someday convince sheeple so didn’t have my camera or recorder going. How ludicrous but how typical of those who are afraid to see reality. Go back to shleep sheeple. Your ignorance is not going to change my view of what is happening and why it is happening. The outcome of this program and the agenda behind is not going to be pleasant. You won’t be able to pretend it away much longer.


  46. P.S. – I really do need to cut this off. I am paid to do environmental consulting which I have done for 25 years, not to feed sheeple…..especially when the sheeple spit out the excellent food I am trying to nourish them with. Keep dreaming away….reality will come too soon.

  47. Strawman says:

    Greg, you’re low on facts, and it’s showing.

  48. Greg, why won’t you actually discuss the science? Do you admit you were wrong about contrail persistence?

  49. Strawman says:

    He will not admit anything. Since everyone who disagrees is sheeple, he can never be wrong. It’s an ego thing, I guess.

  50. HITS (head in the sanders):
    I admit that I am not a contrail expert. I admit that not being a contrail expert has nothing to do with my understanding of what is being done. I admit that when I peg you as the gullible sheeple you are and you incorrectly peg me as a conspiracy theorist that we are not likely to make any headway. I admit that the facts you perceive to be so critical are no more relevant than my neighbor claiming he knows a nonsmoker that died of cancer and therefore his smoking has nothing to do with his cancer. I admit that my belief about the chemtrails is based on a great deal of direct evidence but is also tied to many other issues that I know to be true which you would also claim to be “conspiracy theories”, therefore we are on different planes. I admit that you are not likely to ever see things clearly because you won’t like what you will see. I admit that I was much happier when I was a sheeple like you and believed that there were not processes in place to change life as we know it – radically. I admit that I have not posted on blogs for many months because they consume too much time and this is eating up my day.

    Read Agenda 21. Read Codex Alimentarius. Read the Georgia Guidestone statements. Look at the UN biodiversity map and ask where all the people are going to go. Watch Bill Gates openly discuss population control. Read about the population control agenda of the family that founded the AMA. Read what John Holdren proposed in the 70’s. Read about the money that has been spent on gossypol. Read what our Secretary of Defense said about weather control 15 years ago. Watch Ted Turner advocate extreme population reduction and ask why he and Bill Gates give money to supposedly save lives. Read what Jacques Cousteau proposed.

    The outcome of this geoengineering program and the agenda behind it is not going to be pleasant. You won’t be able to pretend it away much longer.

  51. rude bastard says:

    Greg, accepting everything you find on “chemtrail” sites as truth…isn’t “research”. Sorry

    No need to admit you’re not a contrail expert.It’s obvious. And yes, it has everything to do with your understanding about the trails in the sky..

  52. rude bastard says:

    By the way, Bill Gates is about EDUCATING people to avoid unwanted pregnancies…yeah..that’s horrible!

    Georgia guidstones?!

    Gimme a break.

  53. Greg, when you say “You won’t be able to pretend it away much longer.”, how long are we talking? Because I’d like to place some money on it – not pretending, but actually being right.

    So, when do you think this be revelation will happen? Five years? Care to make a wager? Gold, bullets, your call.

  54. rude bastard says:

    I want in on it!!!

  55. OK, I surrender and realize that I too must worship the god of science because your brilliance is just overwhelming. Please provide me some guidance since my years of scientific study and application have obviously not been at the level you have achieved. Your omniscience in somehow knowing that I have believed everything I read about chemtrails is embarrassing. Since I am not to believe everything I read about chemtrails does that mean I am to believe “some” of what I read about it? Would you issue me an apology if you found out that I only believed 10% of what I read but that 10% made a strong argument that it is an ongoing program? Would you consider a person just as foolish if they believed everything they read about chemtrails from what you publish? How about William Cohen talking about weather control 15 years ago? Is that just a brain lapse from forgetting that he was watching a science fiction movie and got mixed up about it being a military training video? How about the studies I have read from the universities and institutions that have expended millions of dollars researching and proposing specific chemtrail programs that match what is being observed? And on a related subject, is it just silly coincidence that the regions in which Bill Gates “educated” people with malaria vaccines have seen a marked increase in malaria?

    You roons amaze me that with reams of evidence that the geoengineering program and population reduction programs exist, you think you are going to scientifically prove it away. I have seen extreme stupidity over the years but your lack of logic on this one is astounding.

  56. I think your range of theories would be best addressed on Metabunk.org. I like to stick to contrails/chemtrails here

  57. MikeC says:

    Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

    william Cohen talking about weather control 15 years ago is certainly something that you should study – a good place to start with facts and not disinfo would be here: http://metabunk.org/threads/159-Debunked-quot-Others-are-engaging-even-in-an-eco-type-of-terrorism-quot?

    you will see there that he was NOT talking about taking control of the weather at all – someone has duped you if you beleive he was.

    do you realise that all those studies about geo-engineering using, say, sulphate aerosols would not produce fluffy white trails?? What with those aerosols being essentially invisible? Yes they are RESEARCHING potential climate change mitigations including spraying from aircraft.

    Do you knw what htey mostly conclude?? It is too fraught with unknowns and should be an absolute last resort, and it would be much better not to have to do it.

    Also perhaps you could consider that research into potential future programmes is not the ame as “sparying chemtrails” from aircraft since 1997 or thereabouts. Perhaps you could put some of that scientific training of yours into understanding teh difference?

    I do not know why you mention Bill Gates and malaria vaccines being linked to an increase in malaria – did you not realise that in there are NO malaria vaccines?? there is a lot of research to try to develop one, and Bill is certainly spending a lot of money on that through his foundation. According to the foundation web page they hope to have one by 2025 – http://www.gatesfoundation.org/topics/Pages/malaria.aspx

    What is the point you are trying to make?

  58. Jay Reynolds says:

    I was incorrect, it does look like Heggem was at that time acting director of the lab. I wish you had actually taken some notes, at least, so that you could accurately describe the exchange. Not my fault for not documenting what could have been a strong point for your viewpoint.

    Now, you say you have “reams of evidence” for geoengineering , and that you have 25 years experience as an environmental consultant. Let me ask for the one, singlemost irrefutabe piece of evidence out of those reams. As an environmental consultant, surely you must have this ready at hand and can easily present it.

    Along with that, I am wondering exactly what part you disagree with Mick’s assessment of the WITWATS movie in the article above. You haven’t actually found anything so far, have you?

    Lastly, plenty of people are way ahead of you on William Cohen’s quote. It was taken out of context and when the entire quote is seen it hseds a whole new light on it, and the folks who do the misquoting.

    I’m waiting.

  59. I have read the Cohen statement and read the Cohen rebuttal that is referred to above. To quote someone above, don’t believe everything you read about……William Cohen. Based on reading both, I did not agree with the rebuttal claims. To me it is quite clear what Cohen is saying and it fits with numerous other pieces of information that are readily available if you are willing to open your eyes. It is you who think you are so smart on this site, those who think that your science god is going to disprove what is being done, who are mistaken. Open your eyes and quit falling for the nonsense that seeing the truth is somehow less intelligent or less scientific. The same idiots who tell me not to believe everything I read that you disagree with are now telling me to believe the rebuttal statement to Cohen. Again, your lack of logic and your inability to think is astounding.

    I did not want to accept the information I was finding, which started by accident. Chemtrails are just one part of the picture that you will probably never see. I did not desire to have my stupidity and ignorance that would have fit so well on this site exposed. I started off like you roons by denying it since it didn’t make sense with my flawed way of reasoning, with my flawed world view which you still have. However, I decided to follow my own counsel I had given to others and dig deeply into readily available information since the greatest deception is self-deception. You idiots are self-deceived but are certainly useful idiots, as Lenin would say.

  60. Last comment and I am not going to log in again – I was rude in the statement above. Please forgive me for being offensive. My desire is to have people know the truth. Being mean about is not the way to make it happen. Good-bye.

  61. JFDee says:

    Greg PE CSEM REM,

    no worries, we had people hurling words far stronger than your’s …

    I can feel that you are sincerely convinced about what you were telling us. But if you say that “Chemtrails are just one part of the picture”, please don’t rule out the possibility that this theory might be the one that holds the least water, even if it seems to fit nicely.

    It’s possible to be a Truther, to be very alert regarding government misbehaviour and media distortion, and still dismiss the Chemtrail theory.

    As an example for that, consider reading these articles on Truth News Australia:



  62. Rude bastard says:

    Greg, what do the trails in the sky have to do with “weather control”?!

    Why do you link the trails to weather control?!

    Because chemtrail websites suggest you should?

    Because you like making assumptions?

    I’m sorry, but you have proven my point. Just because chemmies CLAIM. Something to be true, doesn’t mean they have the evidence to support the claim.

    You link “weather control” to the trails in the sky because other people have made assumptions…you read those assumptions, and the accepted them as truth with absolutely ZERO reason to do so.

  63. Rude bastard says:

    Also, a complete lack of evidence that anyone is actively trying to control the weather with anything being sprayed from airplanes is quite telling.

    Where is this magic substance?! How much of it would be needed to have any effect? Shouldn’t it be detectable (maybe not, it IS magical!)?

    This isnt to say “they” aren’t trying…or experimenting. I’m just saying there is no obvious sign that “they” are…and the trails we all see are nothing more than contrails. At east I see no evidence to suggest they are. And neither does anyone else. That’s one of those “fact” things that the chemmies just can’t seem to find a way around….

  64. Rude bastard says:

    By the way, I also read the conspiracy sites, and believe much of what is written because there are many facts presented. The problem is, there is also a lot of assumption and conclusion jumping done to link the facts together, to tell a story.

    There is no reason to link Georgia guidestones, Bill Gates, weather control and the trails in the sky together without wild speculation and jumping to conclusions.

    I’m sorry, but these stories are INVENTED by suspicious minds, and accepted as truth by other suspicious minds. And that’s putting it as politely as I can.

    I would use the word “paranoid” to describe this paranoid behavior, but that’s not allowed.

  65. MikeC says:

    I am sorry to se Greg go – I would be interested in knowing why he thinks Cohens statement reads differently to what I think it reads, and what the “information [he] is finding” is

  66. Jay Reynolds says:

    I think it is extremely amusin that Greg had no response to this:
    “Now, you say you have “reams of evidence” for geoengineering , and that you have 25 years experience as an environmental consultant. Let me ask for the one, singlemost irrefutabe piece of evidence out of those reams. As an environmental consultant, surely you must have this ready at hand and can easily present it.”

    If he had “reams”, he would have had at least one page he could present. He has nothing to give, and he knows it. That is why he left. just like so many others. So sad that Michael J. Murphy has left his followers with really nothing. He ‘set them up’ for failure, and once they get confronted and realize he has given them nothing, they should hold his feet to the fire for it.

  67. Jay Reynolds says:

    You have a nice mention at Michael J. Murphy’s Facebook page:

    You are making a big difference, Mick.

  68. Tom says:

    http://www.artificialclouds.com fills in possible voids for delivery methods. I have not seen mention of flares around here. Just really biased denigration. I would work to get to a more central view instead of BLOWING UP anything related to this. It lowers credibility and openness to ideas. Just sayin. Thank you.

  69. Rude Bastard says:

    No one denies there are delivery methods..

    What we deny is that the trails we see are anything more than contrails. There is no evidence to support the claims. There is also no evidence of any increases in “chemiclas” in our air, water or soil which doesn’t have a logical explanation.

    That’s kinda the central view, as I understand it.

    What is the central view from the other side? I’ve never understood it.

    That “they” hate us?

    That “they” want to control our minds, climate, weather?

    That “they” want to hide planets..or the sun?

    I can’t find any two chemtrail believers who believe the same thing.

  70. Rude Bastard says:

    Also, what does cloud seeding have to do with artificial clouds?

    It’s not the clouds that are created through seeding, it’s the condensation nuclei. Also, cloud seeding has nothing to do with the trails which the chemtrail believers call “chemtrails”.

  71. Rude Bastard says:

    “Other factors like forest fires can also cause persistent contrails, he notes. But he also reports that when he has seen persistent contrails, or “chemtrails” as they are often called, there happens to be a cloud seeding program nearby in every case, including in other countries. “If you see persistent contrails, chances are there have been cloud-seeding activities near you.” He says that fact can easily be verified through local government documentation. ”


  72. MikeC says:

    I thin in hte USA it is possibly quite common for cloud seeding and contrails to beclosely corelated in time – since both occur all over the states (as I understand it), and both are often in close proximity to “bad” weather.

    But that is about as useful a corelation to saying that if you see fish then chances are there are boats somewhere near you….

  73. Ted Wodoslawsky says:

    This is a very good analysis of the Chemtrail/Comtrail question. However, the use of the phrase “conspiracy theory” automatically communicates how you view anyone who questions anything “official” – “they’re nuts.” “Conspiracy Theorist” is a logical fallacy, it is an Ad Hominem. Any logical argument must be devoid of logical fallacies.

    History is a series of conspiracies. Conspiracies are the most prosecuted crime in our courts. A conspiracy is one or more people acting in concert to achieve an illegal or immoral goal. Remove the term conspiracy theory from your lexicon, and you just might convince more people to take a serious look at your argument.

  74. I don’t know, all the popular sites that discuss such things use the phrase Conspiracy Theory to describe what they are discussing. Look a Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory”, Or AboveTopSecret.com’s “Conspiracy Theory Forums”. So if they use the term, then it seems reasonable for me to also use it. It does describe things quite well – a explanation that involves a secret high-level conspiracy.

  75. SR1419 says:

    Conspiracy Theory and/or Theorists is accurate and yet carries the same level of perceived negative connotation as “debunker” which is also accurate and yet viewed and used as an insult by many conspiracy theorists.

    One wonders how “Conspiracy Theory” and “nuts” became associated in the first place 🙂

  76. Jay Reynolds says:

    Anyone who calls me a debunker, I thank them for the compliment. I know what the words mean.
    I don’t even elevate chemtrails to the level of a theory at all. It is a hoax which started in 1997.
    Any examination of chemtrails, such as Michael J. Murphy’s movie, should have begun by examining the history of it. From that point, it is actually all downhill.

    No theory, here are the facts:

  77. Chris says:

    Question 1, If this is ICE then why do i see these trails every day at very low altitudes. I live near an airport and these trails are in skys that cant possible be -40° or -60°?

    Question 2, There is an military base to the north of my house and the aircraft, 3 or 4 at a time are flying back and forth all day blanketing the ski with these trails, do you have an explanation for that?

    Thanks for any response
    Cheers, Chris

  78. Jay Reynolds says:

    It is difficult to estimate altitude. Please take a photo of these “very low” planes. If they are very low, you should be able to identify them by aircraft type. Since I doubt that you can do that, or else you would have already done so, most likely they are pretty high. It is winter. Air temperatures are getting lower. Temps generally decrease from 3-4 degrees F for every 1000 ft.,so 30,000 feet could be 90 degrees lower than your ground temperature. It only has to be -40F to create a contrail.

    Military planes make contrails just like commercial jets do. Military pilots have to practice to maintain their skills, so those flights can and do make contrails. Please have a look at these two links to learn whether or not you have ordinary commercial traffic flying in your area. If you do, it is unlkely that anyone is spraying poison there because those passsenger flights are pressurized by unfiltered air from otside the plane.


    Most questions have aleady been answered. Also see the left sidebar with many articles to answer other things you might want to know.

  79. Your previous responses to my posts encouraged me to do more research into the topic of chemtrails and I have to admit it has changed my opinion. I am now convinced that you are even dumber than I thought a few weeks back. To deny the existence of the weather control and population control program going on through chemtrails because you pride yourself on understanding vapor trails is as stupid as my neighbor who denied smoking caused his lung cancer because he knew so much about people getting cancer who never smoked. Are you paid to dupe people into being stupid about the reality or are you afraid that acknowledging bad things are sometimes done by people we are supposed to trust will make your bubble world fall apart? The bad thing about living in a bubble is that bubbles don’t offer any protection from the pinpoint of reality. The funny thing about them, however, is that it is generally pinheads that live in them!

  80. Hi Greg,

    I’m not sure if that was addressed at me, however I’m denying anything based on my knowledge, I’m just saying there NO EVIDENCE of the trails being anything other than contrails. If you’d like to point our where I’m wrong, then please do so. Particularly: how do “chemtrails” visually differ from persistent spreading contrails?

  81. Jay Reynolds says:

    One month ago I previously asked you two very simple questions:

    “Now, you say you have “reams of evidence” for geoengineering , and that you have 25 years experience as an environmental consultant. Let me ask for the one, singlemost irrefutabe piece of evidence out of those reams. As an environmental consultant, surely you must have this ready at hand and can easily present it.

    Along with that, I am wondering exactly what part you disagree with Mick’s assessment of the WITWATS movie in the article above. You haven’t actually found anything so far, have you?”

    Greg has failed to make any substantive response in one month’s time.

    No “reams of evidence”, not even a single piece.
    No specific disagreement with any of this website.
    Greg, in my opinion you have conceded by default that there is no evidence for chemtrails, and nothing wrong with this site.

  82. Noble1965 says:

    I also see no evidence that the trails are anything more than contrails.

    I see no evidence that they have anything to do with any geoengineering project

    I see no evidence that any large scale geoengineering project has ever been implemented.

    It’s not duping people to point out these truths.

  83. My neighbor saw no evidence that the cigarettes caused his lung cancer. He was convinced that because he understood cancer and that others who didn’t smoke had cancer the cigarettes were not the cause of his cancer. He should have started a cigarette cancer debunked website and gotten the same morons who think that because vapor trails exist, geoengineering does not to write about his scientific brilliance in debunking the cancer myths. I am still amazed at the stupidity of you on this website who think you can “prove” it is not happening because you can expound upon the vapor trails. Your ignorance amazes me.

  84. Jay, if you refuse to believe the hundreds of thousands of hits you will see when you look into chemtrails it does not make sense for me to play Google for you. Just curious…..do you morons who believe that chemtrails don’t exist because vapor trails do exist and you are so well-versed in vapor trails also believe that 2 airplanes brought down 3 buildings in perfect free-fall demolition mode because other buildings have fallen down from damage? I suppose WTC-7 fell in perfect free-fall demolition mode even though it was not damaged due to sympathy pains for the other 2?

    I’m still convinced you people aren’t really as stupid as you pretend to be but rather are being paid to dupe the people and keep them from being willing to acknowledge what is so obvious. Stop the charade, it is getting old. Get a real job to make money rather than being paid to dupe people.

  85. SR1419 says:

    Thats a classic conspiratorial meme….because we know that contrails persist and spread and thus behave exactly as supposed “chemtrails” do therefore 9/11 was an inside job.

    Although it utterly off topic, your belief that WTC 7 was “not damaged” is a completely false claim.

  86. I’m appalled that you are actually getting paid per asinine rebuttal of logical comments posted on this site. I refuse to particpate any longer in allowing you dupers to make money off of my attempts to educate you. However, I do hope that readers of this site will understand that it is OK to look at things realistically and not fall for the asinine so-called science that this site is pushing off in hopes that people will stay asleep. Don’t fall for their paid propaganda. Look at the overwhelming amount of research and money spent on the chemtrail program. The entire asinine argument of the so-called scientists on this site is that because vapor trails exist (which they do) chemtrails don’t exist (and they do also).

    Again, I don’t believe you dupers are actually stupid like you are pretending to be. Pretending to be stupid to dupe people is worse than being stupid.

  87. Alhazred The Sane says:

    “I’m appalled that you are actually getting paid … ”

    The lads get this a lot. Usually after they’ve requested some poster to provide a single piece of evidence to back up the claims being made. Greg, if you are really attempting to educate, then surely you would have provided some/any evidence. Something from the reams and reams that you allegedly have? But no, instead you have, like many others before, resorted to the old ad hominem attack and accused the site admin of being paid shills.

    The people on here that are genuinely trying to educate have gone to considerable trouble to collect the data that supports the fact that contrails are just that. They have taken the movie for which this thread was started and stripped each of the claims made and debunked them. If there is even one falsehood, then identify it. That wouldn’t be hard for a man with your reputed expertise in this field …

  88. Jay Reynolds says:

    Yes, Alhazred, Greg has failed to educate anyone of anything. Sad that he was set-up for this failure by the WITWATS crew who put out bogus claims that can be so easily disproven. The real conspiracy is that the makers of that film have been told of all ther errors yet are witholding those facts from the public. Greg really needs to force their hand and get them to face up to the reality of what they have done.Greg has faced up to it, which is why he cannot find fault with what we are saying and cannot “educate” anything to the contrary. It must be very frustrating to him to see his prior belief so fully shown to be false.

    All the best, Greg. Hope you will eventually get over it.

  89. Noble1965 says:

    I love the lopsided politeness policy. These people can insult us in any way they want, without being censored or spoken to, but we retaliate and we are humiliated and spanked publicly for it.

    Then again, being called “stupid” and “moron” by a chemtard doesn’t mean all that much…

  90. You [guys]* have looked at data and I have looked at data. You have concluded since vapor trails exist the chemical trails can’t exist. You then want us to believe you have proven something doesn’t exist because you don’t want to believe the chemtrails are chemtrails. I use to be like you and did not want to believe they were real. The clincher that made me a firm believer in the existence of the chemtrail program was when in October of 2011 I had the opportunity to ask Daniel T. Heggem, USEPA Acting Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory, some pointed questions after his speech in which he warned us about the dire consequences of global warming and the efforts to combat this supposed problem. He dodged the first two questions as I expected he would so the third was directed at the potential harm to humans from the chemicals being sprayed – not “is it happening” but rather more along the lines of “what about the potential harm”. He was noticeably upset about being put on the spot and retorted “well, we have to do something!”

    All the so-called science you [guys] may present to say you have proven the reality does not exist does not refute what Mr. Heggem acknowledged in his response to my questions. You are as [wrong] as my neighbor who supposedly disproved the cigarettes caused his lung cancer because he knew so much about cancer in non-smokers.

    Contrary to the beliefs of so many of you on this site, those who recognize conspiracies are not all looking for boogie men behind every door. My beliefs are based on 1000’s of pages of research, most of which you could also find if you wish to find the truth. I did not want to come to the conclusions that I have come to over the past 7 years. I wish you were right but you are not.

    *[Admin: politeness edits]

  91. I love the lopsided politeness policy.

    The policy is enforced roughly based on the damage that insults will do to effective communication.

    Very few debunkers pay any attention to insults, seeing them just as a touch more evidence of the bunkness of what the believers are saying.

    Believers, on the other hand, leap upon insults (including “get some education” perceived insults), and either get hurt and stop listening, or change the subject to the perceived insults.

    And I do actually delete quite a few insults from the site’s critics. You just don’t see them.

    Still, Greg, please try to present you case in a more polite manner. Insults don’t help.

    And I’m afraid you really need to present a little more evidence than you asking some guy something about spraying (where you can’t even remember the actual question), and him getting a bit upset, and saying “we have to do something”. What did you actually ask? What was the full context? Is that ALL the evidence you have?

  92. Noble1965 says:

    Greg, when we mention that contrails exist, we are not saying that since contrails exist, chemtrails don’t.

    We are saying that there isn’t proof that the visible trails are anything more than contrails.

    It’s up to you people to show that there are any “chemtrails”. And providing links to proposed geoengineering/global mitigation programs is NOT proof that the programs are actually PRODUCING any trails! It’s just evidence that people are DISCUSSING the subject.

    The facts remain…

    1) there is no evidence that any trail said to be a “chemtrail” is anything more than a contrail.

    2) there is no evidence that any program being developed/proposed/discussed about “geoengineering” has been implemented except at the computer model stage.

    I’m sorry, but the truth is, there is NO EVIDENCE that “chemtrails”, as a covert geoengineering program, exist. It’s just a fact.

  93. Noble1965 says:

    Having been spanked for using the same insults thrown at me, I DO pay attention. And I’ll continue to point out the lopsidedness of the policy.

    Thank you.

  94. But you pretty much stand alone there Noble. Sorry, I’ve got to play the averages. I welcome your valuable contributions, but I’d rather you did not post if you’d make this descend to the GLP mode of argument.

  95. Noble1965 says:

    Even though I stand alone, I’ll continue to point it out.

  96. Noble1965 says:

    It’s funny how you won’t play the averages as far as the [chemtrail believers] go…

    1 in 500,000 believe in such nonsense, if that, but you feel compelled to correct them instead of letting them believe what they want.

    On average, VERY few people believe in this nonsense, but you can’t just dismiss by “playing the averages”.

    But hey, I understand…you run the show. Make the rules…

    I’ll try to be a good boy so you won’t spank me.

  97. I’ll update the politeness policy:


    By playing the average, I mean doing what will work most effectively at removing bunk. Hurt feelings are not a concern except where they affect debunking.

  98. Noble1965 says:

    So hurt feelings on ONE side are not as important as hurt feelings on the other side.

    Most debunkers don’t do it on your sites because you won’t allow it. But I have seen many of the posters here retaliate on other sites.

    Just because I point out the lopsidedness, doesn’t mean I’m “hurt”, it just means that I’m observing something. I couldn’t care less what chemtards call me. It’s when they seem to be able to get away with it..and then I can’t refer to them as chemtards, that it seems lopsided..

    Just sayin’

    And there s something about this site which makes posts appear and disappear. I accused you of deleting posts, but now they are back…strange. I apologize for the accusation.

  99. So I think you miss the entire point of the politeness policy. Hurt feelings are not at all important. Your annoyance at people “getting away” with being rude is not important. What is important is effective debunking.

    In the many years I’ve been doing this, you are the ONLY ONE that has had a problem. Others accept it, or move on.

    If you don’t like it here, then leave.

Comments are closed.