1. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I don't have a law background but I was wondering if any Metabunk member with a legal bent could enlighten us on what would constitute evidence for chemtrails that would stand up in a court of law?

    This would also help our legion of friends who call us shills but nevertheless find time to read the forum looking for references to themselves.

    My thoughts....

    Verifiable documentary evidence.

    Verifiable witness statements.

    Air samples that take into account all possible sources of contamination.

    Direct sampling of a trail that reveals suspicious contaminants.

    Any science that explains how trails thicken without adding ice from the atmosphere.

    I have counted three or four attempts to get "chemtrails" into the courts. None of them had any of the above. What else would it take?
    • Like Like x 4
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Most chemtrailers think that contrails do not persist, and that the persistence of trails is evidence that something is being sprayed.

    Now it's very unlikely that someone would raise this in an actual court case, but for the purposes of getting a chemtrailer to examine their evidence, it would be great to encourage them to gather actual evidence that shows that contrails should not persist - in the form of peer-reviewed scientific papers.
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    If they have any chance of a court case, they need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt that spraying is occurring, at least at the criminal level which is so often what they claim. That is, a reasonable person, in reviewing the evidence, would come to the same conclusions.

    They must also have a clear and identifiable defendant. The "government," in itself won't cut it.

    If they can identify specifically what type/make/model of aircraft, along with registrations, then that would give them more credibility in front of a judge.

    Air samples or other samples need to be documented with proper times and locations in which they are taken.

    The thing to keep in mind is that in a court of law, the judge may not necessarily have much expertise in the field itself, but they will be able to tell if what is presented is flimsy evidence. If chemtrail believers want to get anywhere, they need to start being specific about their claims and specific about the evidence associated with it. The evidence needs to be largely tangible, or at least reliable.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    When it comes to evidence, also how important is any verifiable "whistleblower" type of testimony?

    Not to mention also other such types of evidence, such as photos taken on the ground, and tracing of the "loading" of chemicals at an airport onto the airplanes...as well as where such chemicals are manufactured? Stored? Transported to the airports?

    (The above is not meant to seem rhetorical...merely to emphasize many potential legal "holes" in the claimants' potential cases).

    There would be a huge supply chain needed in order to accomplish such a "deception" as is alleged, would there not? Many low paid workers likely involved; in this "chain" of workers....many of whom would likely be easily prone to "disclosure" merely for monetary gain.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    The case would probably be in civil court where the rules of evidence are different. In civil court the case need only be proven by the preponderance of the evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    I'm actually a little on the fence about the rules of evidence given the nature of chemtrail beliefs in general, thus why I think it needs to be beyond reasonable doubt--particularly when chemtrail advocates tend to associate their beliefs with a crime as opposed to a civil wrongdoing.

    Even if it was a civil wrongdoing, the remedy would not likely be monetary in nature (such cases would likely be dismissed at an instant regarding chemtrails). At they very least, the evidence needs to be clear and convincing.
  7. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I think one could also argue the exact opposite: That the only reason their little nonsense game has been able
    to survive--year after year--is the avoidance of resting their argument on specific evildoers, planes or
    air/soil samples...which, if thoroughly examined, would show their "chemtrail" claims to be entirely without merit
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    Yep, and why none of their cases ever made it to court.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    I looked this up somewhere... now I just need to find it again. Long story short though, a judge isn't going to consider a whistleblower just on testimony alone. The whistleblower's position and role in the case would also be considered. Furthermore, the evidence presented by the whistleblower should be original, and not dependent on public sources found on say, the internet.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    ...yes makes sense....how many so-called "whistleblowers" are just lying? In a court of law such testimony from those sorts must be substantiated, in some way...corroborated by other sources.

    Hence, the "whistleblower" dilemma?

    Evidence, in a court proceeding, is primary.
  11. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    It's important to note that the believers feel that they HAVE done ALL of the above and that it constitutes part of their "mountain of irrefutable evidence".
  12. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    As I understand it if samples where to be presented they would have to undergo examination by an expert. The court or either party would have to present a recognised expert that could give there appraisal and be able to be cross examined.

    Documents on their own are essentially useless without a corroborating witness, and that witness again has to be available to be cross examined, as do any that have given statements. If you provide patents the author of the patent would have to be available.

    The above is only based on what I have seen as a layperson in criminal courts but what are really needed are one or more whistleblowers with verifiable documents that are willing to undergo court scrutiny.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2014
  13. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    In criminal law evidence is introduced via witnesses who can give a first hand account of the collection or creation of the evidence and can be cross examined to help establish the reliability of the evidence. The civil route not only has the benefit of the lower standard of proof (the balance of probabilities) but in addition the admissibility of evidence is less of an issue:
    Whilst the photographs of contrails and clouds from multiple sources and lab reports of sample analyses may be admissible, the weight the Judge gives to that evidence is not going to be great:
    I think a big problem with getting a case heard is not so much the poor quality evidence of "chemtrails" but the lack of evidence of loss to the claimant (or causation where there is evidence of some damage). If the statement of claim fails to address key elements of the offence then it will not make much progress.
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    or likely judge may rule in pre case hearing


    de minimis
    Latin for "of minimum importance" or "trifling." Essentially it refers to something or a difference that is so little, small,minuscule, or tiny that the law does not refer to it and will not consider it.

    An abbreviated form of the Latin Maxim de minimis non curat lex, "the law cares not for small things." A legal doctrine by which a courtrefuses to consider trifling matters.

    In a lawsuit, a court applies the de minimis doctrine to avoid the resolution of trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I defer to your knowledge but am I incorrect in saying that evidence can be challenged by an expert in a civil case? I certainly did in a family case and I was left to understand it was a right.
  16. jonnyH

    jonnyH Active Member

    Yes, you are right. The Civil Evidence Act only makes hearsay admissible, it does not prevent the evidence from being challenged by any means and even allows the defendant to apply to the court to call the maker of the statement as a something like a hostile witness:
    I can't lay claim to any great knowledge of the law, I've done a couple of courses (Graduate Diploma and BVC) and spent some time clerking at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal but I have never worked as a lawyer.
  17. Lisa P

    Lisa P Active Member

    What if some main believers, say Wigington, Bliss, Murphy, Peterson (not a chemtrail advocate however is concerned about pollution and possible geoengineering) all investigate with some Government officials, lets say 10 aircraft of their choice that have formed contrails. All it would take is to wait for the right atmospheric conditions (which should be their first clue!) and check flightradar24 to work out which plane produced the contrails then inspect the plane. The thing is you would need to get to the airport before the plane landed. They could test the fuel and a thorough investigation of the plane. I can tell you in the part of Australia where I live in summer around 7am and 11am on a lot of days there will be small persistent contrails that form in the same area. It is generally a Jetstar flight from Brisbane or Gold Coast to Cairns / Mackay in the area where they gain altitude. Somewhere from 20k ft to 30kft I can't say exactly the spot as I have only done a general check not a specific time. I did get a photo yesterday of 2 separate short persistent contrails just forming and am yet to download them and check flightradar, this will be the most accurate info to date that I will have.
  18. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I think you are on to something, @Lisa P

    Minor quibble....most contrails will form above 25,000 feet (or, "25K") usually....rarely as low as 20K.

    Realizing (also) that although much of aviation under ICAO rules use "feet" for altitude reference, know that in some parts of the World "metres" are used, instead. Most modern airlines have a simple "button" to switch the altimeter readings from "Feet" to "Metres".

    Still, it's important to always keep a close 'eye' on the units, in any discussion.
  19. derwoodii

    derwoodii Senior Member

    they wont do it,, would destroy their make believe world or ruin a nice business plan of pushing fear and fibs to sell CT merchandise, chemical test kits and vinegar.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I agree with derwoodii as per my post (#7) above...as long as they remain neigh impossible
    to nail down on significant, verifiable points, the CT gravy train and belief system can survive...

    but I don't think it even can get that far, because which "government officials" have seen enough
    solid evidence to take this seriously enough to actively (that is, requiring action) humor the CTs?

    It's like someone claiming that there are ghosts lingering around the graveyard at 2am,
    and--without serious evidence--asking government officials to come out with the CTs
    early in the morning to verify the visible ghosts. Don't know why they would...plus, nothing they
    could do would satisfy the CTs anyway...
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I think a major point to note is why should the government make the effort. While it may appear that the chemtrail community is vast it is actually quite small. The community have the resources to prove that contrails are in fact chemtrails, especially given the very basic claim that contrails don't persist. All they need to do is prove that claim. Given that one man in the UK has spent thousands of pounds on leaflets/lab tests/ conferences it does raise the question as to why he simply did not hire a plane, take it up on a day loads of contrails are been made and prove that they can't persist. Heck they could even maybe try to get some air samples while they are up there.
    • Agree Agree x 2