Contrails Do Exist

Make A Left At Reality

Make A Left At Reality

New Member
After reading a lot of the posts on chemtrails, I see that the main piece of evidence used against this theory is that, in actuality, these chemtrails are just contrails; Mr. West demonstrates this through multiple posts and book references. Like in his YouTube video, . In that video he is actually just informing viewers that contrails do in fact persist for long periods of time, thus, the title “Debunking ‘Contrails don’t persist’ with 70 years of books on clouds.” However, that video, in a nutshell, is the main piece of evidence for the denial of chemtrails. Well, I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of what is said on this forum topic. But, what I do not understand is how the lesson on contrails acts as overwhelming evidence against chemtrails. Many chemtrail theories believe that it is an additive in the jet fuel. So a theoretical chemtrail would look, and act, exactly the same as a contrail.


Now, people can go back and forth what they actually believe to be inside these chemtrails, and some substances they claim may actually not be possible to be a fuel additive, because, for example, they may prevent the engine from running properly, or something like that. However, other theories suggest that it is sprayed, as I am sure many of you know. But, "spraying" would, like fuel additives, look and act the same as a contrail. Contrails persist because, at high altitudes, contrails grow into glaciated sheets of cirriform clouds. So, spraying a liquid substance in mass quantities would look awfully similar, and even if appearing slightly different, the actual contrail could act as a guise.


Basically, I just do not see how defining exactly how a contrail is formed disproves the entire theory. The problem with this theory, and a lot of other conspiracy theories, is that some of the people who believe them fabricate some information, as you all know. Then that information gets posted to YouTube, and people start to believe it as if it were true. However, that does, in no way, discredit the whole theory. For example, if you told a co-worker to go and deliver a typed message to your boss, and it turns out he added a few things to your message--like, "I think you’re an idiot...I can run this company better than you," etc.--you would try to explain to your boss that those words were added, and not written by you. Now, your boss may believe you and just take the information that was given and punish someone else, or he may not believe you and punish you. Either way, that original message did not represent you fairly, and in one case you were punished for that. My point being, just because some chemtrail claims are obviously ridiculous, does not provide reason to completely dismiss the whole theory. Especially when spraying things in the sky without the public knowing is not unprecedented. For example, . So, to deny chemtrails existence based on the characteristics of contrails, and how they behave at high altitudes, I believe, demonstrates a flaw in reasoning.
 
Yes, Chaff exists and persistent contrails also. And many other things injected into the atmosphere but that doesn't prove chemtrails exist. Metabunk requires verifiable evidence to substantiate things are fact not speculation. Please present factual and provable evidence chemtrails exist and we may agree with you.
 
Last edited:
Make A Left At Reality said:
After reading a lot of the posts on chemtrails, I see that the main piece of evidence used against this theory is that, in actuality, these chemtrails are just contrails; Mr. West demonstrates this through multiple posts and book references. ...So, to deny chemtrails existence based on the characteristics of contrails, and how they behave at high altitudes, I believe, demonstrates a flaw in reasoning.
Click to expand...

"...that video, in a nutshell, is the main piece of evidence for the denial of chemtrails"

I couldn't disagree more. REALITY "is the main piece of evidence for the denial of chemtrails."

Books, photos, movies, etc. document the reality…the little video you cite is a but a relatively recent addition to the massive amount
of information (at http://contrailscience.com, etc.) that reveals "chemtrail" talk to be the invention of over-active imaginations.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
But, what I do not understand is how the lesson on contrails acts as overwhelming evidence against chemtrails...
...Basically, I just do not see how defining exactly how a contrail is formed disproves the entire theory.
Click to expand...

It doesn't disprove the entire theory. It does, however, address the fundamental claim of "chemtrails, indeed the very premise of chemtrails...and that is the belief that contrails dont/can't persist and spread and never have thus by definition any trail in the sky that you see persist and spread and/or see multiple trails do this is a "chemtrail".

That claim is proven false by science and recorded history.

Thus, the fundamental premise of the entire theory is false...leading to a lot of false speculation on the part of Believers. Other claims of evidence are addressed individually but they too fall short when faced with rational scrutiny. Feel free to address another specific claim.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
But, "spraying" would, like fuel additives, look and act the same as a contrail. Contrails persist because, at high altitudes, contrails grow into glaciated sheets of cirriform clouds. So, spraying a liquid substance in mass quantities would look awfully similar, and even if appearing slightly different, the actual contrail could act as a guise.
Click to expand...
How much liquid would need to be sprayed to look like a normal contrail?
 
Pete Tar said:
How much liquid would need to be sprayed to look like a normal contrail?
Click to expand...

THIS is also one of my common "questions" posed to "chem"trail believers. I am thinking that (maybe) the Original Poster is seeking better explanations, in case he/she needs to finds ways to better dispel the myriad myths about the HOAX of "chem"trails?

If so, as I've used before, some math and geometry come in handy. I also like to "ask", just what "material", along with an appropriate medium (usually a liquid) in order to use to facilitate its "spraying" would, when "sprayed", look and behave exactly like a normal contrail? Same color, etc?

And, more importantly...since many "chem"trail claims are made, doesn't it seem odd that IF such activities were indeed on-going, then it would ALSO affect the perpetrators? I am puzzled by "chem" belivers' cognitive disconnect on this basic premise.

Finally, here again, a YouTube video, using some of the aforementioned math and geometry. I'd alter a few minor details, but this actual jet pilot filmed an actual contrail that he determined to be at least about 400 NM in length. Compelling evidence to use in order to help persuade a "chem" believer, if he/she can be able to grasp the logic:

 
You all seem quick to agitation. Not once in my post did I say I believed in chemtrails. In fact, my post suggests that I don't, referring to believers as "they." I simply want a strong argument against them, not dismissals based on the persistence of contrails.

George B said:
Metabunk requires verifiable evidence to substantiate things are fact not speculation.
Click to expand...

That is what I am looking for, I made no claims that require me to be a believer of the chemtrail theory, nor was I implying they exist; I was simply calling out the lack of a structured argument against them in their entirety.

I want to write a paper on this for my college course, but saying, "they don't exist, because contrails do persist," will not help me at all. And nor will the idea, most easily summed up in the quote, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The problem is that, whether you agree or not, they have some evidence. Their are contrails in the sky, the military has dumped chaff before, which actually has a constituent many believers say are in chemtrails, and articles like this one in 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/geoengineering-could-save-earth-destroy-054752927.html, or this article from 2009,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-john-holdren. I don't know, with so many enthusiasts both for and against the theory, I just figured a complete destruction of the argument would have occurred by now.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
I want to write a paper on this for my college course, but saying, "they don't exist, because contrails do persist," will not help me at all.
Click to expand...

you haven't addressed my point that the very premise of "chemtrails" is predicated on the belief that contrails DONT persist and spread...and never have.

If the very premise of the theory is false...what then?

Make A Left At Reality said:
I just figured a complete destruction of the argument would have occurred by now.
Click to expand...

It has- but its a moving target as claims get debunked new ones arise "moving the goal posts" as they say.

The basic facts remain- the vast majority of believers rely on the "evidence" of their own eyes- "look up" they cry...and yet every supposed visible behavior of a "chemtrail" is a known and easily explained behavior of normal, persistent contrails.

If you are unsure of a specific claim of evidence- ask.
 
You're completely misrepresenting the position here.
The claims presented as chemtrails are debunked - if something is not specifically presented it can't be debunked - the concept that chemtrails may exist in some undefined form cannot be disproven and is logically meaningless, but the claim that contrails are chemtrails can be.
 
SR1419 said:
you haven't addressed my point that the very premise of "chemtrails" is predicated on the belief that contrails DONT persist and spread...and never have.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, but as you say right after, "it is a moving target." Granted, that premise may have brought about the theory, but the fact remains is the theory has evolved. Just like any theory, it changes and changes until it is disproved completely or becomes fact.

Pete Tar said:
if something is not specifically presented it can't be debunked
Click to expand...

I feel like WeedWhacker's video does a good job on chemtrails, in terms of plausibility.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
I understand what you are saying, but as you say right after, "it is a moving target." Granted, that premise may have brought about the theory, but the fact remains is the theory has evolved. Just like any theory, it changes and changes until it is disproved completely or becomes fact.
Click to expand...

So, if the original premise is false...and the theory keeps "evolving" as each subsequent claims gets debunked....wouldn't that indicate that the theory itself is highly dubious and can't face rational scrutiny?

Almost every specific claim of evidence has been addressed here:

contrailscience.com
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
Metabunk requires verifiable evidence to substantiate things are fact not speculation.
Content from External Source
Click to expand...
The GAP ahead of the trail proves that engines and the trails they make cannot be the means of delivery.

Few compounds are invisible at exhaust temperatures except the ones that are present in the "invisible" trail gap, which are NITROGEN, CARBON DIOXIDE, STEAM, OXYGEN, NITRIC and SULFURIC OXIDES (gases), and a minuscule proportion of PARTIALLY-BURNT HYDROCARBONS and SOOT. The GAP trail is TRANSPARENT. It only becomes visible as the ambient temperature of the exhaust column falls below the freezing point of water, and the water vapor molecules coalesce and freeze.

NONE of the proposed "chemtrail" materials are in any way transparent at exhaust temperatures. Most would SHINE BRIGHT WHITE in daylight at turbofan exhaust temperature*. There couldn't possibly be a GAP. The trail would be a rocket trail very similar to the trails left by the Shuttle boosters (which were true "chem"trails as they were made of the combustion products of ammonium perchlorate and aluminum powder).

There's your evidence. You can see it for yourself. "Chemtrails" are a nonsense.

* Welsbach materials were originally used as MANTLE material for paraffin and gas lamps. Why? Because they SHONE BRIGHTLY at paraffin flame temperatures. There's a coincidence… :)

.
 
Last edited:
Make A Left At Reality said:
Granted, that premise may have brought about the theory, but the fact remains is the theory has evolved. Just like any theory, it changes and changes until it is disproved completely or becomes fact..
Click to expand...

But the idea that contrails don't persist and spread is still the dominating, unifying belief amongst devotees....and its utterly, veritably and irrefutably false.
 
For true believers, it's more like religion than anything else.

Rational scientific debunking of each claim will either just lead to a new claim,
or, failing that, accusations that those who rain on their "chemtrail" parade are
super-secret government paid spreaders of disinformation. Yes, seriously.

The idea of treating the "chemtrail" cult as if it may be plausible "until it is disproved completely" is probably not a useful yardstick: For most approaching it from the science side, it's already clearly debunked...for true believers, I don't recommend holding your breath waiting for them to acknowledge "...it is disproved completely."
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
You all seem quick to agitation. Not once in my post did I say I believed in chemtrails. In fact, my post suggests that I don't, referring to believers as "they." I simply want a strong argument against them, not dismissals based on the persistence of contrails.



That is what I am looking for, I made no claims that require me to be a believer of the chemtrail theory, nor was I implying they exist; I was simply calling out the lack of a structured argument against them in their entirety.

I want to write a paper on this for my college course, but saying, "they don't exist, because contrails do persist," will not help me at all. And nor will the idea, most easily summed up in the quote, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." The problem is that, whether you agree or not, they have some evidence. Their are contrails in the sky, the military has dumped chaff before, which actually has a constituent many believers say are in chemtrails, and articles like this one in 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/geoengineering-could-save-earth-destroy-054752927.html, or this article from 2009,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-john-holdren. I don't know, with so many enthusiasts both for and against the theory, I just figured a complete destruction of the argument would have occurred by now.
Click to expand...
they don't have any evidence.
I would ask your professor if this topic is o.k. I remember reading somewhere the teacher scoffed at the idea and topic. depends on the course youre taking I guess.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
Attacking it from a mathematical point of view that really emphasizes the theory's lack of plausibility will be just fine.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I was not the maker of that video. Although, I approve of its "message". One can do more math/geometry examples.

For instance, in the video by YouTuber "browncoat3000", he slightly simplified the geometry of the "column" of the contrail, by using a square(ish) "column" as dimensions, of 50 feet per side. To be more precise (and less prone to criticism by a college professor), one may wish to be more accurate, and use the calculations for a round cylinder instead. ()

Pi (x) R (squared) (x) Height.

An easy-to-use online calculator:

http://www.mathopenref.com/cylindervolume.html
 
WeedWhacker said:
Just to be clear, I was not the maker of that video. Although, I approve of its "message". One can do more math/geometry examples.
Click to expand...

Yes, I phrased that badly, I knew it was not your video.

And I actually already did that, I just set 25' as my radius and used 3000 miles as my distance (the distance from coast to coast) and then repeated the equation dividing 3000 by 2 until 750. I figure anything smaller than that is just being redundant.
 
WeedWhacker said:
Just to be clear, I was not the maker of that video. Although, I approve of its "message". One can do more math/geometry examples.

For instance, in the video by YouTuber "browncoat3000", he slightly simplified the geometry of the "column" of the contrail, by using a square(ish) "column" as dimensions, of 50 feet per side. To be more precise (and less prone to criticism by a college professor), one may wish to be more accurate, and use the calculations for a round cylinder instead. ()

Pi (x) R (squared) (x) Height.

An easy-to-use online calculator:

http://www.mathopenref.com/cylindervolume.html
Click to expand...
the teacher wants him to avoid contrails. personally i think doing Bigfoot would be more fun then chemtrails.
 
I agree with the above: Whilst REAL Science will refine a hypothesis if certain aspects are proven to be false, the difference between that and pseudoscientific Conspiracy theories is VAST.

Having basically claimed that "the skies from about 1996 odd don't look the same as they did when I was little, ergo they MUST be spraying something" from people who aren't Sheeple but have done their research (man) but haven't actually bothered at any point to research how much the Air traffic has increased over the last 40 to 50 years or so, they usually claimed these were grey/white aircraft and therefore military and not commercial jets.(never mind them being at least 5 miles away vertically and most airliners have white or blue bottoms anyway) Also normal contrails don't persist. and there was some kind of Airforce paper released in 1996 about weather modification in 2025 so that proves it;s happening now.

having been shown more recently countless bits of evidence showing that normal contrails DO persist, and that a lot (if not nearly all) of these "chemtrail" planes are actually commercial jets, instead of admitting that the ENTIRE PREMISE and rational that started the original hypothesis is not just flawed but fundamentally untrue, instead of just admitting they were wrong, these people who are true believers because of their own preconceived mindset then just embellish and backtrack or just ignore data.

First they were trying to poison us (even though unless the NWO Elite really WERE all Reptilian aliens they would surely be affected too)then it was to "block the skies to prevent us from seeing the approach of Nibiru", then it was mind control and then weather modification/geonengineering.

having been shown that not only do contrails persist but have done since at least WWII if not earlier, the reply is "they have been spraying longer than we thought". So the Airforce wrote a paper predicting something 30 years in the future that they had already been doing for over 50 years.

Plus with them being commercial traffic, the conspiracy suddenly got a whole lot bigger.
Despite simple maths proving that the miles and miles long trail simply could not possibly fit into the plane even with no passengers aboard and that NO PROOF of any kind of tankers full of stuff have EVER been delivered to ANY airport, the true believers keep on insisting they exist. Whether they really believe or just want to keep convincing others to is a different matter.

People have tested water samples, by sticking buckets out in their dirty dusty backyards and then found evidence of the third most common elelment in the world's crust (which is also involved in cloud seeding) with no understanding of contamination, what a normal background level is, or even how long it would actually take for material dispersed that high up to reach the ground or how far from the dispersal area it might get, not to mention not even looking for any other source for the element (like the dust in the water, car exhausts, nearby industry etc)

So lots of other "smoking gun " evidence is presented ,all of which is misunderstandings or outright fabrications and all proven to be false again.

anyone looking at all this with a rational scientific mind would have to conclude it has been comprehensively debunked.

A true believer will dig in and keep finding arguments (and when all else fails and out of ideas , accuse debunkers of being government paid shills, when it is the conspiracy movement that is making all the money from the claims), so exactly what sort of end all debate explanation are you looking for?
 
Efftup said:
...the difference between that and pseudoscientific Conspiracy theories is VAST.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time for this reference again, it is called "Evolution of the Controversy"

And, there's "Rational Wiki", which isn't always polite, they tend to be a bit abrupt here and there:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chemtrails


Or/and just type in search words such as "the evolution of the chemtrail hoax" into Google or other search engines. Vast loads of info.

(Oddly, even a thread at GLP! That really surprised me. Of course, it brought out the usual suspects to accuse the OP of being a "shill", etc...)

As with any Urban Legend (and "chem"trails certainly qualify in that category), there may be a gamut who promote and encourage the falsehoods:

--They may be truly ill-informed, and gullible. Those people can be given educational resources.

--They may be attempting to profit from the lack of knowledge of the first category.

--Or, they may be less-than-rational in their thinking processes. Due possibly to diagnosed, or un-diagnosed mental issues; this is very very hard to discern in an anonymous interaction online.
 
Last edited:
Efftup said:
so exactly what sort of end all debate explanation are you looking for?
Click to expand...

Well, like I said a few times, the video WeedWhacker posted is working fine. I do not need to know the socio-political development of the theory, you can pretty much watch the chemtrail theory from its beginning if you just go far enough back into this forum. I'm not writing an opinion paper on how the chemtrail believers are constantly switching up their theories, nor did about how because the premise of "contrails do not persist" is false, their whole argument is false. With the math, it will work perfectly.

To me, that video is the most convincing piece of evidence against chemtrails I have seen yet; totally blowing past, "contrails look and behave like this," or, "you guys keep changing your theory." That video is exactly what I was looking for, to answer your question.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
Well, like I said a few times, the video WeedWhacker posted is working fine. I do not need to know the socio-political development of the theory, you can pretty much watch the chemtrail theory from its beginning if you just go far enough back into this forum. I'm not writing an opinion paper on how the chemtrail believers are constantly switching up their theories, nor did about how because the premise of "contrails do not persist" is false, their whole argument is false. With the math, it will work perfectly.

To me, that video is the most convincing piece of evidence against chemtrails I have seen yet; totally blowing past, "contrails look and behave like this," or, "you guys keep changing your theory." That video is exactly what I was looking for, to answer your question.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the maths really does show how implausible the whole thing is.
It would be hopelessly inefficient at that sort of height, and would be far easier to just put something in the water supply to poison or mind control us.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
Well, like I said a few times, the video WeedWhacker posted is working fine. I do not need to know the socio-political development of the theory, you can pretty much watch the chemtrail theory from its beginning if you just go far enough back into this forum. I'm not writing an opinion paper on how the chemtrail believers are constantly switching up their theories, nor did about how because the premise of "contrails do not persist" is false, their whole argument is false. With the math, it will work perfectly.

To me, that video is the most convincing piece of evidence against chemtrails I have seen yet; totally blowing past, "contrails look and behave like this," or, "you guys keep changing your theory." That video is exactly what I was looking for, to answer your question.
Click to expand...
I'm glad that the video satisfies your purposes, but I still think that you're working backwards. Logically, the burden of evidence falls on the "chemtrails" believers. The real question is, why do they believe this idea to be true? And, do those reasons hold up under scrutiny?

It's not that anyone here thinks that the well-documented existence of persistent contrails proves the whole "chemtrails" idea wrong. It just proves wrong one of the primary claims that believers use as evidence for the idea. Really, THE primary claim. But there are others, and a little investigation can show that they are similarly contradicted or unsupported by evidence.

Some promoters of the "chemtrails" idea now say that it includes non-persistent and even "invisible" trails. It's not necessary to find ways to prove each of these claims wrong or show that they are implausible. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
 
Belfrey said:
I'm glad that the video satisfies your purposes, but I still think that you're working backwards. Logically, the burden of evidence falls on the "chemtrails" believers. The real question is, why do they believe this idea to be true? And, do those reasons hold up under scrutiny?
It's not that anyone here thinks that the well-documented existence of persistent contrails proves the whole "chemtrails" idea wrong. It just proves wrong one of the primary claims that believers use as evidence for the idea. Really, THE primary claim. But there are others, and a little investigation can show that they are similarly contradicted or unsupported by evidence.
Some promoters of the "chemtrails" idea now say that it includes non-persistent and even "invisible" trails. It's not necessary to find ways to prove each of these claims wrong or show that they are implausible. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...

Read all the posts. I know that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, I know that a lot, if not all, of the claims brought forth by the believers have been refuted, and I have heard Christopher Hitchens quote plenty of times before. I needed something like that video, because it takes a mathematical approach, unlike many others, and I am writing a paper for a climate class, not philosophy.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
Read all the posts. I know that the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, I know that a lot, if not all, of the claims brought forth by the believers have been refuted, and I have heard Christopher Hitchens quote plenty of times before. I needed something like that video, because it takes a mathematical approach, unlike many others, and I am writing a paper for a climate class, not philosophy.
Click to expand...
Climate science is also based on principles of logic. But whatever.
 
I kept changing my guess, as I read through the thread, as to what type of
class this could be for...ranging from "Chemistry" to "Creative Writing 110."

I guess I still don't understand why, in a "Climate" class, a professor would
essentially say: "Pick a claim that is not remotely supported by science,
and treat it as if it needed to be disproved, instead of the other way 'round."

Weird. But, of course, when in college one generally does well to give the professor what they ask for.
 
NoParty said:
I kept changing my guess, as I read through the thread, as to what type of
class this could be for...ranging from "Chemistry" to "Creative Writing 110."

I guess I still don't understand why, in a "Climate" class, a professor would
essentially say: "Pick a claim that is not remotely supported by science,
and treat it as if it needed to be disproved, instead of the other way 'round."

Weird. But, of course, when in college one generally does well to give the professor what they ask for.
Click to expand...
seriously weird.
 
Make A Left At Reality said:
...and I have heard Christopher Hitchens quote plenty of times before.
Click to expand...

This is from post #31, and it really confused me, since it seemed to have no clear relevance to the other member (Belfrey) quote that was being replied to.

Perhaps I just missed an exchange in the thread. I saw another referenced quote (post #36) that also gave me some pause....hoping it's possible to get to full clarity.
 
WeedWhacker said:
This is from post #31, and it really confused me, since it seemed to have no clear relevance to the other member (Belfrey) quote that was being replied to.

Perhaps I just missed an exchange in the thread. I saw another referenced quote (post #36) that also gave me some pause....hoping it's possible to get to full clarity.
Click to expand...
Since Make a Left isn't here right now, I'll take a shot:

Early in the thread (post 8) MaL made an odd reference to the very famous Hitchens quote
("...the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted
without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.")

basically preemptively saying: "I am aware of that quote, please do not mention it here" :confused:
which struck me as a peculiar starting point for a supposedly serious inquiry...
and all my posts in this thread attest to my still being somewhat bewildered by this approach,
and wondering about the credentials of this professor. Perhaps ol' Teach' es muy MaL...
 
NoParty said:
Since Make a Left isn't here right now, I'll take a shot:

Early in the thread (post 8) MaL made an odd reference to the very famous Hitchens quote
("...the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted
without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.")

basically preemptively saying: "I am aware of that quote, please do not mention it here" :confused:
which struck me as a peculiar starting point for a supposedly serious inquiry...
and all my posts in this thread attest to my still being somewhat bewildered by this approach,
and wondering about the credentials of this professor. Perhaps ol' Teach' es muy MaL...
Click to expand...

Ah, very clear. Except Christopher Hitchens (the late, GREAT) did not originate the 'quote'. Or to be more correct, Hitchens paraphrased and added his own "twist". Christopher Hitchens was honoring another great intellect, Carl Sagan:

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/50379-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Content from External Source
Hitchens made Carl Sagan's quote even "better". Not to impugn Sagan, but (I infer) to add "clarity" to the original, with some added text.

i won't post the videos, OT....but those who wish to learn more can Google "HitchSlap".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
How to ask a conspiracy theorist to prove chem trails exist?
Replies
7
Views
2K
Todd Feinman
Todd Feinman
Mick West
Dark Vertical Lines in Folkestone, Kent — Contrail Volumetric Edge Shadow
Replies
7
Views
9K
tonyj154
T
Trailblazer
Explained: video of pilot showing off "chemtrail plane" (prank video)
Replies
11
Views
33K
MonkeeSage
MonkeeSage
M
orb filmed in the daytime
Replies
14
Views
2K
manxmac
M
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M

Latest posts

Back
Top