1. Mat

    Mat Member

    This has been a fascinating first time to debunking Chemtrails for me, I have never really had any interest in them.

    It always struck me that if you wanted to administer something to a populace an airplane would be a very poor method.

    Is there any high quality evidence for this that isn't pictures of contrails?
  2. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    All the evidence for the lines being called "chemtrails" is very low quality containing easily debunked assertions.
    Few of the chemtrail promoters are responsive to any criticism. They censor skeptical public comments, and ban critics.
    Even though they get notified of gross errors in their claims, they ignore it.
    Some have financial motivation for maintaining the subject as a conundrum even when shown how they could obtain evidence for or aganst their claims.
    contrailscience.com subject matter on the left margins.
    There is also the search feature on thios forum, which contains relevant threads.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Steelaway

    Steelaway New Member

    Geoengineering IS happening and it IS happening now. Whether it's gone to the extent (as implied in this blog) that every Contrail is now reported as a Chemtrail, is thankfully - open for full and frank discussion. But the flip side is equally concerning - to assume now that every Chemtrail is a Contrail.

    This link is also historical - 2009, although there are hundreds of more recent discourses.


    Until recently I worked for a very large US corporation that supplies logistic support (incl raw materials) and engineering and contractor services for so-called defence and 'war on terror' programs. That constrains me and many others in similar positions from divulging information that these same people have sworn in NDAs not to disclose. So the question I have relates to the burden of proof (that could be leaked to Wikileaks whilst it remains precariously open) that a reasonable person - such as those on this forum - would concede as 'reasonable proof' that Geoengineering is happening and may cause the same person to seek political responses to, for example, air polution, by asking questions of their elected leaders. If in fact, Geoengineering was indeed more widespread than many would like to believe, what would sway sceptics to a broader acceptance? Manifests and shipping documents? Purchase orders? Contractual details? I ask this because if there is total denial that this is happening then there is no point in pursuing this at the risk of being incarcerated or destroyed financially. Having also returned from Germany and visits to the holocaust museum, this also reminds me how people can be seen to support a totalitarian regime that wages war against its own citizens. The shipping documents for Zyklon B for example were not sufficient proof that they had been used on humans>

    So a question I would propose to this Blogg is that - instead of directing your efforts to find persistent Comtrails in the archives of history, why not direct at least SOME of your efforts to the suppliers of aluminum foil, strontium and barium salts used for geoengineering and the delivery mechanisms required to have these materials mixed, packaged, transported and spread from the air (ie logistics). And taking the burden of proof argument further - look beyond the Tesch Directors pleadings that they did not know that their materials were being used on humans.
    What is acceptable proof, given that this is not Zyklon B and is used for a myriad of legitimate activities, including purported geoengineering research?
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Because the burden of proof is in those claiming that these things are being sprayed. If they can't provide any evidence that they are being sprayed, then there is zero need to go beyond that and attempt to prove they are not (a futile task, as you can't prove a global absence).

    If the chemtrail theorists were making specific claims about aluminum supply, then those claims could be looked into.

    These posts will be moved to an "Is there any high quality evidence of chemtrails" thread.
  5. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    So, we are to simply accept your claim, even though you bring nothing to the table but a vague claim to be an insider? This smacks of an "appeal to authority" though nothing you have said has any authority or any substance whatsoever. Now that your pathetic attempt at supporting yourself with nothingness is seen for what it really is, the question remains, why have absolutely no insiders from the bottom to the top ever emerged telling us anything of value?

    See, Steelaway, instead of directing your efforts to having us find the answers to the conundrum the chemtrails hoaxers have put before you, the onus is on YOU
    to go chasing after will-o-the-wisps of the quality evidence you will need. All that can be said so far is that either none exists, or none of you has the mental or scientific capability to do so.

    But, seriously, all the chemtrail promoters have already been put on notice of the course of action that could be taken. There is no need to go far afield to solve the mystery, none at all. It can all be done very simply by an organized effort as I laid out long ago, right in your backyards. Michael J. Murphy knows this. G. Edward Griffin knows this. Griffin even tried to marshall your people to embark on the task, but guess what?

    The "Power Structure" within the movement saw in this course as the end of the line for them and made a choice, a conscious choice that turned them away from rational evidence gathering which would empower hundreds or thousands and once and for all solve chemtrails. They instead turned towards sustaining the hoax for as long as they can, because it maintains their position, their power, and their incomes.

    Here you go, and once you know what to do, show us what you are made of. Will you be a force for solutions, or will you maintain the staus quo of the chemtrails power structure? Get back and let us know how it is working out for you. If I see no progress from you, if I see no demands upon the power structure to actually begin to end this easily solvable mystery, I will assume you have been assimilated into the collective, or were already one with them. Will you be a Borg of Michael J. Murphy and his cohorts, or will you stand up and be a man?

    The choice is yours.

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  6. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Steel away -

    In your previous comments on another thread, you put forth your belief that contrails always dissipated quickly and only "chemtrails" persisted and spread. In light of the evidence presented contrary to that belief, do you still believe that every persistent trail is a "chemtrail"?
  7. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest



    enjoy. . . .
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  9. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Yeah, different types of contrails mixed with natural cirrus. How does that video show proof of anything other than contrails?
  10. PCWilliams

    PCWilliams Active Member

    “That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens :cool:
  11. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    As far as I know there is no "high quality"* evidence of any description for chemtrails

    * - depends what you mean by "high quality" of course - but to me it would be something that has some objective credibility to its existence, and also to it being part of some programme.
  12. Mackdog

    Mackdog Guest

  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  14. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Yeah - but TBH I think the "mass" of rational people have lost patience with the hard-core believers.

    If you are labelled as a shill, paid disinfo agent, etc., every time you mention basic science then ther comes a point when you think that such people no longer deserve help and mockery is perfectly appropriate!
  15. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

  16. Ross Marsden

    Ross Marsden Senior Member

    I find the best tactic is to admonish them for the abuse and name-calling, and point out where there argument is going wrong, lack of evidence, ask for specific instances of (my) so-called lies or disinfo. Reasonable discussion often follows. I have gained Twitter followers this way.
  17. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    That hasn't worked for me and others on the BP dispute. They KNOW we work for BP or their social media company or someone. Of course some of those folks have also cyber stalked us---they need some mental health care
  18. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    I work in the Gulf of Mexico oilfields. If you need any first-hand information, PM me.
  19. lotek

    lotek Active Member

  20. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    I hope the debunkers here aren't implying that chemicals are never sprayed into the atmosphere by airplanes. Cloud seeding is widespread in the U.S. and several other nations. That's not a secret, it's common knowledge. It's used to fight drought and even cause snow in ski resorts. For the 2008 Olympics, China had 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. Each system would shoot various chemicals into any threatening clouds to shrink rain drops before they reach the stadium.

    Then there's weather warfare. See Project Cumulus and Operation Popeye.


    "Prior to the attack, which is coordinated with forecasted weather conditions, the UAVs begin cloud
    generation and seeding operations. UAVs disperse a cirrus shield to deny enemy visual and infrared (IR)
    surveillance. Simultaneously, microwave heaters create localized scintillation to disrupt active sensing via
    synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems such as the commercially available Canadian search and rescue
    satellite-aided tracking (SARSAT) that will be widely available in 2025.

    Other cloud seeding operations cause a developing thunderstorm to intensify over the target, severely limiting the enemy’s capability to defend. The WFSE monitors the entire operation in real-time and notes the successful completion of another very important but routine weather-modification mission.

    This scenario may seem far-fetched, but by 2025 it is within the realm of possibility. The next chapter
    explores the reasons for weather-modification, defines the scope, and examines trends that will make it
    possible in the next 30 years."

    That report was given to the Air Force in 1996 and a lot of the technology that it estimates will be available by 2025 is already available. The conclusion is basically that we must research weather warfare, or we risk losing the weather arms race.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  21. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    There was a lot about the weather that we didn't know in 1996. They did have the knowledge then, and I doubt we do today. We are getting better about predicting weather over a several county area, but not on a more precise level. They are learning more about tornado formation every year. In '96, they were guessing a LOT.
  22. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    My point was that we do in fact spray chemicals into the atmosphere from airplanes. We can debate whether these chemicals are harmful or not, but the fact that we spray is not up for debate. It's not a government secret either. So before we mock people who see chemicals being sprayed, or assume it's a contrail, let's keep in mind that chemicals do get released into the atmosphere.
  23. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Then your hopes are fulfilled, because they are not, and never have, implied that. Hooray!

    page copy-pasted from contrail science..
    http://contrailscience.com/things-that-are-not-contrails-or-chemtrails/[h=1]Things That Are NOT Contrails (or Chemtrails)[/h] contrails, science Add comments

    Aug 012008

    Contrails are long thin clouds of ice crystals that form behind planes that fly through freezing cold air. Usually you see them behind jets at around 30,000 feet. If the air they fly though has enough moisture in it already, then these contrail clouds can last for a long time before they evaporate. Sometimes you get a lot of them at once in the sky, if the weather is right. They look like this:
    Note: the trails in the above photo ARE CONTRAILS (and some natural clouds). That’s a photo taken by NASA scientist Louis Nguyen from I-95 in northern Virginia, January 26, 2001. This is the only photo of contrails in this article. The remaining photos are NOT contrails.
    There are several things that a superficially somewhat similar, in that they involve stuff coming out of the back of an airplane and/or lines in the sky. But these things are not contrails.
    [h=2]SKYWRITING[/h]Skywriting is making patterns in the sky using smoke trails. Done at a low altitude using small planes, it can look very like a contrail, but it’s very different as skywriting is made from smoke (made from injecting oil into the hot exhaust), and contrails are made from ice crystals.

    [h=2]SKYTYPING[/h]Also known as “Dot Matrix Sky Writing”, See:
    Skytyping utilizes five airplanes that fly abreast, 250-feet apart and “type” up to 25-30 character messages in a dot-matrix-like pattern. Skytyping is 17 times faster than skywriting, laying out a letter every 4 seconds. During skytyping aerial exhibitions, the pilots fly their aircraft in a line-abreast formation while a computer in the lead plane sends radio signals to the smoke systems in each plane in the formation, thus creating a customized message in a dot-matrix pattern of environmentally safe puffs of smoke.
    In the above photo the trails have been blurred by the wind, but you can kind of make out letters in the section to the right.
    [h=2]AEROBATIC SMOKE TRAILS[/h]Rather similar to skywriting, smoke trails are used to enhance exhibitions of aerobatics, often with different colored trails. These are the Red Arrows, in the UK.
    Even gliders can perform aerobatics, and they often have wingtip smoke generators to show this off:
    [h=2]CROP DUSTING[/h]More technically called “Aerial Application”, this involves spraying crops or agricultural areas with fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, or defoliants, for a variety of reasons. Typically done with small planes or helicopters just a few tens of feet above the crop, like this:
    [h=2]PEST SPRAYING[/h]Sometimes larger areas that an few fields are sprayed for things like mosquito control. Larger planes can be used, but they still have to spray very close to the ground. Here’s a C-130 spraying a few hundred feet up:
    [h=2]RESEARCH SMOKE TRAILS[/h]Sometimes planes have smoke emitters placed on them for research purposes – generally visualize the flow of air behind the plane, the vorticies, or “wake turbulence” which can be dangerous to other planes. Here’s one example:
    [h=2]CLOUD STREETS[/h]Atmospheric conditions can make clouds form in odd ways. These unusual stratocumulus clouds called “cloud streets” formed over the Sea of Okhotsk, Northern Japan, on June 18th, 2007.
    Here’s a satellite photo of the region showing these clouds:


    More info here:
    [h=2]CLOUD SEEDING[/h]People try to make clouds produce more rain by “Seeding” them with tiny particles of things like sliver iodine. This is done using incendiary devices attached to the aircraft. Basically flares that are burnt one at a time. Here’s what they look like in action.
    Long shots of clouds seeding are hard to come by, because it happens inside or above the cloud. If you see a long trail coming from behind a plane, then it’s not cloud seeding. The trail is very thin, and probably not noticeable from the ground, even if you could see the plane.
    [h=2]FIRE FIGHTING[/h]Planes are often used in fighting fires, and typically drop fire retardant from a low altitude. Often it’s bright red, but sometimes it’s just water pulled from a nearby lake. This one is in Missoula, Montana. Note it’s a fairly low altitude, probably 1000 feet or so.
    [h=2]FUEL DUMPING[/h]When a plane takes off they are usually full of fuel. At this point they are too heavy to safely land (it’s a lot easier on a plane to take off than to land). If they have to cut their trip short, then they have to get rid of that excess weight. They can just fly around for hours to burn it off, but some planes have a fuel dump system that lets them get rid of the excess fuel rapidly by just dumping it into the air. This is often from vents at the end of the wing, but sometimes it’s mid-wing, or at the tail.
    This is a Navy E-6B Mercury (TACAMO), dumping fuel from its mid-wing vents.
    Here’s a rare set of shots from the ground of a jet dumping fuel
    Note the difference between this and a contrail. You can see it’s coming from the wingtips, and you can see the trails just kind of blur out as it spreads and evaporates, unlike contrails which have much more well-defined edges, even as they fade away. See here for the full story behind this incident:
    The aircraft, of of KLM’s B744 full passenger versions, registered PH-BFG, took off from SFO and somewhere around Sacramento the crew decided to turn back to SFO because the nosewheel wouldn’t retract.

    [h=2]GLIDER BALLAST DUMPING[/h]Gliders use water for ballast, and they sometimes let some out to reduce their descent rate, usually when landing. It looks similar to fuel dumping. Here’s a nice example:
    [h=2]ROCKET TRAILS[/h]Most rockets can produce a kind of contrail as the combustion of the fuel (especially if they are hydrogen+oxygen fueled) will produce a lot of water. But for many rockets there is also a lot of visible smoke. It’s not always visually clear what is smoke, and what is water. When they get very high up, the trail spreads out and is lit by the sun in unusual ways. You see this a lot with the missile tests in California. You could call this a contrail if you wanted, so long as you note it’s a rocket contrail, and so probably contains smoke.
    [h=2]SHIP TRAILS[/h]Generally seen best from space, large ships can create a trail in the atmosphere above it that resembles a contrail. These are off the coast of France. They are generally more squiggly than contrails, as the ships move much slower, so the trail is at the mercy of the wind to a greater degree.
    [h=2]FLARES[/h]Military planes shoot out flares to confuse heat-seaking missiles. These are very bright, and leave smoke trails. Usually they shoot off in all different directions, like this:
    [h=2]CHAFF[/h]Chaff is a substance that planes spray to confuse radar. Generally it thin fibers, coated with aluminum. I could not find ANY photos of chaff being sprayed, despite it being used since the 1940s. This is probably because it just looks like fine dust. It does not leave a trail (it would be rather pointless to defeat the radar, but then have a big line pointing to where you are). It’s only visible to radar.
    [h=2]GUN SMOKE[/h]This photo I originally thought was chaff, as that was how it was labeled, but then someone pointed out it was actually smoke from the guns firing. Not chaff, but not a contrail either. There are a variety of reasons why smoke can be coming from an airplane.

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 4
  24. Danny55

    Danny55 Member

    "Is there any high quality evidence of chemtrails?"

    Never even seen low quality evidence of chemtrails, let alone high quality.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Marsiil

    Marsiil New Member

    How about this link? - http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=24210

  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Welcome Marsiil, could you pick one piece of evidence from that link (that's not already been discussed), and then explain what you think it's good evidence for? And can you link to the actual evidence (like test results), not just someone saying that the evidence exists.
  27. Marsiil

    Marsiil New Member

  28. Jay Reynolds

    Jay Reynolds Senior Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  29. cloudspotter

    cloudspotter Senior Member

  30. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member

    I would like to know were the idea that heavy metals should not be in rainwater comes from. Here is a link to national sampling for the UK and I am certain that other countries have similar.


    There is a link here for data sets that show Al and Ba. Have a read as it shows great variability. Just remember when all the chemtrailers mention high content the figure they compare against is the recommended level for TREATED drinking water, for Al 200ug/l


    (I will do some graphs and quotes when I get the chance, but please have a read)

    This is interesting about levels in our groundwater. Sorry to bombard you.

  31. Steve Funk

    Steve Funk Active Member

  32. David Fraser

    David Fraser Senior Member