Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court

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?
 

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.
 

Rico

Senior 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.
 

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.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff 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.

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
 

Rico

Senior 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.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
...If chemtrail believers want to get anywhere, they need to start being specific about their claims and specific about the evidence associated with it.

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
 

Rico

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

Yep, and why none of their cases ever made it to court.
 

Rico

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

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.
 

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.
 

Hama Neggs

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

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".
 

David Fraser

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?
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:

jonnyH

Senior Member.
As I understand it if samples where to be presented they would have to undergo examination by an expert.
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:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/38/section/1
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:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/38/section/4
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.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
or likely judge may rule in pre case hearing

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/De+Minimis

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.
 

David Fraser

Senior 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:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/38/section/1
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:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/38/section/4
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.
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.
 

jonnyH

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.
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:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/38/section/3
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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:

David Fraser

Senior 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.

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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West GeoengineeringWatch Chemtrail Posters fly-posted in Sydney Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Do Polls and Google Trends show Chemtrail Belief Declining? Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
StratMatt777 How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk Practical Debunking 9
Leifer Claim: magnetic dust on cars proves chemtrail fallout Contrails and Chemtrails 11
cmnit Malpensa technician whistleblower on chemtrail activities in airport Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Mick West A Conversation with "Chemtrail" activist Patrick Roddie Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Explained: Vatican "chemtrail spraying" coin [part of set depicting Pope's travels] Contrails and Chemtrails 4
TEEJ Claim of "UFO" interacting with "Chemtrail", Paris, France, 28th September 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
JRBids "Chemtrail off your left wing": Air Traffic Controller Contrails and Chemtrails 18
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Why "Chemtrail" Tests on the Ground Find Metals That Don't Occur Naturally Contrails and Chemtrails 14
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tapir-mâché Curious-- how low can persistent contrails form? Contrails and Chemtrails 25
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Aircraft weight and balance in the real world Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Trailblazer Another photoshopped chemtrail poster: Michael J Murphy Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Chemtrail Believers' predictions of "years left" before disaster Contrails and Chemtrails 6
A Augie Snyder's contrail/chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Mick West Debunked: Rise In Respiratory Mortality from 4th to 3rd Cause of Death. "Chemtrail Flu" General Discussion 13
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Trailblazer Photoshopped "chemtrail" images on Geoengineeringwatch.org Contrails and Chemtrails 76
JFDee New fuel dump "chemtrail" video [Munich, Thai Airways Flight 925] Contrails and Chemtrails 33
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
Trailblazer Identified: Chemtrails Project UK's "chemtrail plane" (Air France A340) Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Kylie Jenner's Chemtrail Meme Tweet Contrails and Chemtrails 54
S Contrail shadow Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Trailblazer Video of helicopter leaving "chemtrail"? Contrails and Chemtrails 8
TEEJ Chemtrail Fleet - Peter A. Kirby Contrails and Chemtrails 10
cmnit Chemtrailists articles on Las Vegas Tribune (in 2005) Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Critical Thinker San Diego Chemtrail group to 'educate' & Protest Scientists/Doctors Contrails and Chemtrails 3
TWCobra Madisonstar Moon posts 59 year old photo of B47's contrailing. Contrails and Chemtrails 0
S Black exhaust, contrail, or chemtrail? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West The Best Book for Explaining Contrails to Chemtrail Believers Contrails and Chemtrails 39
Husband of chemmy Help me! Wife is Chemtrailing... Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Jacob Aman J. Marvin Herndon's chemtrail letter to San Diego City Council Contrails and Chemtrails 39
A Dr. Kirkby 2009 CERN presentation: "Clouds Seeded by Jets" [Misunderstanding by Chemtrail Theorists] Contrails and Chemtrails 28
Whitebeard Claim - 'Orbs Killing Chemtrails' Contrails and Chemtrails 29
Trailblazer Debunked: "The Snake" non-commercial chemtrail plane (China Eastern A330) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 33
Chemtrail_Follower Chemtrail Follower Escaping The Rabbit Hole 70
Peter How 'alive' is the topic of chemtrails nowadays? Contrails and Chemtrails 32
MikeC Homeopathic chemtrail detox formula Health and Quackery 25
TWCobra Very good question asked by Madison Star Moon Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Gundersen Debunked: Australian Rainwater "Chemtrail" test Contrails and Chemtrails 11
M Need help debunking a picture [Four Jets in Formation, Leaving Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 12
justanairlinepilot "Chemtrail Switch" hoax images Contrails and Chemtrails 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top