Debunk this [Planes at different altitude and different contrails over France]

Vindog

Member
I wonder what kind of spinning you guys will do to debunk this one. This video shows 2 planes in the sky. The first to go by leaves a big nasty chemtrail. The second does not. The person making the video is able to Identify the planes using radar24. The first plane is actually at a lower altitude than the second. This goes against everything that you debunkers say. The video is made in France. I would say to watch the video from the beginning at least until about 4 minutes in.
 
Last edited:

Peter

Member
lol.. [...].

Anyway.. different altitudes, different circumstances. He shows the 2nd plane was a 1000 meters higher.

Also, notice the cirrus clouds, indicating that circumstances are conducive to persistent contrail formation at at least one level.

Not so hard to debunk this one.. [...]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I wonder what kind of spinning you guys will do to debunk this one. This video shows 2 planes in the sky. The first to go by leaves a big nasty chemtrail. The second does not. The person making the video is able to Identify the planes using radar24. The first plane is actually at a lower altitude than the second. This goes against everything that you debunkers say. The video is made in France. I would say to watch the video from the beginning at least until about 4 minutes in.
Not at all. The point is the planes are at different altitudes. A plane at 30,000 feet might leave a contrail, while one at 31,000 might not. It all depends on the humidity in the layers of the atmosphere.

Above a certain point it's all cold enough, but humidity varies a lot, and over very short distances.

(The planes here were are 33,000 and 37,000 feet. vastly different)
 
Last edited:

Vindog

Member
lol.. [...].

Anyway.. different altitudes, different circumstances. He shows the 2nd plane was a 1000 meters higher.

Also, notice the cirrus clouds, indicating that circumstances are conducive to persistent contrail formation at at least one level.

Not so hard to debunk this one.. [...]
Well I wasn't there to see what you are calling cirrus clouds roll in or form, but isn't it possible that they are from the planes themselves? If so , how is that an indicator of anything? If they are just more of the same stuff that those planes are spraying out, then its not so much an indicator of anything.

It seems to me that no matter what kind of evidence you guys are presented with, you will always come up with some spin doctor way of "debunking" it. Different circumstances....ha!
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Well I wasn't there to see what you are calling cirrus clouds roll in or form, but isn't it possible that they are from the planes themselves? If so , how is that an indicator of anything? If they are just more of the same stuff that those planes are spraying out, then its not so much an indicator of anything.

It seems to me that no matter what kind of evidence you guys are presented with, you will always come up with some spin doctor way of "debunking" it. Different circumstances....ha!
You haven't presented any evidence. You asked people to debunk the video. When they did (quite reasonably too) you chose to ignore the evidence.
 

Vindog

Member
You haven't presented any evidence. You asked people to debunk the video. When they did (quite reasonably too) you chose to ignore the evidence.
Landru, I read his response and posted what I believe is a very reasonable question about what he perceives to be cirrus clouds (which they very well may be). But he is just completely disregarding ANY chance that it could be a chemical. If it was a chemical, then him calling them cirrus clouds would be wrong, and they wouldnt be any indicator of anything.

The circumstances answer in short is manure.

Im also noticing that no evidence has been presented to me what-so ever. Isnt that a violation of the rules? YOu cant just make a claim and not substantiate it.
 

Peter

Member
Well I wasn't there to see what you are calling cirrus clouds roll in or form, but isn't it possible that they are from the planes themselves? If so , how is that an indicator of anything? If they are just more of the same stuff that those planes are spraying out, then its not so much an indicator of anything.

It seems to me that no matter what kind of evidence you guys are presented with, you will always come up with some spin doctor way of "debunking" it. Different circumstances....ha!
Well 2 planes at different altitudes having different contrails isn't evidence of chemicals being sprayed, but of different circumstances up there.
Normal cirrus clouds would be an indicator that circumstances are more conducive to contrail formation. After all, cirrus clouds are ice clouds as well, just like persistent contrails. That's why you often see them being formed around cirrus clouds. So what we're seeing in this video is exactly what you'd expect to happen.

The cirrus clouds could be from contrails, yes, but they'd still be cirrus clouds ;) Cirrus Aviaticus.. but there's no way of telling (for me) whether that's the case in this video.

I'd believe in chemtrails if I saw credible evidence for them.. but this isn't it.
 

Vindog

Member
Not at all. The point is the planes are at different altitudes. A plane at 30,000 feet might leave a contrail, while one at 31,000 might not. It all depends on the humidity in the layers of the atmosphere.

Above a certain point it's all cold enough, but humidity varies a lot, and over very short distances.

(The planes here were are 33,000 and 37,000 feet. vastly different)
care to substantiate that claim? Isnt it a violation of the rules to make a claim with out substantiating it? convenient.
 

Vindog

Member
lol.. [...].

Anyway.. different altitudes, different circumstances. He shows the 2nd plane was a 1000 meters higher.

Also, notice the cirrus clouds, indicating that circumstances are conducive to persistent contrail formation at at least one level.

Not so hard to debunk this one.. [...]
care to substantiate that claim? Isnt it a violation of the rules to make a claim with out substantiating it? convenient.
 

Vindog

Member
. So what we're seeing in this video is exactly what you'd expect to happen.
This makes no sense. I have watched a perfectly blue sky go from being clear, to comepletely hazy right in front of my eyes, all due to airplanes. Now how do you know that when I saw that I was only seeing condensation and not chemicals? Your whole entire argument hinges on your OPINION that no one is spraying chemicals. That is a very circular argument.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
care to substantiate that claim? Isnt it a violation of the rules to make a claim with out substantiating it? convenient.
Sorry, but it seems self evident that
A) contrails require specific conditions to form in
B) conditions vary with altitude, as demonstrated by clouds forming in layers
C) the planes are at different altitudes.

Which bit do you require evidence for?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This makes no sense. I have watched a perfectly blue sky go from being clear, to comepletely hazy right in front of my eyes, all due to airplanes. Now how do you know that when I saw that I was only seeing condensation and not chemicals? Your whole entire argument hinges on your OPINION that no one is spraying chemicals. That is a very circular argument.
We know that contrails forming an overcast is something that happens, and we understand the science.
We've never heard of it being done artificially, and don't know how it could be done.

So while you can't prove that it's not artificial, or a hologram, or magic, the normal contrail cirrus SEEMS most likely - as it matches our observations exactly. And you suggesting it might be something else really requires a bit of evidence.
 

PurpleElmo

Closed Account
So, if I understand this thread correctly (and Cow knows there's every reason to suppose I do not), Vindog posted a challenge saying "Debunk THIS!" after which several people provided responses which are more closely aligned with current scientific/meteorological knowledge after which Vindog (who provided no substantiation of the original "thesis") rejected all of the responses because they only relied on the current state of scientific knowledge because they did not substantiate their claims? I wonder what color the sky is where Vindog lives....
 

KC-10FE

Senior Member.
Who said anything about covert? they do it right in front of us all day long.
It's in the video title..the very video you posted. So seeing normal persistent contrails all day long is proof of chemtrailing? I have yet to have any chemtrail believer explain to be how contrails cannot persist.
 

Peter

Member
This makes no sense. I have watched a perfectly blue sky go from being clear, to comepletely hazy right in front of my eyes, all due to airplanes. Now how do you know that when I saw that I was only seeing condensation and not chemicals? Your whole entire argument hinges on your OPINION that no one is spraying chemicals. That is a very circular argument.
Because you don't need chemicals to create persistent contrails/cirrus clouds. All you need is H2O and the right circumstances.

Jet engines generate H2O and CO2. We know that at those altitudes there are sometimes circumstances that allow for the water vapor to freeze and form persistent contrails, which may expand to form cirrus clouds sometimes. So why would we need to add chemicals to accomplish that?

That doesn't mean there aren't chemicals in there.. it's just that what's in the video doesn't show anything anomalous or evidence for said chemicals, and can be explained in conventional terms.. and that's what you asked us to do.
 

Vindog

Member
We know that contrails forming an overcast is something that happens, and we understand the science.
We've never heard of it being done artificially, and don't know how it could be done.

So while you can't prove that it's not artificial, or a hologram, or magic, the normal contrail cirrus SEEMS most likely - as it matches our observations exactly. And you suggesting it might be something else really requires a bit of evidence.
When I say artificial, I mean produced by an airplane, whether its condensation OR chemical....
 

Peter

Member
Ok so you've had an explanation. But now I'm wondering whether you understand how a persistent contrail is formed. You've stated that you do believe that they sometimes happen, but according to you how would that happen? Under what circumstances may we expect contrails to persist?
 

Vindog

Member
That doesn't mean there aren't chemicals in there.. it's just that what's in the video doesn't show anything anomalous or evidence for said chemicals, and can be explained in conventional terms.. and that's what you asked us to do.
This is probably the most fair assessment I have seen in my own personal experience on this site. The first sentence here I believe shows that.
 
You can never "prove" chemtrails don't exist, just like you can never "prove" unicorns don't exist. If no evidence exists to support the idea there are chemicals contained within the contrails, there is no reason to believe or consider that it might be true, just like there is no evidence to support the idea unicorns exist. They may very well exist, but with the lack of evidence showing their existence, there is no point in believing it.

So since there is no evidence that there are any chemicals other than water vapor in the trails, there is no point in entertaining the possibility that there are chemicals in them.

Sure, one day there could be very convincing and thorough evidence that chemtrails are real and they have been spraying the whole time, but without that evidence, it is more useful to invest our energy into problems we know are happening, like real, ground-level pollution from cars.

Until then, the science of contrails is very well understood, and there are explanations for their creation in many different conditions, if you want to look for them. So all available evidence best supports that everything we are seeing in the sky are harmless contrails.
 

Peter

Member
This is probably the most fair assessment I have seen in my own personal experience on this site. The first sentence here I believe shows that.
I don't think anyone here is saying that chemtrails would be impossible, technically. But I think my assesment goes for all the supposed evidence Chemtrail believers have been presenting. It turns out not to be evidence for chemtrails. You can go through the whole range, from video's of various contrails to misunderstood/misidentified aircraft equipment to misrepresented physics (such as contrails aren't supposed to persist) etc.

Seriously, find that which you think is the best evidence for chemtrails and really ask yourself how credible it is. If you feel it's really strong, post it here if you can.. who knows, maybe you'll convince someone.

Also, try to go to one of the chemtrail sites, and try to have an open discussion like we're having here. You're likely going to end up like Jesse Ventura, who is now suffering the consequences for stating that he isn't sure about chemtrails.
 

KC-10FE

Senior Member.
If the evidence for chemtrails, let alone a mass worldwide aerial spraying operation is so overwhelming, why must the chemtrail community resort to using pictures of tanks installed on aircraft that are used for flight testing, firefighting etc, photoshopped with hazmat stickers to prove it? Why must they take videos of normal contrails, fuel dumping and skywriting and edit the titles to push their agenda?
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
Vindog, there is scientific knowledge about how cirrus clouds form, there is scientific knowledge about how contrails form, and the impact and contribution of relative humidity is well known in both. If these suffice to describe what happened, why would there be a need to add a new explanative hypothesis such as chemtrails? Wouldn't we only need a new hypothesis when previous explanations don't work? If so, what do you think is not explained by cloud and contrail science, and what do you think is better explained by chemtrails, and why?
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
When I say artificial, I mean produced by an airplane, whether its condensation OR chemical....
OK, I will try this: Reading that "quote" above, I ask (as I do often): "What sort of 'material' is there that could possibly be used to EXACTLY mimic what those of us who are experienced in aviation see as perfectly ordinary and typical contrails?"

I mean this: The burden on the "chem"trail claimant is to provide the evidence of ANY such material or "chemical" that is indistinguishable from cirriform type contrails. Also, noting that YES the presence of airplane-produced persistent contrails CAN result in an increase of cloud coverage, even to the point of an overcast sky, but also the same sort of high altitude cirrus overcast sky can occur quite naturally, and does all over the world.

I began learning to fly in the 1970s. Airports with a control tower issue an hourly weather report, and back then (and still today) it called the ATIS. The ATIS can contain other vital airport details as well, but let's just focus on the weather aspect.

The ATIS is listened to by a pilot(s) prior to departure, and prior to arrival. There are also other sources of weather, such as the METAR, and is a world wide International standard format (with some allowances in N. America for slight variations). Cloud reporting details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METAR#Cloud_reporting

Why did I inundate you with all of this technical info (just the tip of the iceberg of what aviation professionals know)?
Leading up to this: Note the right side of the chart under the heading "High Clouds":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/METAR#WMO_codes_for_cloud_types


This is not a "new" type of cloud classification in the field of aviation. I have, in my 40 years, seen printed weather (or heard on the ATIS) of sky conditions where the only clouds mentioned were cirrus, at 20,000 or even 30,000 feet. (These altitudes are possible for a trained weather observer to estimate with some accuracy, based on visual identification of cloud types, and other information available to hand...including actual pilot reports in the vicinity).

NOW....to the notion of a "chem"trail. I asked about what could replicate the appearance of a contrail. I need to throw a little math and geometry at you.

Picture just one contrail that is 50 feet diameter. And let it be only one mile long (6,076 feet is one Nautical mile). An airliner typically cruises at 450 knots to 480 knots. ("Knot" is Nautical miles per hour). This results in a rate of travel over the ground of 7.5 to 8 Nautical miles per minute.

SO you see, that "one-mile-long" will form in less than a minute....8 seconds at 450K, or about 7.5 seconds at 480K. Agreed? (I divided by 60 minutes per one hour, then again using 60 seconds in one minute to derive these figures).

OK...now, the cylindrical contrail. The volume of a cylinder is here, handy online calculator:
http://www.mathopenref.com/cylindervolume.html

Plugging in the numbers, we arrive at a figure of 11,930,198.102 cubic feet ("radius" = 25, "height" = 6,076). Let's round it to 12 million cubic feet....in only 8 seconds? Sure, that's how it works, since the moisture is already in the atmosphere, and thus a contrail can form.

But, just what could be carried by an airplane to reproduce that? 12 million cubic feet, taking the cube root, we get a "box" (for comparison) that is about 229 feet on each side. This would be the same as an approximately 20-story tall building, with a base that is 229 feet square.

Think about it.
 
Last edited:

JFDee

Senior Member.
care to substantiate that claim?
If you refer to the variability in humidity, and the existence of clouds (and gaps between them) does not convince you, then look at diagrams of sounding measurements taken by weather balloons.

This is the current one from Albany, NY:
http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sou...AR=2014&MONTH=07&FROM=0600&TO=0600&STNM=72518

The thick line to the left indicates the relative humidity at a given altitude.
It is obvious how variable it is even between close horizontal layers.

The absolute readings of RH values are sometimes unreliable due to the difficulty of measuring humidity in a very cold environment, but the point here is the variability.

You can browse measurements from all over the US on this site:
http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
I read his response and posted what I believe is a very reasonable question about what he perceives to be cirrus clouds (which they very well may be). But he is just completely disregarding ANY chance that it could be a chemical. If it was a chemical, then him calling them cirrus clouds would be wrong, and they wouldnt be any indicator of anything.
You are quite right, there is a chemical. It is sometimes called 'dihydrogen monoxide', but its common name is 'water'. It is an amazing chemical that in the Earth range of temperatures exists in three different states: solid, liquid and gaseous. It is present in the atmosphere as invisible vapour as well as visible aerosol clouds made of water droplets and/or ice crystals. The water aerosols can persist because they can be in equilibrium with surrounding atmospheric water vapour with the loss due to dispersion and evaporation being compensated by vapour condensation inside the cloud.

Aerosols made of other liquid and solid chemicals cannot persist in the open air. Without a constant input of new aerosol particles they will quickly disperse and dissipate. That is, there are no other known chemicals that would behave in the Earth atmosphere in a similar way to water. (On the Saturn moon Titan, where surface temperatures are much lower than on Earth, the hydrocarbons methane and ethane play a similar role).

In addition, there are no known chemicals that being dispersed in the air can shift significantly the equilibrium between water vapour and its liquid state. That is, there is no known way to make water vapour to condense within a huge volume of air in the conditions it normally would not do, or not to condense in the conditions it normally would do.

The 'chemtrail' sites name many chemical substances that, allegedly, are sprayed in the atmosphere to create persistent and spreading aerosols of significant optical density (i.e., visible from the ground). However, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no scientific demonstrations of making such an aerosol from any of these chemicals in the laboratory conditions. Without such demonstrations, these are just empty assertions bearing no proof.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I wonder what kind of spinning you guys will do to debunk this one. This video shows 2 planes in the sky. The first to go by leaves a big nasty chemtrail. The second does not. The person making the video is able to Identify the planes using radar24. The first plane is actually at a lower altitude than the second. This goes against everything that you debunkers say. The video is made in France. I would say to watch the video from the beginning at least until about 4 minutes in.
REPLY to post #1, or the "OP" or "Opening Post".

Where to begin? Firstly, the video was posted by "Max Bliss" June 26, 2013. This is RIFE with mistaken assumptions by Mr. "Bliss", on behalf of his self-proclaimed "Real Institute".

I believe that most of the mistakes made by Mr. Bliss have already been addressed? (If you, "vindog"...wine-dog...clever!! Wouldn't it have been MORE clever to be "le chien du vin"? En Francias? But, I digress...)...if YOU, "vindog" see some aspects of Mr. Bliss' video not yet mentioned, then could you please point them out, specifically? Thanks (time-hacks IN the video would be very helpful).

Again, since Monsieur Bliss resides (now) in southern France, then "FlightRadar24" is the most 'convenient' version of any of the real-time flight tracker websites available to we modern Internet users. AGAIN....for those who reside in the North American continent, I strongly recommend
"Flight Aware". It can be used in conjuction with that "other one", for corroboration.

Side-note: I (and others) have attempted to "reach out" to M. Bliss...to no avail. One must then ask oneself, "Why is this?" What would drive one Human being to ignore the science, and the attempts to show that science, even when approached by numerous experts in the fields of science being discussed, here?

Another 'side-note': Earlier I had posted my opinion about some of the people who tend to promote the myth of "chem"trails. I postulated that certain individuals IN this hoax "business" do it for ulterior motives....AKA, a profit motive. I stand by that postulate.

However, there is a "fourth" category...perhaps a sub-category(?)...of people who truly "believe", but are so deep into that "belief" that no science, no actual evidence to the contrary, can shake their "belief". Some people fall into that category. PLEASE, 'vindog', do not be one of them......
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
A lot of chemtrail believers seem to think that the "spray" is some kind of additive in the fuel, most likely because the trails come from directly behind the engines (despite a little gap before they form which is NOT what we see in cropdusting, cloud seeding, OR air show smoke producing)

having said this, the 1 mile by 50 feet (cylindrical) trail that weedwhacker calculated as 11,930,198.102 cubic feet, if produced by a Boeing 777-200ER as calculated in another thread would be about 24 litres of "fuel".

Now if the plane actually flies by magic and does not actually need fuel, then the WHOLE amount of "fuel" used could be sprayed material. (we know this is impossible, but it is the LARGEST figure you could calculate)
say it was aluminium, no matter what size the particles were, a litre of aluminium will weigh 2.7kg so 24 litres will weigh 64.8kg.
That means that the trail can only contain 64.8/11,930,198.102 =0.00000543 kg per cubic foot or 0.0543g per cubic foot.
that is a pretty low density to make such a visible cloud.

does this not give ANY believer at least a little pause as to where the material is actually coming from?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
does this not give ANY believer at least a little pause as to where the material is actually coming from?
I'm not a believer and I have no idea what you just said. a plane only holds 24 litres of fuel? (I'm just gonna pretend to know what a kg is)
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
I'm not a believer and I have no idea what you just said. a plane only holds 24 litres of fuel? (I'm just gonna pretend to know what a kg is)
;)

I will have to search, but in another thread the actual fuel "burn" rate was mentioned as 24 litres per mile, for one engine of a B-777 (IIRC).

Since a litre is approximately the size of a U.S. quart...then that is about 6 U.S. gallons.

And, a "kg" is a Kilogram....1,000 grams. This is equal to 2.2 pounds.

Does this help?


EDIT: Some pilot humor. On another thread I mentioned the ATIS, which all pilots learn about. It is recorded and transmitted on a radio frequency, and many airports even have a land-line (remember those?) telephone number that you can call, and hear it...also nowadays the ATIS can be sent by text message.

ANYWAYS....each "new" ATIS is issued a letter of the alphabet, and of course the proper word for each letter is used..('Alpha', 'Bravo', 'Charlie'...etc). "K" is 'Kilo'....and back in the day (before texting, and printers in the cockpit) the ATIS was copied down on a sheet of paper, and placed so all pilots could see it....and I flew with this guy, every time it was "Information Kilo" he would write "2.2 pounds" instead of "Kilo".

EDIT, part deux:

Example phone# for LAX:
WX ASOS: PHONE 310-568-1486

Found at http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLAX

The "ASOS" is an automated system, and is not the actual ATIS. SOME airports will put the actual recorded ATIS on the telephone, others will just let ASOS "read" it out...

Also (to many's annoyance) most ATIS's are also computerized voices....here, for example (from a few years ago):
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
chrono117 How to Debunk Flat Earth Without Relying on NASA or Photos Flat Earth 42
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
George Tasker Using pin hole lenses to debunk CGI Rebuttals of Photos of Earth Curvature Flat Earth 7
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
derwoodii My eyes deceived me so I had to debunk myself Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
N How can I debunk the orbs in this photo? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 22
HoaxEye How to calculate the visible fraction of the Earth [e.g. 1972 Blue Marble, Apollo 17] Flat Earth 28
N Please help me to debunk this topic: stranges sphere outside of the ISS. General Discussion 18
Mick West Fireproof Cabbage, Burning Snow, Flat Earth - Are Some Things too Silly to Debunk? Practical Debunking 7
Mick West Burying the Debunk: How Fake News about "Pyramids" in Antarctica Creates False Balance UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
TWCobra Flat earth Debunk-change in apparent altitude of clouds as seen from airliner Flat Earth 2
Mick West An Easy Experiment to Debunk the Flat Earth by Observing the Size of the Sun Flat Earth 55
passionfly1 Lets finally debunk Nico and Marco Kaschuba (video hoaxers) People Debunked 0
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
Mick West What to do about the Flat Earthers? Debunk, or ignore? Flat Earth 238
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
C MH370: Help me debunk this General Discussion 21
TemplarJLS Can someone debunk this George Washington quote? Quotes Debunked 6
TemplarJLS Some depopulation quotes to debunk? Quotes Debunked 16
Henk001 High altitude clouds don't have a cooling effect Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mike Fl Can someone debunk this? Sandy Hook Shooting 100% Fraud Proof in 2 mins. - Photo Time Analysis Sandy Hook 21
Stevan Gvozdenovic Let's debunk my (very simple) perpetuum mobile Science and Pseudoscience 57
M Debunk: The horizon never falling as proof of flat Earth theory Flat Earth 29
WeedWhacker Let's imagine the actual area of the sky, above.... Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Dan Wilson PopSci article claiming to debunk ten GMO myths Health and Quackery 10
Critical Thinker Gawker article: Why I Write About (and Debunk) the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 0
W Debunk NASA is proposing spraying stratospheric aerosols. Contrails and Chemtrails 9
T Debunk: Chemtrails leave no space between aircraft and the beginning of the trail. Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Jeffrey Orling Is there anything about 9/11 left to debunk 9/11 46
C Help debunk please!? [Contrail Grids, Weather Modification, Fuel Dumping] Contrails and Chemtrails 18
George B Debunk: Kinder gentler Debunking is better. . . ?? Practical Debunking 38
Noblelox Practical bunk used to debunk Boston Marathon Bombings 18
Alchemist Please Debunk: The Drills (conflicting info from 2 reputable sources) Boston Marathon Bombings 13
Alchemist Debunk This New JFK Information Conspiracy Theories 101
David Fraser Should we debunk "hoax" tragedies with "crisis actors"? Practical Debunking 21
DebunkingShills Orbs: Something the metaJUNK shills just can't debunk. Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Joe Newman There will be widescale rioting after Zimmerman verdict. Debunk, please Conspiracy Theories 256
Mick West Using Campaign Finance Reform to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 25
Z please someone debunk this crap Contrails and Chemtrails 15
BlindIdiots Please Debunk WeatherWar101s "Weather War Big Picture" Video Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Soulfly DOJ investigation of the AP debunk the government controlling the media? General Discussion 0
Oxymoron Easy WTC 7 Video to Debunk 9/11 2
sgirl Col. Richard French of the USAF States his Job was to Debunk UFOs - Citizen Hearing Conspiracy Theories 6
N Little help to debunk clouds with color Practical Debunking 2
Rroval Debunk: imgur: "Boston Truth Revealed" Boston Marathon Bombings 84
Drew Debunk: Saudi National Linked Boston Marathon Bombings 5
George B Debunk . . . intuition can save your life or prevent considerable pain and suffering General Discussion 43
newportrojan Can someone debunk Vigilant Citizen? Conspiracy Theories 344
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Latest posts

Top