Explained: 1990 USAF Academy Chemtrails Manual [Riff on "Contrails" Handbook]

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Claim:

The claim is that a 1990 USAF Academy manual called "Chemtrails" proves that the US Air Force is involved and coined the term.



Example:

Yes folks, it was the government who coined the term Chemtrails, not a bunch of conspiracy theorist.
This has now become conspiracy fact!
Is there someone near the New Mexico State library that can check out this microfiche they have on file??
Chemtrails, chemistry 131 manual, fall 1990 [microform].
[Colorado Springs, Colo.?] : Dept. of Chemistry, U.S. Air Force Academy, [1990] [1990]
# Subjects Chemistry -- Study and teaching -- United States -- Handbooks, manuals, etc.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread511949/pg1
Reality: The book is a lab manual for freshmen at the academy who take chemistry course # 131 as an ordinary part of graduation.
"100" level courses are for freshmen students.
The lab manual contains nothing of relevance to the subject of aerial spraying, and the name is simply a play on the words contrails and chemistry.
This was found out by chemtrail believer Diane Harvey in 2001, but continues to be bandied about as part of chemtrails lore.

Diane Harvey(sedona) said:
I think I can solve this puzzle, which has a very mundane solution. "Chemtrails" is the happy-camper name of the official government/military chemist's bulletin. Last year I corresponded with a Dr. Donald Bird there, who was absolutely disgusted to discover what I was writing to him about. And I was in the end quite satisfied that he was genuinely annoyed to be associated with this topic, and that indeed the bulletin is exactly what he said it was. I read a couple: boring beyond belief and nothing to do with chemtrails. I did discover one thing though- gov.mil chemists actually have the software power to draw a line through their name in your email address book so you can't pester them again. I thought that was pretty funny too.

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000242.html
This youtube video shows a believer who ordered a microfiche copy of the manual for himself. He seems to not understand that ALL Air cadets are required to take basic chemistry as part of their curriculum:



[Update: Actual manual here: https://www.metabunk.org/files/chemtrails-chemistry-manual-usaf-academy-1999.pdf ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spongebob

Active Member
Why do these people not try to disprove their own claims before going to the trouble of humiliating themselves in front of a video camera?

It is absolutely clear that what Jay has posted is correct and easy to understand, so why do some choose to ignore the facts?
 

vvv

New Member
Claim:

The claim is that a 1990 USAF Academy manual called "Chemtrails" proves that the US Air Force is involved and coined the term.
Hi, is there a way to have a copy of this book? it seems avalaible in no library in europe (i live in france).

thank you for your answer.

 

Danny55

Member
1.jpg
Here's the contents page from the manual, however, apart from a few posts on David Icke's forum,including this image, Stompk hasn't posted any smoking guns. He maybe realised that it was a chemistry manual after reading it.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
I see Dane Wigington is promoting this element of the hoax:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemtrails-manual-used-in-science-course-at-air-force-academy/

Ever the copycat and disinformationalist, John Massaria the latest chemtrails hoax master has concocted a video following his leader:



To these fellows, you might think it is smart to bend the truth till it screams, or basically to lie about stuff because it is for the "greater good".
Well it's not for anyone's good when you lie and make stuff up. It comes back on you eventually, makes you a weaker person because it chains you down by enforcing lie upon lie trying to keep the previous lie afloat, and in the end it tortures your soul

John Massaria and Dane Wigington, it is really a bad thing to lie.
You know better.

You weren't taught to lie by your parents, I hope, but whoever you learned it from did you a great disservice.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Was that actually Dane posting that? That's Mauro Oliveira's site
Mauro hasn't been heard from in quite awhile. I think there was a falling out, probably over Rosalind Peterson's flaps pertaining to The Great Culling and not participating in the Conference or lawsuit.

Dane refers to geoengineeringwatch as "my site", he has hired a woman named "Yvonne Nachtigal" who works on the site for him. Dane writes most of the content, it looks like Harold Saive and John Massiaria feed content and videos to the geoengineeringwatch site.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

David Fraser

Senior Member
I have also been giving a link to the Academys website when I see this just to highlight that a wide range of degrees are offered and it is not just for pilots as claimed in the video.
 

TheBrain

New Member
So I have one question...

It seems all you uber debunkers are focusing on the CONTENT of the document in question, which granted has no information relative to chemtrails...

BUT you are all overlooking the OBVIOUS The fact that the TERM "CHEMTRAILS" is on the front cover of "every first year cadet's" handbook.

So put aside your bias for a minute and explain WHY the Air Force Academy is making this term "CHEMTRAILS" front and center for all cadets to memorize.

Is it just a joke? Well it's still ongoing then because I get yearly updates on that manual and the term "CHEMTRAILS" is still there

Would love an explanation for the motivation of the Air Force in using this obviously controversial term

Thanks
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So I have one question...

It seems all you uber debunkers are focusing on the CONTENT of the document in question, which granted has no information relative to chemtrails...

BUT you are all overlooking the OBVIOUS The fact that the TERM "CHEMTRAILS" is on the front cover of "every first year cadet's" handbook.

So put aside your bias for a minute and explain WHY the Air Force Academy is making this term "CHEMTRAILS" front and center for all cadets to memorize.

Is it just a joke? Well it's still ongoing then because I get yearly updates on that manual and the term "CHEMTRAILS" is still there

Would love an explanation for the motivation of the Air Force in using this obviously controversial term

Thanks
It's from 1990. The term "chemtrails" was not invented in the "chemical trails from planes" sense until around 1998. So this is just a play on words "Chemistry" + "Contrails" (as it's the Air Force) = "chemtrails".
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
So I have one question...

It seems all you uber debunkers are focusing on the CONTENT of the document in question, which granted has no information relative to chemtrails...

BUT you are all overlooking the OBVIOUS The fact that the TERM "CHEMTRAILS" is on the front cover of "every first year cadet's" handbook.

So put aside your bias for a minute and explain WHY the Air Force Academy is making this term "CHEMTRAILS" front and center for all cadets to memorize.

Is it just a joke? Well it's still ongoing then because I get yearly updates on that manual and the term "CHEMTRAILS" is still there

Would love an explanation for the motivation of the Air Force in using this obviously controversial term

Thanks
Since you don't discuss the CONTENT, all you seem to care about is the term used. Must not still be anything else besides a first year chemistry textbook, huh?

Frankly, I doubt the USAF gives a damn [...]

You didn't seem to read post number 3, it is important and the operative reason they still use that title. Tradition is very big in that organization.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheBrain

New Member
It's from 1990. The term "chemtrails" was not invented in the "chemical trails from planes" sense until around 1998. So this is just a play on words "Chemistry" + "Contrails" (as it's the Air Force) = "chemtrails".
Well sounds to me like THEY invented it then :p

And since there is nothing in the book about contrails either, your explanation sounds dubious at best :cool:
 

TheBrain

New Member
Since you don't discuss the CONTENT, all you seem to care about is the term used.
Hmmm I see you react like a typical debunker... just throw something and hope its sticks. I CLEARLY said "...on the CONTENT of the document in question, which granted has no information relative to chemtrails..." so what else is there to say about the content? It is the TERM that is in question and still in use, despite the popular opinion of them

Frankly, I doubt the USAF gives a damn about crackpots.
You might be surprised :p because they actually pay me good money to advertise on my 'crackpot' website.

You didn't seem to read post number 3, it is important and the operative reason they still use that title. Tradition is very big in that organization.
Well I don't consider many of your assessments very important and I am very familiar with Air Force tradition. Carry on... enjoy your bliss and have a wonderful day

TTFN
 

MikeC

Closed Account
So the USAF was the first in the world to use the term "chemtrails" - in relation to a chemistry textbook that is just a 1st year textbook....

It seems pretty obvious that Art Bell was not aware of it when he coined the term to refer to persistent contrails so he could sell more of his snake oil - so can we agree that the USAF coining of the term in 1990 is irrelevant to the current myth about persistent contrails being something other than persistent contrails?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
The poster agrees that the title doesn't have anything to do with what some call 'chem-trails', but he can't seem to understand that the name is a play on contrails. HUH?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member
Hmmm I see you react like a typical debunker... just throw something and hope its sticks. I CLEARLY said "...on the CONTENT of the document in question, which granted has no information relative to chemtrails..." so what else is there to say about the content? It is the TERM that is in question and still in use, despite the popular opinion of them
It seems like their use of the term has been repeatedly explained in this thread as a reference to the "Contrails" handbook for cadets. No one disagrees that the book uses that title, but it predates and has no connection or relevance to the "chemtrails" conspiracy theory (which is unknown by most people).
TheBrain said:
You might be surprised :p because they actually pay me good money to advertise on my 'crackpot' website.
What website is that?
 

ssfor27

Active Member
So I have one question...

It seems all you uber debunkers are focusing on the CONTENT of the document in question, which granted has no information relative to chemtrails...

BUT you are all overlooking the OBVIOUS The fact that the TERM "CHEMTRAILS" is on the front cover of "every first year cadet's" handbook.

So put aside your bias for a minute and explain WHY the Air Force Academy is making this term "CHEMTRAILS" front and center for all cadets to memorize.

Is it just a joke? Well it's still ongoing then because I get yearly updates on that manual and the term "CHEMTRAILS" is still there

Would love an explanation for the motivation of the Air Force in using this obviously controversial term

Thanks

Because in the Air Force, it is not a "controversial" term. I retired from the Air Force in 2007. There are plays on words that involve anything aviation related throughout almost every facet of your life in the AF. For example, there are dining halls whose names makes use of "trail" or "trails" - i.e. "Trails End" dining hall at Warren AFB. The base newspaper at McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas is literally called "Contrails" (or it was when I was there). The term "trailblazer" is often used in a multitude of ways to describe someone who has ascended in rank quickly or been the first to journey down a particular path, etc. etc.

I've seen dining halls and other base establishments make use of the names "Final Approach", "Check 6", "Blue Yonder", etc.

The idea that the AF Academy chooses to call its chemistry program "Chemtrails" is neither surprising or controversial, at least not to someone who actually spent some time in the AF.
 

SR1419

Senior Member
It seems all you uber debunkers are focusing on the CONTENT of the document in question, which granted has no information relative to chemtrails...

So put aside your bias for a minute and explain WHY the Air Force Academy is making this term "CHEMTRAILS" front and center for all cadets to memorize.
Well, its the CONTENT that would give the idea that this is "proof" of "chemtrails" more validity.

If, indeed, its not just a play on words then why is there nothing even remotely concerning spraying long, persistent trails in the sky?
 

TheBrain

New Member
The poster agrees that the title doesn't have anything to do with what some call 'chem-trails', but he can't seem to understand that the name is a play on contrails. HUH?
Ofcourse the term chemtrails is a play on contrail... and ever since the conspiracy started, you debunkers have focused on that single point ad nauseum.

But you ignore all the other info readily available like the chemtrail patent and other evidence that at the very least show intent and planning

What about the NASA/NAVY program that dumps chemicals like barium and others in LEO and uses HAARP to perturb these man made dust clouds? Sure they are not officially chemtrails in the context of your play on words... BUT they are trails of chemicals :p

But no you guys are so narrow minded and can only focus on the one issue of play on words contrails... that you brush off all other evidence and PROOF of actual work along geoengineering lines.

This slide is from a REAL set of experiments that creates chemical trails and dust clouds in low earth orbit conducted by the US NAVY along with NASA. This is not a conspiracy theory it is real. Was even covered on main stream news and could be seen by simply looking up when the activated clouds glowed :p

But it won't matter, because you all have blinders on and cannot get past your obsession with contrails.

Well perhaps a few passersby reading this will take the time to actually look up what is real... :rolleyes:

I will leave you all to enjoy your bliss
 

Attachments

TheBrain

New Member
Well, its the CONTENT that would give the idea that this is "proof" of "chemtrails" more validity.
I never claimed it was 'proof' of anything. I merely asked; "WHY the Air Force Academy is making this term "CHEMTRAILS" front and center for all cadets to memorize?" :rolleyes:

Making it a household word like kleenex :p

Thing is you debunkers make some statements, then all pat each other on the back that you have debunked something... then a week later you have to start over again. But as time goes on more and more projects and news article appear in main stream media about geoengineering, weather modification and solar dimming.

Sooner or later you guys will have to stop playing Ostrich
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
But you ignore all the other info readily available like the chemtrail patent and other evidence that at the very least show intent and planning
Explicitly discussed in various context's here -

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/449-Debunked-1975-U-S-Patent-for-powder-contrail-generation?highlight=patent

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/295-Chemtrail-Geoengineering-Patent?highlight=Welsbach

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/194-Do-Patents-Mean-the-Invention-Works?highlight=patent

...too link a few. What was it you think metabunk users ignored with regards to this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

scombrid

Senior Member
Ofcourse the term chemtrails is a play on contrail... and ever since the conspiracy started, you debunkers have focused on that single point ad nauseum.

But you ignore all the other info readily available like the chemtrail patent and other evidence that at the very least show intent and planning

What about the NASA/NAVY program that dumps chemicals like barium and others in LEO and uses HAARP to perturb these man made dust clouds? Sure they are not officially chemtrails in the context of your play on words... BUT they are trails of chemicals :p

But no you guys are so narrow minded and can only focus on the one issue of play on words contrails... that you brush off all other evidence and PROOF of actual work along geoengineering lines.

This slide is from a REAL set of experiments that creates chemical trails and dust clouds in low earth orbit conducted by the US NAVY along with NASA. This is not a conspiracy theory it is real. Was even covered on main stream news and could be seen by simply looking up when the activated clouds glowed :p

But it won't matter, because you all have blinders on and cannot get past your obsession with contrails.

Well perhaps a few passersby reading this will take the time to actually look up what is real... :rolleyes:

I will leave you all to enjoy your bliss

None of that has anything to do with weather in the troposphere or stratosphere. Therefore it has nothing to do with sensible weather or the chemtrail conspiracy theory.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I never claimed it was 'proof' of anything. I merely asked; "WHY the Air Force Academy is making this term "CHEMTRAILS" front and center for all cadets to memorize?" :rolleyes:

Making it a household word like kleenex :p
This has been quite explicitly explained to you. It's because of this:



Why is that not a satisfactory explanation?

1990: USAF whimsically calls their chemistry text book "Chemtrails" after the cadet handbook "Contrails", which has been around since the 1950s.
1999: Conspiracy theorists start using the term "chemtrails"

How can there possibly be a connection?
 
Last edited:

RolandD

Active Member
@TheBrain, the purpose of this thread is to debunk the idea that the Air Force is teaching pilots about chemtrails using a manual called chemtrails. The purpose of this website is to remove 'bunk' from various conspiracies theories and examine if there are any facts left after the bunk is removed. Many CTs are built around a large number of tenuous assumptions, we are just trying to strip away the BS and look for solid facts.

The points you bring up may or may not be valid, but they have no bearing on this thread.
 

pseacraft

Active Member
...
This slide is from a REAL set of experiments that creates chemical trails and dust clouds in low earth orbit conducted by the US NAVY along with NASA. This is not a conspiracy theory it is real. Was even covered on main stream news and could be seen by simply looking up when the activated clouds glowed :p
What/whose presentation is this slide from exactly? Having attended more professional briefings than can be counted in my meager mind this slide tells me absolutely nothing but makes me question its authenticity and its complete lack of context.
 

Rico

Active Member
This slide is from a REAL set of experiments that creates chemical trails and dust clouds in low earth orbit conducted by the US NAVY along with NASA. This is not a conspiracy theory it is real. Was even covered on main stream news and could be seen by simply looking up when the activated clouds glowed :p
It'd be great if you can cite the original source for context purposes.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
What/whose presentation is this slide from exactly? Having attended more professional briefings than can be counted in my meager mind this slide tells me absolutely nothing but makes me question its authenticity and its complete lack of context.
The whole text of the document from which it's taken, such as it is, can be found here - http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/Scales.pdf

Assuming it's genuine, this is probably the author - http://www.space.vt.edu/people/scalesw.html
 

solrey

Senior Member
It appears to be a slide show of bullet points that would accompany a lecture/presentation at a scientific conference. It's the work of Wayne Scales, Ph D., a professor at Virginia Tech who studies dusty plasmas and other aspects of the outermost reaches of the atmosphere/near space environment.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32941979/Active-Perturbation-of-the-Near-Earth-Space-Environment

http://www.space.vt.edu/people/scalesw.html

http://www.research.vt.edu/node/313

The slide that TheBrain posted is taken out of context and the science in general is mis-represented by them in their comments. None of that research involves the troposhere, or even the stratosphere, in any way shape or form, other than being the first two layers of the atmosphere that rockets used in experiments have to fly through.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Good find solrey. It seems that they have space weather confused with weather.

I found a few things also. These studies are not new, the date back to Skylab

http://www.space.com/19521-nasa-rocket-night-sky-lights-launch.html







http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA078i025p05726/abstract


 

TheBrain

New Member
The points you bring up may or may not be valid, but they have no bearing on this thread.

Ah yes.. nothing I say has any bearing on your narrow focus... it has to be specifically "CHEMTRAILS" gotcha as I said earlier... ad nauseam
 

JFDee

Senior Member
Some more word play can probably illustrate the original intention of the pun.

Here are some possible names for other (hypothetical) manuals and handbooks:

Physics = "PHYSTRAILS"

Meteorology = "MET-TRAILS"

Flight Medicine = "MEDITRAILS"


Using the idea of a "trail" as a metaphor for progress in a learning course makes good sense even without the context of aviation.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I am having a problem understanding what your point is. This thread does have a narrow focus, debunking that the USAF chemistry manual named 'Chemtrails' is linked in any way to what folks are now calling chem trails. A narrow focus is needed in order for the thread to not devolve into a free for all, of many various points
 

TheBrain

New Member
It'd be great if you can cite the original source for context purposes.
Yeah it would be great, and I usually do... but it would be a waste of time here as NOTHING I say or link to will meet your approval. You will deny, twist and dismiss anything and everything that does not specifically say 'chemtrails spewed from airliners'

Well heck... its not really worth my time trying to educate a small handful of debunkers... just was bored and had to stir the pot...

I will leave you with ONE link

Evergreen Aviation Super Tanker Services

You can postulate and misdirect all you want but in the end it is just blowing smoke because all you have to do is research that company and its military/government connections and then look at the services offered. Right there on their corporate website... #3 service offered. Any

[FONT=Verdana,Geneva]Weather Modification[/FONT]

Anything else you say is moot :p

Gotta run, I have important work to do, like cut the grass

Later... its been fun...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ah yes.. nothing I say has any bearing on your narrow focus... it has to be specifically "CHEMTRAILS" gotcha as I said earlier... ad nauseam
The textbook is the subject of the thread. If you want to discuss other thing then there are plenty of other threads, or you can start a new on.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I will leave you with ONE link

Evergreen Aviation Super Tanker Services

You can postulate and misdirect all you want but in the end it is just blowing smoke because all you have to do is research that company and its military/government connections and then look at the services offered. Right there on their corporate website... #3 service offered. Any

Weather Modification

Anything else you say is moot :p
That's not a service offered, it's a potential market they just listed because they are trying to sell the supertanker.

But even if it were something they did, so what? There's lots of companies that do weather modification. There's even one CALLED Weather Modification:

http://www.weathermodification.com/

What of it?
 
Top