Factual Errors in "Why In The World Are They Spraying"

[Mick West]

Claim: Rainwater should always have zero aluminum
Source: 05:20 Francis Mangels: "Should [aluminum] be in the rain? Absolutely not!"
Status: False. Since the Earth's crust is 8% aluminum, and soil varies between 2 and 30% aluminum, then windblown dust from soil and the weathering of rocks (often hundreds of miles away) will naturally contain aluminum. When it rains, the rain clears the skies of dust. Hence aluminum is expected in rainwater in varying, almost random amounts:
Source: A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE COMPOSITION OF PRECIPITATION IN S.E. ONTARIO, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol 4, 1967

As a prelude to the study of chemical weathering of rocks and soils in S.E. Ontario, a study of the composition of precipitation waters at 12 sites within the area was initiated. Analyses of bulk precipitation of both rainfall and snowfall are presented and compared with similarly derived results in other areas.
The silica and aluminum contents are regarded as being high, although in snow silica is absent and aluminum is quite high. Areal differences in silica content appear to be connected with local differences in lithology. Iron occurs in the same concentrations as aluminum and is probably derived from atmospheric dusts. The sodium content is high, especially when compared with inland sites in other areas. Potassium is generally somewhat lower than sodium. Although the calcium content may reflect local differences in lithology, the dissolved magnesium is surprisingly uniform. Lithological differences in tne area are also reflected in the significantly higher nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the limestone area. Snowfall is markedly high in sulfates, which is considered to be a function of climatic and industrial causes. The high chloride concentrations in such a 'non-marine' environment are not explained.
...
Reliability of the Data
The samples contained dry fall-out and dust settling on the gauges so that they were filtered before examination in order to remove the undissolved particles. The overall accuracy of the data is difficult to assess. Microbial activity in the water samples can alter chemical concentrations of nitrates, but has much less effect on other constituents. Large integrated samples of pre- cipitation can give no more than an average for the period concerned. It is realized that the figures presented give only general indications of ionic levels in precipitation, and a more accurate picture will emerge when sampling is more frequent. For reasons stated above, the comparison of these results with those
of other workers must be considered with caution. As far as possible, com- parisons will be made with analyses of bulk precipitation where this is known for certain. However, with respect to soil weathering, the analyses of rainwater should be more relevant than those of bulk precipitation, although the differ- ence may be hardly significant.
The literature has an unexpected paucity of analytical results for the con- tents of Al and Fe rainwater and snow. In fact, no data for Fe could be found and only the results of Feth et al. (1964) for Al in snow could be brought to light.

...
Aluminum
As aluminum is geochemically stable, the figures for this element in Table I must be considered high for both snow and rain. The aluminum content of rainfall is similar to silica but significantly higher for snow. The figures are of the same order of magnitude as those recorded for the St. Lawrence River (Clarke 1924), for lake and river water (Rankama and Sahama 1949), and for snow (Feth etal. 1964).

The figures for aluminum in rain above are 0.52 to 1.12 ppm, which is 520 to 1120 ppb, mcg/L or ug/L

Claim: "Respiratory Mortality in the continental US has gone from 8th on the list to 3rd in just six years"
Source: 00:09:26 Dane Wiginton:
Status: False. Respiratory Mortality did move from 4th to 3rd, however the rate did not change, this was due to a decrease in the mortality from strokes.
Reference: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db64.pdf

Do leading causes of death change rank?
Between 1980 and 2007, the three leading causes of death (heart disease, cancer, and stroke) did not change in order of ranking. In 2008, however, chronic lower respiratory diseases replaced stroke as the third leading cause of death, and stroke fell to the fourth leading cause (6ranking order remains in 2009 (3). It is worth noting that because deaths from heart disease have tended to decrease throughout the 1980–2009 period, it is likely that at some point in the near future heart disease will no longer be the leading cause of death in the United States.) (Figure 6). This
Figure 6. Age-adjusted death rates for leading causes of death: United States, 1999–2007 and preliminary 2008 and 2009

NOTES: Rates are plotted on a logarithmic scale. Leading causes of death from 1999 through 2007 were, in order: heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lowerrespiratory diseases. Leading causes of death for 2008 and 2009 were, in order: heart disease, cancer, chronic lower respiratory diseases, and stroke.SOURCE: CDC/NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Mortality.

 

[Mick West]

I'd like to make this thread a one-stop shop for verifiably factual errors in WhyWATS, and keep to to the format above with the claim, the time in the film and who said it, and the independently verifiable rebuttal.

Feel free to add more, I will update the top post to include the most blatant and significant errors.

And, of course, please post corrections if I get something wrong, and I'll retract them immediately.

 

[Mick West]

Some candidates to look at later

The "geoengineering footprint" of Aluminum, Barium, Strontium:
04:29 - Every element showing up in the rain tests are the primary elements named in those [160] geoengineering patents
05:50 - "The primary ingredients in geoengineering are specifically the oxides of metals, including aluminum oxide"

(Also 5:50 continues : "this (aluminum oxide) is devastating to plants")

04:38 - "In as short as five years we see rain levels of Aluminum for example, escalating as much as 50,000%"

05:00 - "The weather patterns are so altered here, in exactly the manner the geoengineers ... diminished rainfall, increase ozone destruction...

05:38 - "Lots of barium and strontium and zero aluminum". (contradiction)
05:48 - "If there was [dust] in our [rain] samples, then we SHOULD get some aluminum in some detectable quantity"

07:20 - "the pHs have changed in this area as much as 10-12 times towards alkaline in 5-6 years"

07:53 - "aluminum hydroxide is what we think it is, plus the barium carbonate, strontium titanate, strontium oxides, barium oxides, probably some aluminum oxides in there, this has apparently driven our acid soils about 20x more alkaline into about 6.8

08:24 - "20% of the suns rays that reached the planet several decades ago are no longer reaching the planet" (false, global dimming has reversed since the 90s)

8:40 - "... trails are exactly what geoengineering patents describe".

10:11 - claim that geoengineer is supposed to cool, but it actually warms. (nonsensical, as that's contrails, not "particulates")

10:20 - conflating geoengineering with weather modification.

13:00 - Dakotas temp record, blue skies almost never, dew almost never, temp records

14:15 - patent "Ice Nucleation for weather modification" - paper shown is "Rocket effluent - Its ice nucleation activity and related properties". Patent might be 3835059 or similar 3899129

 

[solrey]

08:24 - "20% of the suns rays that reached the planet several decades ago are no longer reaching the planet" (false, global dimming has reversed since the 90s)

A new report analyzing global cloud cover pretty much debunks, in conjunction with other related data, the whole idea of a covert geoengineering program/increased cloudiness.

A 39-Year Survey of Cloud Changes from Land Stations Worldwide 1971-2009

From the abstract:

An archive of land-based, surface-observed cloud reports has been updated and now spans 39
years from 1971 through 2009. Cloud-type information at weather stations is available in individual
reports or in long-term, seasonal, and monthly averages. A shift to a new data source and the
automation of cloud reporting in some countries has reduced the number of available stations; however
this dataset still represents most of the global land area.
Global average trends of cloud cover suggest a small decline in total cloud cover, on the order
of -0.4 % per Decade. Declining clouds in middle latitudes at high and middle levels appear
responsible for this trend. An analysis of zonal cloud cover changes suggests poleward shifts of the jet
streams in both hemispheres. The observed displacement agrees with other studies.

So right in the heart of where they claim to have evidence that cloud cover has increased due to artificial clouds being made by "chemtrails", at high altitudes over the US (middle latitudes), there has actually been a measured decrease in cloud cover for the past 39 years. I'd say that completely blows speculation of geoengineering right out of the water.

Of note is Table 2 on page 29:

All units % / Century DJF MAM JJA SON ANNUAL
Fog -0 -0 -1 -0 -0
Stratus (St) -3 -3 -3 -4 -3
Stratocumulus (Sc) 2 2 2 2 2
Cumulus (Cu) 1 0 1 2 1
Cumulonimbus (Cb) 1 0 0 0 0
Nimbostratus (Ns) -1 -2 -2 -2 -2
Altostratus (As) -2 -2 -1 -2 -2
Altocumulus (Ac) 1 1 0 3 1
High (cirriform) -1 -7 -2 -3 -2
Total cloud cover -3 -7 -4 -4 -4
Clear sky (frequency) 1 4 0 2 2

Sorry about the formatting but notice that the frequency of clear skies over the course of a year has increased with a trend of 2%/century. So much for the claim that clear blue skies are rare today but were the norm in the past.

 

[Mick West]

That's a very useful report. I would suspect though that WhyWATS would claim that their evidence is talking about just over the US (maybe even just over the Western US), and not globally. While they use the term "geoengineering", most of what they talk about in the film is weather modification i.e. more local changes. They really conflate the two terms - but then all along evidence of weather modification (cloud seeding, which nobody denies) has been used as evidence for geoengineering (which is a different thing, and science says is not going on).

 

[Met Watch]

As a resident of North Dakota, I will take a look at those claims and see what I can pull.

 

[Belfrey]

It occurred to me that although that 1967 Canadian study is a great example, it would help to other older (pre-90s) sources showing that aluminum is normally found in rainwater. I did some literature searches. It's hard to find much, perhaps in part because Al deposition is not considered all that important in terms of biogeochemistry, and thus often isn't measured in studies that look at rainwater composition.

However, I did find this 1986 paper:

Vermette, S.J., and V.G. Bingham. 1986. Trace Elements in Frobisher Bay Rainwater. Arctic 39(2): 177-179.

Using short-decay instrumental neutron activation analysis, concentrations of the trace elements Al, Br, Ca, Cl, Cu, I, Mg, Mn, Na, and V were determined in rainfall sampled from Frobisher Bay, N.W.T., during three weeks in the summer of 1984. Detectable concentrations were reported for all ten elements. Enrichment factors revealed that concentrations generally represent either crustal or oceanic natural background levels.

Here is the table of results, showing Al measurements ranging from 150 to 1300 parts per billion:

One of the interesting things I've learned in this literature search is that Al, as a primary component of the earth's crust, is commonly used as a reference element in order to determine what proportion of particulates in atmosphere or rainwater samples are from "crustal origin" (i.e. airborne dust from the earth's surface), versus pollution from other sources.

An important paper along these lines (cited in a lot of later papers) appears to be this 1975 paper:

Duce, R.A., G.L. Hoffman, W.H. Zoller. 1975. Atmospheric Trace Metals at Remote Northern and Southern Hemisphere Sites: Pollution or Natural? Science 187(4171): 59-61.

Duce et al. found that Aluminum was the most abundant trace metal found in air samples (ranging from 8 to 370 nanograms per standard cubic meter). They proposed that since it was relatively abundant and well known to be an element originating from the earth's crust, its abundance in the atmosphere could be used to determine the proportion of other elements that came from the earth's crust, versus from other sources such as industrial pollution - which they called the "enrichment factor" (EFcrust​):

In an attempt to determine the contribution
of crustal weathering to any
metal component of marine aerosols,
Al, which comprises over 8 percent of
the average crustal material, is used
as a reference element. An enrichment
factor, EFcrust​, for any element
X in the atmospheric particles relative
to the crust, can be calculated as fol-
lows (2 ):

where (X/Al)air​ and (X/Al)Crust​ refer,
respectively, to the ratio of the
concentration of X to that of Al in the
atmosphere and in the average crustal
material; values near unity for
any element X suggest that crustal material
is the probable source for that
element in the atmosphere in remote
areas.

From that, they calculated enrichment values for the trace metals based on the concentrations (in nanograms per standard cubic meter) of particulates detected in their atmospheric samples:

So, this again provides "pre-chemtrails" evidence that Al from the earth's crust is common as particulate matter in the air. And in fact, this same calculation is used by Vermette and Bingham (1986), using Al as a reference element to determine the "crustal enrichment" factor for other elements in rainwater samples:

 

[Jay Reynolds]

The Shasta group has falsely claimed that aluminum wasn't found in the atmosphere by the CARB (California Air Resources Board). This research paper by CARB debunked that claim, and Murphy was informed of the error in his first movie, yet continues to state the same bunk.
see:
https://www.metabunk.org/posts/1244

 

[Charlie Primero]

I didn't know this was a movie. Here are the websites:

Geoengineering Watch:http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Coalition Against Geoengineering: http://www.coalitionagainstgeoengineering.org


Farm Wars: http://farmwars.info/?p=8970#more-8970


Truth Media: http://www.truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com



Here is the movie:

​

I've only watched the first few minutes, but his video has high production values. It looks expensive.

Usually these leftist environmentalist websites and propaganda videos are funded by giant corporations via money funneled through a 503(c) non-profit foundation.

Does anyone know which corporations are funding this one?

 

[Mick West]

It's funded via donations. It looks expensive because he's got a volunteer professional filmmaker, Barry Kolsky, to do all the technical stuff.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Yes, by donations, but so far as I know, no accounting has been released showing the actual donors and amounts of donations. Nobody publicly knows where the money comes from. That information might be valuable, but probably only Michael J. Murphy knows the whole truth and he's not likely to talk. One thing I do know is that Murphy isn't regularly employed and appears to make his living solely by sales of chemtrail related products, dvd's and t-shirts, and donations. In other words, he could have a vested interest in maintaining this conundrum rather than solving it.

He's not just a regular guy anymore, if he didn't have chemtrails to make a living, he'd have to go get a real job.

 

[Unregistered]

I've noticed that the length of contrails varies with the altitude planes fly at and the atmospheric circumstances. Altitude and temperature also determine whether cloud forming takes place or not. Sometimes clouds form slowly and remain hanging up there for a long time, sometimes they form quickly and dissipate quickly. It has to do with the difference in temperatures. Therefore contrails don't form at low altitudes, as the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and the exhaust of the jet engines is then not great enough to form condensation, condensation being what both contrails and clouds are.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I've noticed that the length of contrails varies with the altitude planes fly at and the atmospheric circumstances. Altitude and temperature also determine whether cloud forming takes place or not. Sometimes clouds form slowly and remain hanging up there for a long time, sometimes they form quickly and dissipate quickly. It has to do with the difference in temperatures. Therefore contrails don't form at low altitudes, as the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and the exhaust of the jet engines is then not great enough to form condensation, condensation being what both contrails and clouds are.

Not just temperature, humidity and even pressure play a role. In engine produced contrails, it's not exactly as you say. The formation does generally require temps of -40C or below to freeze into ice crystals the invisible 1.4 lbs of water vapor produced by every pound of fuel burned. However, the persistence of the resulting ice crystals requires the air to be supersaturated with respect to ice. If the air is supersaturated with respect to ice, the contrail will persist and can even grow by accretion of ice out of the surrounding air. If that condition is not met, the ice crystals will return to invisible vapor through the process of sublimation.

Understanding this requres understanding the words that I used, and if those are unfamiliar, you might try looking them up.
You won't generally find a clear discussion of this in any of Michael J. Murphy's two films. You would think that, considering the subject matter, Murphy would be clear and straightforward on the basics about ordinary contrails, how they form and how they behave which akes them persist or not, but he isn't.

Folks need to think long and hard about that. Murphy is deliberately staying away from what is actually known about ordinary contrails, not because he doesn't know. He has been fully informed of the actual facts of the matter, and is deliberately evasive when asked about it.

When asked to explain the difference between an ordinary contrail and a chemtrail, he dodges the question:

​



He is wrong about persistent contrails being rare:
It is estimated that on a global basis the sky contains ice supersaturated areas capable of creating persistent contrails about 15% of the time, whose size can range from less than 1sq. km. to hundreds of sq. km., and may be only 500 m. thick. When a plane flies through air patches of differing levels of ice supersaturation, or merely changes altitude a few hundred meters, it can enter or depart one of these areas, leaving an on/off contrail.

Ever flown in a jet and felt the turbulence? Probably those 'bumps' you felt were the result of air that was rising or falling and probably had different chaacteristics from place to place as a result. That is why you have patchy clouds, moisture isn't always the same in each and every spot in the sky.

section 4 gives more details but uses more technical language:
http://aero-net.info/fileadmin/aeronet_files/links/documents/DLR/Schumann_Contrails.pdf

They installed moisture detectors on commercial flights and measured the extent of ice supersaturation:
:http://elib.dlr.de/9238/1/jgr-ice.pdf

 

[Unregistered]

where are your insightful discussions and analysis of the undeniable to the naked eye chemtrail/aerosol spraying and the countless photographic evidence and satellite imagery taken all over the world? And don't forget, the many air samples that are scientist tested and verified as well as by many lay people. By the way, ice does not exist in the air at any altitude, the ice is non existent, until the water vapor in the fuel that turns to ice as in the process of "condensation" (see "contrail", which means condensation trails).

 

[Des O]

"By the way, ice does not exist in the air at any altitude"

Natural cirrus clouds are made of ice and have existed for well before man did. Your statement is completely false.

 

[solrey]

Another type of high-altitude cloud that's made of ice crystals are noctilucent clouds. What about hail and graupel? Then there's ice fog, which is a fog of tiny ice crystals at or near ground level. Tall cumulonimbus clouds are made of water droplets at the bottom and ice crystals at the top. Ice crystals can form in the air at pretty much any altitude actually.

 

[Rico]

By the way, ice does not exist in the air at any altitude, the ice is non existent, until the water vapor in the fuel that turns to ice as in the process of "condensation".

Water vapor becomes visible due to condensation (gas to liquid), but it otherwise turns to ice because it freezes. It's pretty cold up there.

There is a reason why many high flying planes carry anti-/de-icing systems on board.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Isn't snow a form of ice in the air?

Why am I even responding to this claim?

Is this the sort of people Michael J. Murphy targeted with his movie?

 

[MikeC]

By the way, ice does not exist in the air at any altitude, the ice is non existent, until the water vapor in the fuel that turns to ice as in the process of "condensation" (see "contrail", which means condensation trails).

Just to add to the previous posters comments about your factual errors - there is essentially no water vapour in fuel.

There is a great deal of hydrogen in fuel - which combines with the oxygen in the air during combustion to produce water. This water is, of course, extremely hot, and so is in the vapour phase, and then condenses out as ice or liquid water as it cools in the surrounding atmosphere if conditions are right. If conditions are not right then it stays in the vapour phase and remains invisible.

 

[TWCobra]

Hail is not ice?

 

[Jazzy]

I've noticed that the length of contrails varies with the altitude planes fly at and the atmospheric circumstances. Altitude and temperature also determine whether cloud forming takes place or not. Sometimes clouds form slowly and remain hanging up there for a long time, sometimes they form quickly and dissipate quickly. It has to do with the difference in temperatures. Therefore contrails don't form at low altitudes, as the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and the exhaust of the jet engines is then not great enough to form condensation, condensation being what both contrails and clouds are.

Completely false.

What causes condensation is WATER. There is always water vapor in the atmosphere: air that we call "dry" is merely less wet. Water will condense out of saturated air immediately its temperature is lowered. This frequently happens at night, and in the morning we witness DEW.

In the exhaust of a gas turbine is plenty of water. Every pound of fuel produces 1.3 pounds of water. There is always water present in the air into which the engine discharges its exhaust. If the total quantity of water per unit quantity of mixed air exceeds saturation at that ambient temperature, then a proportion of that vapor WILL condense if it finds something to nucleate upon, and the exhaust gives it plentiful opportunity. (The atmosphere in the stratosphere, if saturated, and without the presence of an aircraft, may be cooled by entering night time and not receiving solar insolation. If there are no nuclei to attach to, then it is forced into supersaturation, and no condensation will occur. At ground level the air carries a load of natural aerosols which will always allow dew to form without supersaturation ever taking place. The stratosphere, on the other hand, can be very pure.)

An apparently static cloud is always in dynamic equilibrium: as many water molecules are evaporating at any time as are condensing. The same goes for contrails. Nothing is still...

The temperature difference between different modern turbofan exhaust temperatures (850 deg C and 1100 deg C = 250 deg C) is greater than the difference between cruise altitude (-40 deg C and 20 deg C = 60 deg C), so you are inferring that jets with a low (850 deg C) outlet temperature couldn't possibly make trails at all.

This isn't the case.

 

[Unregistered]

Ice does not form by condensation...its the process of accretion that forms ice... you are all wrong

there is so much more that goes into understanding what creates a contrail and clouds that people everywhere are misspeaking in here...

in regards to contrails one of the most important factors is lifting condensation level...and so much goes into this its nearly impossible to understand without getting into physics pretty deeply...

Im not sure where i stand on the whole chemtrail issue because I do know that whenever I look up where I live there is constantly cloud cover coming from persistent contrails on a daily basis... these are not taken into consideration in the climate/cloud cover reports everyone is referring to above...If you read there data collection methods and how they interpolate this data you will see that "contrails" are excluded in the data collection...add the fact that they even admit to data misinterpretations for a multitude of reasons including less stations and inaccurate reporting in various stations and that whole study is crap...

Even if "chem"trails do NOT exist we need to focus on how bad persistent contrails are effecting our world at this point.

 

[SR1419]

Ice does not form by condensation...its the process of accretion that forms ice... you are all wrong.

Doesn't ice form by freezing?

 

[Mick West]

Ice does not form by condensation...its the process of accretion that forms ice... you are all wrong

It's accretion ON ICE - it generally needs some ice to get started. In contrail formation that starts out as condensed water (which almost instantly freezes, and then starts to accrete).

See the EPA/NASA fact sheet:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/contrails.pdf

If sufficient humidity occurs in the exhaust plume, water condenseson particles to form liquid droplets. As the exhaust air
cools due to mixing with the cold local air, the newly formed
droplets rapidly freeze and form ice particles that make up a
contrail (See Figure 1). Thus, the surrounding atmosphere's
conditions determine to a large extent whether or not a contrail
will form after an aircraft's passage. Because the basic processes
are very well understood, contrail formation for a given aircraft
flight can be accurately predicted if atmospheric temperature
and humidity conditions are known.

This explains why contrails form when clouds will not form. The extra water is needed to bump the humidity over 100% temporarily.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Ice does not form by condensation...its the process of accretion that forms ice... you are all wrong

there is so much more that goes into understanding what creates a contrail and clouds that people everywhere are misspeaking in here...

in regards to contrails one of the most important factors is lifting condensation level...and so much goes into this its nearly impossible to understand without getting into physics pretty deeply...
.

Unregistered, feel free to get ito the physics as deeply as you wish. Many of us are familiar with the subject matter, there are qualified meteorologists who post here, and a discussion on even the highest level is possible here.

Have no fear...

 

[Mick West]

Post by secretschizoid23 moved into it's own thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/923-Questions-about-the-chemtrail-theory

 

[Jazzy]

Ice does not form by condensation...its the process of accretion that forms ice... you are all wrong

Ah. When you find yourself writing that you should pause for a moment, and ask yourself if you are not about to tell a roomful of professionals that they have been wrong all their life, from a position of...

there is so much more that goes into understanding what creates a contrail and clouds that people everywhere are misspeaking in here...

Got you. But you may be understanding poorly something which is perfectly well-spoken.

in regards to contrails one of the most important factors is lifting condensation level...and so much goes into this its nearly impossible to understand without getting into physics pretty deeply...

You could be correct. "Lifting condensation level" is something we've never met. We know about energy, latent and otherwise, and the dynamics of condensation, freezing, sublimation and evaporation, though.

We also have evidence as to what is exactly in a trail. Will that do? How deep would you like to go?

Im not sure where i stand on the whole chemtrail issue because I do know that whenever I look up where I live there is constantly cloud cover coming from persistent contrails on a daily basis... these are not taken into consideration in the climate/cloud cover reports everyone is referring to above...If you read there data collection methods and how they interpolate this data you will see that "contrails" are excluded in the data collection...add the fact that they even admit to data misinterpretations for a multitude of reasons including less stations and inaccurate reporting in various stations and that whole study is crap... Even if "chem"trails do NOT exist we need to focus on how bad persistent contrails are effecting our world at this point.

Yep. It is depressing to know that if it weren't for trails, your sky might be blue. Speak to your political representative about it. Get him to promote the next generation of ATC machines, which will allow civil aviation to avoid humid layers in the stratosphere.

 

[Concerned Person]

Thanks to all of you for your work in exposing this silliness.

I've looked on YouTube and have found bits and pieces, but are there any plans to put together a full video, even if just in solo lecture format, that addresses the BS these people are peddling? It would be really nice if there were a video I could send people about this. Heck, I'd be willing to contribute money toward something like that.

 

[Mick West]

Thanks to all of you for your work in exposing this silliness.

I've looked on YouTube and have found bits and pieces, but are there any plans to put together a full video, even if just in solo lecture format, that addresses the BS these people are peddling? It would be really nice if there were a video I could send people about this. Heck, I'd be willing to contribute money toward something like that.

As you've maybe seen, there's quite a few chemtrail debunking videos out there on YouTube, just search for Chemtrails Debunked:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chemtrails+debunked

(Note that also turns up a few believer videos)

This is one I did, mostly just interjecting commentary, could be better:
​

I know there's people working on longer videos, but there's none out yet.

 

[Unregistered]

chemtrails is real and just cause the mainstream media says it's safe and harmless makes me believe it even more.you's think your well educated in the subject but you are only told what you need to know.governments when giving enough power will always lie and control the mindless who believe everything our leaders in every professions say. LIKE EVOLUTION BS!!!

 

[Unregistered]

Can you find anything to be wrong that she has said in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noXsyACfGPc&feature=player_embedded

 

[Mick West]

Can you find anything to be wrong that she has said in this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noXsyACfGPc&feature=player_embedded

Plenty. For example at 2:00 to 2:30, she says that contrails usually evaporate in a few minutes. This is wrong, as contrails can last for hours, depending on humidity levels at altitude. And since that's the basis of the entire "chemtrail" argument, then that pretty much disproves her argument.

 

[Ross Marsden]

Iv'e met "Lifting condensation level", and it's nothing to do with contrail formation.

Contrails form as the result of a mixing process only. Very few, if any, clouds achieve their condensed (or frozen) state as a result of mixing. "Lifting condensation level" refers to achieving condensation as a result of lifting (and cooling).

 

[Unregistered]

You say a couple hours mick.. How do low altitude planes leave "contrails" that last days??

 

[Mick West]

You say a couple hours mick.. How do low altitude planes leave "contrails" that last days??

Generally they will not (assuming by low altitude you mean around 10,000 feet?) - they won't even leave a short trail. So if someone could actually produce video or photos of these low altitude planes, then that would be quite conclusive evidence of spraying.

However, no such evidence has been forthcoming.

 

[scombrid]

You say a couple hours mick.. How do low altitude planes leave "contrails" that last days??

I've never seen a "low altitude" trail.

How people that are seeing trails that last for days documenting the longevity of the trails? Where I live trails rarely stay put and more often than not are moving at high speed on jet stream winds. A trail left over the Gulf of Mexico by a plane flying from Miami to Houston will pass over my house on the east coast of Central Florida in an hour or two and disappear off the eastern horizon soon after if it persists that long. Are you using satellite images to track contrails when they leave the airspace around you that is visible from the ground? Or are you confusing the high thin overcast of cirrostratus associated with certain weather systems with being "chem-haze" that lasts for days?

 

[Trailspotter]

So if someone could actually produce video or photos of these low altitude planes, then that would be quite conclusive evidence of spraying.

How about this?

 

[Mick West]

How about this?

I'm assuming somewhere south of Canada I guess I should have specified that.

Perhaps instead of saying "low altitude trails", they should be saying (and looking for) "high temperature trails".

The big problem of course, is how you determine the altitude.

 

[MikeC]

Perhaps instead of saying "low altitude trails", they should be saying (and looking for) "high temperature trails".

Yep

​

 

[scombrid]

Well I have seen youtube videos where they insist that the contrails are below cumulus cloud visible in the same image.

​

It should seem obvious that the contrails are quite high and the cumulus clouds are not since the cumulus cloud obscure the trails when they pass between the camera and the trails and due to the faster apparent motion of the cumulus clouds. But there it is, some people wish to perceive those as "low altitude" trails and so they do.