Hoax: Fuel Dump video on Facebook [Flight BA244 from Buenos Aires to London]

[Jason]

"Analyst" wasn't on the flight. It was Mr. Bovey.

But, to answer from Mr. Bovey's own personal description....OTHER people were filming/videoing the fuel dump procedure. EVERYONE on the airplane knew full-well what it was, and what was going on.

THIS is part of what a professional airline crew attempts to do (time permitting)...inform the customers.

BUT....to address the "buy-off" idea? This is obviously nonsense. Nearly a hundred (or more?) people on-board with a view at or aft of the wing, and with the prevalence of video cameras nowadays?

I got that, I was just responding to analyst. I just wonder who do these people think are "doing" the buying. Are they implying Metabunk is buying off Chris, or the radio host, or who. So when they say, as @Analyst pointed on from FB, that he (chris) is being bought off, who do they think actually bought him off. Fewwww! It's hard trying to pose this question without sounding ignorant....

 

[deirdre]

I got that, I was just responding to analyst. I just wonder who do these people think are "doing" the buying. Are they implying Metabunk is buying off Chris, or the radio host, or who. So when they say, as @Analyst pointed on from FB, that he (chris) is being bought off, who do they think actually bought him off. Fewwww! It's hard trying to pose this question without sounding ignorant....

the satanic illuminati elites (ie. my uncle joe)

 

[Analyst]

Who can say? It depends on their personal conspiracy/superstition; The Authorities, the military, Da Gubmint, THEM, TPTB, Monsanto, Luciferians? I think it's as much the need to respond in a way that their support group won't call them out on.

 

[ChrisBovey]

Just out of curiosity, how do people suppose you were bought off. Who would've bought him off to be more precisely, and why would they have bought him off? Is there a group of people out there that buy off people just because their views are different. I often wonder when claims like that are made, if they ever actually think it through. I just don't understand that logic...

I'm very expensive, I doubt they could afford me

 

[Hama Neggs]

Indeed, and that means it's sometimes a good idea to say from the outset that you are not trying to prove chemtrails don't exist (as it's impossible to prove a negative), but you are just showing that this particular claim of evidence is wrong.

Yep. That's what I do. They still don't seem to get it, many times. It's curious just how many people don't understand the 'rules' of logic and debate.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I got that

Please, read it again. All I'm asking.

A fuel dump (just to get back to topic) is NOT extraordinary....at least not to pilots trained on airplanes that ARE capable
of 'dumping' (or more correctly, jettisoning) fuel.

Pilots WILL tend to each term as if they are the "same"....it is NOT a potential for "disinfo", it's just the way pilots communicate.

The MANUFACTURER might call the fuel jettison nozzles as "FUEL JETTISON NOZZLES" but, for A pilot, especially in an emergency scenario, we want to "DUMP" that weight (meaning the fuel) as FAST as we possibly can.....to eliminate WEIGHT!!!!

FOR this particular situation??? The Flight Deck crew HAD to dump enough fuel to lower the actual GROSS WEIGHT of the airplane (in this case a B-777).....I do NOT know which model....but EVERY version has a "MAXIMUM LANDING WEIGHT" restriction.

"IF" this airline HAD landed above its "maximum" weight, THEN there is NO WAY that it would have merely sat there, while any "problem" was fixed. Landing "over-weight" is a BIG DEAL, and must involve a GREAT number of Maintenance Inspections....with the airplane being taken into a hangar and looked at extensively.

 

[MikeC]

I wouldn't overstate the amount of inspection that happens - maintenance will look at he aircraft G-meters to establish how much deceleration it had on landing and cross reference that with the weight - this will tell them where and how closely to look for damage indicators - if none of the indicators are "sprung" then it won't go any further.

But it is more work, and an overweight landing definitely has the potential to wreck an aircraft.

 

[Jason]

Please, read it again. All I'm asking.

I thought you were correcting me about Analyst NOT being on the flight, that's what I responded too. I knew he wasn't on the flight and that it was Chris. I was discussing what Analyst saw on FB. Sorry for the confusion

 

[Ross Marsden]

All that being said, it is the MASS that has to be reduced to below some maximum, not the WEIGHT.

F = ma (Newton 1) is about mass, not weight.
The G-meters are measuring accelerations, and accelerations work on masses to produce the forces, one of which is weight. Weight is a force, not a mass.

Just sayin'. And trolling a bit.

 

[Stuwyatt]

I was listening to the interview again a few times tonight, focussing on what the interviewer was saying. I'd already dismissed the chemtrail theories long before Chris made the video, but I wasn't in any way well versed with the full claims of the chemtrailers. Neither was Chris.

I have a neuro illness, and have difficulties reading and retaining things - yet after two days of the most cursory research, I can say that the interviewer was anything but a journalist. He was a charlatan, and he knows it.

Every bit of 'proof' that he told Chris during the interview was nonsense, and has been debunked to death. Or it was mis-sold stuff that bore no relevance. And these people are looked up to as experts?

Are these people mentally ill? Are they simply scammers? An ego or power thing? Or is there something more sinister at play (like CIA mind control chemicals in MMR jabs, triggered by HAARP signals?)...

 

[Don von Hostas]

CIA mind-control chemicals in MMR jabs? That actually sounds more plausible than chemtrails, Stu...

But yes, that's a common practice, bullshit evidence/info gets totally debunked, and they just keep on recycling a lot of the same bunk, over and over and over, to whoever will listen. It's insane.

 

[Ellsworth]

I am looking into this myself. I was previously a criminal investigator, and I am interested in genuine conspiracies such as Snowden, and he has done an excellent job of bringing evidence into the public arena. However, the chemtrail people do not do so well.

I think it is a genuine lack of understanding of how proof is obtained, and cognitive biases such as outlined in this bookhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/You-are-Not-So-Smart/dp/1851689397/, which I have ordered from Amazon.

I have actually been looking into how to try and "prove" chemtrails, i.e. be the devil's advocate as it were, because I know a group of people who think they exist, and if the claim is true, then of course I want it exposed. Unfortunately, at present, the evidence they present as proof is well below adequate.

In support of chemtrails, I was presented with the Railway Children video which was debunked here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-footage-reused-in-modern-advertisement.2545/, however, like @ChrisBovey, I saw these trails when I was younger. so this does not cut it for me, and a court would make mincemeat out of anyone bringing this television commercial as evidence.

However, it was interesting to note that there was a genuine contrail in the original 1970s film. This was just a still, but I watched it online last night, and saw a contrail at 30 minutes and 35 seconds. It is visible for about 3-4 seconds. You can see it here, behind the flock of pigeons.

I have ordered a copy of the original VHS format of this for 1p on Amazon. If the contrail is not in the video, then it will provide support towards the conspiracy idea that things are being edited. But even if the latter, it is not conclusive proof.

The second thing I have done is ordered a secondhand copy of Clouds of the World, in an old hardback format. I am interested in this, I saw the online pictures https://plus.google.com/photos/107393796095434664991/albums/5363662113705530081. However, these could have been altered. Best evidence is the original print, and early reprints. I don't mind buying this, I had a friend who was a meteoroligist and he explained clouds to me, they are interesting. And, my physics teacher in the 1970s explained how contrails were formed by sublimation http://www.aviationweather.ws/027_Change_of_State.php.

In addition there is an earlier book written by the same author, available in full online https://ia700804.us.archive.org/28/items/AColourGuideToClouds/ScorerWexler-AColourGuideToClouds.pdf. The print date is 1963. Contrails are discussed on page 44. However, this is a digital image, so - to be fair - this could have been altered too, possibly meaning that the security ring fencing for the chemtrail conspiracy extends as far as the administrators of online libraries, as well as employees who edit television adverts.

I will wait for the book and VHS to arrive, but as I am travelling, I will not see them until December.

The point is, if the chemtrail conspiracy, however big or small, is to be taken seriously by mainstream journalists and media, it must present facts, verifiable in a court of law. So, if it turns out that the VHS and an original copy of "Clouds of the World" does show contrails, then pictorial evidence that so many chemtrail people must be completely ignored, as it proves nothing. This of course will be of help to people who believe in chemtrails, because it will them make them realise that they must focus their efforts on gaining different proof.

I don't propose to spend too much time on this, I have many other things to focus on in my life. But, like @Mick West I find these things interesting. And of course if this particular conspiracy has any truth, then the people who support it should be guided as to how to bring it out, and we should all know about it. Copying YouTube videos and poor presentation of evidence will ensure that it stays limited to the pages of David Icke and Neon Nettle.

 

[NoParty]

I am looking into this myself. I was previously a criminal investigator, and I am interested in genuine conspiracies such as Snowden, and he has done an excellent job of bringing evidence into the public arena. However, the chemtrail people do not do so well.

I think it is a genuine lack of understanding of how proof is obtained, and cognitive biases such as outlined in this bookhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/You-are-Not-So-Smart/dp/1851689397/, which I gave ordered from Amazon.

I have actually been looking into how to try and "prove" chemtrails, i.e. be the devil's advocate as it were, because I know a group of people who think they exist, and if the claim is true, then of course I want it exposed. Unfortunately, at present, the evidence they present as proof is well below adequate.

In support of chemtrails, I was presented with the Railway Children video which was debunked here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-footage-reused-in-modern-advertisement.2545/, however, like @ChrisBovey, I saw these trails when I was younger. so this does not cut it for me, and a court would make mincemeat out of anyone bringing this television commercial as evidence.

However, it was interesting to note that there was a genuine contrail in the original 1970s film. This was just a still, but I watched it online last night, and saw a contrail at 30 minutes and 35 seconds. It is visible for about 3-4 seconds. You can see it here, behind the flock of pigeons.

I have ordered a copy of the original VHS format of this for 1p on Amazon. If the contrail is in the video, then it is good evidence. If it is not in the video, then it will provide support towards the conspiracy idea. But even if the latter, it is not conclusive proof.

The second thing I have done is ordered a secondhand copy of Clouds of the World, in an old hardback format. I am interested in this, I saw the online pictures https://plus.google.com/photos/107393796095434664991/albums/5363662113705530081. However, these could have been altered. Best evidence is the original print, and early reprints. I don't mind buying this, I had a friend who was a meteoroligist and he explained clouds to me, they are interesting. And, my physics teacher in the 1970s explained how contrails were formed by sublimation http://www.aviationweather.ws/027_Change_of_State.php.

In addition there is an earlier book written by the same author, available in full online https://ia700804.us.archive.org/28/items/AColourGuideToClouds/ScorerWexler-AColourGuideToClouds.pdf. The print date is 1963. Contrails are discussed on page 44. However, this is a digital image, so - to be fair - this could have been altered too, meaning that the security ring fencing for the chemtrail conspiracy extends as far as the administrators of online libraries, as well as employees who edit television adverts.

I will wait for the book and VHS to arrive, but as I am travelling, I will not see them until December.

The point is, if the chemtrail conspiracy, however big or small, is to be taken seriously by mainstream journalists and media, it must present facts, verifiable in a court of law. So, if it turns out that the VHS and an original copy of "Clouds of the World" does show contrails, then pictorial evidence must be completely ignored, as it proves nothing. This of course will be of help to people who believe in chemtrails, because it will them make them realise that they must focus their efforts on gaining different proof.

I don't propose to spend too much time on this, I have many other things to focus on in my life. But, like @Mick West I find these things interesting. And of course if this particular conspiracy has any truth, then the people who support it should be guided as to how to bring it out, and we should all know about it. Copying YouTube videos and poor presentation of evidence will ensure that it stays limited to the pages of David Icke and Neon Nettle.

To this point it would appear that the biggest reason for their lack of substantive proof
is an absolute real-world lack of substantive proof.

Their shoddy "evidence" isn't not taken seriously because they can't get the media's ear (the media loves train wrecks)...
their shoddy "evidence" isn't taken seriously because it's so damned shoddy. And nonsensical. There's no there there.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Steve Nicholls I also have an interest in the psychology of conspiracy theories and how they spread online.

One thing I have seen over and over again is that the people who spread them are NOT interested in digging too deeply. Elsewhere on this site you will see where people have offered to assist with taking air and water samples or even chartering an aircraft to fly into a "chemtrail" to test it. Nobody wants to take them up on it.

Any form of research that risks not supporting their theory seems to be shunned. They say "question everything" but they don't ask questions themselves, or if they do they refuse to listen to the answers. It's "question everything, except anything that questions reality"!

@ChrisBovey 's video was a good example. None of the "believers" tried to identify the flight, which was clearly a commercial one. But there were enough clues on Chris's Facebook page, and in the video itself, that I could find out which flight he was on, and the simple explanation, within less than an hour of first seeing the video. And if I hadn't done so, I'm sure Mick or some other member here would have done the same.

(By the way I have had people asking me whether I knew Chris before this incident. I didn't.)

 

[Ellsworth]

Yeah @NoParty that is how it seems. @Trailblazer yes I agree, seems that way. I asked for evidence on quantities needed for distribution, but a reply was not forthcoming. So that's why I do my own little investigation, because I have a few of these people who are real life friends and it is causing friction. Then I can definitively say that I have done my bit, and photographs are either invalid (with material proof provided), because contrails have been around since jet engines, or otherwise. Then I'm done.

By the way it has been suggested that @Mick West is paid by someone, because of his status of "Staff". I joined and clarified that directly with him, the most obvious thing to do. I never "shoot the messenger", I simply talk to them . Turns out it is a software feature. But what is important is the evidence, and all my Google searches led to this site, which is how I ended up here. You were the first to debunk @ChrisBovey at the early "lie" stage. I was impressed. And I can see now there is lots of good stuff here.

Incidentally this is the "best evidence" rule I am applying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_evidence_rule, which is why I am going to the added extra trouble of buying a few things online, to get indisputable hard evidence rather that YouTube videos or hearsay. The courts these days are slacking on this rule, presumably because of time and cost restraints, but I was taught it in my youth, so I will apply it.

I think best evidence is probably ideal when dealing with conspiracy theories, because if the evidence is anything less than best, the party who disputes it will claim there is a distortion between source and the evidence presented.

 

[Mick West]

The second thing I have done is ordered a secondhand copy of Clouds of the World, in an old hardback format. I am interested in this, I saw the online pictures https://plus.google.com/photos/107393796095434664991/albums/5363662113705530081. However, these could have been altered.

That's actually my web album (I posted as "Cirrus Uncinus" back when I started Contrailscience.com), and photos I took of my personal copy of the book. I have several similar books:

 

[Debra]

However, it was interesting to note that there was a genuine contrail in the original 1970s film. This was just a still, but I watched it online last night, and saw a contrail at 30 minutes and 35 seconds. It is visible for about 3-4 seconds. You can see it here, behind the flock of pigeons.

That is not the original movie of the Railway Children that you have linked, but an adaptation made in 2000 for television. Blasphemy!

 

[ChrisBovey]

I'm confused, what has the 1970s film, The Railway Children, got to do with contrails?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm confused, what has the 1970s film, The Railway Children, got to do with contrails?

A few years ago there was a TV ad for Virgin Trains which used scenes from that film. The ad blended the footage with modern-day scenes that included contrails.

That fact has been misrepresented as "old films are having 'chemtrails' added to then digitally to make it look like they have always been there".

Strange, but there it is.

Edit: here's a link.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-footage-reused-in-modern-advertisement.2545/

 

[Hama Neggs]

The point is, if the chemtrail conspiracy, however big or small, is to be taken seriously by mainstream journalists and media, it must present facts, verifiable in a court of law. So, if it turns out that the VHS and an original copy of "Clouds of the World" does show contrails, then pictorial evidence that so many chemtrail people must be completely ignored, as it proves nothing.

We have already crossed that bridge. The believers just alter their claims to say that it has been going on since... whenever... The conspiracy theory morphs to explain away any problems you can bring up. Seen it over and over again.

 

[ChrisBovey]

A few years ago there was a TV ad for Virgin Trains which used scenes from that film. The ad blended the footage with modern-day scenes that included contrails.

That fact has been misrepresented as "old films are having 'chemtrails' added to then digitally to make it look like they have always been there".

Strange, but there it is.

Edit: here's a link.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-footage-reused-in-modern-advertisement.2545/

Thanks, that's crazy lol

 

[Hevach]

The point is, if the chemtrail conspiracy, however big or small, is to be taken seriously by mainstream journalists and media, it must present facts, verifiable in a court of law. So, if it turns out that the VHS and an original copy of "Clouds of the World" does show contrails, then pictorial evidence that so many chemtrail people must be completely ignored, as it proves nothing. This of course will be of help to people who believe in chemtrails, because it will them make them realise that they must focus their efforts on gaining different proof.

Not really. Some years back Fox News ran a "story" on bovine growth hormone that was cut from whole cloth and absurd enough that the beef industry sued. Fox could not defend their claims or the source, both of which turned out to be full of it, so their defense (and the courts ultimately sided with them!) was that, yes, the story was knowingly falsified, but that there was no requirement that the news tell the truth. All the news stations took note of this decision, and the qualify of their fact checking (which ranged from bad to mediocre to begin with) has been in a nosedive ever since, and today they are regularly taken in by internet trolls who claim to be experts or insiders, and particularly on matters of government and science are nearly blind to the truth when it does not conform to their chosen narrative.

Since then, the media has taken seriously birthers, truthers, false flagers, and the possibility that a plane disappeared into a black hole, and those aren't even the really silly ones. They have accused innocent people of murder, rape, and even terrorism without a moment's consideration. They have destroyed corporations and organizations for the sake of narrative. They are, as a whole, even worse than the most stubborn conspiracy theorists for repeating verifiably false information over and over for years.

That they still have not taken chemtrailers seriously is a stunning indictment of the quality of their evidence.

 

[Ellsworth]

That is not the original movie of the Railway Children that you have linked, but an adaptation made in 2000 for television. Blasphemy!

Oh well, just as well I ordered the VHS then. Now all I need is a VHS player! I @Mick West said there is a contrail when the children run towards the river. Hopefully that is in the 1970s one. Thanks for that!

 

[deirdre]

Oh well, just as well I ordered the VHS then. Now all I need is a VHS player! I @Mick West said there is a contrail when the children run towards the river. Hopefully that is in the 1970s one. Thanks for that!

theres 6 pages of early contrails in photos and movies here https://www.metabunk.org/threads/pre-1995-persistent-contrail-archive.487/page-6#post-126595

 

[Ellsworth]

I'm confused, what has the 1970s film, The Railway Children, got to do with contrails?

I am trying to find material evidence of earlier contrails Chris. You said you remember them on the river Dart, I also remember seeing them in Wales, but I want PROOF. Hopefully this VHS video, filmed in the 70s, has a contrail.

One of the mainstays of the chemtrail argument is these trails exist, and are only recent. Not so.

Now, if there are trails pre 1990s, this means the chemtrail supporters can save themselves the time and effort of focussing on pictures as evidence. It is meaningless. Then they can focus on what's inside the planes, ie test the fuel or something.

I think many chemtrail people are lured into believing that chemtrails exist because others are saying so, and then they get trapped there, similar to the Solomon Asche conformity experiment in the 1960s, pictured here.

If I was in that study, I would attempt to break the deadlock by saying I have difficulty in making out the difference, and I would ask for a pencil so that I have something to check the length with. This would then make others see, I think. It would disrupt the cognitive dissonance in a more positive way than by simply disagreeing, which causes a backlash from the majority. This will catch the majority unaware, they won't have an answer. And if they do. then so will I. I'll think one up

 

[Ellsworth]

That's actually my web album (I posted as "Cirrus Uncinus" back when I started Contrailscience.com), and photos I took of my personal copy of the book. I have several similar books:

Thanks, whenever I Google for contrail / chemtrail stuff I come across your work Mick. The fact that you have the books gives me a shortcut. I need only buy ONE as hard copy to show individuals, then I can show your list. The answer, "well yours is real but the others he has are fake" does not work too well as an argument.

 

[Mick West]

Thanks, whenever I Google for contrail / chemtrail stuff I come across your work Mick. The fact that you have the books gives me a shortcut. I need only buy ONE as hard copy to show individuals, then I can show your list. The answer, "well yours is real but the others he has are fake" does not work too well as an argument.

Clouds of the world is the best one, but I'd also recommend Peterson's Field Guide to the Atmosphere (1981) as a more portable one. Cheap and lots of copies available online for a few dollars.
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-A.../ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-p...ncent-j-schaefer/1003221816?ean=9780395330333

 

[NoParty]

Thanks, whenever I Google for contrail / chemtrail stuff I come across your work Mick. The fact that you have the books gives me a shortcut. I need only buy ONE as hard copy to show individuals, then I can show your list. The answer, "well yours is real but the others he has are fake" does not work too well as an argument.

Again, none of the "chemtrail" stuff really works too well as an argument if one takes any time or care to unpack the wild claims.

Still, I appreciate your efforts to ground your arguments in solid, tangible items that are harder to wave off.

 

[Jason]

Clouds of the world is the best one, but I'd also recommend Peterson's Field Guide to the Atmosphere (1981) as a more portable one. Cheap and lots of copies available online for a few dollars.
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-A.../ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-p...ncent-j-schaefer/1003221816?ean=9780395330333

But when you try to use photographic evidence from books, magazines, and news papers that predate the 90's aren't you typically met with; "well, how do we know those are persistent contrails, all your photo proves is that there was a contrail, and we don't know how long it remained based on a photo". How do you respond to this?

 

[Ellsworth]

Yes @NoParty, grounding is a good word, I guess that is what I am trying to do. I have some real life friends who I can argue these through with.

@Mick West, thanks for your book suggestion. I just bought a hard copy, shipped from the USA, for $5 including postage. This one is best for air travel, very handy. I notice there are no Kindle editions of these!

 

[Ellsworth]

But when you try to use photographic evidence from books, magazines, and news papers that predate the 90's aren't you typically met with; "well, how do we know those are persistent contrails, all your photo proves is that there was a contrail, and we don't know how long it remained based on a photo". How do you respond to this?

Good point. My only answer to that is me, I saw them, and I remember them. If they don't believe that, then Houston, we have a problem, or rather they do, as far as I am concerned.

However, I will not add evidence that I did not see. I lived in rural Wales, and there were few jet aircraft in the 60s and 70s. This made them more startling and noticeable in the blue sky, and as a child I observed the trails, all different lengths. My friend who was interested in meteorology explained this to me. He was always reading books on clouds in the library, and he showed me why this happens. A few years later, my physics teacher explained too. Physics was my favourite subject so all of this information was easily understood by me.

 

[Hama Neggs]

One of the mainstays of the chemtrail argument is these trails exist, and are only recent. Not so.

That used to be true, but a bunch of them no say it didn't start recently at all. You can't get them to care about the contradictions between the various versions of their claims and story. These days a bunch of them just say that the trails are different, now, in some un-described way. Usually they focus on the "expanding to cover the sky" aspect or the increased number of trails. Explaining the reasons for any of that usually falls on deaf ears.

 

[Mick West]

These days a bunch of them just say that the trails are different, now, in some un-described way.

Fortunately that's a bit too vague to spread. I still find that over 90% of chemtrail believers are of the "contrails cannot persist" variety. The "trails are occurring when the air is not ice-supersaturated" folk generally don't get much traction, as nobody understands it.

 

[Ellsworth]

They all say different things, but don't seem to be bothered by facts. I suggested spectrometry, and this came back to me.


So someone has distorted this to confuse people.

Chemtrails seems to primarily attract people with little or so scientific knowledge. This makes scientific debate very difficult.

 

[Stuwyatt]

Steve, I just want to say that I hugely respect your pursuit of proof. It takes such little effort or expense, [...]

[Edit] Apologies for venting and stepping over the boundaries of politeness. I'll respect the rules of this site.

 

[Mick West]

Chemtrails seems to primarily attract people with little or so scientific knowledge.

Nearly everyone has little or no scientific knowledge - it's just the normal state of being for most people. It's something you have to deal with, rather than bemoan.

This thread is veering towards impolite characterizations of people. Can I just remind people of the politeness policy:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/

 

[NoParty]

They all say different things, but don't seem to be bothered by facts. I suggested spectrometry, and this came back to me.


So someone has distorted this to confuse people.

Chemtrails seems to primarily attract people with little or so scientific knowledge. This makes scientific debate very difficult.

Ha-ha! If only we could get the guy that made that lousy vid to point a spectrometer at his Pontiac Aztek's exhaust pipe!

Voila! Pollution! But "no strange chemicals." (where are the high levels barium or aluminum chemtrailers predict?).
Seriously: a video built upon text on a screen, of Wikipedia pages...to "reveal" that airplanes pollute?

 

[Ellsworth]

Nearly everyone has little or no scientific knowledge - it's just the normal state of being for most people. It's something you have to deal with, rather than bemoan.

Sometimes it is difficult to avoid drifting towards impoliteness, I was not even aware, so thanks for your reply. How about chemtrails does not seem to be supported by people with good scientific knowledge.

So perhaps the way forward is to demistify science. I remember my physics teacher set up some kind of demonstration in a fume cupboard to show how contrails lingered. Or, maybe we just have to live with other people's beliefs, as long as they are harmless

 

[Ellsworth]

Steve, I just want to say that I hugely respect your pursuit of proof. It takes such little effort or expense, [...]

Thanks Stuwyatt! To me it is just like a chess game. I enjoy the psychology of it too, because I learn from it

 

[Jason]

Or, maybe we just have to live with other people's beliefs, as long as they are harmless

But are they harmless? When threats are made, and people point lasers at planes to distract the pilots, is that considered harmless. I agree that the overwhelming majority are harmless, but there are always that select few that take it to the next level..