Maybe there are both chemtrails AND contrails?

HotRod

New Member
(split and re-titled from https://www.metabunk.org/threads/apparent-nasa-scientist-admitting-chemtrails.2009 )

I'm torn about chem/con trails. I know that one product of combustion is water (vapor) and that, given the low temperatures where jets fly, this vapor will condense forming a cloud. That is 8th grade science. However, the existence of these " clouds" and the possibility that there are other agents in them need not be mutually exclusive.

For example: I fertilize my lawn with Scott's Turf Builder. In that fertilizer, there is also weed killer. The analagos argument is that I am either fertilizing my lawn or killing weeds. One or the other...absolute. In fact, I am doing both. Why then must these trails be one or the other? Could it be possible that the contrails are a byproduct of combustion AND have chemicals to alter the atmosphere? If one wanted/needed to add these chemicals to the sky for some purpose, it would make sense to add them to jet fuel, since jets are a perfect mechanism for dispersal. It is akin to adding iodine to table salt.

I am not siding either way, but the scholarly mind should allow that both arguments might be true.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There are several problems with just adding a chemical to jet fuel. One is that the chemicals would alter how the fuel is burned. It could cause many types of engine problems. Think about the problems one has with their car if they were to accidentally use diesel instead of gasoline?

Another problem is weight. There is no way for a plane to carry enough chemical to spray constantly.

I suggest that you read a lot of chem trails posts here. There are pilots and others that have details I don't.
 

solrey

Senior Member.
I'm torn about chem/con trails. I know that one product of combustion is water (vapor) and that, given the low temperatures where jets fly, this vapor will condense forming a cloud. That is 8th grade science. However, the existence of these " clouds" and the possibility that there are other agents in them need not be mutually exclusive.

For example: I fertilize my lawn with Scott's Turf Builder. In that fertilizer, there is also weed killer. The analagos argument is that I am either fertilizing my lawn or killing weeds. One or the other...absolute. In fact, I am doing both. Why then must these trails be one or the other? Could it be possible that the contrails are a byproduct of combustion AND have chemicals to alter the atmosphere? If one wanted/needed to add these chemicals to the sky for some purpose, it would make sense to add them to jet fuel, since jets are a perfect mechanism for dispersal. It is akin to adding iodine to table salt.

I am not siding either way, but the scholarly mind should allow that both arguments might be true.

Is the scholarly mind aware that Scotts Turf Builder with weed killer contains 2,4-D... one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange? Not to mention insane amounts of nitrogen. At least you're not a chemtrail activist otherwise one could say there is some hypocrisy there.

There are threads/discussions on the forum about why chemicals to alter the atmosphere are not being detected by scientists who study various qualities of the atmosphere, including but not limited to aerosols and optical transparency. There are also details explaining why those chemicals couldn't be added to jet fuel, performance and damage issues are just scratching the surface.

Welcome aboard.
 

HotRod

New Member
Point taken. The caviat is that " reports" are true. They could be false, hence the conspiracy. There is no evidence other than you or I testing jet exhaust that would prove/disprove the theory. For us to agree we would have to test together. All "reports" are third-party, and therefore subject to doubt. Believing reports that say one way or another just reinforces what you already believe. Therein lies the problem. Unless we conduct experiments ourselves, it is just hear-say.

Like I said, I am neutral, but I enjoy the argument. It is like the wave v. particle nature of light. There is evidence of both.
 

HotRod

New Member
There are several problems with just adding a chemical to jet fuel. One is that the chemicals would alter how the fuel is burned. It could cause many types of engine problems. Think about the problems one has with their car if they were to accidentally use diesel instead of gasoline?

Another problem is weight. There is no way for a plane to carry enough chemical to spray constantly.

I suggest that you read a lot of chem trails posts here. There are pilots and others that have details I don't.

I add a bottle of carb cleaner to my gas tank and my car runs just fine. Why would this be any different? I am sure that, given our technology and chemical engineering skills we could make a fuel additive that could have a secondary effect. Not saying it happens, but it could be possible. And if it is true, why be upset about it? If it is to benefit us (ie slow global warming) then by all means, add away.

Just because there are a zillion posts doesn't make it true. There are just as many that oppose your view. I have read both. Why not keep an open mind?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What evidence is there of 'chem trails'?

A bottle of carb cleaner is formulated to work with gasoline, you are adding only tiny amount of chemicals into your fuel system. What would happen if you filled your tank with carb cleaner? Would your car run? run with issues? run and then be damaged? or not run?

Airlines are not going to do something that reduces the performance of their engines.

Please check out the other threads. There is a LOT of great information here.
 

HotRod

New Member
Who said you needed to fill the tank? Is it not possible to add 1 part per thousand, lets say, that works with the existing fuel to give a desired effect? Given the size of a fuel tank on a jet, a little goes a long way. Perhaps it combines with the fuel to creat an exhaust that modifies the environment. Why must it be all or nothing?

Like I said, I have read the arguments and I am not satisfied. Reading all of the "debunk" threads doesn't give an objective perspective. That is like only reading the Boston Herald and determining that the Red Sox are the best team in baseball (which they are). It all could be a myth...or true, but your " evidence" holds as much water as a colander. It is written by people who have a vested interest in their own opinion.

They way I see it, this has an equal probability of being true or false as all evidence presented is 3rd party. If we were to publish either case in a pier review journal, it would be thrown out for lack of concrete evidence. All info is created by those with a pre-determined position about the subject...one way or another. This is hardly "hard" science and therefor a matter of opinion. My opinion is " undecided" as that is the only one that stands up to the evidence provided.

Perhaps "I don't know" is the correct position. Why be so entrenched either way?
 

JFDee

Senior Member.
It is like the wave v. particle nature of light. There is evidence of both.
That's exactly the difference to the chemtrail/contrail debate. There is no evidence for chemtrails.

What's more, the assumption of large scale deliberate chemical spraying is based on a lack of knowledge. Science explains all sorts of contrails quite well, including those lingering for hours. There is no reason for informed people to claim "this <phenomenon-in-the-sky> can't be natural".

So why demand an alternative explanation in the first place? There is no scientific problem, no conundrum like there was with the nature of light.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What kind of a chemical could be mixed in that type of concentration that could still have an effect on millions of times more atmosphere?

That would take something that even Star Trek couldn't imagine.
 

HotRod

New Member
It never hurts to ask questions, especially in this day and age. If the mainstream data was so compelling, questions wouldn't be asked. No one is questioning that the sun is yellow or the sky is blue. Some people looked up and said, " gee, that looks different than it used to." maybe it does or maybe it doesn't. Why get your knickers in a bunch about it? Oh, that is because we online folk need to be right...and we will google you to death to prove it. Lol

I'll say it again, I'm not on either side. Just looking at it with objectivity. Any position worth defending must endure the lense of scrutiny. That is the cornerstone of science. Being told what you expect to hear is an empty purse.

And thank god we seek alternate explanations or we would still believe a the world was flat.
 

HotRod

New Member
What kind of a chemical could be mixed in that type of concentration that could still have an effect on millions of times more atmosphere?

That would take something that even Star Trek couldn't imagine.

A few PPM of CFCs wrecked the ozone layer.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Why get your knickers in a bunch about it? Oh, that is because we online folk need to be right...and we will google you to death to prove it. Lol
Lol indeed. What did you come to a site dedicated to exposing bunk for? The point is, there is easily demonstrable bunk in 'chemtrails'. It's not a case of 'well, it can't be proved either way so it's just an opinion'. It completely fails to hold up to logical and scientific scrutiny. If you think otherwise you really haven't been paying attention.

I'll say it again, I'm not on either side. Just looking at it with objectivity. Any position worth defending must endure the lense of scrutiny. .....
Show where its endurance fails under your lens of scrutiny then. That's what this site is for.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
It never hurts to ask questions, especially in this day and age.

No. The danger comes of asking questions when a person has already decided, either consciously or subconsciously, what the answer should be.

This creates a babble of voices asking, but who's owners can't hope to see the answers for their own bias. In turn, this sentences those who might provide answers to bashing their proverbial heads against the wall of pointless repetition and inanity.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
. If the mainstream data was so compelling, questions wouldn't be asked.

This is the issue though, it is compelling. All those who believe in chemtrails fail to look at the data or fail to understand it though. Countless times I've come across claims that there's something different about the trails because contrails don't persist and spread when this is demonstrably untrue. Other than that there's no reason to suspect there's anything going on at all.

Certainly there's no reason to completely trust TPTB and it's good to question but you need a reason to ask the questions in the first place.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
It's worse than that - you'll often find chemmies saying things like "I don't want to hear your so called science" and "science doesn't tell you everything", "there's no evidence you can show me that'll change my mind" and similar - it's not just that they don't believe it because they don't know better, it is that the deliberately refuse to believe it because they do not want to know the truth.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I'll say it again, I'm not on either side. Just looking at it with objectivity. Any position worth defending must endure the lense of scrutiny. That is the cornerstone of science.
I'd say that another cornerstone is empirical evidence. Are you aware of any at all that supports the "chemtrails" idea?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
For us to agree we would have to test together. All "reports" are third-party, and therefore subject to doubt.

If you go for a blood test and the doctor tells you you are deficient in something, do you have to actually perform the test yourself? The way you put it, absolutely nothing can be believed unless a person sees every step for themselves. Sounds like the people who think Sandy Hook was a false flag. Oh but then the Boston Bombing was also called a false flag, and there was lots of stuff you could see first hand. Do CTers even trust themselves? Their spouses? Really makes me wonder.

Just because there are a zillion posts doesn't make it true. There are just as many that oppose your view. I have read both. Why not keep an open mind?

There comes a point where the evidence is either there or it isn't. CTers minds are so open their brains are not in danger of falling out, they've already fallen out.

Perhaps "I don't know" is the correct position. Why be so entrenched either way?
Because not only is there NO proof chemtrails exist, when "proof" is offered (rain sample i.e.) it's erroneous. The proof is, there are no chemtrails.

It never hurts to ask questions, especially in this day and age.

What do you mean "especially in this day and age"? Why is today a better day than yesterday?
 
Perhaps "I don't know" is the correct position. Why be so entrenched either way?

HotRod. I think it boils down to people will be willing to re-think there position if some credible evidence shows up on the scene.
There are alot of different theories. The one with the additive is pretty much the only one that would be able to used on a large scale.
Still..........

You are left with the fact that there would be a massive amount of people involved.
These things are supposedly being seen not just all over the US, but all over the world. With the exception of Antarctica.
And some days they are there. And some days they aren't. So it's not in every load of fuel. And different airliners get their fuel from different sources.
So it couldn't be just one person putting some stuff in a massive depository of fuel.
There would need to be a global conspiracy.
Thousands of people involved.
And as of yet there just hasn't been anything to suggest this has happened.
I'm certainly willing to reconsider my position - just haven't seen anything yet to make me believe otherwise.
 

GregMc

Senior Member.
These things are supposedly being seen not just all over the US, but all over the world. With the exception of Antarctica.



You might find that many high altitude flights over or near Antarctica are highly likely to leave contrails. This cold weather take-off shows a contrail at ground level. Some airliner routes such as QF63 fly down over the French Antarctic islands as part of their great circle route and likely leave decent contrails there too. Just not a lot of folks down that way to see them.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Belief in chemtrails is based upon a suggestion of knowledge and speculation reenforced by the existence and increase of persistent contrails . . . believers don't trust authority and the science the authorities fund and promote . . . it is a hard sell to convince someone they don't exist once they accept them as real . . .
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
It never hurts to ask questions, especially in this day and age. If the mainstream data was so compelling, questions wouldn't be asked. No one is questioning that the sun is yellow or the sky is blue. Some people looked up and said, " gee, that looks different than it used to." maybe it does or maybe it doesn't. Why get your knickers in a bunch about it? Oh, that is because we online folk need to be right...and we will google you to death to prove it. Lol

I'll say it again, I'm not on either side. Just looking at it with objectivity. Any position worth defending must endure the lense of scrutiny. That is the cornerstone of science. Being told what you expect to hear is an empty purse.

And thank god we seek alternate explanations or we would still believe a the world was flat.



Actually, there ARE conspiracy theorists going on, these days, about how the sun is a different color than it used to be.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Who said you needed to fill the tank? Is it not possible to add 1 part per thousand, lets say, that works with the existing fuel to give a desired effect? Given the size of a fuel tank on a jet, a little goes a long way. Perhaps it combines with the fuel to creat an exhaust that modifies the environment. Why must it be all or nothing?

The chemtrail CT have never even tried checking the fuel.
But all that is needed to make persistent contrails is the water formed in combustion. Even a plane fueled by pure hydrogen would make a contrail, so nothing has to be added at all.

Like I said, I have read the arguments and I am not satisfied. Reading all of the "debunk" threads doesn't give an objective perspective. That is like only reading the Boston Herald and determining that the Red Sox are the best team in baseball (which they are). It all could be a myth...or true, but your " evidence" holds as much water as a colander. It is written by people who have a vested interest in their own opinion.

Let's try to quantify that, to see what "evidence" holds the MOST water.
Please state the best arguments you have read for both sides that chemtrails are contrails vs chemtrails are other than contrails.
I'd really like to see your vested opinions on whose is best, not simply opinion, but facts. Both sides present a combination of third party evidence (based on previous work by others, history, photos, etc.) and also first hand experimental data.



They way I see it, this has an equal probability of being true or false as all evidence presented is 3rd party. If we were to publish either case in a pier review journal, it would be thrown out for lack of concrete evidence. All info is created by those with a pre-determined position about the subject...one way or another. This is hardly "hard" science and therefor a matter of opinion. My opinion is " undecided" as that is the only one that stands up to the evidence provided.

Perhaps "I don't know" is the correct position. Why be so entrenched either way?

Here is a listing of the best evidence, there may be some since then:
Pro-chemtrail:
http://contrailscience.com/chemtrails-the-best-evidence/

Chemtrails debunked:
http://contrailscience.com/how-to-debunk-chemtrails/#more-948

You say the cases are equal. Show the equality of evidence, the best of both sides, choose perhaps the top five and let's see.

The preponderance of evidence is what counts, as well as showing it to withstand scrutiny of fact and logical correctness, and be repeatable.

One could always say that every plane is spraying, or no plane is spraying, and one second later one could stop or start, but in reality the two cases are not equal, especially because we can judge the claims in EVIDENCE or lack thereof.

Why be entrenched? I'm not, except when I find a failure of fact, a logical fallacy, a deliberate deception, or a failure to correct an error one knows to be false. Those are the only reasons to be entrenched.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Who said you needed to fill the tank? Is it not possible to add 1 part per thousand, lets say, that works with the existing fuel to give a desired effect? Given the size of a fuel tank on a jet, a little goes a long way. Perhaps it combines with the fuel to creat an exhaust that modifies the environment. Why must it be all or nothing?

Because it is illegal to mess with the specification of aviation fuel - around the world it is a requirement to use only the materials approved by manufacturers, and the allowed additive to Jet A1 are all documented in Def Std 91-91.

also there is absolutely no need to do anything to create long lasting contrails beyond flying through an atmosphere that has the appropriate conditions of temperature and humidity - why invent something that occurs anyway??
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member.
Because it is illegal to mess with the specification of aviation fuel - around the world it is a requirement to use only the materials approved by manufacturers, and the allowed additive to Jet A1 are all documented in Def Std 91-91.

Something that is widely unknown: You can´t put some things easily in to the fuel. The fuel for the bigger Airports is dilivered through a pipeline-Network:

Central Europe Pipeline System


The Central Europe Pipeline System (alternatively Central European Pipeline System), or CEPS for short, is one of several NATO Pipeline Systems and is used to deliver fuel for air and ground vehicles around Europe. Originally conceived for military purposes, it was to aid in safe and quick distribution of fuel for military purposes around Europe. The system consists of around 6,300 kilometres (3,900 mi) of pipeline running through Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Besides these host countries, the system is also used by the United States military.

(...)

Since 1959, excess capacity of the pipeline may be used by civilian users. Currently, around 90% of the fuel transported through the system is for civilian users, customers including various large European airports such as Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, Brussels Airport, Frankfurt am Main Airport, Luxembourg-Findel International Airport and Zürich Airport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe_Pipeline_System

This is a map of the german part of this pipeline-network

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You might find that many high altitude flights over or near Antarctica are highly likely to leave contrails. This cold weather take-off shows a contrail at ground level. Some airliner routes such as QF63 fly down over the French Antarctic islands as part of their great circle route and likely leave decent contrails there too. Just not a lot of folks down that way to see them.

I agree.
Just that most of the people there are scientists and don't bother to come on the internet to report chemtrails :D
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
I add a bottle of carb cleaner to my gas tank and my car runs just fine. Why would this be any different?

Add enough stuff to your fuel to make your car leave a smoke trail for the entire 400 miles it takes to burn a tank of fuel. The car may run okay for a tank or two. What happens tank after tank? Especially when the purported substance is metals and not some small useless quantity of detergents and distilates that are your average carb cleaner?

Unless the chemtrail advocates come up with some evidence of extra stuff in the plane exhaust or some samples of adulterated fuel, such pondering is fantasy as the trails that are up there look like condensation trails should look and engine wrecking fuel additives are not necessary to explain them.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I add a bottle of carb cleaner to my gas tank and my car runs just fine. Why would this be any different? I am sure that, given our technology and chemical engineering skills we could make a fuel additive that could have a secondary effect. Not saying it happens, but it could be possible. And if it is true, why be upset about it? If it is to benefit us (ie slow global warming) then by all means, add away.

Just because there are a zillion posts doesn't make it true. There are just as many that oppose your view. I have read both. Why not keep an open mind?

Who said you needed to fill the tank? Is it not possible to add 1 part per thousand, lets say, that works with the existing fuel to give a desired effect? Given the size of a fuel tank on a jet, a little goes a long way. Perhaps it combines with the fuel to creat an exhaust that modifies the environment. Why must it be all or nothing?

You know something struck me. Why does this theory sound like this

“The chemicals which are released by passenger airplanes have been covertly introduced as ‘additives,’ supposedly to improve efficiency. Only as the plane reaches cruising velocity does the heat and atmospheric pressure cause a chemical reaction that synthesizes the top secret carbon-trapping molecule. This process is imperfect, and many of the by-products are incredibly dangerous even in trace quantities. The most dangerous thing is that although chemtrails are keeping the climate of the U.S. reasonably stable, citizens are bombarded every day with an invisible rain of carbon-laden molecules, and the effect on health is totally unknown.”
Content from External Source
http://www.chronicle.su/news/snowden-uncovers-shocking-truth-behind-chemtrails/

Is this just a coincidence or has someone been had??
 

HotRod

New Member
Lol indeed. What did you come to a site dedicated to exposing bunk for? The point is, there is easily demonstrable bunk in 'chemtrails'. It's not a case of 'well, it can't be proved either way so it's just an opinion'. It completely fails to hold up to logical and scientific scrutiny. If you think otherwise you really haven't been paying attention.


Show where its endurance fails under your lens of scrutiny then. That's what this site is for.

Sorry to question you. I thought this forum was to discuss ideas. If I can only post to agree with the prevalent paradigm, then what is the point of a post? All you want is to hear what you already believe.

I don't believe in a lot of conspiracy BS, yet on this thread I am undecided. What you are saying is that I must agree with everything the debunkers post. If this is the case, then this site is just as bad as the pro-conspiracy ones.

What happened to the freedom of inevidual thought? Differences of opinion often lead to truth.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
You come to a site that explicitly has a mission statement to expose bunk, then you question why we bother, saying who cares if they believe?
What happened to the freedom of inevidual thought? Differences of opinion often lead to truth.
I don't know, what's that got to do with scientific scrutiny? You seem to say it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, so show us your scrutiny then.
Differences of opinion lead to truth? Maybe if there is some unknown mystery, but this is not a mystery. Differences of opinion also lead to denial of reality.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Indeed - denial of reality does lead to differences of opinion.

but that doesn't what is real and what is not.
 

HotRod

New Member
What I find interesting is that I have seen what I can't explain. Sometimes when I look at a jet in the sky, I see a black line stretching for miles in front of the jet. my initial conclusion is an optical illusion. Yet I have seen it from different angles, with/without sunglasses. Bright field and dark.

Anyone else see this and what do you think? I am guessing some optical trickery.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What I find interesting is that I have seen what I can't explain. Sometimes when I look at a jet in the sky, I see a black line stretching for miles in front of the jet. my initial conclusion is an optical illusion. Yet I have seen it from different angles, with/without sunglasses. Bright field and dark.

Anyone else see this and what do you think? I am guessing some optical trickery.

A classic:
http://contrailscience.com/contrails-dark-lines-chemtrails/
 

HotRod

New Member
You come to a site that explicitly has a mission statement to expose bunk, then you question why we bother, saying who cares if they believe?

I don't know, what's that got to do with scientific scrutiny? You seem to say it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, so show us your scrutiny then.
Differences of opinion lead to truth? Maybe if there is some unknown mystery, but this is not a mystery. Differences of opinion also lead to denial of reality.

You are obviously right in your own mind. Who am I to differ in opinion? Let us agree to disagree. The success of a free society rests on the acceptance of differences.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You are obviously right in your own mind. Who am I to differ in opinion? Let us agree to disagree. The success of a free society rests on the acceptance of differences.

But the progress of science and knowledge rests upon actually resolving those differences, by determining the facts of the matter, and discarding the bunk.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...Let us agree to disagree. The success of a free society rests on the acceptance of differences.
What do you disagree on then? If it's an opinion fine, if it's a scientifically verifiable fact, no way.
This website is not trying to make a successful free society, so I don't see what acceptance of difference has to do with anything. Science definitely doesn't depend on acceptance of difference, it does all it can to resolve those differences so everyone can agree.
 

HotRod

New Member
You are obviously right in your own mind. Who am I to differ in opinion? Let us agree to disagree. The success of a free society rests on the acceptance of differences.
I stand
But the progress of science and knowledge rests upon actually resolving those differences, by determining the facts of the matter, and discarding the bunk.

Who here is a scientist? Anyone published in a pier-review journal? I'm not saying there aren't scientists here. But if you are and have then you realize the criteria for claims. Pro or con.

Like I have said, I don't agree with this thread. That doesn't presuppose disagreement with others. Any argument or evidence contrary to what you believe will be dismissed as bunk. That is closed minded.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Any argument or evidence will be evaluated on its own merits. If you can demonstrated otherwise, then please go ahead. What evidence has been dismissed?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Claim: Harriet Hall says that acupuncture isn't "ancient" and maybe doesn't come from China Health and Quackery 0
LorentzHall Cruise Ship Captain Reports Silent "Black Jellyfish" Flying In "No Wind, Maybe 5 Knots" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 56
Mick West "Pyramid" UFO's in Night Vision Footage - Maybe Bokeh? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 206
Mick West Long Distance Drones, Maybe Foreign, as Possible UFOs. UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 55
Laurdhavemercy UFO.. drone maybe? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
P Bizarre alien ship spotted by ISS! Or, you know, maybe not UFOs and Aliens 3
Svartbjørn CME Headed Our Way Tonight (30th) and maybe tomorrow (31st) Dec 2015 Science and Pseudoscience 3
ufoofinterest Ufo over Ibiza: meteor, missile, rocket or simply contrails? [Contrail. Maybe Flight VY2425] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 17
Jay Reynolds What plane is this? Maybe Azul airlines? [Atlas Air 747] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
cloudspotter What Type of Plane Is This? [Too small to tell, maybe MD80] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Balance Stunning views of both sides of a cloud layer General Discussion 31
Jason How Doing Research can Lead Both In and Out of the Rabbit Hole Escaping The Rabbit Hole 55
Leifer My old videos.... re: chemtrails..... Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Trailblazer Explained: video of concentric circular "chemtrails" (E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, Feb 1 2019) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Ben Geddy Happy to have found this site and Mick thru JRE! Practical Debunking 4
Mick West YouTube adds Encyclopedia Britannica article on Contrails to "Chemtrail" Videos Contrails and Chemtrails 18
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Chemtrails and the Anti-Vaccine Movement Contrails and Chemtrails 34
MikeG Debunked: Air Force Verifies Chemtrails are Real Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
C Strange Flickering in Contrail Video Posted in Earlier Thread [Focussing artifacts] Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Trailblazer Russ Tanner accidentally debunks chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Demythologizing Prince's reference to "Chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 5
ParanoidSkeptic Chemtrails: Experiments on the Public Contrails and Chemtrails 5
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
F Explained: Video of plane leaving "6 chemtrails, then 2" [Mixed Exhaust and Aerodynamic Contrails] Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Mick West Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" Contrails and Chemtrails 92
skephu Chuck Norris on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
skephu Paul Beckwith (climate scientist) on chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 19
JFDee Debunked: Lichens and Moss on Trees Caused by Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Sausalito Spectral analysis of alleged "chemtrails" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Jay Reynolds Safya Yassin, Missouri ISIS supporter and chemtrails believer arrested for threats Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeG Climate Change War Games Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Persistent Trails Survey Shows Chemtrail Believers Only Recently Noticed Persistent Trails Contrails and Chemtrails 32
Dan Page idea: a "Debunked" Stamp Practical Debunking 9
Z 3 military helicopters Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
MikeG Giant Snowflakes [Rimed Dendrites] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Balance Blatant photoshop deceit of BP refueling tank Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
MikeG Futurism and Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top