Useful Chemtrail Debunking Images and Infographics

I'd suggest a visit to a war veterans organization. That will narrow down your search and you can actually speak to some pilots who made the contrails.

But will you have the guts to do this? I'll be waiting, and I've got a good memory.

Will I have the "guts" to do this?
Why would that take "guts"?
Time, access, and interest might be a motivation, if I had an opinion one way or the other.

If I absolutely believe something is true, and it matters, I will work to debunk my own beliefs or support them, whatever springs forth from research.

I worked tirelessly to investigate my religious beliefs and teachings -- until I was satisfied with enough answers that proved that my religion was nothing but lies (based on perhaps a tiny smidgen of truth, way back in history).

I wasn't happy about the results (in fact, I was beyond pissed) but it was important to me not to lie to myself or to be fooled by others.

I don't have an opinion about jet trails or chem trails.
I do have a curiosity about them being so much more prevalent in recent decades than they seemed to be in the past.
I sometimes wonder if it isn't just that the chemistry of the atmosphere has changed.
 
Last edited:
I don't know of anyone who is old enough to remember the skies in the 60's -- who also remember jet trails being persistent and expanding.
Perhaps someone will visit a retirement home soon and can do an impartial survey of the residents -- and see what the overall memory is.

I grew up on Air Force Bases in the 60's. Watching the contrails with my family is one of my earliest memories. They weren't ephemeral. They were hung around in the sky and then slowly expanded and dissipated.
 
I grew up on Air Force Bases in the 60's. Watching the contrails with my family is one of my earliest memories. They weren't ephemeral. They were hung around in the sky and then slowly expanded and dissipated.
It would probably be better to obtain these memories from older people who do not have any strong affiliation with government and military society, or strong beliefs in either direction.

This is why I say a visit to a retirement home or community to obtain unbiased memories and photographs would be helpful in debunking these claims that they are actually trails that are chemical in nature.
 
In the 1950's I would look up because I made model airplanes and was interested in what was in the sky. There wore some long contrails and some short ones. One of the boy scout leaders gave a rudimentary explanation of how they were formed.
 
Last edited:
It would probably be better to obtain these memories from older people who do not have any strong affiliation with government and military society, or strong beliefs in either direction.

This is why I say a visit to a retirement home or community to obtain unbiased memories and photographs would be helpful in debunking these claims that they are actually trails that are chemical in nature.
That's complete BS. I was a little kid that "happened" to be growing up in an environment that had a lot of airplanes. Why not just say you want to exclude anyone that was in a position to see contrails regularly because the information they give you doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs. It sounds more like you want to edit your data set to get a desired result.
 
That's complete BS. I was a little kid that "happened" to be growing up in an environment that had a lot of airplanes. Why not just say you want to exclude anyone that was in a position to see contrails regularly because the information they give you doesn't agree with your preconceived beliefs. It sounds more like you want to edit your data set to get a desired result.

I don't have a preconceived belief. I'm just saying it would be better to obtain proof or evidence from people who are unlikely to have an agenda or bias. You might have a tendency to lean toward proving that there is nothing to be concerned about, due to a lifetime respect toward all things military or government.

Why not just ask grandma, who has no pre-established thoughts or beliefs? Does she remember contrails that stuck around and grew -- back in the 60's - or does this seem to be a newer development?

It's simply a suggestion. I don't care one way or the other.
 
I don't have a preconceived belief. I'm just saying it would be better to obtain proof or evidence from people who are unlikely to have an agenda or bias. You might have a tendency to lean toward proving that there is nothing to be concerned about, due to a lifetime respect toward all things military or government.

Why not just ask grandma, who has no pre-established thoughts or beliefs? Does she remember contrails that stuck around and grew -- back in the 60's - or does this seem to be a newer development?

It's simply a suggestion. I don't care one way or the other.

I was born in '64 and distinctly remember watching the launch of Apollo 11 on TV and all of the subsequent coverage of the mission from walking on the moon to recovery after splash down. Even at that age I was keenly aware of what was happening in the sky, I was fascinated by the changing nature of clouds and contrails and how that related to changes in weather and I would spend hours cloud watching. I even did a little rain dance that my parents are still impressed by the accuracy of, but I was just reading the sky. Pretty much throughout my entire life I've learned as much as I could about all things aerospace. Persistent spreading contrails were not uncommon in the '60's and '70's and I've noticed the occurrence of contrails increasing in lock-step with the increase in air traffic. My only affiliation with the military is a 6 year stint in the army reserves to help pay for college. I wouldn't ask grandma, she was never much interested in looking at the sky.
 
It would probably be better to obtain these memories from older people who do not have any strong affiliation with government and military society, or strong beliefs in either direction.

This is why I say a visit to a retirement home or community to obtain unbiased memories and photographs would be helpful in debunking these claims that they are actually trails that are chemical in nature.

There are links provided within this thread to old photos that feature persistent contrails. Sadly, the folk that believe in the chemtrail fantasy generally dismiss them, if you can get them to look at them at all.
 
I don't have a preconceived belief. I'm just saying it would be better to obtain proof or evidence from people who are unlikely to have an agenda or bias. You might have a tendency to lean toward proving that there is nothing to be concerned about, due to a lifetime respect toward all things military or government.

Why not just ask grandma, who has no pre-established thoughts or beliefs? Does she remember contrails that stuck around and grew -- back in the 60's - or does this seem to be a newer development?

It's simply a suggestion. I don't care one way or the other.
Or i just might have been a position to see contrails on a regular basis as opposed to random granny in LA who never really had a reason to observe the sky and isn't really a reliable source. By excluding a segment of the population you are selectively editing your data set and reducing the quality of your results. You are also implying that people associated with the military are less inclined to tell the truth while eliminating those in the best position to observe the phenomena.
 
Or why don't you just look at the links provided which prove your whole point irrelevant.
I did.

Do you speak to your family like this when they want to engage in conversations about things you think you know everything about?

My "point" is "irrelevant"?
Why would you belittle a person like that?
The bizarre behaviors and attitudes of know-it-alls is a study in itself.

hmmmmm....
ok, well this conversation has run it's course. moving on...

I read you Solrey. You sound fairly credible and without an agenda. Like I said, I don't have an opinion either way. I was simply taking part in the conversation.

I don't understand why some people on this board are so condescending and rude, yet they are the top posters here, and apparently get few reminders of what is polite and what isn't.

Calling someone else's point "irrelevant" -- when it does have relevance to the original thread title -- seems counter to the "politeness" goal of the Metabunk creator(s). Just an opinion.
 
I did.

Do you speak to your family like this when they want to engage in conversations about things you think you know everything about?

My "point" is "irrelevant"?
Why would you belittle a person like that?
The bizarre behaviors and attitudes of know-it-alls is a study in itself.

hmmmmm....
ok, well this conversation has run it's course. moving on...

I read you Solrey. You sound fairly credible and without an agenda. Like I said, I don't have an opinion either way. I was simply taking part in the conversation.

I don't understand why some people on this board are so condescending and rude, yet they are the top posters here, and apparently get few reminders of what is polite and what isn't.

Calling someone else's point "irrelevant" -- when it does have relevance to the original thread title -- seems counter to the "politeness" goal of the Metabunk creator(s). Just an opinion.
Apparently "condescending and rude" means challenging you beliefs or insisting on proof. This is the second thread I've seen where you have fallen back on this tactic.
 
Last edited:
Using jets to spray harmful chemicals over huge, populated areas -- is just plain silly.

It would have to mean that anyone and everyone and everything will be hit by the spray, regardless if they are politicians, the super-rich, or the poorest of the poor. Every material, every surface, every crop, every watering hole.

It would have to mean that only those who are "in on it" are aware of it, and would be notified ahead of times of which areas they should avoid. And then down the line, which vegetables came from that area, or where their water originates in all cases. It really is a ridiculous theory.

Besides that, what are these chemicals being sprayed?
Couldn't they just as easily spray people with the plague?
Why not do it from Satellites where no one would see it?

Someone should collect dated photographs of "chem" trails over the middle of the oceans and ask who they might be trying to spray -- in that instance, might be.

Seriously, it is so hard to believe this "theory" has not been debunked ages ago.
Maybe the know-it-alls get so caught up in the technical aspects, they forget all about the in-your-face logical aspects.
Show pictures of high-level politicians and scientists -- standing outside -- with obvious jet trails hanging over their heads.

Maybe this is just a great diversion that some people want to encourage, because this way, the "suspicious" will be so preoccupied with nonsense, they won't be focusing on the real, truly dangerous trends going on around them.

There's a new "Conspiracy Theory" angle for ya'all: "Diversionary Conspiracy Theories - Theory"... hahahahaha
 
Last edited:
Using jets to spray harmful chemicals over huge, populated areas -- is just plain silly.

It would have to mean that anyone and everyone and everything will be hit by the spray, regardless if they are politicians, the super-rich, or the poorest of the poor. Every material, every surface, every crop, every watering hole.

It would have to mean that only those who are "in on it" are aware of it, and would be notified ahead of times of which areas they should avoid. And then down the line, which vegetables came from that area, or where their water originates in all cases. It really is a ridiculous theory.

Besides that, what are these chemicals being sprayed?
Couldn't they just as easily spray people with the plague?
Why not do it from Satellites where no one would see it?

Someone should collect dated photographs of "chem" trails over the middle of the oceans and ask who they might be trying to spray in that instance, is.

Seriously, it is so hard to believe this "theory" has not been debunked ages ago.
Maybe the know-it-alls get so caught up in the technical aspects, they forget all about the in-your-face logical aspects.
Show pictures of high-level politicians and scientists -- standing outside -- with obvious jet trails hanging over their heads.

Maybe this is just a great diversion that some people want to encourage, because this way, the "suspicious" will be so preoccupied with nonsense, they won't be focusing on the real, truly dangerous trends going on around them.

There's a new "Conspiracy Theory" angle for ya'all: "Diversionary Conspiracy Theories - Theory"... hahahahaha
It has been debunked repeatedly. Advocates just change the story slightly each time rather than admitting the is nothing to it. It's referred to as "moving the goalpost" and is common across many fringe theories.
 
Your point was irrelevent because there is a handy thread with pictures with contrails in them from before the alleged chemtrailing began, yet you seemed to ignore it.
This is why I say a visit to a retirement home or community to obtain unbiased memories and photographs would be helpful in debunking these claims that they are actually trails that are chemical in nature.

It's been done, hence - point, irrelevant. Or unnecessary, tautological, circumlocutory. Choose whichever is less offensive to you.

(and to clarify, your initial suggestion was not irrelevant, only the fact you seemed to ignore that the very thing you were asking for already exists meant what you said after was.)

And this thread also contains many images...
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/contrails-in-airline-advertising.690/
 
Last edited:
Using jets to spray harmful chemicals over huge, populated areas -- is just plain silly.
Someone should collect dated photographs of "chem" trails over the middle of the oceans and ask who they might be trying to spray -- in that instance, might be.

Like this...?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simon_rp/9065949650/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...pture-commercial-jet-engine-trails-space.html

Show pictures of high-level politicians and scientists -- standing outside -- with obvious jet trails hanging over their heads.

Like these...?

http://socalskywatch.wordpress.com/...mtrails-over-president-obama-hillary-clinton/
http://torahcodes-mn.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/hoax-of-chemtrail.html
 
Last edited:
Hemi: Most of those images would have made a believer -- even more suspicious -- in my opinion, but this one is pretty good:


a4.bp.blogspot.com__aPAZFWC5plA_TyrIGR2GqtI_AAAAAAAACRk_yS86CHc6ae5b3d577529d53c4e069b55b60524.jpg

"You believe that they are going to kill themselves with chemical or biological agents as chemtrails?"





 
Planes follow certain routes so they do not collide with each other.

Many folks do not notice what they see all the time. I remember contrails from the 60s, heck I even remember when sonic booms were still known over populated areas. I paid attention to the sky, after a tornado came close to my house when I was 5. I was reading, so my parents got me books on clouds so I would not be scared every time it rained. I knew different types of clouds then.
 
They are "intentional" in that the navigation points are on a regularly spaces array in that part of the world, and flights in that area are require to pass though those points on their way to and from various destinations.

They don't intentionally make pretty star shaped contrails. They happen as a consequence of the air routing.
 
Yeah, there does tend to be intentional patterns in commercial air traffic. Do you require further elaboration or is it pretty much self-evident?
My point was that certain people who believe the "conspiracy" theory -- might find that image even more "proof".

My own belief is that "I don't care." The theory seems to be ridiculous, but in any case, I don't care. I get the air-routing patterns point.
 
My point was that certain people who believe the "conspiracy" theory -- might find that image even more "proof".

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

If someone wants to believe in 'chemtrails', they'll need to do some pretty nifty mental acrobats to allow them to continue to believe, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So, yes, they probably would see these images as proof in favour of their arguments. Unfortunately, and as is so often the way with any individual piece of the chemtrail believer's framework of evidence, there is always a rational and scientifically sound explanation for what is being observed (as with the air routes creating 'grids' in the sky).
 
I did.

Do you speak to your family like this when they want to engage in conversations about things you think you know everything about?

My "point" is "irrelevant"?
Why would you belittle a person like that?
The bizarre behaviors and attitudes of know-it-alls is a study in itself.

hmmmmm....
ok, well this conversation has run it's course. moving on...

I read you Solrey. You sound fairly credible and without an agenda. Like I said, I don't have an opinion either way. I was simply taking part in the conversation.

I don't understand why some people on this board are so condescending and rude, yet they are the top posters here, and apparently get few reminders of what is polite and what isn't.

Calling someone else's point "irrelevant" -- when it does have relevance to the original thread title -- seems counter to the "politeness" goal of the Metabunk creator(s). Just an opinion.


I have four sisters, all of whom I am very close to, if I heard one of them talk about the chemtrail conspiracy as a fact, I would tell them to shut the F"@# up, maybe even whack them on the side of the head. But they don't ask about it because they know it's a complete hoax. Especially the one who is married to an aeronautical engineer making space station parts.
 
I have four sisters, all of whom I am very close to, if I heard one of them talk about the chemtrail conspiracy as a fact, I would tell them to shut the F"@# up, maybe even whack them on the side of the head. But they don't ask about it because they know it's a complete hoax. Especially the one who is married to an aeronautical engineer making space station parts.

Your point would be?
Did I talk about "chemtrails" as a fact, or did I ask a couple of questions, trying to understand a few things?

I don't really care how you treat your sisters, and if you feel that "whacking them upside the head" is the way to deal with their questions -- i sort of feel sorry for your kids.

I don't appreciate the condescending attitude of some of the posters I find on this board, but I try to ignore their snide remarks - for the most part. Occasionally, I will call them out.

They don't need a cheer-leading squad, so put down the tom-toms, Pilot.
 
Last edited:
What I said.

Rude, condescending, posts, with attitude, distract from the point of the thread.
There are many levels of education that interact here.
There are many points of view.

To behave as if "You know the facts" and anyone who disagrees or doesn't understand -- must be a moron -- goes against the spirit of the board as it is said to have been intended. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/

I will hope that ya'll will refrain from this practice in the future -- so we can stay on-topic.

Peace, love and anarchy!!!!!! :cool::p
 
Last edited:
Your point would be?
Did I talk about "chemtrails" as a fact, or did I ask a couple of questions, trying to understand a few things?

I don't really care how you treat your sisters, and if you feel that "whacking them upside the head" is the way to deal with their questions -- i sort of feel sorry for your kids.

I don't appreciate the condescending attitude of some of the posters I find on this board, but I try to ignore their snide remarks - for the most part. Occasionally, I will call them out.

They don't need a cheer-leading squad, so put down the tom-toms, Pilot.
My point was rhetorical. I knew you wouldn't get that and expected this response. Can you point out any scientific information you have about chemtrails other than pictures?

As an airline pilot...blah blah blah...I get tired of saying it. I put those silly little trails in the sky, and observe them within 1000 feet daily. Oh, but I don't know anything about trails in the sky...
 
November, quote anything you want about chemtrails and the possibility of them and you're going to get the opposite response...they just don't exist.
 
It's all good. By forcing myself to focus on an issue I had no thoughts about, either way, I found that I developed an opinion.

Here is something funny, if anyone here is inclined to laugh at the matter at the moment.
I was Googling Monaco today.

(That's like the country where all the richest people in the world hang out, where all the ne'er-do-wells -- with all the money -- park their yachts... (my opinion).)

There were contrails, persisting and growing over Monaco. Take from it what you will.
 
Last edited:
November, quote anything you want about chemtrails and the possibility of them and you're going to get the opposite response...they just don't exist.

There is no reason to give a hostile response.

And again we are diverting from the original intention of this thread.

"USEFUL CHEMTRAIL DEBUNKING IMAGES AND INFOGRAPHICS".
Back to the point.
 
My point was rhetorical. I knew you wouldn't get that and expected this response. Can you point out any scientific information you have about chemtrails other than pictures?

It's like you don't even compute. I don't think they are "chem" trails. For a pilot -- you sure are takin me for a ride...

Peace. :)
 
It's black and white...chemtrails exist or they don't. I guess I'm justanairlinpilot. I'm saying they don't exist. How can you say they do?

I never said that, I never said that, I never said that.
I SAID it seems like jet trails do seem to persist and expand more than they did in the 60's.
Several people who do remember the skies in the 60's directed me to photographs that showed that they did do that, even then.

I NEVER said I thought they were "CHEM" trails.

This whole post has swerved way-off the intended path, but it sure has been funny.

If I wanted to argue with you, I would say -- you don't know what they are putting in your other "exhaust" system, and you don't know if they could control that -- like drones are controlled.

But I don't want to because I don't think they are "CHEM" trails.
I think either the change in the chemical balance of the atmosphere is creating this effect, OR -- there are just more aircraft in the sky.

You been flying my plane all night. :cool:
 
Last edited:
It's black and white...chemtrails exist or they don't. I guess I'm justanairlinpilot. I'm saying they don't exist. How can you say they do?

You're arguing about something he never said. Go through all the posts in the thread, at no point has November said he believes that persistent contrails are chemtrails, he merely asked if we could point him in the direction of photos that prove they've been around for a long time. We did.
 
Back
Top