"Where's your evidence of chemtrails?"

observer

New Member
Sometimes I bring up the topic with others by pointing towards the sky and asking another, "what's that?" The conversation always seems to end in, "What evidence do you have to support your claim?" My answer is usually, "I have nothing concrete because it will not be solid evidence until the public accepts it as such."

Maybe some of you can use the following information to help spread the information to others.

WEATHER MODIFICATION INC.

These are some interesting pages on the company website:


UNITED STATES PATENT[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5003186.PN.&OS=PN/5003186&RS=PN/5003186

I'll summarize my favorite parts
Direct quote as follows:
Abstract
A method is described for reducing atmospheric or global warming resulting from the presence of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, i.e., from the greenhouse effect. Such gases are relatively transparent to sunshine, but absorb strongly the long-wavelength infrared radiation released by the earth. The method incudes the step of seeding the layer of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere with particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity. Such materials include Welsbach materials and the oxides of metals which have high emissivity (and thus low reflectivities) in the visible and 8-12 micron infrared wavelength regions.

..........
One proposed solution to the problem of global warming involves the seeding of the atmosphere with metallic particles. One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude. While this method would increase the reflection of visible light incident from space, the metallic particles would trap the long wavelength blackbody radiation released from the earth. This could result in net increase in global warming.
.......

10. A method for reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a greenhouse gases layer, comprising the following step:

seeding the greenhouse gases' layer with a quantity of tiny particles of a material characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said materials have high emissivities in the visible and far infrared wavelength spectra and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength spectrum,

whereby said particles are suspended within said gases' layer and provide a means for converting radiative energy at near infrared wavelengths into radiation at the far infrared wavelengths, permitting some of the converted radiation to escape into space.

11. The method of claim 10 wherein said material comprises one or more of the oxides of metals.

12. The method of claim 10 wherein said material comprises aluminum oxide.

13. The method of claim 10 wherein said material is thorium oxide.

14. ect. . . . .

Anyhow, check it out for yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks Observer, I think most regular posters here are familiar with those two things.

Weather Modification Inc does cloud seeding, which has been done openly for 60 years, and is done at low altitude with small planes around existing clouds.

The Welsbach patent describes a possible method of geoengineering, there's no evidence it has ever been used. However people are talking a lot about maybe doing that in the future.

Neither of those two things has anything to do with the long with trails in the sky, which look exactly like persistent contrails, but a few people call "chemtrails"

And no, we can't prove it's not being done in a way that evades detection. We can only point out that there's zero evidence that it is being done.
 

observer

New Member
Like I said there is no solid evidence to prove it.

But (always a but),
The conspiracy theorist, or whatever they would like to call themselves make the claim that planes are in some way emitting more that just exhaust and a condensation trail. Most believe they are actually being sprayed by chemicals being emitted in some way from an air plane.

Here is a company (WEATHER MODIFICATION INC.) who claims on their website that they can be hired to alter the weather more in favor of the interested party. To achieve this goal they use:
"Burn in place flare racks or ejectable flare racks"
http://www.weathermodificationinc.com/cloud-seeding-aerial.php
A method in which a flare is burned to release chemicals into the cloud for seeding.

The Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding method describes exactly which chemicals for another method
aluminum oxide, thorium oxide, refractory material
and how they would be emitted from a commercial jet liner
One technique proposed to seed the metallic particles was to add the tiny particles to the fuel of jet airliners, so that the particles would be emitted from the jet engine exhaust while the airliner was at its cruising altitude.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=5003186.PN.&OS=PN/5003186&RS=PN/5003186

The fear of the conspiracy theorist as it relates to this topic, is air planes are releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. I bring up a company that claims it is doing exactly that.

The Welsbach method describes how chemicals would be emitted into the atmosphere by adding them to the jet fuel and subsequently releasing them into the condensation trail at cruising altitude.
Your response is
Neither of those two things has anything to do with the long with trails in the sky, which look exactly like persistent contrails, but a few people call "chemtrails"

It is obvious by looking at past posts on this forum that there is no place for someone with rational reasoning here. What goes here is however you can manipulate and twist the words of other users into making something easier to debunk.

Anyhow go ahead and mark this one as debunked because as I stated in the first post, there is nothing concrete I have found. Maybe someone will read this post as realize how one sided this forum is and never return as I have decided.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Of course planes are "releasing chemicals into the atmosphere". There's all kind of planes doing it, crop dusters, mosquito abatement, cloud seeding, oil dispersant, fire fighting, etc. But that's not what the chemtrail theory is about. It's about the long white trails in the sky.

And patents are not evidence of usage, there's patents for anti-gravity spaceships, and moon bases. There's a patent for a birthing assistance device that spins a woman around until the baby pops out. It does not mean it's being used.

I can't prove a global absence. However I can point out that there's no evidence that the trails are anything other than contrails, and there's no evidence of a secret geoengineering project. It would seem like you agree, you just still think that it's likely anyway.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Like I said there is no solid evidence to prove it.

But (always a but),
The conspiracy theorist, or whatever they would like to call themselves make the claim that planes are in some way emitting more that just exhaust and a condensation trail. Most believe they are actually being sprayed by chemicals being emitted in some way from an air plane.

Observer- keep in mind that the very premise of the "chemtrail" theory- the underlying claim- is that "contrails dissipate- chemtrails don't". They believe that ordinary contrails do not persist and spread and never have. This is demonstrably and irrefutably false.

So, if the very premise of the entire theory is false...what next?

The fear of the conspiracy theorist as it relates to this topic, is air planes are releasing chemicals into the atmosphere. I bring up a company that claims it is doing exactly that.

The fear of the conspiracy theorist as it relates to this topic is that air planes are releasing chemicals into the atmosphere and the persistent trails people see are evidence of that. They believe it is a secret global "spray" campaign.

You bring up a company that seed rain clouds via the burning of flares- often from the ground. What they do is not secret, nor does it involve long, persistent trails at high altitude from jets. As such, rational reasoning would suggest that it is not the same thing that the conspiracy theorists are pointing to in fear.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
One of my first flight instructors worked for Weather Modification Inc as a co-pilot. He never keeps it a secret, and even today, I still see their plane taxi about and takeoff at the same airfield I fly out of. They seed clouds. They reduce the size of hail (which I think they do mostly in the interest of farmers). They go out when the weather is really nasty to do this. That's about it.

Cloud seeding exists. However, cloud seeding does NOT = chemtrailing, at least in the context of what conspiracy theorists tend to associate anything ejected out of an airplane as. Yeah, some of the stuff emitted are chemicals, but they aren't doing it to kill you, and it's important that one gets this point straight unless they can prove otherwise.

It is obvious by looking at past posts on this forum that there is no place for someone with rational reasoning here. What goes here is however you can manipulate and twist the words of other users into making something easier to debunk.

Anyhow go ahead and mark this one as debunked because as I stated in the first post, there is nothing concrete I have found. Maybe someone will read this post as realize how one sided this forum is and never return as I have decided.

My friend, it is your second post and you are already jumping to conclusions. No offense sir, but the rationality is being misplaced here. Personally, I find this site to be much more rational than what you would find on some chemtrail discussion board, where bringing up a counter-argument would likely result in the reception of lofty insults and being instantly branded a "shill." I think Mick was pretty straight up with you with his last sentence before your second post. It's about the evidence here. It's not about who is right and who is wrong. There is just insufficient evidence that points to the notion of chemtrails in the dire context pointed out by some theorists.
 

Metatag

New Member
I have a degree in Chemistry, which helps in assessing the validity of chemtrails. The chemtrail conspiracy concerns long lived trails from planes that are often described as having the aim of reflecting solar radiation to counteract global warming. There are patents, which are listed in this forum that describe the use of metal oxides, such as aluminium oxide, for this very purpose. The patents confirm that some people have considered spraying metal oxides, but they do not confirm that the method of the patent has been applied in a large scale, covert scheme. Nor do the patents confirm that the patent is free from problems.

If aluminium oxide was sprayed from air planes to form long lived chemtrails it would probably create problems for aircraft in similar ways to volcanic ash, which has caused serious damage to planes in the air. Aluminium oxide is very hard and it is used to make abrasive materials, such as sandpaper. The crystalline form of aluminium oxide known as corundum has a Mohs hardness of 9 and it can scratch all minerals. Diamond has a Mohs hardness of 9 and window glass has a hardness of 5.5 on the scale.

Let's consider what would happen to a plane flying through a cloud of fine aluminium oxide particles. The effect would be similar to what is seen when planes fly though a cloud of volcanic ash. The first effect is to create a bright display of static electricity that resembles Saint Elmo's Fire, dust then enters the plane and passengers are able to see the dust in the cabin. Then the windscreen and leading edges of the plane are sandblasted to the extent that paint is removed from the plane and the front windscreens become so frosted that it is no longer possible to see through the glass. The last effect is to cause the jet engines to fail as the turbine blades become coated with viscous, molten glass, because the engine operate at about 2,000 deg C, which is above the melting point of volcanic ash.

The discovery channel's Aircraft Crash Investigations covered the incident that caused all four engines of British Airways Speedbird 9 to fail in flight. Through great luck the plane did not crash and the engines were restarted. Volcanic ash created a coating of glass that caused the engine to fail, but that coating cracked and fell of as the plane descended with the engines off.

Since aluminium oxide has a higher melting point it would be less likely to clog the engine (2,072 deg C vrs circa 1,100 deg C), but the operating temperate is very close to the melting point of pure aluminium oxide. If the aluminium oxide is not pure then the melting point may be lower, so it is not possible to exclude the risk of coating the turbine engine with a viscous liquid that renders the engine inoperable, just a volcanic ash does.

A thick cloud like layer of aluminium oxide of the sort necessary to create a chemtrail for reflecting solar radiation would behave in a similar way to volcanic ash and be dangerous. Look at the clip of the Speedbird 9 documentary to get an idea of what it would be like flying through an aluminium oxide chemtrail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgqen6bW4Jk


If there was a wide scale use of aluminium oxide to make chemtrails we would expect to see some or all of the following things.

1) Airplanes glowing in the sky with a display like Saint Elmo's fire.

2) Passengers would complain of clouds of dust in the cabin.

3) Sensors such as pitot tubes would become blocked and aircraft would receive false altitude readings.

4) Planes would land with sandblasting like effects, such as frosted glass and missing paint.

5) Engines would fail, possible in flight, from clogging with dust, abrasion of surfaces and possibly clogging from molten oxide.


It would be hard to hide these effects....
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
!
The conspiracy theorist, or whatever they would like to call themselves make the claim that planes are in some way emitting more that just exhaust and a condensation trail. Most believe they are actually being sprayed by chemicals being emitted in some way from an air plane.

I don't agree. Most users of the word 'chemtrails', and especially those who are actively spreading the word about the theory on the internet, believe they're being deliberately sprayed with aluminium or barium (these are the most popular two) from tanks installed inside, or mounted externally on, the aircraft they're seeing every day. These claims are repeatedly documented here on metabunk.

The use of words like 'emission' or 'emitted' are due to the newer, emerging spin on the theory, and ties in with regular use of 'geoengineering' and other related terms.

This is because certain parties are trying to shift the focus of those who believe in the theory, whilst pretending that geoengineering is what they were talking about all along.

It's a shame 'observer' hasn't observed this thread a bit more closely in the last six months.
 

jpsitig

New Member
I can't prove a global absence. However I can point out that there's no evidence that the trails are anything other than contrails, and there's no evidence of a secret geoengineering project. It would seem like you agree, you just still think that it's likely anyway.

Of course there is "no evidence". This is a military covert operation with the highest clearance. Which means "classified" and no one is admitting that it even exists. People with common sense know differently and don't buy the " where's your evidence" argument.



These are not passenger planes spraying chemtrails!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Of course there is "no evidence". This is a military covert operation with the highest clearance. Which means "classified" and no one is admitting that it even exists. People with common sense know differently and don't buy the " where's your evidence" argument.



These are not passenger planes spraying chemtrails!

If there is no evidence then how do you know it's happening?
 

jpsitig

New Member
There is evidence. However this evidence is produced by people who are not mainstream scientists- who are supplied with funding and are peer reviewed. So whatever evidence you need to be 'qualified' as valid is debunked because of its source. Like I said- it's common sense that these white trails that linger in the sky for hours are NOT natural.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There is evidence. However this evidence is produced by people who are not mainstream scientists- who are supplied with funding and are peer reviewed. So whatever evidence you need to be 'qualified' as valid is debunked because of its source. Like I said- it's common sense that these white trails that linger in the sky for hours are NOT natural.

What is the evidence?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
There is evidence. However this evidence is produced by people who are not mainstream scientists- who are supplied with funding and are peer reviewed. So whatever evidence you need to be 'qualified' as valid is debunked because of its source. Like I said- it's common sense that these white trails that linger in the sky for hours are NOT natural.

That's nonsense. If any thesis is valid you do not need qualifications to present it. If it is valid it will be able to stand on its own merits. However if we look at the apparent scientific evidence for chemtrails it does not stand up to scrutiny. It makes no difference if it was presented by a professor or a farmer. I can guarantee that any valid thesis would get the attention of "mainstream" academics and journalists.
 

jpsitig

New Member
What is the evidence?


If a 'contrail' is condensation and disappears after a few minutes.. what are these white lines that come out of planes that linger for hours and spread over very wide distances in the sky?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The sky is not that different than it was years ago. There are more contrails because there are more jets and they fly higher.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
If a 'contrail' is condensation and disappears after a few minutes.. what are these white lines that come out of planes that linger for hours and spread over very wide distances in the sky?

Now you say that a contrail disappears quickly. That is your thesis. Are you able to show the references and research that has led to that conclusion?
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
If a 'contrail' is condensation and disappears after a few minutes.. what are these white lines that come out of planes that linger for hours and spread over very wide distances in the sky?

The reasons for contrail persistence are well known. Are you saying the science is wrong? If so, please present a refutation.
 

jpsitig

New Member
The reasons for contrail persistence are well known. Are you saying the science is wrong? If so, please present a refutation.

When did I say anything is 'Wrong"? You are relying on a scientific explanation of a contrail that is an effect of condensation that disappears in a relatively short amount of time after the contrail heats up. Please advise me on "the reasons for contrail persistance are well known" statement.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
When did I say anything is 'Wrong"? You are relying on a scientific explanation of a contrail that is an effect of condensation that disappears in a relatively short amount of time after the contrail heats up. Please advise me on "the reasons for contrail persistance are well known" statement.

You could start here: http://www.areco.org/minnis.pdf (Full disclosure, link from wikipedia. It's that easy to do just basic research.). The persistence of contrails depends on temperature and relative humidity.
Or, if you want, you can read an explanation at the blog belonging to this forum: http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

So you are not saying the science is wrong, sorry, I read your posts as implying that persisting contrails were somehow unusual. Is that not what you were saying?
Also, maybe it's because English is not my first language, but don't quite know what you are saying with your second sentence. Would you care to clarify?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Please advise me on "the reasons for contrail persistance are well known" statement.


The nature of contrail persistence and spreading is well known, long studied phenomenon:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAM2325.1

http://contrailscience.com/persisting-and-spreading-contrails/

http://contrailscience.com/contrail-photos-through-history/


Perhaps you could explain why you haven't researched the science of contrail formation and persistence before making your claims?
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
If a 'contrail' is condensation and disappears after a few minutes.. what are these white lines that come out of planes that linger for hours and spread over very wide distances in the sky?
The conditional part of that sentence (If...) is, in this form, incorrect. The white lines are, obviously, (persisting) contrails.
Or this way: you are positing a contradiction where there is none, based on a false premise.
 

Strawman

Senior Member.
Btw: if the basic mechanisms of contrail formation are well known, that obviously does not mean that further research will not yield more detailed knowledge. The science on the formation and persistence of contrails is strong, cf. the relation of temperature, humidity and contrail persistence.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
You are relying on a scientific explanation of a contrail that is an effect of condensation that disappears in a relatively short amount of time after the contrail heats up.

What are clouds made of?

Why do they persist?


...its always well below zero at contrail altitude...the condensation freezes...

Why can't ice crystals persist at temps well below zero?

Why does snow persist at temps much warmer than those found at 30k feet?
 

hemi

Senior Member.

Of course there is "no evidence". This is a military covert operation with the highest clearance. Which means "classified" and no one is admitting that it even exists. People with common sense know differently and don't buy the " where's your evidence" argument.



These are not passenger planes spraying chemtrails!

But, according to our local chemtrail believers, they are passenger planes spraying the chemtrails.

JetStar, Air New Zealand
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....barded-with-chemtrails-again-october-31-2012/

Korean Air
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....rean-air-129-en-route-from-soeul-to-auckland/

LAN Airlines
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....-substance-over-the-tirohanga-opotiki-region/

Qantas
http://chemtrailsnorthnz.wordpress....ied-spraying-aerosol-over-nelson-on-april-20/
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member.
Contrails that persist do so because they have been formed in an ice-supersaturated environment.

The portion of water vapor in the (clear) air corresponding to the "super" of the ice-supersaturation then deposits on the existing condensed and frozen water from the exhaust. The contrail then grows and grows in mass and physical extent, often stretched into broad sheets by the wind shear between one part of the rail and another.
 

CbIncus

Member
Some of my thoughts about chemtrails.

Let's assume that "Chemtrail Operation" is real. Airplanes are spraying aluminium, barium, toxic compounds and other bad stuff. In this case the most reliable evidence will be a direct chemical test of a "chemtrail". Do we see such analyses at chemtrailers' sites? No, of course not. Instead we can find soil, rain and snow tests which "show toxic levels of metals". In reality these levels are normal, or the tests are performed in incorrect ways.

But it isn't the most important thing about chemtrails. Such tests are extremely rarely performed by simple people and thus can't help to spread the chemtrails hoax. We need something simpler.

This is the point when we come to persistent contrails (it is simple to look up in the sky, isn't it?). The vast majority of people do not pay their attention on skies and don't notice persistent contrails over them. When they are told about stuff like "contrails dissipate quickly, but chemtrails can linger in the sky for hours", they believe that it is a new phenomenon and start spreading this urban legend.

It has been many times shown that chemtrail promoters' claims above are not true and are in a conflict with science and history, but many people just learn such information without any critical thinking.

The main logical question is: why do they present false persistent contrails myth as an evidence of a real operation???
 

Metatag

New Member
I have seen the following image listed in a chemtrail 101, which aims to show the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.

560799_525868284112583_1546428229_n.jpg

Let's take a critical look at the "evidence".

1) Size and Length comparison

The image appears to show a small contrail and a large chemtrail. However, the size and length can't be compared in a photo, because perspective distorts these attributes. The dimensions of an object appear larger as the object moves closer to a camera or the human eye. Just look at the apparent size of a person as they walk away for you to confirm this observation.

So, how do we know that the trail marked as a chemtrail is wider and longer than the one marked as a contrail? We don't, of course, and the opposite may be true.

2) The "Chemtrail" is evaporating, in the same way as a contrail!

Compare the left hand and the right hand side of the "Chemtrail" and notice that the width is reducing and the density of the trail is reducing (it is becoming more and more transparent) moving from left to right. This is consistent with evaporation, because evaporation reduces the width of the trail working from the outside to inside, which accounts for the gradual reduction in width along the trail. So we know that the trail comprises of a volatile substance, like water in a contrail.

Let's suppose that the trail comprised of aluminium and other metal oxides, which do not evaporate. Then the trail would appear to grow wider, because the particles would be dispersed by wind. The trail would look like the example below of dust dispersing behind the cars. So the trail is either a plain old, boring contrail or a volatile liquid that transforms from liquid to a colourless vapour. It does not contain a substantial amount of particulate matter, if any.

mojave-trail2.jpg

It's quite clear that the chemtrail 101 image is misleading and useless as a guide. It simply shows two trails that look exactly like contrails.
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
Metatag, while your points are valid, the main primary problem with that image is the implicit assertion that a contrail always dissipates quickly, and thus the trail that does not dissipate quickly must be a "chemtrail". This is the main claim behind the whole chemtrails idea, and it is false. Contrails can dissipate quickly or persist and spread as cirrus clouds, depending on the atmospheric conditions that the plane is traveling through. Even if the picture is taken at face value as intended, both trails look exactly like contrails - one persistent, and one non-persistent.
 

Pete

Member
Really? That is hardly a convincing answer.

Cairenn's answer is a damn site more convincing and logical than your one. Your 'answer' consists of one or more of these:

- You watched some Youtube videos of contrails, but they were labelled 'chemtrail proof' so that made it true.
- You believe what people like Alex Jones tell you. I saw him recently on British TV, he was a complete idiot.
- You ignore the fact persistent contrails have been around since aircraft have flown at high altitude.
- You ignore the fact that contrails will vary in formation/duration based on aircraft type/altitude and weather conditions at altitude.

No offense.
 

Inti

Senior Member.
There is evidence. However this evidence is produced by people who are not mainstream scientists- who are supplied with funding and are peer reviewed. So whatever evidence you need to be 'qualified' as valid is debunked because of its source. Like I said- it's common sense that these white trails that linger in the sky for hours are NOT natural.
Yet I understand that this is supposed to be a process that only started in the last couple of decades. I've seen chemtrail believers insisting that nobody saw persistent contrails before then. Yet I saw them in the late 1950s and early 60s, over London, and I was fascinated, wondering why some persisted while others faded quickly.

How do you account for this?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Yet I understand that this is supposed to be a process that only started in the last couple of decades. I've seen chemtrail believers insisting that nobody saw persistent contrails before then. Yet I saw them in the late 1950s and early 60s, over London, and I was fascinated, wondering why some persisted while others faded quickly.

How do you account for this?
You definitely did see them back in the '50s & '60s, though, due to less air traffic, probably fewer than today.

Atmospheric conditions at the time & place will affect how long a particular contrail persists
(though there are others here that can explain all the variables in far fewer words than I can)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
K I miss my sister. Where do I start? Escaping The Rabbit Hole 27
JKL George H. W. Bush "can't remember" where he was on Nov. 22, 1963 Quotes Debunked 11
FatPhil Given a photo of a building, where was it taken from? Tools for Investigating and Debunking 1
banditsat12oclock Where did UFO reports go between 1969 and 2007? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 3
Mick West Nanothermite on 9/11 - Where did the idea come from? 9/11 32
Rory Where online is debunking most effective? Practical Debunking 14
Mick West Where are you on the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale? Practical Debunking 28
SFX Where to ask questions about posting? Site Feedback & News 5
Trailspotter Where did the third trail go? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Where and How could the Wallace Experiment Easily Be Repeated? Flat Earth 252
R Occasions where you don't engage a misconception CT? Practical Debunking 18
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Whitebeard Magic Hills Where Cars Roll "Uphill" Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
Mick West Converting mb (pressure) to altitude, and sites where this is useful Contrails and Chemtrails 10
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Where are the AE911 models? 9/11 79
Mick West Debunkers, Skeptics and Conspiracists: Where are you on the political compass? General Discussion 252
Tazmanian Where did the explosions come from? Boston Marathon Bombings 46
TWCobra Where is the Stratosphere today? Contrails and Chemtrails 96
Mauro How to calculate the odds of something being true vs. it being false, given the evidence (Bayesian inference) Practical Debunking 40
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Joe Hill Beirut Explosion -- Evidence It Wasn't Just A Surface Explosion Current Events 21
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
C My girlfriend,Jungian Personality Theory and the Rabbit Hole (Dealing with Relationships) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 17
R "Breakthrough": U.S. Attorney Agrees to Present Evidence of WTC Demolition to Federal Grand Jury. 9/11 155
M How to Evaluate Specious Evidence (Like "Bubbles" in Space) Practical Debunking 6
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
Everett Anderson Standard Atmospheric Refraction: Empirical Evidence and Derivation Flat Earth 18
deirdre J.Marvin Herndon tries to pass off Bird Poop as evidence of "chemtrail" spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 24
MikeC Claim: New Zealand quakes man made...... Conspiracy Theories 4
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
Jonathan Evans Gyroscopes as Evidence for a Spherical and Rotating Earth Flat Earth 4
Inti Claims that compass “symbols” are evidence of Masonic involvement Conspiracy Theories 8
Michael Mitchell Claim: Evidence for use of "Breaching Round" at Sandy Hook Sandy Hook 23
Mackdog Justice Scalia death: No autopsy as evidence of conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 15
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
deirdre Debunked:'Everyone must Check In Sign' evidence of FEMA Drill Sandy Hook 25
Jay Reynolds Government of Cyprus said to find no evidence of spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Blues63 The Angle Cut at Ground Zero: Clean up or evidence ofa CD? 9/11 13
Rob Can the weapon system used be determined from the available evidence? Flight MH17 40
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Oystein Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T 9/11 31
ColtCabana United States v. Tsarnaev Evidence Boston Marathon Bombings 3
MikeC Oregon's milky rain - evidence of weather warfare? Contrails and Chemtrails 6
TWCobra Chemtrail evidence that would stand up in court Contrails and Chemtrails 20
Leifer Has the accusation of "shills" become an independant conspiracy ? Conspiracy Theories 89
Mick West Claim: New 9/11 Survivor Provides Explosive New Evidence 9/11 59
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top