Talk:Chemtrails/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 27 June 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Shock Jock?[edit]

Isn't Howard Stern a shock jock? That is, doesn't that term refer to someone who makes deliberately insulting and offensive remarks just for the shock value? I listened to Art Bell off and on over the years, and I never heard him out-shock Casey Kasem. I'll remove the term, if no one objects. Jon in Iowa 12:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

You seem to be quite correct... I changed the description. ħumanUser talk:Human 12:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
You're a peach. Jon in Iowa 12:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

What is this?[edit]

"...and the exposure of barium to the population seems logical if reports are true that Baxter Labs in the Ukraine was to release a weaponized strain of flu as Joseph Moshe claimed they would, an infection which has thus far killed thousands in the Ukraine causing the country to close its borders." Is this real or is it memorex conspiracy fodder? it needs a source. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking it up and found some things on it - it's primarily a talking point in chemtrail websites. I shifted it to the "claims" section and will wait further citation from the poster or I'll find it myself and reword it all appropriately. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 17:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. It's an interesting piece of horseshit but not worth dwelling on too much. Basically it's the result of misreading what an actual piece of research has said. Barium certainly hasn't been found to be an in vivo immunosuppressant - if it was doctors would be well aware of it because of its wide and regular use as an X-Ray contrast agent. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 20:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland and chemtrails[edit]

Given that Iceland Volcano Unspellable has caused suspension of much air traffic across Europe (now returning piecemeal) - any comments by hotair/chemtrail spouters? Or (insert suitable pseudotechnogibberish here) the volcano is being used as a more effective way of spreading whatever (rather than merely polluting the atmosphere).


82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a similar phenomenon in the US after 9/11? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Silver? (bake one)[edit]

This has just been bronzed. Anything keeping it from silver? - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

UK government[edit]

Not as dramatic as the BoN suggests. "Cited" Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience MOD report: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/70A71F1A-831B-4618-918E-D263384DA684/0/ZincCadmiumSulphideDispersionTrials.pdf WP on the "dangerous" chemicals sprayed on people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_cadmium_sulfide Scarlet A.pngnarchist 13:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The German Youtube clip[edit]

The English subtitles on that clip are highly inaccurate. For example, towards the beginning the subtitles say "... manipulating our climate..." whereas the speaker clearly talks about manipulating weather radar. What is not clear from the subtitles either is that the news item is about the use of chaff by the military, not really "chemtrails" nor particularly new. RTL is a commercial broadcaster known for broadcasting low-budget films and softcore porn, not so much for accurate news reporting. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a similar video purporting to show a Russian politician threatening to use their earthquake machines on the world. Difference is, Bertan assures me the subtitles on that one are accurate, just that he was well known for being a drunk lunatic who said that sort of thing all the time. So it seems that it's certainly not an isolated trope among conspiracy theorists to take full advantage of the language barrier by stripping videos from foreign TV of all context and presenting them as something different. It'd be interesting to track down other examples, but finding the linguists willing to check the subtitles would be slightly more difficult. ADK...I'll prove your hadron! 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Recently I saw a Russian video of a sun dog. Despite the fact that the leading titles described it (in Russian) as a natural phenomenon, it was rebranded as a "second sun" Nibiru/Planet X video. "Visual quote mining"? :) --ZooGuard (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It might be useful to have a list of users who could offer their language expertise to interpret some of this stuff. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.Moderator 13:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Black rays (Black Beams, etc)[edit]

The explanation of the phenomenon is incorrect. The shadow in "in the air"; the contrail is not in shadow. I will offer a better explanation in full later. — Unsigned, by: Ross Marsden / talk / contribs 01:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone got any more on this? ADK...I'll wash your cob! 17:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 16:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We have to use this![edit]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2351034553517&set=o.184207844968814&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

I'll try to do something shortly.

ħumanUser talk:Human 02:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You sir, are a comic genius.

In my city[edit]

In the city I live in, there is at least one "Google Chemtrails" graffiti in every district, and on some key locations you can't miss. It's fucking annoying. Like someone is forcibly shoving this idiotic nonsense into my eyes every time I take a walk, while thinking he's spreading the truth. I hate graffiti. -- DasRationalpersone Socks cat 1.JPG (Annoy me!) 12:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reality check here[edit]

  • ARE* there chemtrails? Absolutely. The majority are, as in 99.999$ or better, CO2, HO2, a bit of CO and some pollutants. So, yes, STRICTLY speaking that is "true". With special aircraft, there *ARE* chemtrails that occurred. Consider the SR-71, various and sundry experimental aircraft/sub-orbital craft. Nefarious? Nope. SOME were or are classified. Not because they're trying to kill off the taxpayers (morons, get a GRIP, kill you off, the government has NO real funding). Just because the damned vehicles would blow up because of a lack of a special fuel to stabilize it. It doesn't mean the "vast conspiracy of the space aliens" or some other shit. It only needs to be reality, that that is classified to get some other taxpayer home after photographing that which "doesn't exist". Reality vs lunacy, folks. Oops, rather wasted here, more worthy of Wikipedia...  ;) Wzrd1 (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
But they pump super-oxidised carbon and dihydrogen monoxide into the atmosphere and no one is doing ANYTHING to stop it!! Scarlet A.pngd hominemModerator 00:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, there are those fiends who are dumping hydroxic acid into the atmosphere. Why, some even have the nerve to use the primary component of drain cleaner into the atmosphere, hydrogen hydroxide!Wzrd1 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverting[edit]

Why was I reverted? Do you guys know anything about Chemtrails because it doesn't seem like it! LOOK UP!! Trailer (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Been subject to any government interference lately old son? Scream!! (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything. Look up! You can see that they are spraying. Every time they do I see fibers drifting down also. Haven't you heard of Morgallens????? You guys no nothing! Trailer (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Quite honestly, no. Looking it up I find it's a "delusional infestation". So? Scream!! (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's "Morgellons". We even have an article.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Chemtrails are real. It is a misguided attempt to cure global-warming (which itself is a lie foisted on us by the illuminati for their lizard-masters). Seriously, this isn't doubted anymore! Trailer (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Tedious troll is tedious. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Tedious troll is idiot Troll Scream!! (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Just re-reading the troll, suspect possible Poe? Scream!! (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"Possible"; are you kidding? I guess it's true what they say about the winking smiley. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god you guys are loosers! I cna't believe you want even LOOK UP! and see what they are doing. Trailer (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid that you really need to sound a lot weirder and post great blocks of semi-coherent text if you want people to think that you are legit. Nice try though. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Also required for verisimilitude: MORE mis-spellings, you only managed 3 in that last sentence. Scream!! (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
And all capital LETTERS and bold.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 21:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be crazy? Trailer (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Mein Gott! If you're that good without trying, imagine what a little effort could do. (Didn't mention: more exclamation marks helps!!!!!!!) Scream!! (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, so it is obvious RationalWiki isn't for me. No need to be a fucking dick about it. Trailer (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If I wanna be a dick, I'll be a dick. Ain't takin' no instructions from someone infected by chemtrail fibres! Scream!! (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
What a lovely piece of shit you are. You are just the type of sheep they want you to be. Good luck to you but don't crying to me when the sun has been blocked out and your close to starvation. I have a well stocked emergency larder and a 'go bag'. What have you got? A shitty attitude isn't going to get you far. Trailer (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Make your mind up. Am I a dick, a sheep or a piece of shit? I know: a piece of shit shaped like a sheep's (ram's presumably) dick. When the sun's blocked out? Is that what they're doing? My word. Well, well. Who'd 'a thought it? Scream!! (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A new guy chimes in.[edit]

CHEMTRAIL NOTE: I have been in the commercial aviation industry since 1983, and we presently hold a database of all commercial flights departing the UK. One of the tools I use occasionally is called planefinder.net, which has all ADS-B aircraft (CAA flights) on it, with the exception of FlyBe, a small operator with short haul flights, whose routes we are aware of. Planefinder gives all commercial traffic in real time on an iphone or PC.

I live in Bedford and about four days a week we have grids of solid white material coming out of planes that start in the south of the town, going east-west and then working further north during the day. We hardly get any bluie sies, even in the height of summer - cumulus clouds are of course obvious but these artificial ones begin as solid streams from 2 or 4 engine jets, spreading over a period of some hours into wispy filaments which stay in the air most of the day. By late morning the skies are already a milky, diffused white and direct sunlight cannot get through.

I first noticed these "chemtrails" about two years ago so in the last few months have used planefinder to verify that the "spray planes" are NOT CAA aircraft. I have contacts within the CAA who assure me that no civil airliners have been authorised to have modifications either to the fuel or to equipment which would spray chemicals into the exhaust of the jets themselves. They did, however, say they could not speak for the MoD.

Either way, the suspicious thing is that not one single spray plane I have spotted in the last 5 months from our offices - probably more than 100 separate occasions - has appeared on planefinder. The same reports have come from colleagues known to me in Maidstone, Putney, Glasgow, LLandudno, Slough, Dublin, Toronto, Hamilton (Ontario), Los Angeles, Milan, Alicante and even the Greek Islands.


On the hottest days of the year 2012, I happened to be in both Bedford and London, and saw vast swathes of tic-tac-toe grids overhead, when weather balloon data combined with the Appleman chart show contrails should not form at all, let alone persist all day. What I notice is that regardless of relative humidity %, temperature, apparent altitude, time of year, time of day or wind conditions, these uniquely identifiable sprays look identical. They have identical persistence, and identical dissipation rates, which is impossible for condensation, that is, to behave in the same way under any and all seasonal and temperature conditions, etc.

Very simply put, nobody can explain to me why these planes do not show up on either our database of UK flights, or on CAA radar systems. So it seems that denying their existence contradicts observed evidence, and my feedback from tour operators is that they do not like being blamed for this activity, a perception people have as most are not aware of how simple it is to check the civil or military nature of flights directly overhead at any time.

My conclusion is that chemtrails are a genuine phenomena, but nobody has explained what is being sprayed, or why. — Unsigned, by: Iain carstairs / talk / contribs (removed from article text)

He's also a Sandy Hook twister. His clog is here. SophieWilder 19:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
The folks over at Metabunk have already gone over it for him in excruciating detail - but like most chemmies he's not actually interested in facts.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
From that link: "For the above reasons, a few moments ago I reported you and the others who re-tweeted your call to the UK Home Office for Counter Terrorism." :D I'm very curious about the outcome...--ZooGuard (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
We may or may not ever hear any moer from that, but I know of 1 occasion where a chemmie was "dobbed in" for saying he was going to confront a QANTAS pilot at Sydney Airport - and Australian Federal Police were waiting for him - teh guy is on YT as PeeKay22 - a particularly nutty nut!--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, as you have raised the issue on this page, the points I raised about Sandy Hook seem valid, and they're available for you to read on the Bunk site. Nobody has answered any of them. All we really need is for the real Nick Phelps to stand up and say, "I am the real Nick Phelps.. here is proof that I am not from Florida." And the moment he does so, everyone who has questioned this aspect will immediately be satisfied. But one thing is reasonably sure: he will never be found.— Unsigned, by: Iain carstairs / talk / contribs 17:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Snopes is your friend--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Phelps silliness debunked on Metabunk - looks like they were listening to your whining after all! --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem you and the people at the Bunk site have is that anyone who asks questions is immediately rubber-stamped "conspiracy theorist". I don't say the shooting never happened: I simply ask questions that any normal person would do. We don't have any other source for information except the media: everything being discussed has come straight from the media. When the media gives us nonsense, we ask questions because we're interested in the truth.

People who don't ask questions - who take everything presented by the media at face value - cannot call themselves thinkers. They simply repeat what they've heard. We already know what the media has said; what we want is to know why certain questions, apparently, cannot be answered.--Iain carstairs (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This is all very silly, especially to discuss in the USA. Clean air standards vary here, but if stuff was being sprayed into the air I think we'd pick up on it, considering that both major and minor weather stations measure contaminants and composition of the air. We might even detect it with our own senses; places in the world with fewer fuel regulations (for example, sulphur released from low-grade diesel fuel) have air that even smells different than most places in the USA. While conspiracy nuts might account for perhaps government weather facilities and a few corporate facilities being part of some mass chemical spraying coverup, how does that explain the fact that even ye tiny weather station on the hill, or in school facilities not finding anything out of the ordinary? And before ANYONE says 'well it's a special INVISIBLE TO SENSORS substance, get real; all things are combinations of molecules. You'd be better off trying to assert that there is a hidden compound in diesel exhaust that was engineered by Big Oil to do whatever than to insist that planes spray some kind of death chemical. At least that conspiracy farce comes with its own means of distribution (the highway system and the incredible amount of fuel burned by cars in the USA.) ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRcritical thinking is the key to success! 18:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Putting it in petrol? Jesus Christ don't give them ideas! Scarlet A.pngmoral 13:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Real chemtrails[edit]

... are exuded by the Red Arrows [1]. :) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be the last photo ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver? (bake two)[edit]

You know what? I think this article isn't terribly good, and has been slightly neglected, especially considering how often chemtrail claims get circulated. It wouldn't take a lot to work it up to silver status, and then gold after that. SophieWilder 14:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I know. CTSTDT on Facebook was basically "Chemtrail Watch" for a few months and it was bugging me to make this better. I managed a better (i.e., correct) explanation of the Black Rays eventually, but that was about it. More on Vinegar Warriors might be good... but what else can you add besides "this is fucking insane"? Scarlet A.pngsshole 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Nick stuff from the blog post version. I basically rewrote and reordered for flow. Half the cite links here are dead, I fixed them up there. C'n'P freely - David Gerard (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks?[edit]

Presume this is crap but here tis:


Chemtrails - The Evidence.... From a "CRANK" There is actually a lot of evidence in the world relating specifically to chemtrails and there many uses. One of the most substantial and crucial bits of evidence is directly from the MoD (Ministry of Defence) in the UK.

  • The Mod has admitted and released vital information that completely proves the use of chemtrails in the UK. The article was published by 'The Gaurdian' newspaper, which is one of the UK's most credible newspapers. The link to the article is Guardian newspaper article. The UK government report, released in 2002, provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain's biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979. Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told. While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.
  • There are over 100 patents from the USA alone, relating to technology directly linked with chemtrails and chemtrail spraying. The link for this article is List of patents.
  • Swedish Green Party leader Pernilla Hagberg - comes forard in 2012 and admits to the Swedish government being involved in the use of chemtrails. The link to this article is Swedish official admits toxic 'chemtrails' are real. This is quoted from the article "Interestingly, the United Nations (UN) and various Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-backed groups have recently been forced to admit that such sprayings are taking place, and that the emitted particles are not normal contrails."
  • Bill Gates is actually currently funding a project, through a multi-million dollar research fund that was started by himself, to have a large balloon hovering at 80,000 feet over Fort Sumner, New Mexico, that will release sulfates into the atmosphere within the next year. This article was written in 2012. The link the the article is Bill Gates admits to chemtrails.
  • Senator Tom Harkin admits to Chemtrails as a use of 'Chaff' by military aircraft pilots. He says that chaff is spread by pilots learning how to mask planes or send false radar images. Once chaff reaches the ground, it breaks down into particles small enough to inhale. Though military spokespeople insist that chaff is not harmful, the GAO (General Accounting Office) report concluded that health effects are unknown and more studies are needed. A few weeks after this request, the families who had sent in the request to the senator, noticed glittering substance and a pinkish-colored powder substance on the roof of their houses. They then noticed the glittering substance on many surfaces, even the dashboard of the family car. Both substances were collected and sent to a lab for analysis. Among the substances found to be in the samples were several that should simply not be there:
6 bacteria, including anthrax and pneumonia
9 chemicals including acetylcholine chloride
26 heavy metals including arsenic, gold, lead,mercury, silver, uranium and zinc
4 molds and fungi
7 viruses
2 cancers
2 vaccines
2 sedatives
The link to this article is Senator admits to chemtrails.

Maybe I (along with millions of other people around the world) am a crank......But if being a crank means that you are opened minded, not ignorant, specific and decisive with your research and focus on facts rather than opinions then I am glad to be a crank. I would rather not believe in chemtrails, although opinion over fact doesn't prove anything. Ignorance is what the governments and mass corporations rely on. The truth might hurt and be almost unbelievable, but once upon a time only the crazy (and the cranks) believed the world was round! From the Truth_Seeker (A Crank).

User: Truth seeker00

The most credible source is the Guardian article up top, but that has very little to do with the modern chemtrail conspiracy that suggests practically all aircraft are doing it, or that there's insidious mind-control motives (to say nothing of the vinegar). The rest is a bit of a turdblossom. Seriously hokey sources mixed in with terrible misinterpretations. Not to mention a massive conflation of different ideas including chemical research, biological warfare research, geoengineering, and simply generic high altitude research. If you cast your net that wide, then sure, "chemtrails" is a real conspiracy. I work just down the road from a department that does it all the time. Scarlet A.pngpostate 21:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Al Gore[edit]

What about al gore talking about chemtrails? None dare talk about him.

Al gore blabs on chemtrails

I'd suggest reading up on global dimming and the effects of not flying airplanes for a period of time after 9/11 in the US (Europe was still flying them). The NOVA program Dimming The Sun went into this a bit. More about this in the contrail effect. The basic idea is to change the fuel/air ratio to make more contrails, increasing the albedo of the atmosphere and reducing the amount of light warming the planet. From a theoretical standpoint, it is quite interesting - especially with the 9/11 grounding in that this is something that reacts very quickly - both on and off. Increasing the albedo by day and decreasing by night (shoot, even stoping redeye flights might have a noticeable effect). But yea... trying to talk about albedo to someone who thinks that the government is spraying chemicals gets you nowhere. --Shagie (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Solar Radiation Management[edit]

A section could be included about Cloud Seeding and Solar Radiation Management, which are real instances when the cloud cover is manipulated intentionally. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that, despite global side effects and long-term consequences, geoengineering techniques involving solar radiation management (SRM) should be maintained:"If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing." http://nsnbc.me/2013/11/12/ipcc-warns-not-to-stop-chemtrails-aka-solar-radiation-management/ 68.58.192.71 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC) (Rakovsky)

This article references a blog post and both are dubious about their claims. But I've read some of it and it reads like "Hey! Let's stop doing stuff about global warming so the world temperature will rise and the climate of the world will be in turmoil." Zero (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I had a suspicion that the IPCC quote was an argument against SRM, and I was right. The IPCC document discusses the idea of SRM, and mentions possible adverse consequences, one of which is that SRM would need to be constantly maintained, otherwise if it stopped then the Earth would start to heat up again.
NSNBC, being the crank website it is, had quote-mined the IPCC report and pretended it was admitting that SRM was taking place. SRM is not taking place, and the IPCC document does not claim it is. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 04:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
So, your belief is that SRM and geo-engineering proposals are just theoretical, and that the haze in the atmosphere all over the world which has developed over the last 15 years, and accelerated in the last 5 years, is just coincidence? That's interesting. very rational indeed. Seriously though, are you in your 20's? Younger? Do none of you skeptics remember what real clouds look like, and what the sky looked like before the spraying? That is what is terrifying to me...that the younger generation is not going to know the difference, so they will all just accept what't being perpetrated as "normal". Now, when a baby points up at the sky, and a mother says "cloud!", that's all the baby is ever going to know (and one day, someone is going to try to convince that grown-up child that that "cloud" up there is dangerous, and they will just seem like some deranged lunatic because everyone knows clouds are safe!). And as a scientist, I can say with confidence that SRM isn't protecting us from radiation (which is probably how it was sold to congress and parliments around the world, as critical research to prevent catastrophe from a deadly massive solar-flare); it is creating a greenhouse canopy to warm the earth and manipulate weather. Perhaps that's why the climate change agenda is pushed so heavily right now--they have to explain why the earth is heating up, and need to blame it on carbon (oh, and conveniently, tax carbon emissions to pay for the ongoing spraying and military research). I mean, if you're a chemtrail denier, does that mean you've simply lost any ability to connect the dots? When a military funding bill is drafted in congress which specifically calls out that "none of these funds shall be appropriated for weather manipulation research", and when the military pushes back saying "NO! we absolutely have determined that the greatest threat to our country over the next century is climate change, you need to fund our weather research!", don't you think that maybe something odd is going on? Artificial clouds in the sky; clouds that dissipate but never vannish completely; strange grid-like spraying over metropolitan areas; 'chem-trail' sunsets observed almost nightly in the west, references in congress and by the military to weather research programs; increasing frequency of weather anomolies all over the country: I don't see how anyone can choose to see all that in a hat and say "nah, just coincidence".— Unsigned, by: 170.97.167.69 / talk / contribs 21:12, 5 August 2014
How about... we just say... [citation needed] Ikanreed (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
All of the citations listed in the earlier comments aren't reliable enough for you? Well, you could just read the ever reliable news... NYTIMES.com article in May > "The accelerating rate of climate change poses a severe risk to national security and acts as a catalyst for global political conflict...[a]leading government-funded military research organization concluded."
Or, perhaps you trust the government:
- Quadrenial Defense Review from the Pentagon http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2014_Quadrennial_Defense_Review.pdf {disusses link between globabl warming and terrorism)
- CNA's 2007 report http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change%20-%20Print.pdf(describes climate change as a 'threat multiplier' leading to global disruption and a 'catalyst for conflict'.)
-Excerpt of ammendment to the National Defense Authorization bill in May, "None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866." -- to which the military responded with criticism, pointing to the aforementioned reports for support. A reasoning mind has to question 'why did they feel the need to specifically tell the military not to spend it on these things?'. I mean, there was no mention of them not being able to use the funds to buy candy laced with LSD, right? so how did they determine what limitations to include in the ammendment and what to leave out? Hmmm. Oh yeah, maybe that was pertinent because the are ALREADY DOING IT.
The thing is, nobody is ever going to come out and TELL you why they are doing something like this. You won't find a publically accessible pentagon report that says, "we are spraying you to death with chemicals" or "we are manufacturing our own global warming". If you refuse to think critically and form logical connections based on historical and human insight, then no amount of citation or references is going to ever have an impact on your views. but the breadcrumbs are there. 'They' do, in this political world, need to cover their asses; and so you will find these little clues and their reports and these ammendments, which all will later be used to justify actions and indemnify those responsible. Then again, i work for the government...so perhaps the average civilian simply doesn't have the right frame of reference to understand how people operate in this realm. — Unsigned, by: 170.97.167.69 / talk / contribs 12:56, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)
Hey, look, you're crazy and don't know it. Fun. Ikanreed (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Love the "as a scientist" bit! Scream!! (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
He's totally a scientist, he owns a lab coat. Ikanreed (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

"has links to"[edit]

The "Follow The Money" section may be useful, but "has links to" is a conspiracist weasel term unless you specify what the links are - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent chemtrails hearing with video[edit]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/27/az-residents-at-chemtrail-hearing-were-being-sprayed-like-were-bugs-and-its-really-not-okay/ --ZooGuard (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"An unidentified man in camouflage pants cited 2011 House bill (HR2977), designed to inhibit the proliferation of space-based weapons, which listed chemtrails as a possible “exotic weapons system,” along with “extraterrestrial weapons, chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.” LOL. Leuders (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Chemtrails on NBC?[edit]

Was this video edited?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFH_Ly2Gn80--Tsunadi (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Had to watch 2 minutes of Galaxy Samsung marketing drivel. Thanks for that. Why would the video be (I assume you mean deceptively) edited? Jet exhaust vapors make trails in the sky. People see them and think the government is poisoning them. Rinse and repeat. Leuders (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Tested in LA?[edit]

Sorry for another topic, but I've seen a video that stated from the news that chemtrails were testen in LA, california.--Tsunadi (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Climate change?[edit]

Just pulling stuff out of my fundament here, but I see a lot of assertions from the "chemtrail" crowd that contrails are more prevalent now than they've ever been, and therefore MUST be something different. Was just reading a site discussing contrails and how they're formed, and I realized something - contrails are formed by water particles/ice in the upper atmosphere, and one of the consequences of global warming is increased energy in the climate system with increased evaporation leading to more water vapor in the air. More water vapor = more condensation = more and longer-lasting contrails. This sound reasonable? --Pere Ubu (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's something much more prosaic: a combination of selective memory and a general increase in air traffic.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not arguing; it's just a suggestion in the event that the "these can't be contrails because they last too long" argument comes up, which I've seen it do. It would also be interesting to see where the reports are most common; under my theory I think you would be getting far more reports of "chemtrails" from coastal/plains areas (wetter) than the drier desert areas. --Pere Ubu (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
At height isn't water content of the atmosphere fairly constant? (JAQ) Scream!! (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
[2] Leuders (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
That would seem to strengthen my case - more water vapor, longer-lasting contrails. Though more energy also means more wind, which dissipates contrails faster. I guess I'm going mainly for "people who notice them are noticing them because they are looking for them" and let it lie there. (And you have to feel for the poor guy trying to explain it to these mooks only to be greeted with "WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR? HOW MUCH ARE THEY PAYING YOU!?" *facepalm* --Pere Ubu (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You guys need to read this.[edit]

http://www.thetruthdenied.com/news/2012/08/06/mick-west-owner-of-contrailscience-lies-once-again-please-be-aware/

You need to read this. Contrails are NOT water vapor. Anyone who says that is a shill, as even mainstream science doesn't claim this.--BnBn (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and I remember hearing this one song where the singer admits they shot the sheriff, but denies shooting the deputy. I bet it was the government that shot the deputy. He knew too much. :( King Skeleton (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Tell me, buddy. Pal. Friend. Let's talk about this like scientists, who, for a moment, have a hypothesis that "chemtrails" are an extant thing, and not condensation. What does your test for this hypothesis look like? How do you falsify your theory? Having "reason" to believe you're right is well and good, but most important to be right is having a way of telling that you're wrong. What would tell you you're wrong? Ikanreed (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
A poe, or a brilliant illustration of crank magnetism? I mean, so far BnBn's posts has ticked both the evolution denial, Illuminati conspiracy theories, NWO and Satanic panic boxes and now chemtrails too. Looking forward to which crankery du jour is coming next. Still, judging by some of the responses to the Satanism post, at least one person seems to have been entertained by the nonsense - every cloud... ScepticWombat (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't been following the shenanigans. As long as it's contained to talk pages, I guess there's no harm. Ikanreed (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW BnBn - try using a header that doesn't look like something 'your email provider' would automatically decide is spam. 86.134.53.118 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not actually a crank pot "conspiracy theory"[edit]

Barium tracers are used in rockets for atmosphere and ionosphere studies. Look up tracer rocket. Barium photoionizes from UV exposure to create a plasma that can be used to track movements of the atomosphere. It is used in several atmosphere tracking, radar calibration and ionosphere research programs. That is not controversial.

Barium Sulfate is 27% of coal fly ash by weight, so it ends up in atmosphere and rainwater from coal plants. The issue is not "do chemtrails exist", but rather "is this water vapor" or "is this aluminum and barium" or "is this condensation from sulfur particles in exhaust". The scientific question is whether these are commercial or military planes, whether it is cloud seeding or an atmospheric study or a radar study. The other question is the frequency.

Obviously not every plane leaving trail is spraying chemicals. There are obviously planes doing cloud seeding. Clouds are seeded near ocean by salt particles in air. Aerosols of salts are being used for cloud seeding as cheaper alternative to silver iodide flares. Texas, Utah, California all have state funded cloud seeding programs, that spray "chemtrails". This has been going on since 70s.

http://water.utah.gov/cloudseeding/

There are also military planes doing atmospheric aerosol release studies. The "conspiracy theory" began in 1998 after a massive increase in the appearance of trails, or an increased awareness of them. I would not consider this a "conspiracy theory" as much as a failure to respond to public inquiry about the program by denying it.

Both the US, China, India and the EU have radar and atmospheric tracking programs that use barium salt aerosols. There is a question about the health effects, so it would be easiest to just deny the program, instead of inviting scrutiny from public and being subject to environmental reviews. The question is whether they are performing 5 releases per year or 20,000 and whether this program accounts for the trails or the trails are water vapor and program scope is exagerated.

Its only a "conspiracy theory" if you ignore the government websites for the programs. — Unsigned, by: 23.242.75.236 / talk 16:11, 15 March 2015‎

Cloud seeding is not chemtrails, but a well-known and rather mundane technique applied in very dry areas (like Utah). I note that any citations about the vague allegations that extrapolates from Utah's cloud seeding to a massive global chemtrail conspiracy are conspicuously missing... ScepticWombat (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
From the heading - This is not actually a crank pot "conspiracy theory". It's certainly a conspiracy theory and it's as "crank pot" (I love that) as they come.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, noticed that one too, but thought it was too easy/cruel to bring it up. I wonder, do you think a "crank pot" is more crack pot than a crack pot and more cranky than a crank? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit about evaporation time and misleading physics[edit]

[Image:https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/892/flashcards/3291892/jpg/cloud_seeding_(psf)-144B795978F74E45576.jpg]

The physical background is total crap here. At first,
Contrails are formed when these hot exhaust gases mix with rarefied cool air. In a process similar to cloud formation, the water freezes quickly, forming a white haze of microscopic ice crystals which is essentially — and merely — an elongated cloud.
leads you astray. The reason for the clouds condesation not CO2 or water from the engine. It is SOOT (or dust particles), when atmospheric conditions are right
On days when cirrus cloud formation is occurring, there is more moisture in the upper atmosphere, and consequently, contrails may linger longer before evaporating. Since cirrus clouds often precede a general overcast or haze, the casual observer could easily assume that the contrails have caused the overcast, or become the overcast. The persistence of contrails varies with weather conditions: sometimes they dissipate almost immediately, but often they will persist for hours
is another misleading piece of false physics. Basically, you say that once condensed evaporates, the sky becomes clean. That is misinformation. SOOT does not disappear in minutes or hours. It keeps serving as crystallization nuclei for the CLOUDS TO RE-APPEAR as soon as comfortable conditions are back. Take the dew point chart [3] of Relative Humidity. There is an area at low temperature and high humidity (upper left corner) where you have 100% condensation of the vapour into clouds. There is also opposite corner, at high temperature and low moisture, where clouds never appear. In the rest, cloud availability depends on the nuclei. Yes, clouds are formed by nuclei. The temperature may be low, -40 celsies, the moisture could be sufficient for the crystaillization but it does not happen. Condesnation needs nuclei. And here comes the plain, with all the soot exhausted. Happy water molecules attach to the soot particles. Why should they evaporate? They should not at all. Only if atmospheric conditions change (temperature and moisture). The evaporation/condensation may alternate itself until your soot falls upon the Earth, which may take days. All these days you will see the clouds. Guess what will your sky look like -- WP:Global Dimming. Read about it. Think how it is possible that single trail can cover the half of the sky (watch more chemtrail lapses to admire that). Then, start (re)writing the article. Here wikipedia confirms my statement
Water requires a non-gaseous surface to make the transition from a vapour to a liquid; this process is called condensation. In the atmosphere, this surface presents itself as tiny solid or liquid particles called CCNs. When no CCNs are present, water vapour can be supercooled at about -13°C (8°F) for 5-6 hours before droplets spontaneously form (this is the basis of the cloud chamber for detecting airplains in the air). In above freezing temperatures the air would have to be supersaturated to around 400% before the droplets could form.
--Valtih1978 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, you confused the formation of precipitation with contrails. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you saying that I look in the sky and the into the physics and see something whereas there is nothing there? Is "perception" a magic word to deny the impact of seeding, the fact of seeding itself? --Valtih1978 (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with chemtrails[edit]

Learn science - specifically chemistry and 'about the atmosphere.'

Become a technical person or scientist.

Be recruited into the aerospace/plane manufacturing companies, and get a position in the engine and (claimed) chemtrail production unit.

Redesign the engines so they do not produce chemtrails.

Job done. 86.134.53.118 (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, no one has ever infiltrated anything to actually show they exist after all these years. EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
What proportion of those believing in chemtrails (not of the skywriting/Red Arrow) would have the IQ/abilities to get involved in the manufacturing companies to investigate the mater further? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion? I am surprised most survive the process of putting on their shoes. Considering how many spray vinegar in the air to get rid of them, which blows back into their own eyes, I think that's a safe opinion. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Vinegar to get rid of what - shoes, chemtrails, eyes?
The sort of people who go into aeronautical design and atmospherical analysis are unlikely to believe in chemtrails as described in this article (as distinct from 'potential pollutants' and 'accidental intakes whether or not of a feathered kind.') 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
| Take a look, it's a pretty funny video. The thing is once people learn how stuff actually works, and don't paply logic that's absurd for cartoons, it's amazing how they don't believe in conspiracies. - EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
"Redesign the engines so they do not produce chemtrails." Designing a jet engine that does not produce contrails would probably violate the laws of physics.--Petey Plane (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
My point was that chemtrailists should try and 'resolve the problem' in a practical way (which results in their becoming informed of the practicalities)

Those who put chemtrail chemicals into 'jumped up crop-spraying planes operating at high altitudes' are also going to be affected by the chemicals.

.Do jet engines produce pollutants/the equivalent of whatever petrol and diesel engines emit? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to solve a problem (chemtrails) that does not exist. Jet engines do produce exhaust, similar to cars, but proportionally much less, as a modern jet turbine is significantly more efficient than an internal combustion engine (ICE). (Turbines are also combustion engines, as they turn energy from burning fuel into motive power) Exhaust is, essentially, the unused portion the fuel used for combustion, due to sub 100% efficency natural to any real world system. The less efficient the reaction, the more concentrated (and usually more visible) the byproduct is. Visible contrails are created by condensing water vapor, and are not the visible exhaust byproducts of the aircraft. You do often see the visible dark exhaust from aircraft when they are taking off, as their turbines are not able to operate efficiently at low speeds and altitudes, as well as significantly more thrust being needed to gain altitude (as apposed to maintaining altitude). The volume of polluting exhaust that is produced by the world's planes, in comparison to pollution produced by the ICEs of the world's cars, is infinitesimally small.--Petey Plane (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Ignorance enlightened :) Perhaps there should be a comment in the article to the effect 'Like all carbon-fuel engines jets produce some exhaust, but significantly less than cars, and this does not form part of the chemtrail.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
✔ I've added something like this, citing a NatGeo article. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

My initial point was that 'the chemtrail believers' and 'those actually willing to learn about the topic' - which includes that part of the general population who get no further than 'OK airplane trails are my breath in winter, but airplane engines must produce some emissions and CO2 like petrol diesel engines - "they" should reduce this as far as possible (including different types of planes, videoconferencing, whatever) and is there any contribution to the hole in the ozone layer?) are likely to be mutually exclusive. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, people should do what they think of as important...and if people desire to reduce emissions then they should go out and do so instead of complain about it. I agree there. Education is one key, as airplane exhaust does not deplete the ozone layer. A majority of what contrails are don't really do any damage, as they are mostly water, it would be good to lower impurities like Sulfur (a cause of acid rain) and reduce CO2 emissions from engines themselves. That seems out of scope to the conspiracy of chemtrails. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
'Planes are up there and the hole in the ozone is up there and we can see atmospheric pollution' and wondering if there is a connection can be rational. Those who have 'a vague notion of what is involved and a scattering of knowledge' (and are willing to have their ignorance enlightened) are not normally going to be the subject of RW negativity (but may need to be given a few pointers as to where to look). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, I am not sure I get this one. If people want an education without being at RW there things called universities (some have free classes online), or community colleges, or encyclopedias, or libraries with texts, or online papers at scientific organizations like NOAA. I am fairly confused these need to be presented as options because these should be common knowledge.
As for planes cause ozone depletion because they fly high...that's nonsensical. They don't fly as high as the ozone layer and they don't produce the chemicals to do it. It's like saying the people who lived near Fukushima caused the radiation contamination because they existed in the same location. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I was giving a hypothetical example given people's tendency to agglutinate 'seemingly vaguely connected facts': and a websearch 'planes and the ozone layer' gives a number of seemingly reasonable answers. The distinction is between 'people who wish to/are willing to have their ignorance enlightened' and 'those who wish to be deliberately or maliciously ignorant.'

Should "display planes' coloured smokes" (what is the correct term? Is the same 'stuff' used in sky writing?) be included in the 'actual chemtrails'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

that's covered under "sky writing", same stuff.Petey Plane (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Neurological smackdown[edit]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/peer-reviewed-chemtrail-smackdown/ 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


What about footage?[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78rKNoR4T0w

This video here shows plenty about chemtrails and all. You guys seem to be pretty sub par with your fact checking to be honest.75.175.107.128 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You mean, the crank video mishmash titled "TOP SECRET Mission - Chemtrail Pilots SPRAYING BLOOD Cause Face to Face Near Mid-Air Collisions !!!"? Jesus, dude. Get out of your fractally wrong cerebral funhouse while you still can. We're rooting for you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Given the nature of aerosols and other releases into the atmosphere - the powers that be will be just as affected as the rest of us (the rain falls on the righteous as well as the unrighteous) so they will be affected just as much. 31.49.137.163 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

True — yet another reason why chemtrails are completely bogus. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)