Any hard evidence for chemtrails yet?

So, I take that as a "no?"

You already made up your mind, so why bother so much?

Well, you never "make up your mind" unless you're willing to take things on faith and thereby completely ossify your mind. If you really want to know the truth, you should learn as many facts on the subject as possible, and revise your understanding whenever new information doesn't fit what you think you know.

@ 0:45 (Enable subtitles)

As a child, I've seen the clear blue sky very often.
A long long time ago...

This guy is clearly lying:

Thread: heavy chemtrailing in buffalo, ny today

... or an attention whore.

Or he really believes that contrails can't form clouds, and that therefore someone is intentionally spraying something strange.

I don't know how long ago that was, but I don't doubt it. There's more than twice as much air traffic now than there was 20 years or so ago. I've asked my Dad (born in 1955) about it, and he said he remembers seeing what people are calling "chemtrails" as a child, but not as often as now. For my part, I remember seeing a long, thick contrail extending from the horizon to the zenith when I was very young, and asking my Dad if that was a rocket taking off. I was concerned, because the Challenger had exploded recently. So, 1986.

I can't watch movies here. What's it say?

we get em daily here in a country town of Australia, they are always in a grid pattern every morning..and every1 Ive talked to agrees its suspicious but what can be done? I never seen these growing up only at high altitude, definitely not normal whatever is goin on

Old article but worth the read.

[link to english.pravda.ru]

At a guess, is that country town in NSW?

The above videos uncovers Chemtrails as a "military project".

Ok. So, if I'm reading that correctly, the amount of surphur used wouldn't be detectable above background at ground level?

Basically that is what is says. True or not, I don't know.

Occam's razor is not some scientific law that ideas have to conform to in order to be plausible. It's nothing more than a philosophical tie-breaker. In fact, Occam's razor (or, the parsimony argument) is only useful if competing theories are equally plausible. Personally, I believe that there is more reason to believe that chemtrails are just that - chemtrails. I have yet to see a strong argument supporting any of the following:

1) chemtrails are the same as contrails
2) chemtrails don't exist
3) chemtrails are harmless

I have personally seen for myself planes releasing chemtrails. About a week ago, I watched four planes over Houston releasing chemtrails. At first there was nothing behind these planes, and then the trails began suddenly (as if a switch was flipped), and then the trails stopped abruptly after several minutes. The planes were flying eastwards. I watched these trails slowly expand for probably two hours. They never dissipated. While I was watching the skies and the expanding chemtrails, I saw those same planes returning from the direction they had flown in - no chemtrails. They were all heading back to the west somewhere.

The next day, I had a sore throat and a cough. More interesting, Houston had severe thunderstorms and hailstorms which caused flooding in the area.

Of course, as somebody already mentioned, your mind is already made up, just like mine is. My job isn't to convince you of something you don't want to believe. My job is to protect me and my loved ones - and that is guided by what I know to be the truth at this point. Secondary to that is my effort to combat disinformation. One of these pieces of disinformation that "debunkers" like to spread is the belief that Occam's razor is some hard and fast rule that theories must pass before they can be accepted. The implication is that if a competing theory is simpler, then more complex theories which require more assumptions cannot be true. This is one of the disinformation movement's secret weapons.

~WX

The basic assumption of chemtrail belief is that jet engine exhaust (water vapor and particulates) can't form clouds (water vapor condensed around particulates). This is, of course, false. Armed with that knowledge, think about what you saw. How could a contrail dissipate quickly in one patch of air, but form long-lasting clouds in another? It's simple, really.

What can be done is that you can study the science behind the formation and persistence of normal contrails. contrailscience ... but, you won't DO that, now will you?




You have decided it's not normal based on total lack of understanding of what makes contrails form and persist.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that chemtrails exist at all.



See above.



See above.

(snip anecdote)

No, it's the same as ever... mostly: "I can SEEEEE them!!" Now they have hijacked the term "geoengineering" so they can add more vague innuendo to their story, and some of them are pushing back the beginning of chemtrails as far as WW2, due to the fact that so many older images are being cited.

Predictable.

Look up. Proof is there.

Occams razor for dull minds

To change your punctuation: Look up "proof." Is there?

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous jump in logic that chemtrail fanatics are famous for. You do realize that the atmosphere is irregular and has areas of different meteorological properties, right? Have you ever flown? Never noticed how the turbulence is seemingly random even when flying through crystal clear sky? It's messy up there - you just can't see it. It's no surprise that the contrails appear to switch on/off in certain areas....there was probably a "stream" of dryer air moving through that part or something. A meteorologist could explain it easily....but you guys always choose to ignore them. With all these "chemtrails" being sprayed all over the world, you would think pilots and meteorologists would be coming forward in their hundreds or thousands to say "what's going on here? These aren't just contrails!".

I didn't see contrails dissipate quickly in one patch of air. They didn't exist at all in one section, and as I was watching, the trail began. It was as clearly delineated as if somebody were drawing a line on a piece of paper with a pen. And just as abruptly as picking the pen up off of the paper, the line stopped. It didn't dissipate or slowly begin. It had a clear beginning and end. Did the plane just turn its engine on and off to create this trail? Turn off its exhaust?

Anyway, I know you are not really here to be convinced. Your job is to spread disinformation (although I don't know whether you do that job willingly or not). You can't affect me or those who know the truth - you can only cloud the minds of those still searching for the answers.

To those who are looking for answers - I can only say keep looking. Something leads you to start looking for the truth, and you will know when you are on the right track. There are many who will try to fall in beside you in your search and who will claim to be fellow truth seekers. Some are real, some are not. I can't tell you how to spot the deceivers. If you persist, you will begin to see them easily, though. One thing I can say you should always be suspicious of - any thread or discussion or argument that seeks to "end the debate here and now" (not always stated openly).

~WX

Seen this claim made many times, but NEVER any vid showing it actually happening. Usually, the claim is that they have returned to "spray" again. You, on the other hand, say they WEREN'T spraying. So... if they return, still leaving a trail, it's evidence for chemtrials. If they return and are NOT leaving a trail, it is STILL evidence for chemtrials. Fascinating!

I suppose a meteorologist could just as easily explain why there were four of them flying east, releasing trails, then four of them flying west about half an hour later, through the same airspace, no trails. Ignore if you like - I don't. The knee-jerk response to ignore unusual phenomena is conditioned in us through years of state-controlled programming. It goes against the very nature of self-preservation. The more successful members of a species are almost always those which don't dismiss cues in their surroundings. I have nothing to gain by sharing what I believe. My message doesn't endanger people or ask them to make choices which threaten their survival.

shoot'in up off the north west coast today...
[link to www.cnrfc.noaa.gov]
do your eyes lie?? then theres your proof...