Contrails v Chemtrails: The Science That Debunks The Conspiracy

Contrail over Kildare. Image Author

Contrail over Kildare. Image: Author

There are those who claim that the trails we see behind aircraft high in the sky are not the normal condensation of water vapour from the hot exhaust gases but are in fact chemicals that are being deliberately sprayed upon us by government agencies for some dark and sinister reasons. When asked to prove their claims, however, their response is invariably either just a video or blog of someone else making the same unsubstantiated claim, or a simple “Well why don’t you prove that they’re NOT chemtrails!”. Proof has been given time and time again but ok, here it is one more time, using only sound scientific methods and no political mumbo-jumbo.

Actually, it should not be for me or any reasonably-minded person to reprove something that has always been a normal and scientifically-accepted fact of life. If others come along and claim that it is something totally new and different then it is actually up to them to provide evidence that proves beyond doubt that the original theory is wrong. The simple fact is that this evidence does not exist, but this does still not deter them from making these claims and denouncing anyone who tries to argue against them.

I am not denying that geo-engineering, still just a theoretical exercise, could be easy enough to try out, given the right modifications to an appropriate aircraft, or that cloud-seeding experiments have been carried out (but these only consist of silver iodide crystals from burning flares and not actual dumping of material). I am actually totally against the whole idea of trying to geo-engineer our way out of what is really not a problem, in my opinion.

What I AM denying is the claim that the trails we see from normal commercial airliners, both with our own eyes and in the photos of our readers, are chemtrails, as is claimed by a certain number of conspirators every time a reader shares a photo with us. Using such sites as Flightradar24.com it is so easy to check at any minute of the day what planes are flying overhead, generating the contrails we are seeing. To claim that these planes are not just innocent airliners but are being used for dumping harmful chemicals requires specific proof.Has anyone ever seen a refueling truck loading anything other than fuel into the tanks as you board a plane? Have you ever spotted nozzles on the wings spraying these chemicals as you look out the window as you fly along? Do you think the airlines are in on this and agree to carry the extra weight of these substances?

No, didn’t think so.

Anyway, what are contrails (CONdensation-TRAILS)? They are plumes of ice-crystals formed by the condensation and freezing of water vapour in the exhaust-gases of an aircraft flying at high altitudes and under the right conditions. As fuel (petrol, diesel, avgas, Jet-A1, kerosene, natural gas, etc.) is a hydrocarbon, burning it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O), along with other materials, such as nitrogen oxides, sulphates, hydrocarbons, soot, metal particles, etc. This applies to planes as it does to trains, cars, trucks, buses, motorbikes, lawnmowers, boilers, etc. Different fuels contain different additives and produce different levels of these by-products, but they all produce CO2 and water vapour. That is basic Junior Cert chemistry and something that cannot be denied. The difference with planes is that they operate in conditions very different to these other vehicles.

I am now going to take the main arguments that the conspirators use in their claims that the clouds we see can not be simple contrails, and will give a scientific explanation of why they are wrong and what is actually happening. In each case I will first give some simple analogies to illustrate the reason, then give a deeper scientific explanation. That way no one can claim it’s above their comprehension.

But first, some definitions:

Dewpoint: The temperature at which condensation (fog/cloud) will occur if air is cooled enough. Humid air has a higher dewpoint than dry air. The relative humidity is 100% when the dewpoint and temperature are equal.

Relative humidity: The amount of water vapour in the air, expressed as a percentage of the total amount of water vapour the air can hold at that temperature and pressure. Warm air can hold a lot more vapour than cold air. 100% means the air is totally saturated and condensation (fog/cloud) will form.

Conspiracy Claim 1.“Contrails only last for seconds but these ones lasted for hours, therefore they must be chemtrails”.

ACTUAL REASON: Contrails can last from seconds to hours, depending on the relative humidity at cruising altitudes. If it is above around 70% then the contrails can last for hours.

ANALOGIES: In summer you don’t normally see your breath, in cold winter you normally do. In summer you don’t see truck exhausts form water vapour clouds, in winter you
normally do, and they can last for relatively long times (especially in places like Siberia). If you throw a saucepan of boiling water in the air in summer it will
simply fall to the ground as water, with some of it evaporating on the way. If you do the same in winter (below around -20 °C) then it will freeze instantly into a cloud of fine ice particles and hang around a for much longer. This video illustrates this perfectly. Seen from below we see the larger ice-particles falling quickly to the ground but the main cloud of tiny crystals remains suspended and drifts slowly, just like a contrail.

THE SCIENCE: Many days we don’t actually see any trails at all from aircraft flying high above us as the trails dissipate as soon as they are formed. The air at cruising altitudes is very cold (-40 to -60 °C) and usually very dry (low relative humidity). The water vapour from the exhaust gases alone is not enough to form a contrail. Knollenburg (1972) gives a breakdown of typical components of aircraft exhaust gases, with around 1.37 kg of water vapour released per kg of fuel burned. The study found that exhaust gases contained around 1.7 g of water vapour for every metre flown, but found actual persistent contrails to contain at least 30,000 times that level (20,700-41,200 g per metre). This means that the overwhelming majority of the water in contrails comes from the atmosphere, with only around 1 in every 30,000 molecules originating from the burning of the fuel. It is therefore clear that relative humidity at cruising altitude needs to be relatively high for contrails to form and be visible, and very high (above around 70%) for them to persist for long periods.

We get these conditions from time to time and place to place, especially a few hundred miles ahead of an approaching depression (warm front), and to the west of an upper ridge-axis, among others. We normally see natural cirrus clouds (thin, high, wispy clouds) in these conditions, but even when conditions are not quite humid enough for natural cirrus to form on their own they can be right for contrails, as the exhaust particles (soot, etc.) act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) around which water vapour can condense and freeze into ice-crystals. This is why we can sometimes see contrails without natural cirrus, but normally we would see some cirrus too, even if just a few random wisps. If the relative humidity is below around 60% then the ice-crystals can sublimate (turn from solid directly to gas) fairly quickly and dissipate but if it’s above around 70% this sublimation process is much slower and the contrail can last for hours. Contrail ice-crystals are also much smaller (0.001 – 0.1 mm) than cirrus crystals (0.01 – several mm), which allows them to remain suspended for longer.

Conspiracy Claim 2. “I saw two aircraft flying in the same area. One aircraft’s contrail dissipated within a few seconds, the other’s grew and lasted for hours. The second aircraft was obviously spraying chemicals”.

ACTUAL REASON: They were simply flying at different altitudes and/or were different types of aircraft (engine).

ANALOGIES: Your bathroom mirror doesn’t fog up when you first take a shower. It only does so after a while, when there is enough vapour in the room to increase the dewpoint to the temperature of the mirror, allowing the vapour to condense onto.

A small cup of coffee makes a smaller steam cloud than a large open pot of coffee. The pot has a larger volume of steam rising and condensing off it, which rises to a greater height before evaporating, just as a larger engine produces more emissions than a smaller one.

THE SCIENCE: Cirrus clouds are very high up but relatively thin (sometimes only a few hundred metres deep), therefore there is only a narrow layer in which conditions are right for their formation. The same goes for contrails. Two identical aircraft flying at different altitudes can therefore produce very different contrails as the temperature and humidity can be very different.

Look at this sounding (plot of temperature, dewpoint and wind measurements from an instrument attached to a weather balloon) for Camborne, in the extreme southwestern
tip of England, around the middle of the day on August 22nd, 2013.

Camborne

Airliners cruise at between around 30,000-40,000 ft (9,000-12,000 m). The sounding shows cold and mainly dry upper levels (the temperature and dewpoint curves are far apart), however there is a very thin humid layer just below 300 hPa (9,500 metres), where the dewpoint curve (left) shoots over to almost meet the temperature curve (right), meaning high relative humidity. We would expect very few contrails in this scenario as only those planes flying exactly within that humid layer will produce contrails. Other layers are just too dry. The actual data points from this sounding show that humid layer to be at around 9,116 metres (around 30,000 ft), with a relative humidity of 78%. Sure enough this high-resolution MODIS satellite picture for 11:40 UTC (around 20 minutes before the sounding) shows just one fresh contrail just south of Lands End, which FlightRadar24.com shows as United Airlines flight 43, a Boeing 767-400 flying at 30,000 ft. It shows dozens of other aircraft at different heights all over southern England and the English Channel, but not one of these is producing a contrail as the levels they’re flying at are too dry. Not surprisingly they’re not producing chemtrails either!

Sometimes we see broken or very short contrails, i.e. with breaks, as in my photo at the top of this article. This can be caused by an aircraft climbing through a humid layer, or by the effects of gravity waves at altitude. The plane enters and exits humid areas as it flies along, given a broken contrail. We also see this type of effect with natural transverse cirrus bands along which form perpendicular to the jetstream flow (strong winds at altitude). An aircraft flying parallel to the jetstream will be passing in and out of the humid areas that are causing the transverse cirrus, so its contrail will be discontinuous.

tranverse cirrus

Transverse cirrus bands form perpendicular to the jetstream wind, shown by the wide swathe of fibrous cirrus.

Two different types of aircraft flying at the same altitude can still produce different contrails. Different engines produce different-sized exhaust plumes, and newer engines produce cooler exhaust-gas temperatures than older engines. Cooler exhaust temperatures allow the contrail to form quicker, before the gases have a chance to mix with the ambient air, as the gas needs less time to cool to condense the vapour into ice-crystals. Engine contrails can also be affected by the aerodynamics of the aircraft wings, etc., and even the weight of the aircraft, which can strengthen wake-vortices and enhance contrails. In fact, some contrails are not even related to the engine exhaust gases at all and are merely condensation formed withing the wake-vortices, where the pressure is locally lower than the surroundings. We can see that when landing or taking off on a very humid day.

To an observer on the ground it can be very difficult to accurately estimate the relative heights of two aircraft flying near eachother. They may SEEM to be at the same altitude but in reality they could be a few thousand feet apart and therefore in possibly very different ambient conditions.

Planes

These planes look they’re colliding but they’re actually at least 1,000 ft apart vertically.

Conspiracy Claim 3. “Those trails are in regular criss-cross patterns, so there is obviously some systematic spraying going on”.

ACTUAL REASON: Planes fly many different routes (called airways), which can cross eachother at points called Intersections.

ANALOGY: No need for one here, it’s pretty straightforward!

THE SCIENCE: Ireland’s airspace is very busy with transatlantic traffic, with hundreds of morning eastbound and afternoon and evening westbound flights every day. Ireland has actually done away with the upper airway system within its airspace, instead allowing aircraft to fly their own direct routes between intersections along the eastern and western borders of the airspace. This saves the airlines time and fuel, but also means no real set published flight paths, as there used to be previously. Planes cross paths all the time, depending on what the intersections they are flying between. Just off the east coast these flights all converge at a few intersections, which can give a more regular contrail pattern to an observer on the ground. The link above also shows the complexity of the airway system over the UK airspace and this video shows how busy traffic gets throughout different times of the day, especially the afternoon and evening in Europe.

Conspiracy Claim 4. “I never saw this many contrails when I was a kid so it must be chemtrails that I’m seeing now”.

ACTUAL REASON: There are more flights now than years ago. Engines are larger and produce cooler exhaust gases, which make it easier for contrails to form, as explained
above.

ANALOGY: A room full of kids is a hell of a lot louder than a room with just one kid!

THE SCIENCE: Pretty much explained in the other points above. We should not, however, compare what we are seeing now to what we remember as kids. We all think that the
summers were better back when we were young, but there are no data to back this up. Our minds as kids were different to what they are now, having developed through all
the stages of cognitive development. In the same way, we were most likely not counting contrails back then and wouldn’t have probably noticed them much in any case.

Conspiracy Claim 5. “Children have lots of respiratory problems now and it’s due to chemtrails”.

ACTUAL REASON: This has to be the craziest claim I have heard from a conspirator. There are many more plausible and well-documented reasons for children’s health problems. The use of a sick child as proof of chemtrails is stooping to a new low.

THE SCIENCE: The science of the previous explanations debunks this claim as it proves that the chemtrails are not there in the first place. Increases in children’s health problems are well-documented and can be due to increased obesity, poor diet, less excercise, more time spent indoors, etc.

Satellites

Satellite imagery is a perfect tool for spotting contrails. Visible imagery is good, but there are other types of imagery (IR, Water-vapour, RGB, Dust RGB, etc.) that show them up to varying degrees. These images are formed by filtering various wavelengths, which show up differences in cloud physics, such as small or large ice-crystals, thin or thick layers, etc.

The Eview image below of the Iberian peninsula at 1800 UTC this evening shows an area of persistent contrails over Biscay and the northern and northwestern parts of Spain and Portugal, with none showing up elsewhere. Comparing this image with the predicted 300 hPa relative humidity chart from the GFS model (underneath) shows that the contrails are forming right inside the area of >75% relative humidity, which stretches from the Pyrenees to central Portugal and up to Galicia. Other areas are too dry for contrails. This is a good example of how we can actually predict the areas that will have contrails.

Eview image of Iberia at 1800 UTC, 8 September 2013. Persistent contrails are visible over northern and northwestern Spain and Portugal. Image: Eumetsat

Eview image of Iberia at 1800 UTC, 8 September 2013. Persistent contrails are visible over Biscay and northern and northwestern Spain and Portugal. Image: Eumetsat

GFS 300 hPa relative humidity chart for 1800 UTC, 8 September, 2013. Image: weatheronline.co.uk

GFS 300 hPa relative humidity chart for 1800 UTC, 8 September, 2013. Image: weatheronline.co.uk

Conclusion

It only requires one test to prove a theory wrong, but in this article I have given several. Sometimes we see things that we cannot explain. Various theories circulate to try to explain them, and invariably some of these theories take on a political theme – a Them versus Us kind of thing. Some people are more prone to accepting these theories than others, and a quick check of the Facebook profiles of many of the conspirators on our page will confirm that. This has been an effort to explain why their chemtrail theory is false on so many levels, and maybe some of them will finally see the light and accept that science rules over our imaginations 100% of the time.  I can, however, forecast even now the responses I will get to this article, as some people just want to believe in the alternative, for whatever reasons. I can do nothing about that. We are all different, but ignorance is no excuse for stupidity at any time.

Fergal – Irish Weather Online

577 thoughts on “Contrails v Chemtrails: The Science That Debunks The Conspiracy

  1. I’m actually gob-smacked at the audacity of the man. He has been very selective with his examples of what “public subscribers” are being called, not one mention of the personal insults he has inflicted on others.
    It appears he has pricked his own guilty conscience, yet it hasn’t been pricked enough for him to apologise for his foul language which is where the remark “disgusting” came from.
    Meanwhile, I’m not sure if he is confusing me with an admin or not, as he tries to insult us both; “Big Daddy and Lapdog”.
    Very, very few people on this thread have actually asked questions, those that have asked were given a civil and positive reply. The only people on here that never got a civil reply were those that attacked the thread accusing us of being “shills”; trolls, “paid to disseminate false information”; “disinfo shills on payroll”; “psychopaths that hide behind false names”; we “have no balls”; we “talk Bull****”. that’s just a few of the insults bandied by the chemtrail enthusiasts. but Dec, you call me a “S**t stirrer”; Grumpy; “Big Daddy”; I “make inane comments” and I suffer from “tunnel vision”; I’m a “bad father”. That’s just a very few of your comments, Dec that you conveniently left out.
    I don’t mind commenting on your pathetic attempt at pretending to be shocked. You must have been researching me if you know one of my names is Big Daddy, others being, Big Yin and Big Bill, take your pick, I haven’t been offended by the names yet :-)
    You may well think that my comments are inane, but they are comments based on the huge holes and contradictions in your posts. They are many and yet you offer no reply to clarify, so yes, your only way out is to say my comments are inane designed to lure you out. I think your disgusting, yes. You are incapable of discussion without reverting to profanity. If I used the term pretentious, then that is because you are, that and grandiose, refer to your making a video for channel 4. Scurrying like cockroaches, yes. That is what comes to mind when the paranoid conspiracy theorists come out, make an attack on something then go running away again without offering facts. I did call some chemorons, but don’t think – I might be wrong – I called them chemmorons. If they believe YouTube videos above all else, then that is my opinion of them.
    I’ve asked everyone on here for answers to my questions, you included, When anyone made a statement on here that made no sense to me at all, I asked questions. Please note, not one of you have offered an answer.
    You didn’t mention my use of fraud and fraudulent. Does that mean you can see the fraud so you think it’s OK for me to use it? I accused you of lying in regard to the making of the video, do you now admit you lied and it’s OK for me to use it?
    I’m rude and verbally abusive to people who are rude and verbally abusive to me. I doubt very much if I will change. Just as I doubt you will stop pretending and having grandiose ideas. You have no intention of getting any truth on here, you just jump in to stir things up yourself. If you haven’t seen this sort of thing going on with the internet in the last 19 years, then I don’t think you have really been on the internet half that time.
    Perhaps you would like me to email you a copy of my posts for approval before I post it? Just to make sure I’m not getting in the way of your insults and abuse.
    Now, lets use your phrase here shall we? This is another question that I doubt you will answer, where is your hard facts for all this causing 150,000 deaths per year? Where has anyone denied the people the science of contrails? Why is it, if you ask questions you think you have a God-given right to demand an answer but if I ask a question I have no such right, I’m being self-serving? I’m stopping no one from informing themselves, I never have, I’m stopping people from forcing their paranoid delusions on me, nothing more, I said it before, if you all answer my questions and the facts add up, then count me in. You on the other hand pretend to sit on the fence, you are blind to what’s going on. I have the conviction to stand up and be counted, only the spineless sit on the fence.
    I will say this once more only, I won’t repeat myself again. I am not an admin of this site, I am a visitor with the same rights as everyone else, my opinion. Answer my questions. Don’t make paranoid accusations. Just answer my darned questions for goodness sake. I am being paid by no one. Who are you lot being paid by.
    Finally. I am subject to being banned the same as you are. You may, if you wish, petition the admins to have me banned. Especially if you feel my posts have been any worse than yours. But I’ll say this, you would all have been banned from my site long ago, it wouldn’t have been tolerated, so before you start trying to tidy up any one’s posts and opinions, get your own house in order.

    • Well said, Bill, but a lot of bytes wasted on someone like him. I encourage everyone to search his comments to see just how often he switches allegiances, but just be warned; he has posted under 3 different usernames: Dec, Dec Irwin and Declan Thomas Irwin.

      I have a suspicion that he runs the ChemtrailsEire Youtube channel, as a lot of the material there seems to have his stamp all over it. He made this video too (which he posted months ago), in which it is claimed that kids are being brainwashed by introducing contrails into cartoons, etc. Actually, it is the maker of this video who has actually photoshopped them in, and has done a terrible job of it too. The opening photo is one that he shared here a week or two ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKkVVYYDXyU

      One by one these guys are being found out. I see Davoud hasn’t shown his face since being exposed as a fraud.

      • That’s a pretty poor job of side-swiping! “Met office now admits Solar Radiation Management!” Some people willing to believe in the conspiracy will blindly accept that this is an actual admission of what is going on, while those with common sense know that they are merely talking of the possibilities and what the pros and cons would be. That is something that has never been denied on here.
        Also, your claim; Not my video … theirs!” Is very misleading. It is who’s video? It’s not the Met Office’s. Someone has used selected pieces of a Met Office video to pull the wool over the sheople’s eyes! But even so, I fail to see where it makes the point, let alone offers admission of chemtrails or anything else. It seems to me that it is now scraping the bottom of the barrel.
        I can’t understand the continued claims for chemtrails etc and yet the lack of any logical and accurate testimony for it.

  2. I’ve spent a fair bit of time on that video, replaying parts and watching it right through several times. Most of the “evidence”, if not all, is Photoshopped. Some of it poorly done. I really can’t understand the mentality of people that produce such blatantly false information to convince people. I honestly don’t.
    You know, even if only one picture in that video was Photoshopped then it contaminates and undermines the whole video, it all becomes fraudulent information. Why on earth do they do it?
    I then read through the comments; a couple of people saw the obvious Photoshopping, one even knew of one of the photos used that it had been proven a fake already. The other commentators, I’m afraid I couldn’t help feeling sorry for them, they had just looked at the video and accepted it as fact right away. Like lambs to the slaughter.
    I can understand why Davoud does this and promotes this false belief, he’s hoping to con a lot of people out of hard cash. But I don’t understand the incentive of the others; what is it? Are they being paid by people like Davoud to promote it? Do they get a commission from the donations they encourage? The only other reason I can think of is that they just have nothing to do and they are just trying to make a name for themselves. They are lacking something and find it much easier to become popular through false YouTube videos, Facebook friends and Twitter followers.
    The actual basis of Facebook and Twitter is actually quite genius, but unfortunately they have both lost their way because people use them for the wrong reasons. YouTube is also an excellent media as well, but again, more likely caused by TV programmes devoted to showing the most viewed clips etc., it has become a place where some people flood it with unrealistic and false videos so they can catch “views”.
    Dec, you need to come clean about being affiliated with this unreliable evidence, you also need to find the courage to stand up and say you believe in this conspiracy, because if you do that much, then there is some hope for you, if not, then we can’t help you and I certainly don’t want to read any more of your ramblings.
    Isn’t strum/strummer one of his names?

  3. Very interesting. I’m looking through Strum’s videos one by one. I would advise it. He claims he really isn’t sure about chemtrails. He asks for comments to advise him on where he is wrong in his video, he wants accurate information because he isn’t sure, but … debunkers and etc are not welcome to leave comments, in fact he tells them to “p**s off”! I’m not sure how he is going to tell the difference between a debunker leaving a comment and someone leaving scientific facts to point out where he is wrong, because someone with scientific facts is going to be a debunker. I think he only wants believers to comment, that would strengthen his case. It would be interesting to know what his definition of debunker is. He goes further, he claims to be now going to show hard evidence, proof, that they are spraying chemicals. He shows a picture he has taken, it shows a bit of sun-glare, he assures his viewers that it isn’t sun-glare because he can take a shot directly of the sun and his “excellent Canon camera” never shows glare. Well I have an excellent Canon camera and it does show glare. There hasn’t been a camera made that won’t show glare, they will all show glare to a certain extent. He keeps saying in the video that he is an artist. Like he does on here. He may be an artist but he is a hopeless photographer. He started off the video explaining his evidence for chemtrails and contrails, his evidence amounted to nothing more than what the other theorists have pumped into his head, the chemtrails, basically, last far to long to be contrails. Contrails are very short lived etc., ad nauseum.
    At the top right hand corner of his YouTube video with a link to his website DÚN LAOGHAIRE. Further proof that this is Dec and that he is a believer of chemtrails, it also appears he is a believer of depopulation by spraying chemicals as evidenced in his video.
    Dec, your caught, my man :-)
    I’ll be very surprised if you ever comment on here again.

    • Caught! Hahahahaha! :D :D :D

      I’m beginning to like you Inspector Jacques Clouseau, aka Bill Hunter, aka Billy the Silly. I might write a song about that haha. ;)
      My friend, if you had read the above comments when I responded to Fergal saying yes I am me you would have saved yourself the bother of all the searching to try and discredit me in some way. I have no worries about ANYBODY knowing my identity. I’m a friggin Artist man! Why would I hide it? What a puerile search you went on. Duh!
      Yes I’m Dec, DecIrwin, Declan Thomas Irwin, Strum, StrumStrummer, StrumTStrummer, Arfurarseache, Chelsealmond, MyraMaynes, Plecstrum, and loads more if you want to look them up. 16 years on the Internet, not 19 as you misquoted. 19 years ago was before dialup even, that would have been some achievement in Irealnd. :D
      But what’s your point? Knowing my activities? I am completely transparent unlike you mate.
      So now you know me. So what? Wanna buy a Painting? :)
      What about your TV interviews etc? Can we all see them and decide for ourselves how credible you are?

      This is all just an attempt at distraction from the original post. Contrails v Chemtrails.

      I made those videos as I said from the first time I spotted these new “Clouds” “Trails” over Ireland, something I had never seen before in my entire life in our skies, and yes 2nd January 2009.
      I wanted to record / log them for “possible” future developments. I was extremely naive at the time too, because this was a new phenomena over our heads.
      I ceased capturing them a few years back; so many others were recording them, because it was impossible to keep up with it, instead I decided to make a credible Documentary/Film/Video/Short/ whatever you want to call it instead, with credible people.
      Yes four years in the making. I don’t want to come across as a stupid paranoid idiot do I?
      Sooo…
      I need People like you and Fergal to present your knowledge to the Public on this Documentary/Film/Video/Short/ whatever… to put People’s paranoid minds at rest.

      The “Trails” “Clouds” in Ads/Film/Music Vids etc, as you can see on the page was the last vid I compiled and uploaded. All from screenshots. I agree that if one is photoshopped then you may consider the rest to be dodgy aswell, but I guarantee you, I DID NOT alter any of the photos, if they were altered, shame on the People who even bother to do it because it’s not necessary. But the screenshots I took from Films are real, as are the Ads, and Cartoons, and Music Band Videos and and…

      • You see? I rest my case. You just can’t get past the opening paragraph of any response you make without trying to insult someone. Just like your defiance with answering questions, you answer questions by asking questions. Yet you are supposed to be shocked and concerned by others insulting people. Again, I rest my case.
        I really don’t know where you get the idea I have an expertise in this, I have stated several times now that I don’t, I use my eyes and I read the illogical, paranoid scribblings of the theorists to make my mind up. You aren’t paying attention, again, I rest my case.
        My TV and Radio interviews have no bearing on this subject, my expertise is solely with orchids and rearing plants for reintroduction to rain forests. So don’t waste your time, it’s all about doing something useful with my life, not wasting it in the pursuance of paranoid conspiracy theories.
        I beg your pardon in relation to my mistake between 19 years and 16 years. But that is really unimportant, it’s the claim you made that still stands as being wrong.
        I’m still waiting to hear about where you found the information on 150,000 deaths caused by this each year. It’s quite an important statement.
        You aren’t transparent, you lie! If those videos you made and uploaded to YouTube were done when you “extremely naive” then why haven’t you removed them and replaced them with something more accurate?
        Nothing on here is a distraction from the original post, you conspiracy theorists came on here on the attack, insulting people and using profanity. Everything else is in reply to you all. The point about finding more information about you was not to show how clever I am, but to assist with exposing you as a phony, job done. You masquerade as ChemtrailsEire yet pretend you have no affiliation with the theorists.
        You know how you are tired of fergalt repeating himself when he quite rightly says; read the article and the comments? Well I’m pretty fed-up of you continuously claiming to be an artist. It’s all the way through this thread and through your videos. I’m an artist, fergalt’s an artist, we’re all artists, Dec. Do I want to buy a painting from you? I doubt it very much. Even on the slightest chance that you are a decent artist, I doubt very much if any of your art would fall into a category that I collect or even interest me. I have enough art anyway that I bought from friends that are artists and from my late brother who was an artist. None of them spent several times a week telling people they were artists to garnish attention, like real artists they got on with painting and if people wanted to buy them they sold them.
        I’ve said it several times, I’m very transparent, you can easily find my website and see what I do. I’m easily found on Facebook and you can confirm what I do. You can easily find me on twitter, LinkedIn and Google, although the latter 3 I never bother with much. You think I’m not transparent because your too lazy to check. You on the other hand have been on here lying and deceiving people about where you stand, hence my reason for checking you out. Plus, look at all the different false names you use; why?
        It’s not really about the one picture in any of the videos being proved as a known fake, it is blatantly obvious that many, if not all, are faked, one in particular that comes to my mind is the cartoon but the background is a real photo of the sky with a real airplane Photoshopped onto it. If it’s true that you were naive and not really on any side then by now you should be at the very least admitting to your viewers that it has come to your attention that the information in your videos can’t be relied on because much of it is fake. But you don’t. One person wrote a comment about that, yet you took the theorists side and said something like “open your eyes and look”. I can’t remember your words exactly, but it was an attack on his very observant view which you didn’t acknowledge.
        This I won’t repeat again either. I have no expert knowledge on this subject, I’ve been presented with information from both sides, well actually from one side, the other has done nothing but write paranoid, delusional scribblings. Based on what I have read from both sides I have decided that I’m on the side of contrails. Interviewing me for your YouTube video (lets not go on pretending it is anything else) would be futile. Neither you or anyone else has the right to say my decision is wrong, unless you can all be sensible and give me good reason to believe otherwise. Until then you have no right to attack my beliefs or insult me, if you do, then you can expect me to insult you, as I do, you then have no right to tell me not to do that.
        Unless you give me answers I’ve asked for I have no further interest in responding to you. I won’t waste my time with dishonesty, grandiosity and just plain ridiculous scribblings. You can post on, but your now going to have a very lonesome discussion.
        I’ll say one thing more, Dec. Just because you don’t understand science, it doesn’t mean science is wrong.

      • I like you more and more Bill. Ok, I’ll respectfully answer your questions within reason. About the 150,000 deaths, I will keep that for the Docu. I may leave it out though because it’s an outragous statement without concrete evidence. That’s another story. We’ll see.

        The Chemtrailseire page, I told you I stopped about 5 years ago, no harm in leaving it there for now for maybe future reference.

        Numerous usernames? Over 16 years mate? Yes. Not to hide anything though.

        I’m impressed with your horticultural knowledge and enviornmental issues which begs the question. Are you not worried in the slightest about these so-called “chemtrails” that MAY be harming our ecological system?

        RE: exposing you as a phony, job done. You masquerade as ChemtrailsEire yet pretend you have no affiliation with the theorists.

        I have said already I was merely logging these trails for future reference. And here we are.

        STOP calling me a friggin Theorist mate. I don’t pander to any unbelievable sh*ite. I think Davoud is probably a Born-again Christian nut. I have absolutely NO affliation with ANY of these People and don’t want to either. I am merely going by my own observations.

        The reason I repeat that I’m an Artist / Photographer is not to promote myself but because because I paint Skies, Landscapes, Seascapes etc and these “trails” are a new phenonoma in our World as we know it now.
        2008 I was asked to make a CD cover for a Band and the theme was “Head in the Clouds” so I spent weeks taking photos for it. Some normal Contrails like I’d seen since I was a kid…but none of these persistant “contrails” we see now. A few Months later, 2nd Jan, 2009….there they were.

  4. Thank you, Dec. Perhaps a normal debate can start.
    It’s not up to me to tell you, but if you are still not sure about chemtrails, then my advice would be to remove the YouTube videos. Especially if it was done during a period of naivety, it gives the wrong impression of you especially if you are not a conspiracy theorist as you say. It appears as if you only want theorists to make comments, anyone making comments based on the science is going to be marked as a debunker, it’s a no-win situation for science and a win-win for theorists. If you are truly neutral, then you have to be neutral in everything you do or write until you pick a side (side is for want of a better word at the moment).
    No, I’m truly not worried about there being chemtrails damaging the ecological system. Mainly because I don’t believe they are chemtrails. Again, I base that on the science for chemtrails and the distinct lack of scientific evidence for chemtrails. I’ll never be able to subscribe to the chemtrail theory because the believers are blinkered, they won’t listen to the science, but want us to believe them by listen to their theories which have absolutely nothing to back them up. Again, I say, if they or anyone else provides the evidence and scientific data to back up chemtrails and I think it outweighs contrails, then I’ll happily accept it, but as you have seen on here, they won’t debate or provide evidence, they attack and abuse. The whole thread deteriorated into a junk pile because of that. At the moment, I’m mainly concerned with the ecological damage done to rain forests where they slash and burn thousands of hectares of Brazilian forest per DAY so that rich farmers can force the natives out of their land and grow millions of tons of soya bean because the yuppie-types in Europe and America want soya milk and processed soya meat alternatives. I’m concerned about the thousands of hectares of rain forest in Thailand and Papua and New Guinea so rich European and Americans can plant with sterile Oil Palm so they can produce millions of gallons of Palm oil to feed the Wests craving for alternative fuels and cooking oils. They destroy hectare upon hectare so they can produce cheap beef for the big burger chains. That’s my primary concern because when all that forest goes, we won’t need to worry if they do decide to spray us.
    I won’t call you a conspiracy theorist if you don’t behave as if you are one. I don’t think Davoud is a born again Christian. He wasn’t born a Christian in the first place. At least I would put my money on the chance of it being unlikely as he is from Iran. I honestly believe he is a fraud and is trying to get money from people to supplement his benefits now that he is likely unemployed. Check him out.
    I really don’t think that the increase in contrails is anything other than the science says above. Planes, in my basic understanding, are flying in greater numbers than they were, also higher. I would disagree with a sudden start in 2009. I’ve seen them much earlier.
    I’ve been accused many times of not looking at the sky, not using my eyes and not paying attention, of being blind, of having tunnel vision. I shall now let you into a secret I have. As an ex-inhabitant of Lockerbie, I’ve had an uncontrollable urge to watch the skies where ever I am. I’m pretty certain that most inhabitants, current or ex have the same uncontrollable urge. Believe me, a tragedy like that changes you. I have an uncontrollable urge to learn what I can about airplanes. Had I been able to afford it, I would have not stopped flying lessons after my initial half-hour trial lesson, I would have my pilots licence by now. I have an absolute craving to get my licence, but unfortunately it is a hunger that I can’t afford to sate. So I am a fastidious sky watcher and have seen contrails increase over the years, and believe me, there have been many long-lasting contrails since long before 2009.
    I’m confused as to why you claim to be neutral on this. Each time you post, you appear hostile towards the science. You appear to, although you say your not sure, think there is something to the chemtrail theory, yet they can’t provide any science for it.
    As a very young boy in the 50s and 60s they told us they were experimenting with weather. They told us they had developed a system. It was actually quite exciting. However, they stopped it very soon after it started. They stopped it because it was both unreliable and expensive. Of course there are patents on things like that, there will probably continue to be. But, a patent means nothing. When you invent something, the first thing you do before announcing it is take out a patent, that way you safeguard it from your competitors. Those patents don’t mean it works or is financially viable, the patents don’t actually mean it’s being used. The theorists have nothing to back up their claims, the only documentation they have is the patents, the other stuff they have is ex-FBI men and the wandering minds of others.
    There is far too many problems we need to sort out before we worry about chemtrails. Let the theorists worry, I just wish they would stop trying to save me!

  5. Flawed argumentation because you do not quote real science. And real science explain contrails differently:

    http://d-trail.blogspot.com/2013/10/correcting-contrails-science-in-debate.html

    “Aviation has been identified as contributor to anthropogenic changes in the Earth’s radiation budget. In particular this is due to the emission of greenhouse gases, soot, aerosols, and the formation of contrails and aviation induced cirrus clouds. Linear persistent contrails occur in an ice supersaturated atmosphere if the Schmidt Appelman criterion is satisfied (1). Cirrus clouds can evolve from spreading persistent contrails known as primary cirrus or contrail cirrus (2). Secondary cirrus occur due to locally increased soot and aerosol concentration, which might lead to theformation of cirrus clouds that would not form in the absence of air traffic (3; 4; 5). An indirect climate forcing of aircraft emissions is possible by changing particle size and ice particle number density of natural cirrus clouds (6).
    Aviation induced pollutants have been identified and assessed in terms of radiative forcing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Radiative forcing is a metric where the expected steady state equilibrium change in terms of global mean surface temperature is related linearly to the observed radiative forcing of a certain perturbation. Linear persistent contrails and aviation induced cirrus clouds were identified as main contributors to the overall aviation induced radiative forcing. It is estimated that linear persistent contrails contribute approximately 20% to the total aviation induced radiative forcing (7). This estimate considers a year 2000 scenario where cirrus clouds are excluded. Aviation induced cirrus clouds have the potential to cause a radiative forcing which exceeds the radiative forcing of all other emissions due to air traffic combined. Annually and globally averaged total contrail cover and the associated radiative forcing is expected to quadruple during the next decades due to the increase in air traffic (8).
    Depending on the allocated importance of the radiative forcing due to persistent contrails and cirrus clouds relative to that of other aircraft emissions, it might occur that the avoidance of persistent contrails and cirrus clouds becomes the most important and pressing issue to be addressed in the future.”

    • As a layman that knows virtually nothing about the science, I don’t think the argument is flawed, neither is the science. I see the article as explaining the basic reasons for contrails. The science you are quoting I don’t think disputes the information in the article but mainly goes deeper into the science.
      The article isn’t actually about the complete science of contrails but about providing sufficient information to dispute the chemtrail theory, which in my humble opinion it does rather well. I will also say that your quotes and links add enough information to the above article which should put the debate to rest and clearly shows that they have nothing to do with chemtrails.

      • I would add that no one has actually argued for or against contrails role in global warming or global cooling, but I, personally, haven’t seen enough evidence to say that it adds sufficiently to either to be a greater concern to me than other forms of climate change.

    • Thanks for your post. I’m not sure where the differences lie between my science and that you quoted. They are both saying the same thing, in my opinion, and are therefore either both correct or both “flawed”.

      Somewhere in the hundreds of comments I have spoken about radiative forcing of aviation-induced cirrus and how it is a small player in the overall radiation budget. Contrails may account for 20% of aviation’s contribution, but this overall is a small number.

      But as Bill says, your material just goes to reinforce the whole argument against the chemtrail nonsense and will help to prolong the absence of the once vocal activists on this page. They’ve gone to try set up camp somewhere else as they see that they were getting nowhere fast here.

      • Lovely conditions for the past eight days. Not a single Contrail. Looking forward to the Summer. Cheers. :D

    • Pervasive, global aerosol spraying resulting in chemtrails that persist for hours and form ghastly pseudo-cloud formations are a new phenomenon and not due to bi-planes fumes. That is absurd. Sure, the military has been spraying our skies with all manner of things, including bio-weapons, since at least the start of the Cold War. I have no doubt that chemtrail beta testing was done prior to the 90’s in a few places.

      This is a new phenomenon, as anyone above the age of 30 or so can confirm. MILLIONS of people have noticed this phenomenon from every nation on the planet. Sorry, air traffic didn’t suddenly and exponentially increase in the 90’s – that is also absurd. I know how the sky looked as a kid in the 60’s and thereafter and I know how it looks now. I have seen multiple planes repeatedly flying from one end of the sky to the other in concert, spewing out chemtrails until the ENTIRE sky is blanketed. I’m not exaggerating when I say the entire sky gets blanketed. If the day starts out with clear skies, by noon the sky is blanketed in chemtrails. This goes on just about every day here in Buffalo, regardless of weather or the time of year. Sorry guy, that is not normal.

      • Your whole post makes a mockery of your claim. In your first sentence, you still need to show viable evidence that it is chemtrails, you don’t do that, no one has yet, each time the question is asked about evidence it results in personal attacks and absolutely no evidence. all we are ever given is links to conspiracy sites and YouTube videos, until you can prove it is chemtrails then you need to avoid the use of the word. It’s like people who claim we get visited by aliens; because there is actually no proof it’s up to them to provide the proof. There is no evidence for chemtrails, so it’s down to you to offer the proof. I’m getting fed-up with these empty claims.
        You are mistaken if you are claiming that anyone here said that air traffic suddenly increased in the 90s. A comparison was made between air traffic in the 50s and 60s to the 90s. If you don’t think air traffic has increased a huge amount in that time then I would like to know what planet you have been living on. I’m well over your age criteria and I know what the sky was like in the 50s when it was very exciting just to see a plane flying overhead. I see the sky now and the only difference between the sky now and the sky in the 50s is the enormous increase in air traffic. We’ve been through all that, bring up something fresh!
        Your final comments go from the ridiculous to the sublime!
        ” I have seen multiple planes repeatedly flying from one end of the sky to the other in concert, spewing out chemtrails until the ENTIRE sky is blanketed.” The entire sky? Give me a break. What is the entire sky? How on earth do you define one end of the sky and another end? The sky doesn’t end.
        Your next comment is even more senseless.
        “I’m not exaggerating when I say the entire sky gets blanketed. If the day starts out with clear skies, by noon the sky is blanketed in chemtrails.”
        Yes you are, you are grossly exaggerating!
        I would advise you to read over your post again and see how you can improve your rationale. Also, if you truly believe what you have written, then supposed “chemtrails” apart, please explain what you have written and provide the evidence for your great claims.

      • It still amazes me how many of these people follow the same pattern of posting as I had predicted in the article, even now. They post purely after reading the title and in most cases won’t read what’s below it. They make the same stupid claims, maybe post some crazy link from someone else from the same crazy-camp. This makes them look even more ridiculous, if that were possible.

  6. Now c’mon folks, the Mayor of Bray isn’t trying to poison all his subjects from above with Chemicals is he? Get a grip. It’s all a Myth.

    • The Bray Airshow is in July, Dec, so if you did go to see it last year, why only make this point now?

      And I assume that, now you’ve seen the light, you’ll be closing that Youtube chemtrail channel?

  7. Snowden said the oil companies are adding a fuel additive to commercial jet fuel that creates chemtrails to block the sun for Geo engineering purposes. I’m sure it only effects the NATO countries. I read it on the internet.
    We used to see the bluest skies you’d ever seen here in Seattle. Now when the clouds are gone all we see is a crisscross of chemtrails and haze, like today.

  8. Did Snowden actually say it? I’m not disputing it but a lot of stuff is on the internet that “Snowden said”. He has become quite the voice for people who want to emphasise something and make it sound real.
    I’m still unsure how these scientist/government bodies add chemicals to be sprayed from airplanes yet be so selective in where it lands. How do they ensure it only affects NATO countries? I can’t see that being possible.

  9. So, here is the latest member of society to get sucked into the chemtrail conspiracy. He has decided not to comment directly on this page but has instead posted a video on his Youtube channel “Fluoride Free Wexford”, or “Wexford Skywatch”…I’m not quite sure. His name is Terry Lawton, from Wexford, and sees himself as somewhat of a preacher against what he calls the geo-engineering problem. A view of his channels and online presence will give a good impression of what we’re dealing with here.

    So, here is his video. It’s 23 minutes long, and I’m afraid they are 23 minutes of your life that you will not get back. I apologise in advance. But please read again my article, then listen to his twisted version of it, complete with misquotes, ommissions, and just plain lies.

    He has admitted himself (Portsmouth 2013) that he “is not a scientist or metororologist…just a plain observer from the ground”. He also stated on radio in 2012 that, until a friend mentioned chemtrails to him in 2009, he hadn’t even noticed anything going on in the sky, yet he makes out that it started happening in the mid ’90s. Hmmm…

    So, taking his points in chronological order:

    – Banning from the Facebook page: Yes, we do not allow conspiracy theories of any kind, including chemtrails, to clog the timelines of our 52,000+ Facebook users, but as stated here, they are free to post their comments on this article for all to view. He has chosen not to this.

    – Normal skies: Yes, they are normal photos of contrails. In the mid ’90s we didn’t have digital cameras and Google to allow people find images of anything in a fraction of a second. Five years ago, however, we did have them, but you still hadn’t noticed anything going on. Strange that, if you say it’s been going on since the ’90s.

    – LIE-ALERT: At 3:25 he says “Fergal is saying that cloud-seeding from aircraft does not exist…it only takes place from land-based facilities”. A total lie. I have no idea where he got this from, but he reckoned if he threw it in early then it might sway the reader’s view away from mine. Here’s what I actually said: “I am not denying that geo-engineering, still just a theoretical exercise, could be easy enough to try out, given the right modifications to an appropriate aircraft, or that cloud-seeding experiments have been carried out (but these only consist of silver iodide crystals from burning flares and not actual dumping of material). I am actually totally against the whole idea of trying to geo-engineer our way out of what is really not a problem, in my opinion.” So where did I say that cloud-seeding is only land-based and not from aircraft? I didn’t. He made it up. He lied.

    He then goes on with the smoke-screen (excuse the pun) of some videos of such cloud-seeding experiments and patents and articles relating to geo-engineering, hoping that the viewer is as gullible as he is and will believe that these are proof that Ryanair and Aer Lingus are spraying us today. There are literally millions of patents out there for everything you can imagine, most of which are never granted. A patent or a theoretical research paper is not proof that what is in it them is underway now.

    Nor is an article from Food Freedom News purporting that the IPCC are carrying out geo-engineering. Please quote original sources, not another conspirator. The IPCC speak of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), which is the long-term removal of CO2 through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but the genius author has conveniently switched this to mean geo-engineering through chemtrails, again hoping that no-one will notice. Terry didn’t notice – or at least pretended not to – and hoped you wouldn’t either.

    He then goes on to show a WMO article on weather modification (which, you’ll remember, I stated does take place in the form of cloud-seeding) and the list of countries that are active in this. Notice that they are all either rain-enhancement or hail-suppression applications, all through cloud-seeding. He wants you not to notice this and to think that it’s to do with high-altitude spraying from airliners. No one will fall for that, Terry, sorry.

    Oh, and the WMO are not my bosses. Neither are RTE. My full name and occupation are listed on the website for all to see. I am not a professional meteorologist. You made that up too.

    – Conspiracy Claim 1, on contrail duration: Well, I’m not quite sure – and I don’t think he is either – of what he’s trying to say here. He tries to come up with some scientific evidence to rubbish mine, but he basically stumbles around with some figure of -50 °C and 20 seconds. He states that it is a “scientific impossibility” for contrails to last more than 20 seconds…ever. He is totally wrong, but again hopes the viewer will swallow it without reading my referenced scientific facts.

    – He then shows a plane with just one engine producing a contrail. Yep, very possible, Terry. When conditions are right on the limit for contrail-formation, subtle differences in engine thrust (and hence exhaust-gas temperature) can flip the balance between a contrail forming and not. It could also be an aerodynamic contrail from a cross-wind or through the loss of say an engine panel, which has happened on several occasions. Again, we’re talking about conditions right on the limit, so small things make big differences.

    – He then shows videos of fuel-dump nozzles doing just that – dumping fuel – and tries to claim that they’re something else. Nope, Terry, they’re just fuel-dump nozzles, present on some aircraft to allow fuel (weight) to be dumped if an emergency landing is required. Look it up, if you dare. The 4th clip is an aerodynamic contrail from the wake vortex off the edge of the flap on a humid day. Look that up too.

    – Now, the best bit. Notice how he conveniently jumps to Claim 4, skipping out Claims 2 and 3. These obviously contain too much sound science for him to accept. He hopes that the viewer is stupid enough not to actually read my article, but accept him at face-value. If the viewer actually reads 2 and 3 they might actually learn something that will expose him for what he is. No, we can’t be having that.

    – Claim 4: Terry, if you had been good enough to actually go through Claims 2 and 3 then you would have found the answer to why contrails can be short and intermittent. The plane in the video is either throttling down to descend, or is descending down out of a humid later, or both. It’s very simple, and all explained in the parts that you chose to leave out. Now we see why you did.

    Oh, and about the “4 months of sunshine, not needing to look at a forecast at all” when you were younger; I assume you have climatological data to back that up. Rosslare was, until recently, a fully-manned synoptic meteorological station, with daily sunshine figures, so if you have some data to show such an abrupt change in summer conditions there then please do share. They are more reliable than your childhood “memories”. There are also Roche’s Point and Kilkenny stations to form a better picture.

    So Terry, there it is. You have been exposed as another fraud, who obviously has nothing better to do with your time. I recommend you get a life and go out and enjoy your beautiful corner of the country. It’s not being bombarded. I’ve shown you why. Your arguments don’t hold a drop of water, but I’m sure that won’t deter you. To be honest I couldn’t care less, but I have done you the decency of replying to your video and putting to bed your worries. Most people are intelligent enough to see through your empty psuedo-science, but of course there are always the few who came down in the last shower. It takes all sorts.

  10. I gave him 13 whole minutes, but thankfully a chunk was taken up by his video clip he showed. I think he should have prepared a script because he wasn’t quite certain what he was saying most of the time.
    Showing the video clip on his video was a quite a service. He conveniently pointed out the facts as you have already stated them, but he didn’t mention that. The clip also gave good information which flies in the face of what all these theorists have been saying. The guy being interviewed stated that we can’t make the clouds, we can’t make weather, we can only enhance them. Um! Haven’t they always been claiming that these chemtrails are making the clouds? Yet to debunk the science they use information that debunks the conspiracy, not very sensible. I don’t think he will be educating anyone one into chemtrails nor will he garner much support against this article because he jumps around and back and forward so much he can’t actually be followed. By the time you work out one part of what he was trying to say, you’ve missed the next part.
    Oh! Before I forget, why is it the documents he shows are giving information the government doesn’t want to talk about can be so easily Googled? Of course, it’s because they don’t mind talking about it :-)
    What a foolish person.

    • I’m not sure if this guy has a job or how he is funding this scaremongering. He seems to be coninually travelling around the place, including abroad, and printing and producing posters and DVDs, which he uses to harass people in Wexford town centre. I notice from some of his videos he has a few mates that he plants in these videos, and of course they all spout the same waffle that he does. It looks like he writes their script for them.

      It would be very interesting to delve into the psyche of someone like this to see exactly what causes their chronic paranoia. Then again there are more important things to spend our time on.

      • Well I can only hope that while he’s traveling abroad he doesn’t fly, how ironic that these people accuse airlines of poisoning us yet they fly them!

  11. I have just happened across this and I cool article. Unfortunately I have happened across the maker of the Youtube video you refer to. He is a friend/follower of Max Bliss, a total grasper of straws for the chemtrail hoax. I tend to just point and laugh now rather than engage.

    • You have the correct attitude. It’s a pity really that they won’t actually engage in a rational discussion/debate, it would be interesting, but they only want to cram their nonsense down peoples throat and insult them, which actually only goes to prove that they have no rational argument for debate. They can’t even agree amongst themselves what is and isn’t going on with the result that they continuously contradict each other.
      As far as I’m aware, his accusation of being banned and blocked on here 6 months ago may well be another lie, I’m not actually aware of anyone being banned and blocked and I’ve been on here for more than a year. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I never heard anything about it.

      • He was talking about our Facebook page. With well over 500 comments on this one article here he cannot say that he isn’t been given a chance to have his say here. No comment has been censored, and none will, unless it contains profanities.

        Of course we all know what type of comment he would post anyway. It would be the typical pattern of the other few hundred rants from the others here. I asked all along for a scientific debate from them, that they would put forward their psuedoscience, but of course how can they do so when, by definition, it has no basis. They can’t, and they know it.

      • Ah! I thought he was talking about the blog as he was dodging up and down on the blog at the time.
        Well as you say, he has had plenty of opportunity to respond here, but we know why he won’t. But I have to admit, that there is very little in what he says that points out the Facebook page is separate entity to the blog.

    • Don’t forget that Evergreen have declared bankruptcy and are having to sell the Supertanker off for scrap. I guess this chemtrailing lark does not pay well.

      • Well if it were taking place it would have to be THE least efficient activity carried out by man. The resulting concentrations of these chemicals in the billions of cubic km of atmosphere would just not make any difference whatsoever.

      • Just to highlight how unbelievably inefficient chemtrails would be as a method of poisoning people, I have done a quick calculation on how much chemicals would be added to the atmosphere every day if every single jet plane on the planet was spraying all of the time (turbprops use Jet A1 too, but for the benefit of the conspirators let’s assume they are all high-level jets). It is based on the daily consumption of Jet A1 fuel (which in 2010 was about 5,220,000 barrels) and assuming a very generous chemical contamination of 10% in the fuel. This level would be too high for the engines to operate, but hey, why let logic get in the way when it comes to the topic of chemtrails.

        Overall, the resulting contamination of the atmosphere would be just 0.0000000000000000002844%, or the equivalent of just a half of a teaspoon of water in 4 billion Olympic-size swimming pools!

        Here are my calculations. As most airliners normally cruise at between 33,000-39,000 ft, I have taken the average cruising altitude as 36,000 ft (11 km). They would therefore be contaminating a volume of the atmosphere (what I call the Cruisosphere) from that level down to the ground. By finding the total volume of this cruisosphere and the total amount of chemicals being sprayed into it we can find the resulting concentration above.

        Radius of Earth, R: 6370 km
        Average cruise altitude, H: 36,000 ft (11 km)
        Volume of a sphere: (4/3)Pi(R³)

        Volume of Earth (radius 6370 km): 1,082,696,932,433 km³
        Volume of Earth + Cruisosphere (radius 6370 + 11 km): 1,088,315,571,792 km³
        Volume of Cruisosphere: 1,082,696,932,433 – 1,088,315,571,792 = 5,618,639,359 km³

        The daily consumption of Jet A1 in 2010 was 5,219,510 barrels (1 barrel = 42 US gallons (162 litres), so that’s 843,994,767 litres, or 683,635,761 kg, given that the density is 0.81 kg/litre). Assuming a 10% chemical-contamination, this gives a total of 68,363,576 kg of chemicals sprayed through the fuel per day. This is, of course, making the huge assumption that they survive the combustion and come out of the exhausts unaffected – a highly unlikely scenario – but let’s carry on nevertheless.

        This leads to a daily concentration of chemicals in the atmosphere of 68,363,576/5,618,639,359 = 0.01217 kg/km³ (i.e. 12.2 g (or one dessert-spoon) in a volume of 1 cubic kilometre).

        The density of the atmosphere at sea level is 1.225 kg/m³ and at 11 km altitude it is 0.2978 kg/m³. This gives an average density throughout the Cruisosphere of: (1.225+0.2978)/2 kg/m³ = 0.7614 kg/m³ = 761,400,000 kg/km³. Multiplying this by the volume gives us the mass of the cruisosphere: 4,278,032,007,942,600,000 kg.

        This lets us calculate the daily percentage chemical concentration: 100 x (0.01217/4,278,032,007,942,600,000) = 0.0000000000000000002844%

        So only 2.8 of every ten billion billion grams of the atmosphere would be from chemicals. One Olympic-size swimming pool is 50 x 25 x 2 metres = 2,500 m³ (2,500,000 litres), so ten billion billion grams is four billion Olympic-size swimming pools. One teaspoon is 5 ml, so 2.8 g (ml) is just over half of that. This is all we have in our four billion swimming pools. Over a year it comes to just 1 litre.

        Still think they’re spraying?

  12. Yes it really is humorous how dilemmas like this one start looking ridiculously trivial compared to the world events. Another part of the cold war, the actual true war that erupts, Russia-China fuel deal axis… However here we’re with your social media troubles, – can we notice the world has changed? I’m not declaring that which you write about is irrelevant, I’m declaring that a certain level of detachment is balanced. Thanks, Sarah @ http://phyto-renew350e.com/

  13. so who here has actually watched the kids movie Over the Hedge that’s blatantly obvious
    so if chemtrails are total bullshit can someone explain why the Australian government approved aerial spraying of vaccines
    if they can spray vaccines over populations what would stop them using anything else
    face it the world is fucked and we dont have enough resources for more than 8 billion people
    i am very sceptical about chemtrails
    and can you explain why every picture and video i have shows the planes start the “contrail” over the start of the city and as soon as its about to go over the bushland it stops
    let me guess the flying spaghetti monster global warming is to blame and the heat from cars BS BS BS
    i dont live in a massive metropolis only 3.5 million people
    the airspace in this country has no jumped massively since i was a kid
    since i was a kid i have always watched planes and these patterns never existed here
    the single cloud of half bright green and half bright pink ,we only get them clouds here on “contrail” days
    the actual people who have admitted working on these programs, how can you dismiss it when they can prove what they did and where they worked yet fucks like you use Wikipedia and BS 7th grade science.
    ignorance is bliss yeah , next you will tell me 9/11 was a conspiracy and not by radical Islam
    yes flight radar 24 is great ,yet when i click the plane overhead with “contrails”out the back 9/10 times i get “no call sign” and its a massive commercial jet wtf is with that.
    my mates dad who is a pilot for qantas only refers to it as geo-engineering to reduce global warming (reflect sun rays by 2%)
    so if i lived in siberia and wanted to boil the kettle id have to open up the entire house to let frozen crystals out right because its atleast -20
    so yeah please get back to me about the article
    cheers
    happy flying

  14. My goodness, what a confused rant! What on earth are you going on about if you’re sceptical about contrails? You either distrust it or you trust it, or perhaps you are using words you don’t know the meaning of, if that’s the case you have no place in a discussion like this. But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt.
    First off, you can’t make sweeping statements like “the Australian Government approved aerial spraying of vaccines” without showing the evidence. If they have openly approved it then the evidence must be easy to show, so give us the government evidence for this approval. What exactly are the vaccines? Why don’t you say what they are?
    Another sweeping statement, but, no, I certainly can’t explain why every picture and video you have shows the planes start contrails over the start of the city and stop as soon as they are about to go over bushland, simply because I haven’t seen every single picture and video you have, secondly because I think you grossly exaggerating. There is no place here for grossly exaggerated claims. But another reason I would doubt your claim is, do you honestly expect me to believe that they start spraying 5 miles high exactly at the beginning of a city and stop exactly at the other end of the city and that spray drops directly down onto the city completely unaffected by drift, breeze or wind? Obviously you didn’t pay attention in your 7th grade science class.
    The flying spaghetti monster? Oh my, you need to stop playing Facebook games.
    I’m sure the airspace hasn’t changed since you were a kid, but certainly the air traffic has. Actually, I suspect by the irrational post you have put up that you are either still a kid or not long away from being one.
    I’ve watched these patterns since the 50s, so I don’t think you have really been paying attention again. The only difference being that it has increased an awful lot over the years due to increased traffic.
    No, I’m sure the admins and mods on here are similar to me, we have more faith in hard facts than Wikipedia, at least I certainly do. We certainly don’t, unlike you conspiracy theorists, take YouTube videos at face value either.
    We’ll leave the conspiracy theories about 9/11 to the other conspiracy theorists. I’m sure no one on here believes in any conspiracy theory, or perhaps you didn’t get that!
    Sorry, can’t help you with radar 24, I don’t use it, but I’m sure Fergalt will explain it in simple terms for you.
    I would carry on having a chat with your “mates dad”. Don’t let him “just refer to it”, tell him you have serious concerns and you need answers.
    I haven’t a clue what that drivel is about with you living in Siberia! Do you want to live there?
    I think you are out of your league.

  15. People who are exposing chemtrails do not just look at the subject for 10 mins then believe. Most have been actively gathering evidence for many years, ten or more to be precise. However, if one day, (god forbid) your loved ones became ill and the hospital says they havn`t a clue why. Then they find heavy metal poisoning, aluminum high readings, your child having fits or serious asthma. Maybe you will look over your shoulder as a second chance to see the truth. This has happened to children in both the US and London. Our lives and our children`s are precious enough to consider the threats. Fluoride as you well know is also one big joke. Its poison used as the slow kill dumb down.

    People who have given years to help their fellow man are never a joke. If only half is true, they are still right.

    Harry.

    Just someone who cares.

  16. Video 1. A poor example of correlating statistics. Although she claims in the video that summers months are the worst for respiratory disease I didn’t hear her give any figures. I will check the video again in fairness in case I missed it, but I only heard figures quoted for September, October, November and December. All are months in which you would expect these illnesses to increase due to wet weather. She said she had stats up to May, but didn’t give them.
    I’m concerned about the use of stats since 2008. That doesn’t cover a long enough period to show any marked increase in these problems, but merely an increase within a selected period, it doesn’t offer enough information to confirm or deny that there is a World increase in respiratory illness overall. It shows a spike in the graph, and I’m not convinced it’s anything other than a tiny spike no greater than any drop there would be in the same period, in fact she quickly skips past the stat where there was a drop and concentrates on two peaks. My educated guess is that you would find greater spikes if you went further back in time, not very far, I would guess that in the mid to late 40s you will have quite conspicuous peaks in your graph due the severe winters in that period. You would then have another spike in the 60s and 70s. The period she chose has now become notorious for being wet; a crucial factor in respiratory disease. All that aside, I think that with a high of 121 cases of respiratory disease in a population of millions it actually wouldn’t cause a blip on anyone’s radar looking for increased respiratory disease; unless you are trying to convince yourself of a conspiracy. They are pretty normal looking figures. I’m afraid it’s another YouTube fail.
    Video 2 is just a Joke. She shows you one thing and tells you something different! Note the example she shows on the screen. Heavyweight scientists PROPOSE!! She then changes it verbally saying; They ARE using planes! Come on, how can anyone be taken in with such a blatant twisting of facts. It’s there for you to plainly see what she’s doing, blatantly manipulating things.
    She really doesn’t have a clue what global warming is about, does she? She claims they are admitting they were wrong about global warming and that it isn’t happening. In fact they are admitting nothing of the sort. They are admitting that it won’t be as high as originally estimated!
    As for; It’s on the telly and in the newspapers so it should be real! Give me a break, your as well saying if it’s on Facebook and YouTube it must be real. I’m afraid video 2 is the biggest fail I’ve come across so far. She says that Channel 4 and the Guardian are telling us that they are spraying us with chemtrails and geoengineering, but neither of them are doing any such thing, they are discussing the possibilities. Again, something that has never been denied on here. She is incapable of putting information together, if this is an example of what is on offer, then my advice is, don’t waste your time being concerned about me, be concerned for your self.

  17. It’s getting even funnier now. :)

    “Those spreading disinformation about chemtrails would like nothing more than for you to believe that short, non-persistent plumes coming out of jets are harmless contrails. If they convince you of this, then you will ignore these plumes and allow them to spray you without objection, and this is exactly what they want.

    They will tell you that they’ve seen contrails since they were children. They will tell you that contrails are scientifically proven to contain water vapor. They will tell you anything necessary to make you believe short trails are harmless. This is exactly how disinformation works.

    Beware of those who claim that short plumes emitted by aircraft are “contrails”

    They are popping up all over; websites and blogs that try to convince the public that short, non-persistent plumes coming out of jets are “contrails”. Facebook shills are government employees and contractors who are paid to convince you what short, non-persistent trails coming out of jets are harmless water vapor.

    Don’t be deceived. Contrails are extremely rare and only occur in conditions that:

    1. Are so rare that most people will never see one in their entire lives, and
    2. Cannot be seen from the ground.

    If you see a trail come out of a jet, long or short, persistent or non-persistent, you can be sure that it’s a chemtrail.

    The science is simple: Contrails only occur under conditions so rare that the vast majority of people will never see one in their lifetime. Furtheremore, these rare conditions only occur at altitudes too high to be seen from the ground.

    Now that the government is spending hundreds-of-millions of dollars on disinformation and are attempting to convince the public that contrails are “normal” and “harmless”, people are coming out of the woodwork on social networks claiming that they have seen contrails all of their lives.

    So much money is being spent on disinformation, that it’s not likely that you will occasionally run into them on the internet. It’s much more likely that you will be inundated by them and that online groups will be saturated with them.

    If the public catches on, and it is, the globalists and all involved in their disinformation will be prosecuted and executed for crimes against humanity on a scale unprecedented in human history, therefore, they will do anything to to keep the public ignorant and complacent during this global holocaust.

  18. I know and appreciate you work hard at giving a well thought out reply. You also put time into reading the response you receive in return. So, to give each other credit, I too have responded thoroughly after giving your reply much thought.

    I shall be putting forward two arguments below.

    1/ The costs to be justified for patents.
    2/ The subject matter of such patent claims.

    Now, lets assume there has never been a single occasion where chemtrails have been used in the way we are here discussing. Also, that there has never been any evidence that it has been practised.

    I write patents for a living. I am a patent agent. I have searched for, and found patents, many many patents which relate either directly or indirectly to weather modification for geoengineering. I say related because whilst these “related” patents are not directly involved with the aerosol spraying of nano particles, (as, barium, aluminum and strontium etc). These “related”are to do with for example, wavelength monitoring of these aerosol cloud formations and manipulation thereof. The other patents ARE DIRECTLY and explicitly our subject herein.

    There are currently hundreds of these patents which have been both applied for ,and granted internationally from the intellectual property offices around the world. The US has at least 80 known publicly. America does not allow certain patents to be released for publication for military security reasons and so they have admitted to “other” patents for weather control and modification not published. So, these would be in addition to the previous figures.

    I can assure you that there are patents owned by the military that have been admitted publicly related to weather modification and nano-particle manipulation with the use of the likes of HAARP type equipment to create precipitation for use as a weapon. They have openly admitted the use of laser weaponry into a “seeded” atmosphere in mainstream media only four weeks ago. I can send you examples of these patents.

    However, the issue here is this. I know for a fact to write a patent professionally which will stand up in a patent court of law and hold up against severe scrutiny gives no change from £65,000. Plus if it becomes necessary to get it appealed and granted there goes another £15,000 minimum. There are many many more than 100 patents granted on this subject, however, for the sake of argument, lets say that there are only 100. So we are now up to £65,000,000.

    Now, for the development costs of the concept. These can be more than 100 times the cost of the patent alone. This takes us up to £65,000,000,000. I own patents in my own name. EVERY year without fail my patents have a renewal fee for each and every country they are registered in. This also increases every year too. For example just one of my patents cost only £6,500 to renew it in seven countries. Seven years later this patent now costs me personally £12,500 per year. They assume if you are wanting to renew your patent you must be making good money. Or it is important enough for you to cough up the fees. So, the £65,000,000,000 above is only the start of the costs.

    Why would anyone pay this incredible amount of money for something that has so far not been used? Would someone be so stupid to pay for these patents if they are just a ridiculous idiotic conspiracy theory? This quite frankly just does not stack up. Not even in your books I believe. However, the fact remains that these patents do actually exist and are still currently live. As they have been renewed on a yearly basis someone thinks that they are important enough to both pay for and surely USE !

    The granted patent below was granted for nano-particles to be released via aerosol means into the atmosphere.

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=4&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19941025&CC=US&NR=5357865A&KC=A

    To quote from claim 1.
    A method of cloud seeding for precipitation enhancement comprises releasing hygroscopic seeding particles from a seeding flare 10. The particles are obtained by burning, in the flare, a pyrotechnic composition which includes, as an oxidizing agent, a compound selected from the group consisting in potassium chlorate and potassium perchlorate.6. A method according to claim 1, wherein the hygroscopic seeding particles have a spread of sizes ranging from sub-micron to super-micron size, with a major porportion of said hygroscopic seeding particles having a maximum particle size of less than 300 microns.

    7. A method according to claim 6, wherein the sizes of the hygroscopic seeding particles range from 0.2 micron to 180 microns.

    8. A method according to claim 1, wherein the burning of the pyrotechnic formulation and the release of said hygroscopic seeding particles are effected immediately below said cloud formation from an aircraft traversing below the cloud formation, with said seeding flare being mounted to said aircraft.

    9. A method according to claim 8, wherein a plurality of the seeding flares are mounted to external racks on said aircraft and are electrically initiated from inside said aircraft, said hygroscopic seeding particles thus being released in the wake of said aircraft.ied and pasted

    Claims 6, , 8 & 9 are here copied and pasted word for word . . .

    6. A method according to claim 1, wherein the hygroscopic seeding particles have a spread of sizes ranging from sub-micron to super-micron size, with a major porportion of said hygroscopic seeding particles having a maximum particle size of less than 300 microns.

    7. A method according to claim 6, wherein the sizes of the hygroscopic seeding particles range from 0.2 micron to 180 microns.

    8. A method according to claim 1, wherein the burning of the pyrotechnic formulation and the release of said hygroscopic seeding particles are effected immediately below said cloud formation from an aircraft traversing below the cloud formation, with said seeding flare being mounted to said aircraft.

    9. A method according to claim 8, wherein a plurality of the seeding flares are mounted to external racks on said aircraft and are electrically initiated from inside said aircraft, said hygroscopic seeding particles thus being released in the wake of said aircraft.

    End of quote.

    This patent expressly claims that the method of application is from an aircraft which may have a plurality (two or more) of seeding flares.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    This patent involves SRM aerosol dispersment from jet engined aircraft. You can read the whole set of claims here.at the patent office . . .

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/claims?CC=US&NR=5003186A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19910326&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

    Patent 2

    Claims: US5003186 (A) ― 1991-03-26
    EP Register

    Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
    Claims of US5003186 (A)

    What is claimed is:

    1. A method of reducing atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a layer of gases in the atmosphere which absorb strongly near infrared wavelength radiation, comprising the step of dispersing tiny particles of a material within the gases’ layer, the particle material characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity or reflectivity, in that said material has high emissivities with respect to radiation in the visible and far infrared wavelength spectra, and low emissivity in the near infrared wavelength spectrum, whereby said tiny particles provide a means for converting infrared heat energy into far infrared radiation which is radiated into space.

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

    3. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises aluminum oxide.

    4. The method of claim 1 wherein said material comprises thorium oxide.

    Claim 14 expressly states that these particles are to be released at an altitude of 7 to 13 kilometers. The patent also states that it is recommended that these particles be released by aircraft during cruising speed.

    14. The method of claim 10 wherein said seeding is performed at altitudes in the range of seven to thirteen kilometers above the earth’s surface.

    This is exactly the altitude where videos of aircraft are seen to emit white dense trails which certainly spread out to form a thick cloud formation which blocks out sunlight. There are many time lapse videos which quite clearly show this extremely well.

    The great threat of which chemtrail activists are so concerned about is stated here below by NASA themselves. This concept could easily be hijacked by the richest people in the world for ulterior means.

    For example,the patents owned by Monsanto regarding food production cover subjects as developing food seeds which are resistant to aluminum. Why would anyone want a patent on seed resistance to aluminum! ? Because, it is one of the main ingredients used in these patents for geo-engineering.

    The second example is the patents applied for again by Monsanto for foods which can grow in incredibly high acid soil. Most places where food is already grown are NOT acidic. The recent geo-engineering patent by the USA as promoted on mainstream TV says that they are going to spray Hydrochloric acid in the upper atmosphere which is hoped to cover thousands of square miles.

    I have quoted provable and documented references above. Add this to what is now seen in the skies and I can only say that it is pieces of this jigsaw puzzle which join together too conveniently to raise enough doubt and make it more than just a conspiracy theory.

    Food control, water control. land mass control, weather control, banking control leads to total world domination. Maybe NASA is right after all.
    Lets hope not.

    Harry.

    • Harry what is the basic cost for filing a patent?

      But lets address some of your claims. You show the Welsbach patent. Are you claiming they are using it for geoengineering because if they are it is obviously not working is it. The patent describes materials of high emissivity which will convert blackbody radiation to visible light. Why then is the sky not glowing?

      Monsanto don’t possess a patent for aluminium resistance, but the Brazilian government do. Aluminium is an issue in rainforest soils due to its acidity. Farmers are unable to buy and transport lime to raise the pH so they slash and burn. They cut the trees down and burn the ground and the resultant ash raises the soils pH for a season. Once the pH in the soils lowers they simply move on to another part. An aluminium resistant food crop makes sense to me.

      • I call bs on your patent claims. In the UK it can cost £230 to £280 to file a patent.
        http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-applying/p-cost.htm
        That site also says that a patent only needs to be maintained 3 times in it’s life NOT yearly as you claim. A look at the US states the same and very similar costs?

        Which patents have been contested so to go to court. The Welsbach patent you show certainly was not contested and it was maintained on 3 occasions over it’s 20 year life.

        I notice you claim there are high levels if aluminium. I have seen rainwater samples and I can’t see high levels just normal background levels for an industrial nation.

      • A correction to my post above. It is renewal 3 times in the US. I was looking at that page as I typed not the UK page. But even so the costs do not seem astronomical.

      • Thank you for what is a what seems a common sense reply yet seriously flawed.
        Firstly you are wrong about patent costs. The process from application to grant takes usually three and a half years.

        From the IPO . .
        The normal amount we charge to process a UK patent application is GBP £230 – £280. this is just to start the application

        If you decide to seek professional IP advice (from a Patent Attorney or other representative) you will need to factor in the cost of this as well. If the patent is granted, you must pay a renewal fee to renew it every year after the 5th year for up to 20 years protection. Renewal fees start at £70 for the 5th year and rise to £600 for the 20th year.

        The UK is officially the cheapest patent office to apply for a patent. The patent industry is sewn up between attorneys. In other words, you could not put an application into the other countries without an attorney. Its true.

        So note again. just to put in the application is £230 to £280. Plus your Patent attorney fees. Then you pay the patent office a search fee to compare your patent against all other registered patents within the scope. Then you pay your attorney to revise the patent offices arguments and search results and reply. Normally this happens twice.

        If you are registering a patent in a foreign country you have to employ a patent attorney in that country to both translate and submit argue and get grant and if successful to renew it. I have a patent in 7 European countries. I pay 6 patent attorneys to renew EVERY YEAR its a fact. All EPO patents are definitely renewed YEARLY. It says yearly above from my cut and pasted verse above from the patent office. It mentions year five because it takes at least three and a half years from application to grant before you can renew because it at this point will have only just been granted.

        Most patents last 25 years from application date so these fees apply anually within the EPO for 20 years. You are so well uninformed my friend. Patent applications and patent law is one of my subjects I do know about. It is true that the USA renewals are not annually. Most other countries are.

        When a government department files a patent, it files it in every country applicable to the patent. Usually EVERY country is applicable.

        So yes by the time this process has completed my figures will be correct. I have just paid my patent renewals to my attorney from y royalties.
        If you think a patent is going to cost less than a £1000 you are so much mistaken.

        1/ The patent has to be written in legal form ((if you are not qualified in this a patent attorney would rip it to pieces in court)
        2/ Yes there are search fees by both the patent office and your employed patent agent to make sure your patent does not
        infringe current patents granted plus others not yet published. Usually two to three refusals are issued by the patent office
        as a matter of course.

        Call Swindel & Pearson my patent attorneys on 013220367051 they will confirm 99.99% of patents
        are refused at first application. Please ask for Robert Sales senior patent attorney. Tell Him Harry Rhodes asked you to call. Ask him how much the cost would be for a granted patent in each country of the world where apllicable.
        Around 80% are refused twice. A patent attorneys costs are anything from £350 per hour to £5000 per hour if you are Pfizer. my patent s were ALL refused twice and one refused three times which forced a visit to the EPO for a hearing where it was finally granted. I employed a patent attorney and flew to Germany with him. It cost many thousands of pounds.

        Monsanto DOES own patents that appear to mitigate the effects of geo-engineering, that can be applied to a whole host of fruits, trees, grains and veggies. A quick patent search brings up 3,981 hits for Monsanto and Stress Tolerance. Mendel Biotechnology is partners with Monsanto in several of these patents. This is taken from one of the joint patents:

        The claimed invention, in the field of functional genomics and the characterization of plant genes for the improvement of plants, was made by or on behalf of Mendel Biotechnology, Inc. and Monsanto Corporation as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made.
        Here is a patent titled “Stress tolerant plants and methods thereof,” that is owned by Monsanto, and seems to address all forms of abiotic stress that weather manipulation and chemtrails can cause:

        FIELD OF THE INVENTION http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7851676.html
        No it does not specifically say “Chemtrail resistant” Why would it?

        However, if I was to spray heavy metals and acids in the quantity that as you say the “chemtrail conspirators” are claiming, then these plants would probably survive when natural vegetation is dying and is struggling to survive as is the case in North America Soil samples have confirmed this. Yes they exist and are easily found on the net..

        Described herein are inventions in the field of plant molecular biology and plant genetic engineering. In particular, DNA constructs encoding a polypeptide and transgenic plants containing the DNA constructs are provided.

        I think you will benefit by reading this item on a patent attorneys website. The £20,000 initial cost is just that – initial for application NOT to grant ! http://www.bb-ip.com/patent-cost/ the other costs will take it to £50,000 and more very quickly.

        Here is a video link to just one of my patent`s renewal fees for the last three consecutive years. Denmark is not one of the expensive ones either.

        As you can see my current renewal fees are due annually. At more than £800 per year for just Denmark over 20 years there is £16,000 alone in just the renewal fees, that does not include the annual increases imposed on future renewals.

        Your assumption that patents cost only a few hundred pounds is a million miles out.

        Now coming to the patents we originally started with. I rest my case as to patent costs. I am spot on.So lets just believe these inventors and military bodies just spend on patents and never ever use the technology associated with their inventions. The costs too are just a conspiracy theory.

    • It’s refreshing to see a supporter of the chemtrail conspiracy actually attempt to post a contructive and coherent reply, backed up with what he believes is evidence other than a youtube video or link to a chemtrail site. However, I’m afraid your reply has done nothing whatsoever to convince me that there may be any truth to the claims. It is just expanding on others’ arguments already posted and shown to be irrelevant. Here’s why.

      Remember, we’re talking about the claims that every contrail we see in the sky is caused by spraying chemicals, for whatever purpose, and that these chemicals are leading to poisoning of the population, animal life and soils. That’s the claim, that it’s happening now and we’re seeing it every day, and that persistent contrails can only come about through artificial means.

      Your argument gives no evidence to confirm this claim. You are arguing that the patents are there so they must be doing it, otherwise why go to the trouble.

      Let’s take your first patent on cloud-seeding on a local scale. It’s no secret that there are companies that do this, seeding individual clouds from low-flying planes (mostly non-jet). I spoke about it already but it’s totally unrelated to the chemtrails-from-jets claim, so let’s park it there.

      Your second patent is more relevant, however I notice that it’s from 1991 and has therefore expired. Yes there are costs associated with maintaining patents after Year 3 but it’s a bit misleading to claim that they are the astronomical figures you said. It does not cost any one company billions, millions, or even hundreds of thousands to maintain a patent, and in any case this one has elapsed. Was it acted upon? Well, is there any evidence to show that it was? Anyone see loading of these chemicals onto planes, or nozzles for ejecting them, or evidence that they’re being added to fuel? Any patents for designing jet engines that are capable of withstanding fuel-contamination with heavy metals? I calculated a few days ago that even if fuel is being loaded with these chemicals at a level of 10%, the resulting total daily concentration of the chemicals in the atmosphere would be the equivalent of just over half a teaspoon in the volume of 4 billion Olympic swimming pools. This is hardly going to a) be commercially viable, or b) cause any problems to humans (as it trillions of times less concentrated than normal traffic or industrial pollution), or c) lead to any soil contamination.

      I find it a great pity that you mention a HAARP patent but chose not to show it. HAARP is another keyword used by conspirators but unfortunately does not stand up to scrutiny. It would be nice to have a read of what yours says, though, so maybe post it so we can have a look.

      So, my article took 5 key claims that conspirators use and scientifically showed how these claims are bogus. You’ve taken the non-scientific view that it must be happening because there are patents out there. You have not gone further to post evidence to contradict my evidence, which is what I have been requesting for 8 months now. Persistent contrails can and do form in layers of high relative humidity without the need for chemicals. It requires just a few ice crystals to seed a whole cirrus cloud. These crystals are much more easily formed when the relative humidity is high enough (above around 65-70%). There’s no big mystery to it.

      • This patent is still in force. There is an allowance to renew if it deemed acceptable by the patent office officials. Certainly if it relates to a military advantage.

      • Yes I am refreshing thank you.
        You said previously and i cut and paste, . . . . . .

        Dave Fraser says:
        May 31, 2014 at 7:37 am

        I call bs on your patent claims.

        Which patents have been contested so to go to court . . . .

        The patent was initially objected to by the patent office not contested in court by a competitor.. After an appeal by the inventors attorney it was pursued to grant. A court body is only convened within the patent office if a competitor objects to its grant or pending grant.

        I did not advocate EVERY contrail to be viewed as a chemtrail. However, I do understand why that was claimed. I just tried to find a recent patent but could not lay my hands on it just now so I will forward it later.

        I assure you I have read a recent patent which claims that a new geoengineering invention of aerosol SRM particle dspersement is invisible to the naked eye at the point of ejection but may show a very short contrail no longer than twice the length of an average sized aircraft before dissipating. The patent then claims to create a cloud mass from this when it is either heated up or radiated with microwave pulses.

      • Firstly, you are quoting Dave Fraser, not me.

        Secondly, I am not saying the HAARP plant is a conspiracy theory – it exists and is used for studies of the ionosphere, far above the troposphere where our weather happens – but I am saying that claims that it is being used to manipulate the weather are bogus and without basis.

        Thirdly, the patent that you quote, but still do not post for all to read, sounds like it has nothing to do with the chemtrail conspiracy either. Invisible or short contrails that only form clouds after zapping with microwaves. Nothing like the continuous contrails that the conspirators show and claim are chemtrails. But can you please post it anyway as it sounds like good reading.

        And fourthly, I know who Raytheon are, and weapons is not their only business.

    • Harry said:
      “I know and appreciate you work hard at giving a well thought out reply. You also put time into reading the response you receive in return. So, to give each other credit, I too have responded thoroughly after giving your reply much thought.”

      I don’t think I can add much to the responses you have received so far, but I certainly agree with them. However I find your opening statement unbelievable. I don’t think you did spend much thought forming your reply. All you did was looked up a patent, an expired one to boot, not very clever. By quoting a patent as others have already tried on here and expecting people to take what you say at face value is very disingenuous! Explain please why you didn’t use a more up to date patent, better still, why didn’t you use one of your patents as an example then you could be very precise in the costs of filing and maintaining it? Personally I don’t agree with your costings because I myself have looked at taking out a patent. Had I not been unemployed at the time I probably would have done it, the costs would have been within reach. However, the high costs aren’t with the patent, but with building the prototype then putting it into manufacturing, but that is the point – manufacturing – when you look for funding and support. Had I taken out my own patent, which would have been expired by now, it would have remained on the bookshelf unused as it became obvious, subsequently, that it would have had limited use and therefore not been financially viable. So please, do not try and make out that patents are granted and always used. Patents, you have to remember, have to be within the realms of the working person as well as the rich otherwise we would have monopoly problems.
      Both patents owned by Monsanto which you mention above are actually nothing other than common sense. I’m not sure where your claim that most places where food crops are grown are low acidic! You will find that most places across the UK and Ireland are higher in acidity than you imagine. Why do you think that there was always a lot of limestone mining and still exist today the many abandoned lime furnaces around the country, it wasn’t only for building, but also for agriculture use, you won’t have to travel far in Ireland or the UK to see them spreading lime. As long as agricultural land is on the acid side of neutral it makes sense to breed seed that will germinate and grow in acidic conditions.

      Why don’t you reply to my post regarding the videos you put up? Do you really think that you have given anyone the “credit” by ignoring it then end your post with yet another video from a theorist who has manipulated and edited a NASA video to make it appear as if NASA is agreeing with the chemtrail theory? If you or any other theorists want us to hear Channel 4, The Guardian or NASA agreeing that these things are actually happening then don’t insult our intelligence by linking a theorists edited video which ends up being extremely biased and very misleading for those you hope to convert. Try just posting a link to the actual video or website so we can see and hear them making these claims. Before you post anything, please make sure you fill in all the holes of your side of the debate, because, whether you respond to me or not, I will see the holes and I will question them. The main problem with the theorists, and I’ve said it before, none of you can agree on what is supposed to be happening; it’s geoengineering, no it’s not, it’s to control our minds, no it’s not, it’s to make mass inoculations, no its not it’s population control, you all have different reasons for it. You don’t keep abreast of what each other is claiming and the result is it just looks so stupid.

    • I don’t know if you are trying to mislead us or whether I am just misleading myself.

      “just to put in the application is £230 to £280. Plus your Patent attorney fees. Then you pay the patent office a search fee to compare your patent against all other registered patents within the scope.”

      That isn’t how I’ve ever read it. I read it as – according to your video as well – that PROCESSING costs are £230 – £280. For paper filing it includes searches etc. and gives a breakdown of three costs which amount to £280 and below it, which you avoided showing fully, the costs for electronically filing include searches etc and I suspect that if those costings had been visible the breakdown charges would amount to £230 all inclusive. You imply in your post that it costs £280 per APPLICATION then you have to pay further fees for searches etc on top of that.
      If I had a patent on something that was financially viable I wouldn’t think the increasing charges to £600 would be classed as high, I’m renewing my patent which should be making me a handsome amount of profit on manufacture and/or royalties for others to manufacture, I would expect to pay some of that profit to the office that is tasked with protecting my intellectual property. As for employing a Patent’s lawyer, then it is up to yourself, it is not a requirement. So, unless I’m missing something, then you continue to try and mislead us!

      Now, as for your claim that it is nonsense for someone to take out a patent and not use it, you have an example where this would have been the case with me. Would I renew that patent? Maybe, maybe not, but I personally wouldn’t have used it. So, it happens.

      Amazon have taken out a patent on a 3-stage tip for studio photography. Pose subject on platform, switch on back-lighting, take image. Do you really think that; a.) Amazon are going make money out of that? b.) What exactly are they protecting? c.) Everyone involved with studio photography has done that for years but in different ways, but still 3 stages, but it’s highly unlikely Amazon will actually be able to protect it or sue. But fair play to them. To me, an awful lot of money down the drain. Amazon are notorious for things like that, wouldn’t they be better spending their excess money elsewhere? Maybe not. But don’t be fooled, a lot of patents are taken out and not used. It prevents others finding a viable way to do it before you do.

  19. FURTHER INFORMATION : CHANGE OF NAME;ASSIGNOR:HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE;REEL/FRAME:016087/0541
    Event date : 2004/12/21
    Event code : AS
    Code Expl.: ASSIGNMENT
    NEW OWNER : RAYTHEON COMPANY, MASSACHUSETTS
    EFFECTIVE DATE : 19971217
    FURTHER INFORMATION : MERGER;ASSIGNOR:HE HOLDINGS, INC. DBA HUGHES ELECTRONICS;REEL/FRAME:016116/0506

    Here are the current legal owners of this patent. Raytheon purchased this patent in 2004. It is still live as of today.
    Sorry about that,

    • Raytheon have the patent because they took Hughes over.

      But about this aluminium in soil and acid. I am unclear as to your claim here. Geoengineering Watch and Dane Wigington claim the soil is been turned alkaline not acid. But the levels I have seen in rainwater results by chemtrail groups only show normal background levels. Adding alluminium into soil is going to make no difference to plant metabolism given the amount of aluminium compounds in the soil.

      Someone the other day claimed that 40 ug/l of Al was high. That is bigger all. Given the annual rainfall of the UK at 1200mm and if we take an area like a football pitch, 7700 square metres that means 369.7 g may be deposited over the entire field in a year. The UK has levels of aluminium in the soil ranging from 4% to 11% so if we say there is 6% as much of the South of England has , the top 10cm of topsoil for the football pitch will have at least 55 tonnes of aluminium in it. Adding 369 g does not seem dramatic to me.

  20. The patents on heavy metal particles in the atmosphere are said to be for the purpose of enhancing electro-magnetic wavelengths the same as here described. Come on, look at what is here officially being done.

    The following was cut and pasted from the military website offering the contracts. They are NOT my words but theirs.Word for word, letter for letter.

    Below is a request by the US military for highly skilled organisations to continue to improve on the electro-magnetic pulses and radio wavelengths weaponary for use on biological cell structures and skeletol forms. I suppose this includes us as humans no thats not possible. Our governments would never use these on humans now would they? They only want to kill wales dolphins birds and fish like the ones that died in mass. These weapons burst open the biological cells of all life forms. Then…. they die. These can be transmitted from anywhere on the planet. Chemtrail type clouds increase this accuracy many times over as it massively improves the transmitting of wavelengths You know the “chaff” used by the military. This is in the claims of the patents which include barium, aluminum, strontium. This patent claims enhanced transmitting capability. Below is the military link and statements.

    ============================== http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/afosr/

    Electromagnetic Perturbation: New biology, physics, and applied mathematical insights into cell membrane nano-poration from free plane wave, electromagnetic pulses. It is well understood that the application of nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEF) into cells produces multifarious effects, including nuclear granulation, intracellular calcium bursts, cytoskeletal changes, stimulation of action potentials, blebbing and swelling, and initiation of apoptotic cell death. Recent studies demonstrated that nsPEF exposure forms small, recoverable pores in the plasma membrane, termed nanopores, which allow passage of small ions for minutes after exposure. Today these results are conducted by the direct application of pulsed electric fields, and yet to be demonstrated with plane free standing waves.

    .

    Quantum Biology: New biology, physics, and applied mathematical insights into the quantum processes at work in biological systems. For example, since Hodgkin and Huxley created their quantitative theory in 1952, neurons have been viewed as electrical transmission entities that relay information throughout the organism. Their theory states that action potentials result from the flow of ions through their respective voltage-sensitive ion channels that open and close at specific membrane potentials. Communication between neurons is then thought to occur through ion trafficking between neuronal synapses. However, recent research has suggested that ion transport does not fully explain the mechanisms underlying neuronal signaling and that the explanation is more quantum mechanical in nature. Based upon the first two sub-areas above, new imaging capabilities, along free pulsed plane wave stimulation understanding can couple well to determining the response of these biological components to applied electromagnetic fields and thus the quantum nature of the communication between molecular and atomic level components of biological systems.
    Summary: While each of the four sub-areas needs theoretical development through applied mathematics, and noting that sophisticated experimental testing and feedback is lacking. We seek to explore new areas in applied mathematics, physics, and biology by working in the areas of electrical communication through cellular membranes, microtubules and actin filaments as an example. Nanopores for example, have been shown to form in the plasma membranes upon exposure to nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEF). Additionally, using high-speed imaging results with an eye on working below the diffraction limit could allow a more rapid signaling process and illuminate the mechanism from the cellular membrane to the interior structures of a cell. Recent scientific breakthroughs now allow for the creation of electronics (like capacitors, diodes, resistors, etc.) through cellular biology (CITE). Bioelectronics, no longer limited to solid-state device faux-integration with biological systems, can now create bio-analog circuitry. A study in Nature reports “that far fewer devices were needed to carry out a given computation at the moderate precision needed in cells…,” when compared to inorganic digital devices, which ultimately,”…mean[s] lower resource requirements” as observed through a gene-transcription unit, when describing the analog nature of bioelectronics. Finally, recent work has found that rapid change in temperature from the IR laser stimulation reversibly alters the electrical capacitance of the plasma membranes of a cell and depolarization of the membrane can results in real measurable action potentials. This capacitance is established by the spatial distributions of ions near the plasma membrane surface and underlies the mechanism responsible for the voltage wave in the soliton theory of action potentials. In summary we are seeking to initiate new collaborative science that is exceptionally meritorious and to our knowledge has not been undertaken by any other agencies.

    Funding: Is being requested of the AFOSR Director for FY14
    Dr. William Roach AFOSR/RTB (703) 588-8302
    DSN 425-8302; FAX (703) 696-8481
    E-mail: info@us.af.mil

    • Eh…and the relevance of this to a discussion on chemtrails is what exactly? Where does it say about using chemtrails to enhance EM propagation?

    • Copy and pasting is pretty meaningless, it lets you show what you want seen and hides what you don’t want seen. I can’t find where you have have copied that from. I entered “contracts offered” in the search box on your link and still can’t find anything, but that’s maybe me.

      However, before I’m will to pay any more attention to what you write whether it’s copy and paste or not, I need answers to the discrepancies in your post regarding patent fees. Leave those questions unanswered, like you did with your misleading previous videos and you are only making a mockery of yourself and it negates anything else you have to say. You have no credibility left.

  21. I am a polite professional guy but I have come to the sensible conclusion that you are unstable. There is something quite seriously wrong here. Maybe its your childhood or something in your past. I never mentioned Bullshit you did. My professional time wasted on you would have earned me more than £1,500. That is a fact my friend. I would have taken a bigger hit for this. Worth every pound.
    So, your patent(s) who was going to write it? You? I would blow it out of the water within minutes.
    How about your prior art?
    Statement of inventor-ship?
    Main statement of claim 1?
    Additional claims pertaining to claim 1?
    Correctly sized diagrams in proportion to acceptability?
    Statement of title?
    Introduction?
    Explanation of diagrams to claims?
    Description of characterization?
    If you mentioned it to someone without a signed statement of secrecy and non competition- you ****ed it!
    Which country would you claim patent rights for? Who answers the objections to the patent officers? Who is going to expound on the cited patents objected as prior art.? Who is going to counter argue the patent offices objections? YOU ?
    There is a world full of nearly wasser`s, just like you who say “I thought of that but now someone`s pinched my idea”. Seen thousands of them.
    Be a man, put your money where your mouth is jump in and be the man your partners thinks you could be. It takes balls. You have neither.
    My statement of costs still stand and you would suffer the same charges The link I sent, bet you never even looked. The patent attorneys stated £20,000 to APPLY NOT GRANT and thats for ONE single country ! Mind you all patent attorneys are only conspiracy theorists.
    This is how you see evidence…. . . .
    There is an elephant in the room, yes its an old one. But then it s***s itself, yep you can`t even get past it. but it does`nt exist. You would pick every piece of crap up smell it, sift it and still say nah, nothing to see.
    So every things fine. Nothing happened.Can`t be proved, Ah well life goes on…..
    move along, nothing to see . . .
    There are genuine professional shills out there who are an asset to the elites NWO. Soon when their job is done they are going to be the elite`s liability. In the US they have plans for them in the fema camps. In the UK seems they just disappear. Know too much, die too soon.
    End.
    Terry sends his best wishes from the heart of his bottom.
    Somebody block me !

    • Well what started out as a refreshing contribution has descended into the worst of the 550-odd comments on this thread. Harry, if you’ve nothing to say in a better way than that then please block yourself. I will be deleting most of this comment now to make it readable for all.

  22. I’m confused, who are you responding to because your rant really has nothing to do with my questions on your discrepancies! But it seems you are no different from the rest, once you are asked questions you end up ranting and insulting. Please note, I asked questions about the discrepancies in the charges you claim are made, I told you that you are either misleading us or I’ve read it wrong. Where does that justify you being unprofessional and impolite? If noticing a falsehood in your statement makes me unstable then so be it, but what does that make you?
    If your rant is miss-directed at me, then please point out where I mentioned Bulls**t, or in fact said you mentioned it? You see, you can’t keep up with a current conversation and quote it properly let alone expect me to trust your copying and pasting which looks as though it could actually be something you plucked from anywhere. I really don’t care what patent attorney’s charge, like attorneys that do searches for you when you want to buy property they can charge you what they want because you want to sit back with your feet up and feel important. But the fact remains, those charges you quoted were wrong, the fact that I NEED a patent attorney, according to you, is also wrong.
    This is always the point where you theorists lose it, your claims never stand up to scrutiny, you exaggerate and manipulate the truth. Then rather admit you did that you revert to insults and cussing, you throw your rattle so far out the pram you can’t find it again. You’re having nothing but a tantrum. People that throw tantrums should ideally be ignored until they settle and show that they are capable of civilised conversation. Like two-year-olds, people who throw temper tantrums believe they are entitled to get their own way. They therefore feel free to abuse anyone who thwarts their desires. Unfortunately, this group often includes immature high-level executives who believe that having power gives them the right to treat others any way they like. Quite often tantrum throwers are also attention junkies. Now, you are excused until you settle and are able to converse in a polite manner. No more conversing with you until you are able to answer my still unanswered questions, including the questions about the videos.

  23. Hi, first comment from me after following this thread for some time. In case you don’t know, I am with the IWO group as a forecaster and photo editor. I can’t add much to the discussion of chemtrails, my opinion being that anything’s possible but I am not seeing huge amounts of evidence for this theory either.

    What I did want to address was this matter of weather modification. Local-scale modification has been attempted for several decades, seeding of promising cloud masses to enhance rainfall in dry locations or even the suppression of severe storms. I don’t believe there is much evidence that it has been very successful on a routine basis although there may be a few credible instances. The economics of scale of this sort of project would quickly overwhelm any possible benefit.

    However, I think claims are being made in this discussion that larger scale weather modification is ongoing from either chemtrails or some mysterious application of the resources of HAARP. I have seen no evidence for any of this, and have to wonder, if this were the case, would global forecasting models not be totally mistaken on certain occasions when the modification energy hit the systems? We have grown used to the global models working reasonably well over 3-5 days with a predictable range of errors that (in my opinion, at least) are inevitable since the actual source of energy to create and guide weather systems may be fairly short-term in life cycle and thus a certain amount of undetected “not yet begun” energy cycles would be sure to introduce error. But not the sort of error that a successful modification program might bring about.

    Claims made elsewhere rather than here necessarily about a puzzling increase in severe storms are in my view just feedback from the AGW agenda-driven inflated claims of increasing frequency and severity of storms. Frankly, a lot of the actual evidence points in the opposite direction. We always have to be careful to factor in two non-meteorological factors. First, our ability to detect and report severe weather is always increasing. Secondly, the population continues to increase and spread into environments that cannot sustain the presence of that many people. This is particularly a problem in countries like the USA, Canada and Australia (probably southern Europe also) where urban sprawl is bringing more residential sprawl into dryland areas that actually increases the fire risk for several reasons that have nothing to do with climate change (or modification if that existed).

    So, count me as a skeptic on two different fronts now, both on the full degree of the AGW lobby scenarios and now these countervailing NWO type scenarios. There may well be a form of “NWO” out there, I hope nobody thinks that because we are IWO that we have anything to do with any NWO, because I am quite sure we don’t. If there is such a thing, it probably has made more progress in other political projects than in this scientific realm. However, as I said, I am not totally set in my thinking about any of this, but the onus remains with the skeptics to prove their points, something that I think AGW skeptics have had more success doing so far. There again, it’s all about degrees of severity, obviously our human civilization will have some effects on the weather, but I find the official theories quite a bit too extreme sometimes. The circulation of the atmosphere is a very complicated system or “machine” and whether people tinker with it deliberately (as with some postulated NWO intrusion) or inadvertently (as with greenhouse gases, urban sprawl etc) our effects have to compete with very large energy fluctuations from a variety of non-human sources. Human climate change theories are a little like saying this — “a guy is about to enter the Berlin Philharmonic performance with an extra flute, watch out the music will now sound totally different.” More likely, very few will hear anything. But you might want to argue that the intruders are more like three trumpets and an extra set of drums. The whole challenge in all of this is to assess what sort of intrusion we are seeing and what if anything will be the result of it.

    • Very interesting input. The fearsome part is that I don’t think that anyone that has taken part in this discussion has actually denied that weather modification has/is/will be tried, in my case I have said previously that it used to be in the news during the 60s it was also reported that it wasn’t financially viably, but I’m also aware that it continues to be practiced on small, local scale. It’s become a business. It’s certainly not practiced on the scale as put forward on this discussion, at least to my knowledge. But putting forward videos on the matter, along with other video “evidence” for chemtrails and blatantly manipulating what is actually being discussed in the video does absolutely nothing for their credibility. If enough accurate evidence was presented by them that was factual, I’ve said all along, I’d be willing to accept it, but they won’t do it. If you question them, they attack you, almost as if they are saying, “don’t question me, just believe me.” Like those who believe we have extraterrestrial visitors among us, it is up to them to provide the evidence, because I can’t see it. While I don’t dispute there is life other than us out there, I see no evidence of visiting. With our technology it would be common knowledge that they are here.
      Sadly, you now leave your self open to their favourite accusation, the one where they claim that you are on the payroll and paid to put out disinformation. It won’t be long until the first accusation appears. Which brings to mind, Governments can’t afford to take out patents and not use them, but they can afford to pay millions of £/€/$ to get people worldwide to write disinformation, disinformation that according to them doesn’t work anyway!

  24. Pingback: Chemtrails Make Libertarians Look Stupid – Mean Liberty

  25. Spot on with this writeup, I actually believe this website needs a great deal more attention. Ill probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info! aedddbfkeadk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s