Some of the following images are of normal contrails and some of these images are of alleged “chemtrails” that conspiracy theorists claim are poisoning us and profess to be able to distinguish just by looking at them. So let’s play a game. Which is the chemtrail and which is the contrail? Only after you’ve made your guesses, go to the bottom of this blog to find out if you were right.
Now this blog is a response to a Myspace bulletin I saw with the dubious title, “If you think this is normal, than you are a crackpot.”
It included a bunch of pictures that look a lot like the ones found above and this one:
So with this graphic above, have you figured out which are the “chemtrails” yet?
That Myspace bulletin also included videos such as the one found here and these videos here:
One commenter on the bulletin wrote:
“Actually when on crack you could see things clearly. People need to get high to break free from mass media brain washing.”
Now here are the answers to the challenge:
3 & 5 are the alleged “chemtrails.”
1, 2 & 4 are regular contrails.
Did you get it right? If the chemtrail conspiracy theorists are right, then this must have been a snap.
I guess that makes me a crackpot because I see nothing abnormal here.
[...] – And it was a doosy too: a chemtrail believer, which reminds me that no one has yet accepted my Chemtrail Challenge: Chemtrail or [...]
well religion no longer needs a god! thank you for saving mankind from madness
You fucking idiot!If even one of those photos is of contrails then explain why there are so many trails crisscrossing,are you telling me that many commercial airplanes happened by the area at the same time and same elevation?You don’t see that at air shows.Again,fucking idiot!
As I clearly indicated the 1st, 2nd & 4th pictures are undisputed contrails. But why you seem to think it’s not only so extraordinary that commercial planes crisscross the same paths but that it’s less plausible than an elaborate conspiracy of thousands or millions of people to poison people is beyond me. Do you have any idea how many aircraft travel over U.S. airspace every single day, especially areas nearby an airport or airfield of some kind?
So you seem to be making my point for me as you’re saying you think photos of ordinary contrails.
But thanks for playing. And keep watching the skies! In second thought, please don’t. You might hurt yourself.
you are a fucking idiot obviously in some pictures there are both but they been around so long that idiots like you cant even tell the them apart……..and that was the intention
Afraid not. Don’t blame me if you can’t pass a simple, objective preliminary test of your beliefs. Now a rational open-minded person might have looked at their own poor score on this test as a sign that maybe they’re not as informed as to how contrails behave as they think they are instead of blaming the test for their failure. I remained unconvinced by your argument.
There’s something about chemtrails PCTs that is particularly irritating. They simply cannot comprehend burden of proof. They drop and then reinstate MAJOR unstated premises with great ease. One second, the military, CIA, airlines, chemical companies, banks, wall street, and medical establishment (i.e. MILLIONS of people) are “in on it.” But when you point out that there proposals are dependent on the cooperation of millions of people in crimes against themselves and their own families, they change their premise and say, “I never said all those people were in on it… those are robot drone planes…” And then go RIGHT BACK to making claims that are dependent on millions of people being in on it. Then they say YOU are close minded, and point you to the tinfoiliest of tinfoil hat conspiracy pages…
Yeah, I encounter this all the time whenever I back them into a corner. And since no one argument can refute both claims, whenever I refute one, they retreat to the other.
mjr: I am of the opinion that many PCTs have issues with authority, and in a very specific way. Since they lack the ability or will to judge evidence rationally, everything becomes a contest of authority. They use appeals to authority constantly. They try to overwhelm with BULK. They refuse to acknowledge that the burden of proof is on them. To them, the burden of proof is on YOU. In their view, they POSSESS the TRUTH and YOU are making an outrageous claim. Since they lack reason, any and all claims are equally valid, and “authority” (as they judge it, of course) becomes an all-engrossing concern.
Their logical style is to take a position, and stubbornly adhere to it, no matter the consequences (or evidence). This is why they often retreat to personal experience and (sadly, often) hypochondria. It is evidence that “no one can deny.”
You can’t tell me I’m not getting nosebleeds! You can’t tell me this headache isn’t real! Where you there? On the night of August the 21st, nineteen hundred and ninety eight? At approximately 3:17 AM?
It is all roughly parallel to arguments that children have with psychotically rigid authority figures (some military parents, doctor parents, families that have rigid hierarchy). So, the PCT plays out this family drama repeatedly wherever they find themselves. This is why the field is filled with “failures”. People who consider themselves to be of “low rank” in comparison to their parents, basically. The shame is that they are often quite accomplished, but can never turn the tables on their oppressive family structures.
chemtrails suck man… i shoot at the planes making them
I hope that’s just a poor attempt at humor because chemtrails are imaginary.
[...] Picture from: http://skepacabra.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/chemtrail-challenge/ [...]
you dont want to believe many Americans can join together for clandestine reasons? well, theres one example than shines among the others, “McCarthyism” all in the name of national security. speaking of national security, read the patriot act & homeland security act.
instead of just blindly refuting a possibility with lofty points of view, take some time to investigate seriously. connect the dots. 1+1=2 right? remember, the scientists involved in the Manhattan project, most notably Oppenheimer, told the powers that be that there was a good chance they might burn off the earths atmosphere with the first nuclear test…. and they allowed it anyways. people need to start thinking.
Yeah, because as everyone knows, the entire media and the entire government were all in on McCarthyism and only a small band of fringe figures knew “the truth.” What the hell are you talking about? I never denied that conspiracies are all bullshit. I denied that THIS conspiracy is total bullshit, given the overwhelming empirical evidence.
But it’s funny that this is the very first time a conspiracy nut has told me that because I don’t believe in their little pet theory that it’s because I just blindly accept “the official story” and never question my beliefs as a substitute for presenting evidence supporting their claim. Really? I never heard that one. First time. Yawn.
Of course. I see it all now. Since something that has absolutely nothing to do with your claim is real then that MUST mean your particular claim is real too. Very convincing. I now see the error of my ways.
OH MY GOD! It’s the poisonous cloud people! They found me! Save yourself! Warn Alex Jones! I’m sure he’s next! NOOOOOO!!!!!
PS: Should I take it then that you failed the challenge?
Dear mjr256,
HOW MUCH DID BIG BROTHER PAY YOU TO WRITE YOUR BULLSHIT.
In every story there are always common threads. You are so far off on the other side of conspiracy dudes, that I am concerned that your shit might stink real bad!
Captain Arrogant, no one paid me a dime to disagree with you. Believe it or not, people CAN actually be informed and still disagree with you. I know, it’s shocking.
OH MY GOD! It’s the poisonous cloud people! They found me! Save yourself! Warn Alex Jones! I’m sure he’s next! NOOOOOO!!!!!
Oooh, “look at the pictures. Guess which ones you think are chemtrails.” …please, I’m laughing at your intelligence.
Another cheap disinfo / psyop agent / or just another government a s’s'wi pe.
Don’t worry. I’m sure one day you’ll have an original thought in your head that hasn’t been programed into you by Alex Jones.
I’m still unsure how your test objectively proves or disproves anything but I will say this; the concept of infusing jet fuel with particles to alter the atmosphere IS being openly discussed. Google “the Age May 20,2008 Radical Plan” to see an article which left me with my jaw on the floor. Rather than being concerned with scoring points against a bunch of loonies, you might be concerned with what a lot of well respected “smart” people are openly discussing. Also, rather than declare those who draw conclusions from personal observation as idiots, maybe you could criticise the public for believing in theories because they’ve heard that “all scientists believe. . .” though they can’t name a single scientific expert (and no Al Gore is not a scientist, just as “10,000 frenchmen can’t be wrong” is not a scientific argument.)
My test is a small preliminary study designed to see if chemtrail believers can even agree on which images are “normal contrails” and which are of alleged “chemtrails.” In a larger study that I’ve become creating, I intend to have 100 images consisting of images of contrails and alleged chemtrails. That would be a far better test to see if chemtrail conspiracy theorists can agree on which images depict normal phenomena and which depict abnormal. Since the null hypothesis would be that no chemtrail phenomena exists and that all images are simply contrails, it’s first essential to define what a chemtrail is and what it looks like. Therefore, we must first determine if those who claim to recognize chemtrails can agree as to what chemtrails look like. If testing many subjects results in radically different answers, the study should sufficiently show that the alleged phenomena is based on subjective criteria and is possibly merely the result of the power of suggestion.
This study has nothing to do with the general notion of atmosphere modification, which no one would contest. Chemtrail conspiracy theorists, however, make far more specific claims.
You also make an awful lot of baseless, erroneous and fallacious statements in your last several sentences that suggest no real understanding of how the scientific process works and that you believe anyone who disagrees with you must simply be blinding trusting authorities. Given that as far as I know, this is our first interaction, I find that assertion to be monumentally arrogant and insulting.
I did not at all intend to insult your integrity and to any extent to which I did I do apologise. Admittedly I may have strayed off topic a bit, but my basic point, which I think holds some validity was this; those who believe in the existence of chemtrails are at least using personal observation to draw conclusions, whereas the current climate debate amongst the public boils down to “my expert is bigger than your expert” arguments. I grew up in Los Angeles and for years dismissed chemtrail theories as absolute bunk. However, after witnessing one perfectly clear Sunday morning evolve in to a hazy mush, and a sunset that looked like a sci-fi apocalypse I came to this conclusion; Even if “chemtrails” are nothing more than lingering contrails THEY ARE effectively modifying the weather, and THAT should be and issue of public concern and debate. Degree? I have none, but I do have two eyes and living in Los Angeles I saw many days when the sky was filled completely with jet formed clouds. Does that at all concern you? (Also, relevant or not please tell me what you think of that article.) Again I apologise for offending you in my previous post.
I disagree. Although I cannot speak about every chemtrail believer, I’ve encountered dozens of them. And while they all claim to have observed something truly unusual, they all simply asserted a host of attributes to the alleged phenomena that had no basis in evidence whatsoever but was based entirely on their own unquestioning acceptance of what they’ve been told by one or more fringe media figures, quite ironic since each and every one didn’t waste 5 minutes before accusing me of merely accepting what I’m told. Apparently, it’s perfectly okay to just accept ideas if they come from fringe figures but unacceptable to accept the conclusions of the consensus of experts in the field from around the world.
Those I’ve encountered certainly tried to dress up their claims in the clothes of science but they’ve proven time and time again to not understand how the scientific process even works. They simply assumed their conclusions, hadn’t properly tested their claims under proper controlled conditions, hadn’t had any interest in testing their claims, and seemed to make no attempts at all to disprove their own conclusions. Real science, on the other hand, takes necessary steps to eliminate bias. One is encouraged to try and disprove their own conclusions, to produce a study showing the process that led to their conclusions, and submit said study to undergo a rigorous peer review process where experts in the field will make their best effort to mercilessly seek out flaws in the research. That’s how proper science works. Whereas cranks just assume their conclusions and because of their emotional attachment to those conclusions, have no interest in having them challenged. It’s a fundamental difference.
Now you refer to the “climate debate amongst the public,” which is actually quite well said because while there is much debate in the public, there is no longer a real debate within the scientific community. The consensus of experts have concluded that global climate change is both real and that we have unwittingly helped cause the problem. And while anti-scientific politicians who have never cared about environmental issues in the first place may wish to continue to deny the overwhelming evidence and use a handful of fringe figures (most of whom have no expertise in a relevant field), that doesn’t mean that the proverbial jury is still out. No matter what a person wants to believe, there will never be a shortage of alleged “experts” who will back those assertions. The tobacco industry still has “experts” who will claim that smoking doesn’t cause cancer. Young Earth Creationists have a list of 100′s of scientists who will endorse the claim that the Earth is 6000 years old. But just because someone can present a few scientists in lab coats to back them up, that doesn’t mean a real scientific debate exists. It doesn’t matter if everyone believes a claim or no one does. What matters is what the evidence shows. And the evidence for man-made global climate change is now beyond reasonable doubt. For more info. about it, I highly recommend checking out YouTube user: greenman3610.
But to get back to the topic, it does not concern me that there are now more jets in the sky, and therefore more contrails, than their used to be since no substantive empirical evidence has been presented to the scientific community to show that contrails have any serious effects on weather conditions. And in light of the climate change debate amongst the public and the many organizations involved in environmental issues, one would expect contrails to be a part of that discussion if there was any real concern over them. But there isn’t. For the most part, the only figures interested in the chemtrail hypothesis are cranks with a long history of being unable to get dressed in the morning without uncovering a new conspiracy about how THEY are out to get us.
Now there’s a growing body of literature looking at those like, say, Alex Jones who are pathological conspiracy theorists and deniers. It’s been my interest in this research of why people believe what they believe that has led me to the cultural phenomenon that is the chemtrail movement. And what my research suggests is that those who have a strong belief in chemtrails essentially use the same basic arguments as virtually every other conspiracy and denialist group. I recommend checking out some of the articles about conspiracy theories and denialists here:
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Conspiracy
I looked at the link and listened to the comments of Dr. Steven Novella. I would point out to you that your view that, “there is no longer a real debate within the scientific community.” is just the sort of cheapened argument which he warns against. The fact is there are competent scientists with views which differ from yours, and not just “anti-scientific politicians who have never cared about the environment”. Saying “there is no real debate” is, as you have said to me, monumentally arrogant.
Also monumentally is the assertion by respected climate scientist and “Australian of the Year” Tim Flannery, that unless Australia adopts an ETS it will ,within five years time, be necessary to begin to pulp sulfur into the atmosphere in order to effect “global dimming”. (This is all in the article which I have mentioned previously.)
I am not a scientist, but when a prominent member of their ranks proposes to “change the color of the sky”, with “consequences… that are unknown” I believe I have the right to be skeptical and even a little paranoid at the claims of the so called “experts”.
If you are going to rely on popular consensus I might remind you of the occasions in which the scientific consensus has been wrong,(ie phrenology) or just plain WRONG (read up on the history of biological warfare).
The US emits 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year. A nominal carbon tax of $20 a ton would collect $120 billion dollars per year. I have heard debate over what the value of the tax should be, and to what percentage we should reduce our emissions, but no debate on issues of oversight, or just where all this money would go.
Do you not think that this much money could potentially corrupt scientists? Since when were scientists beyond the reach of the corrupting influences of politics and money? Am I a “crank” for even posing these questions?
I am interested in having a rational debate with you, if you would care to email me privately feel free to do so at tonytwoshoes@gmail.com. The issues at hand are of great public concern. Firebrands like Alex Jones really do nothing but further polarize a society which, in my opinion, is being played against itself.
Ok, maybe we may not know which picture is which. Do we think that ANY exhaust trails up in the sky are good for our health or the environment? How easy would it be to muddy it up and make fuel burn dirty, or burn off additives to harm the atmosphere? Simple, but of course your guess is as good as mine; we just have to follow the money and see what truth it leads to…
So you’re admitting you’re advocating for an unfalsifiable claim with no actual scientific basis and a rather vague and flimsy conspiracy theory that lacks empirical evidence. And you for some reason think you should be taken seriously?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And before you can go around accusing people of causing a dangerous phenomenon, shouldn’t you first determine whether such a phenomenon actually exists in the first place? If you can’t even tell the difference between a perfectly normal and yes, proven safe, contrail and this alleged chemtrails that no expert takes seriously, WTF?!
“Simple, but of course your guess is as good as mine”
I don’t base important conclusions on guesses but on the best science available.
Another unnecessarily vicious response to a fairly simple question. One would think that if you actually cared about changing peoples views you might be a bit more reasonable and rational.
In addition to this your experiment does not even make sense. Many who believe in this “phenomenon” will tell you that it is by observing the sky throughout the day that a determination can be reached as to which clouds are real and which clouds are artificial. For instance, do other planes flying at the same altitude in the same part of the sky leave a persistent trail? Not being able to determine if a trail is a simple contrail or actually a “chemtrail” from a jpeg without any other observable information is an obvious result.
However, I do not think you care so much about conducting a well constructed experiment. It seems much more important that you make clear to anyone who disagrees with you that their intellect is like that of a rodent compared with yours. The Nero of your own little web page, congratulations! I also don’t take seriously any scientist who uses the phrase, “WTF?!”
People post chemtrail photos ALL THE TIME. Chemtrail conspiracists do claim to be able to identify them by photos or else what would be the point of a photo? Hence the particular photograph I included above that supposedly shows the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. The problem is that people feel they can make up any criteria they want, they can also change that criteria any time they want. There’s no consistency nor any interest in engaging with actual experts who would happily explain how contrails work. Instead, all experts who disagree are treated as conspirators.
So I find it amusing that as always the conspiracy theorist accuses me of rejecting anything that disagrees with me. No, I accept empirical evidence regardless of my beliefs and have no problem changing my mind if sufficient evidence is presented.
“I also don’t take seriously any scientist who uses the phrase, “WTF?!””
Face it. You don’t take seriously any scientist period.
It is absolutely true that people who believe in this, and other, conspiracy theories often change their criterion at a moments notice in order to defend their position. Granted. However in this realm of belief there is also a spectrum of people and personalities, some of whom happen to be mostly reasonable people, though their opinion on this matter may differ from yours. I know from personal observation that I have seen contrails of a conspicuous nature in the past, and I also know that it would be entirely unreasonable of me to expect you to accept this as empirical evidence. However you, as a student of some sort in this field apparently, would also know that there has in fact been a history of weather experimentation which continues to this day. Obviously from a military standpoint controlling the weather would an incredible covert weapon. That statement is, again not proof, or anything close to it. But it is to me a matter of concern. There are many theories out there concerning HAARP, or barium, and undoubtedly some idiot somehow tying it all in somehow to reptilian shape-shifters. One certainty in life is that wherever you look in society you are sure to find at least a few idiots. However for me, personally, and I am sure a few others out there, I would never claim to be able to tell the difference between a chem/contrail in a photo. Would you disagree that one of the basic fundimentals of this theory is that the chemtrails persist in the sky as opposed to dissipate? How can a photo display this effect? Other issues like the one I raised in my previous post concerning the behavior of trails following different planes at similar altitudes/locations are also relevant. Responding with phrases such as “Face it. You don’t take seriously any scientist period.”, are at the very least, melodramatic. We are adults and are capable of discussing an issue without resorting to lines which would otherwise likely be found in a script to “Days of Our Lives”. In several responses you use these phrases, “I find it amusing that. . .” from which throne? These are people responding to a question you posed, not rodents running a maze. Your experiment is weak, and to be more accurate simply lazy. If you actually want to hammer your point home with more than just a few drooling goons you may just have to work a bit harder. Ask a friend or lecturer you respect and I wouldn’t be surprised if they agree.
It just occured to me that we can determine with fair accuracy the chemical compositions of stars that are light years distant. It would probably be a pretty simple thing (for someone who was interested in reality) to shoot a laser at a “chemtrail” and get a spectrogram of some sort. In fact, I think one could spectroscopically analyze a “chemtrail” and surmise its contents with passive optical equipment. I would think the barium the PCTs are fixated on would show up readily. Someone, somewhere must have equipment for studying trace elements in cloud formation. There has to be some REAL science that could clear this up in a day (and give the PCTs another group of “dupes” for their theories).
People see strange things all the time. One needs to narrow the field of specific strange behavior and confirm that it is indeed strange before one can even begin to postulate the cause of the alleged strangeness. Further, the size of the claim determines the level of evidence needed to prove the claim. So, to start with some super secret military weapon right out of the gate is absurd. If you’re going to do that, why not presuppose that its a weapon created by the evil space aliens from the planet Zeist while you’re at it? What can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence. Where’s the paperwork showing this in the military’s annual budget report? Where are the minutes from the congressional committee that met and voted this into the budget? etc.
Then one must also look at plausibility. First of all, chemtrail conspiracy theories are virtually identical to every other grand conspiracy theory. They use the same exact tactics and same exact logical fallacies. The only distinguishing feature is in regards to the specifics of the subject or object of their claims. In terms of the arguments and logic alone, they’re identical to Holocaust deniers, autism deniers, HIV deniers, moon landing deniers, 911 deniers, JFK conspiracy theorists, etc. And almost without fail, those who believe in chemtrails believe in at least 2 or 3 of these other conspiracies too. Why? Because they’ve got particularly suspicious personalities and are bat-shit insane paranoid of everything and everyone. Do conspiracies happen? Of course. But the bigger the conspiracy claim is, the less likely it is to exist given the necessary logistics.
There has indeed been experiments in weather modification. This research is open to the public, who are free to look at it at any point. Though there’s not much to look at since scientists have been horribly unsuccessful in changing the weather. Maybe if they could control the weather, the city of New Orleans might not have been so damaged by Katrina. Now contrary to popular belief, rarely does one lone genius scientist emerge who suddenly out of nowhere makes enormous breakthroughs. Generally, that stuff only happens in Back to the Future movies. So the plausibility of the military making such great breakthroughs independently and many years ahead of the rest of the scientific community is supremely low. They’d have to assemble a team of top guys like in the Manhattan Project, and I’d think that if the top guys in the field suddenly stopped coming into work every day, people would start to notice their absence.
Next, such a secret, presumably multi-billion dollar military weapon seems like it would be (A) a horrible waste of money, (B) very inefficient given our military can already drop much cheaper bombs on people from thousands of feet in the air, and (C) a bad plot-hole-filled storyline in a bad Michael Bay movie…or a crappy film adaption of The Avengers starring Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman. I’m just not buying it. While this would be very impressive in a pre-industrialized age, why would controlling the weather today be a great military advantage against a nation that’s advanced enough to have internet capability? And what would be the need for secrecy? It’s not exactly splitting the atom here and as I said before, many scientists are working on weather modification research publicly.
“Would you disagree that one of the basic fundimentals of this theory is that the chemtrails persist in the sky as opposed to dissipate?”
I would agree that this is one of the many assertions made by chemtrail conspiracy theorists, but I don’t agree that contrails can’t persist in the sky for longer periods of time. Though I’m not an expert, there are lots of factors that I could think of that might play a role in the length of time contrails remain. Just a few that come to mind: size of the engine/plane, altitude, thickness of the contrail layer, weather conditions, temperature, atmospheric pressure, amount of solar radiation. I certainly wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that a particularly long-lasting contrail of proof a grand conspiracy.
And lastly, my statement about not caring about what experts say comes from the fact that experts have already debunked contrail claims years ago and yet the claims persist as if the people either ignored the responses to their claims or simply never bothered to really look for them. There was a time when it would have been perfectly acceptable to not be able to get hold of the facts. But in an age where that information is literally at your fingertips, there’s really no excuse.
Just a few resources:
http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Chemtrails
http://www.skepdic.com/chemtrails.html
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9423
That took less than a minute.
Then there’s my compiled list of some skeptical materials on various conspiracy theories:
http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Conspiracy
And on that site, I include some links to sources for information debunking chemtrail claims here:
http://www.nmsr.org/chemtrls.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/chemtrails.htm
http://obrlnews.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/popular-chemtrail-spray-plane-photo-a-hoax/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail#Skeptical_response
http://contrailscience.com/
Hi there! first of all I was just reading through your discussion with MR Sparrow. I have not read all your comments becouse they are a bit boring, but in this comment you mentioned paperwork & I remembered seeing the term ‘chemtrail’ in an official document: Space Preservation Act – H. R. 2977.
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 2, 2001.
I also found this video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8LzF2HFmkA.
Your “experiment” is flawed as is your reasoning. If chemtrails were not real as you claim then explain the following US Patents:
Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
United States Patent 4,686,605 / Eastlund / August 11, 1987
Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin
United States Patent / 5,286,979 / Berliner / February 15, 1994
Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
United States Patent / 4,412,654 Yates / November 1, 1983
and the list goes on. We know what is in these, take it from someone who is familiar with the JT Baker Company of Phillipsburg, NJ. There are several chemicals in the “jet spray” all under government contract. Your response?
First, my experiment is nothing more than a preliminary test. The real experiment would involve at least 100 photos. But considering no one’s even claimed that they could pass the preliminary test, I see no reason to move onto a larger study. Plus, I’ve only collected about 50 or so images of contrails and alleged chemtrails.
“If chemtrails were not real as you claim then explain the following US Patents”
No.
That would require shifting the burden of proof. It’s not my job to prove your phenomena doesn’t exist. That’s not how logic works. It’s the claimant’s job to prove their claim.
Besides, first I want to know why someone owns the U.S. patent for toast and why dozens of people already have alleged patents for HIV cures even though no cure has been proven to exist. The U.S. patent office is notoriously terrible at doing their jobs. And I’m sure that if you look around on the web long enough, you’ll find people claiming there’s a patent for a time machine too.
If you really are interested in finding the answer, I know the Contrail Science blogger would be more than happy to explain it to you, and he’ll do so far better than I can and with far greater interest: http://contrailscience.com/
A patent describing science you don’t understand that you got on some random conspiracy site is not sufficient evidence of a fantastical scientific claim. There have been lots of media reports on the “chemtrail” theory, and several official responses. Explain to me again why you think this is evidence of a conspiracy.
Silly test! Here’s why…
Chemtrails do NOT vanish or dissipate right away, where as contrails do. There is no way to tell from a photo (that’s number 1) which is a contrail and which is a chemtrail.
Number 2, check your facts. After 9/11 there was a national no fly act that went into effect, however, there are pictures from many sources showing chemtrails during the no fly time. Why? There should have been NO commercial planes flying during that time, yet according to you, it’s what they were…
Number 3, there have been many valid sources that have proven what falls from these chemtrails is toxic, contain many metals and chemicals. It’s NO mystery that planes have been being used to disperse chemicals since the 1950′s (maybe before that) to control weather. I’m quite sure they have gone much further since then
If you want to bury your head in the sand, that’s on you. Call it healthy denial if ya want…I suppose it would be a good thing to be in such denial, then you wouldn’t have to worry about anything and you can post the silly post you have here. Meanwhile people with an open mind and that use their intuition, facts, brains, information from valid sources and etc…will and do know the truth!
Why are people so afraid of knowing the truth?
The test is a preliminary test specifically designed to address the claims of many that they can identify still photos of alleged chemtrails. It doesn’t address the dissapation issue because quite frankly, this claim is brought out by a total ignorance of the science behind contrails. Lots of factors influence how long a contrail will remain in the sky. Just a few that come to mind: size of the engine/plane, altitude, thickness of the contrail layer, weather conditions, temperature, atmospheric pressure, amount of solar radiation. So unless all these factors along with any factor I left out are all accounted for, I can’t really take claims by laypeople based on their own subjective opinions very seriously, and I certainly wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that a particularly long-lasting contrail is proof a grand conspiracy.
“Number 2, check your facts. After 9/11 there was a national no fly act that went into effect, however, there are pictures from many sources showing chemtrails during the no fly time. Why? There should have been NO commercial planes flying during that time, yet according to you, it’s what they were…”
I was in NYC on 9/11, and there were some cases of planes already in the air that day passing through to land at NY airports. But that’s besides the point. You just argued that this experiment was pointless because chemtrails are determined by length of time before dissipation, and therefore presumably cannot be determined by still photography. Now you’re saying you have still photography of chemtrails. How do you know how long it took to dissipate if they’re STILL PHOTOGRAPHS? aND How do you know the photographs were taken that day or that they took place specicifally on that day AFTER the no-fly orders were made?
“Number 3, there have been many valid sources that have proven what falls from these chemtrails is toxic, contain many metals and chemicals.”
Name one “valid” source for this claim. And note: Alex Jones does not count as a valid source. Further, if said empirical evidence exists to sufficiently prove this claim, why isn’t it being presented in court? Is every judge in the country in on the evil conspiracy?
I also take issue with this controlling the weather technology thing. There has indeed been experiments in weather modification. This research is open to the public, who are free to look at it at any point. Though there’s not much to look at since scientists have been horribly unsuccessful in changing the weather. Maybe if they could control the weather, the city of New Orleans might not have been so damaged by Katrina. Now contrary to popular belief, rarely does one lone genius scientist emerge who suddenly out of nowhere makes enormous breakthroughs. Generally, that stuff only happens in Back to the Future movies. So the plausibility of the military making such great breakthroughs independently and many years ahead of the rest of the scientific community is supremely low. They’d have to assemble a team of top guys like in the Manhattan Project, and I’d think that if the top guys in the field suddenly stopped coming into work every day, people would start to notice their absence.
Such a secret, presumably multi-billion dollar military weapon seems like it would be (A) a horrible waste of money, (B) very inefficient given our military can already drop much cheaper bombs on people from thousands of feet in the air, and (C) a bad plot-hole-filled storyline in a bad Michael Bay movie…or a crappy film adaption of The Avengers starring Ralph Fiennes and Uma Thurman. I’m just not buying it. While this would be very impressive in a pre-industrialized age, why would controlling the weather today be a great military advantage against a nation that’s advanced enough to have internet capability? And what would be the need for secrecy? It’s not exactly splitting the atom here and as I said before, many scientists are working on weather modification research publicly.
Now I’m more than willing to change my mind provided I’m given a good reason. But I need a good reason. And unsupported claims of implausible grand conspiracy theories involving 2-dimensional James Bond-like movie villains with no reasonable means & motive from laypeople who don’t understand the science they’re talking about doesn’t strike me as a good reason.
If you actually believe all this stuff, why are you wasting your time trying to convince some random guy on the internet? Shouldn’t you be out raising an army of soldiers and trying to defeat the dastardly villains who are poisoning us all? Far be it from me to encourage the crazies, but that seems like it’d be a better use of your time…you know, if you actually believe what you claim to believe.
And lastly, I object to your corruption of the word of the phrase “open-minded.” You people keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. To be open-minded means a willingness to change one’s beliefs given reasonable evidence to the contrary and willing to listen to alternative views. What “open-minded” doesn’t mean is anyone who happens to believe the same thing you believe or being so emotionally attached to a particular conclusion that they’ll unquestionably call it “the truth.” I have little problem admitting when I’m wrong and I know exactly what it would take to convince me that I’m wrong on this subject. Ask yourself: what would convince me I’m wrong?
That should have read:
Contrails do NOT vanish or dissipate right away, where as contrails do. There is no way to tell from a photo (that’s number 1) which is a contrail and which is a chemtrail.
JC,
It may very well be that the term has been used but I can’t really speak to any gov’t use of it without looking at the context in which it’s used. However, I think it would probably be a safe assumption that the document you’re referring to does not define chemtrails the way chemtrail conspiracy theorists define it and that the document makes no reference to poisoning the populous from the air. But if I’m wrong, please present me with a copy of the document. Or better yet, if you have such a document, get a lawyer and take it to court. It wouldn’t be the first time someone sued the government for gross negligence or endangering the public in some way and won.
Ummm… you didn’t cite any evidence to prove of what exactly the white plumes in the pictures consist. Do you have any proof as if any of the jet emissions pictured are normal contrails, or is this a faith-based issue?
That’s what a contrail is. I’m not the one making the claim so no burden of proof is on me to prove the default position. The burden of proof lies with those claiming that these are not ordinary contrails. The “normal contrail” are just that, normal contrail photos while the “chemtrail” photos were simply photos that have been alleged to be chemtrails. Since chemtrails are supposed to be identifiable by still images, they should be distinguishable.
Ummm… you didn’t cite any evidence to prove of what exactly the white plumes in the pictures consist. Do you have any proof as if any of the jet emissions pictured are normal contrails, or is this a faith-based issue?
I also didn’t cite any evidence that that’s the sky. As I explained to LtCol67, Some of the pictures above are just pictures of ordinary contrails, which no one to my knowledge has claimed to be “chemtrails” while other photos above have been specifically used on websites promoting the chemtrail hypothesis as physical evidence of chemtrails. I’m not making the claim; alleged chemtrail “experts” are.
It’s a simple challenge and yet after well over a year, no one has accepted it. I wonder why.
But if your answers to the challenge are that all the pictures above are chemtrails, then I’m going to have to ask you to show your work because to the best of my knowledge only some of them are.
How do you distinguish a chemtrail from a normal contrail? That’s the whole point of this challenge. If the answer is that there is no way or that you can just make it up as you go along and call any contrail a chemtrail, then why do so many websites insist that you distinguish them from still pictures?
Where is the first and second pictre taken and when?
The only information I have is from ‘Chemtrails Confirmed 2010′ by William Thomas who gives the reference as: morris108.files.wordpress and I actually found the original site here: http://morris108.wordpress.com/?s=chemtrail
I have also found this image here: http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies;jsessionid=u2oia6tpd1.buffalo_s?p=340&n=1&m=-1&c=4&l=0&w=4&s=0&z=3 which says that it is Essex MD and Dundalk. Anyone with any more information?
plane…
[...]Chemtrail Challenge « Skepacabra[...]…