The Contrail Conspiracy

This is NOT another chemtrail thread. This is the opposite. It's response to this post by MathiasAndrew

I say that the science by which the "persistent contrailers" stand by is inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent and under studied.

So the purpose of this thread is not to discuss whether chemtrails exist and if so what they are. There are plenty of other threads for that. Instead, this thread exists to (perhaps) deconstruct the alleged 'disinformation' perpetrated by chemtrail debunkers, that things like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d025d3586360.jpg[/atsimg]

and this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/25d505e09142.jpg[/atsimg]

and this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4d4f4f9aeaf3.jpg[/atsimg]

and this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0f03faad832b.jpg[/atsimg]

and this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/22c8cfadf3e0.jpg[/atsimg]

(note the avian UFO on the left hand side of that picture )

are simply normal persistent contrails.

And further, that such contrails have been studied extensively for many decades.

If the mainstream orthodox explanation for what some believe to be chemtrails can be shown to be disinformation and false, then the door opens for a discussion on what chemtrails really are.

So, can we open the door?

But before I go, I offer up, firstly a couple of routine standard articles on contrails and also a handful of the many papers on the subject I am aware of:

www.airspacemag.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Measurements of the Growth of the Ice Budget in a Persisting Contrail - R. G. Knollenberg 1972

Numerical Simulations of Persistent Contrails - Klaus M. Gierens 1996

On the Transition of Contrails into Cirrus Clouds - F. Schröder etal 2000

Contrails, Cirrus Trends and Climate - Minnis etal 2003

I beleive that all this shows that persistent contrails exist, have been well studied, and fully explain the phenomena known as chemtrails. But can it be shown otherwise? Is the theory that all we are seeing is contrails just disinformation? A conspiracy? Or even just an error, due to lack of proper research?

Over to you


(note to Mods: I thought this perhaps the most appropriate forum to post this thread in - rather than Skunkworks where most chemtrail thread now go - but feel free to move)

Yeah they are definitely chemtrails you have seen there. It makes you angry to think that people still don't know what they are seeing.

What tipped the scale for me was the insistence by people that simply looking at a picture or video can tell you conclusively that what you are seeing is somehow chemically different from the clouds and what are described normal contrail. I would expect that a chemical difference should be very easy to find, and found chemical analysis only in references about contrails. I have yet to see a reason given as to why a cloud can persist and a contrail cannot.
And like the OP, there is a wealth of information on contrails, and they cover all possible cases of supposed "chemtrails".
My interest was started by misidentification of clouds as "chemtrails". When you research clouds, there another wealth of information, about content, shape, altitude....all kinds of things, and all seem to be ignored by those who believe in "chemtrails".
Also ignored, yet covered by study of clouds, is the sheer volume of materials required. It's often claimed that a cloud is a "chemcloud" and when I asked about the content of a "sprayed chemtrail" I was told the vast majority of the time that what you see is 100% sprayed content. Knowing clouds, I know that is impossible.

I've not seen the science involved in contrails debunked by "chemtrailers". Usually by the time a debate gets down to science, it has degenerated to calls of "shills" and "disinfo". This should be interesting.

reply to post by Essan


Great idea

With the points you covered, I honestly don't have anything to add at the moment, but I am looking forward to where this goes

Originally posted by crompton
Yeah they are definitely chemtrails you have seen there. It makes you angry to think that people still don't know what they are seeing.

Well, seeing that the topic of this thread is a little different than usual, and is about debunking CONtrails, I must ask:

How did you deduce that these are not regular CONtrails?

Originally posted by crompton
Yeah they are definitely chemtrails you have seen there. It makes you angry to think that people still don't know what they are seeing.

Good work, you have summed up the whole chemtrail argument nicely.

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
reply to post by Essan
I am looking forward to where this goes

So far, nowhere!

All those people out there totally convinced that they are seeing chemtrails yet not one can offer any valid reason why what they are seeing cannot be normal contrails. Interesting

None of them come to this form (I wonder why??) so none of them know the thread exists.

reply to post by Essan


What your saying is very true. Know one has come here to say that what we are seeing here is 'chemtrails'. But I believe the whole thread was created so that people can come here and say that these are contrails. Now that is more interesting!

It's brilliant that Chemtrails are homed at Skunk Works... At least for people who understand what's come out of the real Skunk Works. Contrails in the disinfo dept smells suss, but hey, a skunks vapor trail spreads for miles....

Excellent thread!

reply to post by Drustew


Well the idea is not to talk about chemtrails at all really, but for people to come here and show that, whatever they might by, they are not contrails. Which is of course the standard explanation put forward by all us "Govt Shills" and "Disinfo Agents" - hence why I put it here. Though maybe I shoud have stuck it in Skunkworks alongside the Chemtrails thread to get better attention. Oh well. Someone might yet find it and have a go