Ok here it goes, I have done it again.I did this with Nibiru and it cleared some stuff up with a few people, so I decided to start one on something that has to do with meteorology, something that I work with daily....yep thats right...chemtrails


Myth- Chemtrails hang in the sky for hours, contrails dissipate quickly
Fact- Contrails, like all water based things in the sky (clouds for those who dont know) in the right conditions have the ability to persist in the sky. Its a long response to explain how so if anyone requests, I will be happy to explain right away

Myth- Chemtrails spread across the sky, contrails dont
Fact- Contrails do spread acroos the sky. Upper level winds help to spread the ice in contrails across the sky into a vast sheet known as cirrostratus.

Myth- Their are black chemtrails
Fact- These phenomenen are caused by shadows. When a trail faces the sun, it produces a slice of shadow through the contrail giving it a dark appearance. It totally depends on where the observer is standing for it to appear. Another shadow is caused by the contrails shadow falling onto a thin almost transparent cloud layer below it, also giving it a dark appearance

Myth- Rainbow colours in clouds are a good indicator that spraying is occuring
Fact- No, thats a phenomenen called irisation or iridescence. It occurs when ice crystals in the upper air region, defract sunlight producing the colours of the spectrum. Similar to how a rainbow occurs, except rainbows reflect water droplets not ice crystals


Myth- Chemtrails have gaps when they turn the "spraying equipment" off
Fact- Incorrect, contrails can only form when the humidty is right. The air does not have a constant temperature or moisture level, there are dry parcels of air where contrails cant exist, giving it the impression that a switch has been flicked

Myth- The skies used to be a lot bluer before they started spraying
Fact- Well my country still has plenty of blue skies. The reason for more contrails is due to increased air traffic, the USA sky is just covered in thousands of planes each hour. Makes sense right

Myth- Chemtrails have only been around since the 1990's (or insert date)
Fact- Contrails have been around (and persistent contrails) since planes could reach the heights at which they form (20,000ft to approx 40,000ft). These heights were reached in the early 1900's, hence the world war 2 pictures with contrails in them

Myth- The government is spraying in grid patterns
Fact- According to chemtrailers, planes never cross each other path, ever...anyone else find that unusual

Myth- Germany admitted that they spray chemicals
Fact- This was a total misinterpretation, blinded by ignorance. The issue was about over use of chaff (radar deflecting powder sprayed by fighter jets) affecting weather radar of the German Meteorologists

Myth- Some countries admit to spraying chemicals to make it rain
Fact- Yep its true....its called cloud seeding. It happens far below where contrails form, in the lower level rain clouds. Silver iodide and dry ice are used to increase water droplet and ice crystal size, making them heavier thus falling as rain. Its almost the same process as dust and water vapour from exhaust engines promoting the growth of ice crystals in the upper atmosphere thus producing cloud (contrail)

Myth- People are waking up to the obvious chemtrail spraying operations
Fact- Art Bell originally started the chemtrail idea back in 1999, when promoting a miracle cartilage/ joint cure for sufferers of joint aches from alleged chemtrail victims. Anyone else find this suspicious

Myth- But Art Bell always tells the truth
Fact- Ummm....no he doesnt

Myth- Chemtrail believers know more than any meteorolgist (including OzWeatherman) about upper air meteorology, despite having no background knowledge. Photos of contrails, labelled as chemtrails far outweigh any scientific evidence provided
Fact- Yes yes of course they do

Lets keep it civil....no accusations of disinfo please (although I cant stop you doing that). All intelligent comments welcomed

Guess I didnt really expect this

3 flags but no replies....whats going on

Sorry,I'm not up on the whole chemtrail thingy. But isn't it quite well documented that American and Brittish goverments sprayed the people with germs during one of the world wars to see how they coped with illnesses? I may have picked that up from one of them random "bloke in a pub told me..."scenarios,but the info got in my head some how!! Is there any truth to that? And,if there is,who's to say that they're not still secretly doing naughty things up in the sky. It's not as if they give a damn about us. Like I say,this is just random stuff in my head,so it's probably not very true.

[edit on 17/4/2008 by Acidtastic]

wait a sec
he said "well documented"
and you said "A rumor"

think someone should check this first and see if its true.

I`ll try

Originally posted by Maya432
wait a sec
he said "well documented"
and you said "A rumor"

think someone should check this first and see if its true.

I`ll try

Actually he asked if it was well documented

As far as I know, it was a rumour......hope you can find something

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Ok here it goes, I have done it again.

Fact- Well my country still has plenty of blue skies. The reason for more contrails is due to increased air traffic, the USA sky is just covered in thousands of planes each hour. Makes sense right

Myth- But Art Bell always tells the truth
Fact- Ummm....no he doesnt

How many threads do you plan to start on de-bunking chemtrails?

Regardless, the two 'facts' quoted above seem totally out of place. 'My country still has plenty of blue skies' is not a proper rebuttal and it's not much of a fact either.

Also, Art Bell has nothing to do with chem trails so why bring him up? He is not the David Icke of chemtrails or anything...

In any case, the difference between chemtrails and contrails has already been covered many times. The skeptics are never going to 'debunk' this issue, because the issue never goes away. Chemtrails continue to show themself over concentrated suburban areas, people continue to note the difference between the chemtrails and normal contrails, tests on ground and water pollution continue to suggest that chemicals are being introduced.

Sorry, I just don't think skeptics have any valuable input on chemtrails. We already know the common explanation for contrails... it fails still to debunk the issue.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
How many threads do you plan to start on de-bunking chemtrails?

Lots...is that a problem?

Regardless, the two 'facts' quoted above seem totally out of place. 'My country still has plenty of blue skies' is not a proper rebuttal and it's not much of a fact either. ?

The intention was to show, that the reason Australia has more clear skies is because we have less air traffic then the USA, therefore the USA has more cloud reported due to higher air traffic producing contrails. Should mention that if a contrail persists longer than half an hour, it is reported as cirrus cloud....or cirrostratus if it spreads

Also, Art Bell has nothing to do with chem trails so why bring him up? He is not the David Icke of chemtrails or anything...

Art Bell was the first to publicly speak out about chemtrails on his radio show in 1999 according to my research, I didnt say he continues talking about them, he was just the first to bring them up

In any case, the difference between chemtrails and contrails has already been covered many times. The skeptics are never going to 'debunk' this issue, because the issue never goes away.

Yes, thats your opinion. Mine is that chemtrails can never be proven. However, the thread is intended to show a different side to the chenmtrail conspiracy for those who sit on the fence. Whether they choose to believe either side is not my concern, but I started this so there are 2 sides to the story and they can make a choice themselves


Chemtrails continue to show themself over concentrated suburban areas, people continue to note the difference between the chemtrails and normal contrails, tests on ground and water pollution continue to suggest that chemicals are being introduced.

Yeah, and contrails also appear over the Australian outback where no one lives. Please provide a source of the tests. The only one I heard was that a guy claimed that he got residue from one, and it contained barium, but the lab where he got the samples tested said the sample was not from a chemtrail. It had an official report, which I will try and find


Sorry, I just don't think skeptics have any valuable input on chemtrails. We already know the common explanation for contrails... it fails still to debunk the issue.

It does not prove that chemtrails exist either. And if you say that, then doesnt it mean the Chemtrailers have no valuable input on upper air meteorology and weather phenomenen? I dont think so, I welcome queries and challenges (as long as they are not derogatory remarks). Like I said, there are 2 sides to every argument and this is the other side

it would seem that the governments of the world
have indeed sprayed areas and populations with
many different things.
much too many to list here.

but i guess oz is trying to say that what we see is not
the chemical spaying but contrails.

i have been watching the skies a lot and yes, It would appear that
contrails sometimes do
stay in the sky and spread out.
i see them quite a bit.
and i also see quite a bit the contrail evaporating rather quickly at the end.

but so far I still believe in chemtrails......

the powers that be are evil to the core ...don`t trust them for one second.
sure hope we get to the bottom if it either way.

Oz, I am becoming a huge fan of your debunking threads, keep them up.

Chemtrails do not exist. If they did, they aren't doing their job.

Population control? People are living longer.
Mind control? Well just look at Bush's approval rating.

It is hilarious to me. I lived in Philly, when I saw these "chemtrails" everywhere. Now I live in Phoenix, where the air is dryer, and I see them about half as much with even more air traffic. It is an effect of water at high altitude, that's what I deduced without hardly even looking into the subject.

There are much easier ways of killing us people. Our water and food are already doing a damn good job, why spray inhalants? It is completely irrational, it would be VERY expensive and there are easier avenues.

So beyond all science, isn't it just absolutely pointless that chemtrails would exist if they did?

Star and Flag, YOU DISINFORMIST!


[edit on 4/17/08 by SantaClaus]

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Also, Art Bell has nothing to do with chem trails so why bring him up? He is not the David Icke of chemtrails or anything...

Not only that, the whole question screams straw man. In what reasonable discussion of a subject would anyone on either side make such a ridiculous claim. I appreciate the OPs efforts in putting together such a post, but by including an outrageous straw man like this you've destroyed the reliability of your post.

Originally posted by SantaClaus

There are much easier ways of killing us people. Our water and food are already doing a damn good job, why spray inhalants? It is completely irrational, it would be VERY expensive and there are easier avenues.

[edit on 4/17/08 by SantaClaus]

Exactly....if I was going to poison someone effectively...the best thing would be to do it through a drinking water supply. Or through animal products, although vegetarians, vegans and the lactose intolerate may escape unharmed....and we couldnt have that

Originally posted by TheStev

Originally posted by NewWorldOver
Also, Art Bell has nothing to do with chem trails so why bring him up? He is not the David Icke of chemtrails or anything...

Not only that, the whole question screams straw man. In what reasonable discussion of a subject would anyone on either side make such a ridiculous claim. I appreciate the OPs efforts in putting together such a post, but by including an outrageous straw man like this you've destroyed the reliability of your post.

Like I said, Art Bell according my research was the original guy to publicly announce about chemtrails.

I guess I will remove that part of the thread though

the black line phenomenon that is always debunked, is not even the true black line phenomenon, Im sorry, but you are just making yourself seem silly.
I know you have credentials to uphold, so thanks for the info you have, I just hope you dont come to find out chemtrails were real, and then realize you could have done something to help out, but instead just helped the non forthright guys.
If I were in your shoes, I would plead the 5th.
I know I know, if I were in your shoes, I would KNOW chemtrails and black line phenomenon do not exist, but I would have a hard time swallowing that with a history of clandestine government testing. Sorry, I trust only facts, and experience. And your facts do not match up with my experience, so I am left searching for answers.

Trust me, the sun angle, and perspective and all that jazz, are the first thing taken into account, I do not have blind chemtrail faith

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Like I said, Art Bell according my research was the original guy to publicly announce about chemtrails.

I guess I will remove that part of the thread though

That's probably for the best. I feel I should clarify what the problem is, though, so you can avoid it in future posts. It's nothing to do with the fact that you mention Art Bell.

The problem is this: you set up your post like it's a conversation between someone who believes chemtrails are real, and yourself who is debunking. The 'Myth' lines are obviously the things a chemtrail believer will say.

However no believer of any phenomenon would say something as ridiculous as 'But Art Bell always tells the truth'. They might go so far as to say that 'Art Bell is always trying to uncover the truth', but they're never going to say 'he always tells the truth'. In this way you are setting up an argument which you know can be easily defeated, just to go on to defeat it. Or in other words, a straw man argument.

When someone uses this method, it makes it seem (at least to me) like they're more concerned with convincing others than they are with providing a reasonable argument. Motivations which carry through to their other arguments, therefore weakening them.

Hope you see this for the constructive criticism it is intended to be