Chemtrailers and Debunkers Of The World: Unite and Take Over

Elostone posted this thread in the Fragile Earth forum sharing a documentary by the History Channel that aired this past Sunday night.

It discusses Tesla's work and its influence on HAARP. However, it also tied in chemtrails. Admittedly, I haven't pursued research in chemtrails, but am aware of what many folks allege is its nefarious purpose. Essentially, it showed how specific chemical compounds, when airborne, can direct HAARP elf/ulf waves.

This could settle somewhat of a score between chemtrailers and their debunkers. Why? Because it's possible that while the chemtrails are real, making the chemtrailers validated, they may not be there to simply poison us, giving debunkers a reason to reconsider their validity. And I must also account for the possibility that there are chemtrailers who don't believe they're here to disperse poisons in order to kill us all - please take no offense by my self-admitted ignorance. I don't claim to be a chemtrail expert. But THIS got me very, very interested in them!

I'd like to know anyone's thoughts on this if they've seen it. And please remember: debate is simply an opportunity to fine-tune your argument. Let's learn from each other! No, I'm not Swiss.

Thanks a million Elostone!!!

Very interesting, it could be kind of a "don't put all of your eggs in one basket" so to speak...If they can debunk the deliberate and intentional poisoning of millions, which not surprisingly is hard to accept, then they can debunk the whole idea of chemtrails..

reply to post by chasingbrahman


Thank you! I've been thinking about a similar thread for a while now, but have gotten sidetracked with a WW3 essay.
Whenever the debate between chemheads and their detractors comes up, I try to strike a balance between the rather extreme assumptions of some supporters and the dismissive attitude of the debunkers. Sure, the persistent con trails are most likely not poisoning or sterilizing us, but they hang in the air and disperse into the atmosphere. There have been reports and patents on aerosolized spraying for various purposes, even the idea of jet fuel additives has been proposed.
But let's take away all of the "evidence" from the chemtrailers, why is there even a problem with the trails in the first place? could it be that they are a huge source of pollution? that they ruin perfectly clear blue skies? even if they're harmless, they are still ugly and there are ways of reducing the emissions.
Chemtrailers: chill out! don't jump to the most extreme conclusion.
Debunkers: respect people's emotions and opinions and either walk away, prove the crazies wrong (respectfully) or take a moment to really think about the issue, why it is an issue, and apply it to your own world view.

reply to post by chasingbrahman


LOL we've had plenty of threads to fine-tune our arguements!

But the problem is that discussing "chemtrails" is a direct misdirection from the real issue: geoengineering.

If you look up chemtrails or spraying you will get mostly conspiracy theories:

But if you look up geoengineering and solar radiation management you will get science:

Come join the discussion on geoengineering here to learn more about geoengineering: ats thread

I started as a skeptic, now I believe there IS geoengineering going on and working to show it and also to move the discussion away from chemtrails which don't lead far, to geoengineering which leads to the smoking gun (geoengineering). So far I've only found circumstantial evidence... but there is a lot of it. As well as motive, means, and opportunity... if this were a murder investigation.

The issue I have with chemtrails is not that they don't exist or couldn't exist it's that every time someone sees a contrail they tend to think CHEMTRAIL .. I think that's bogus for this purpose:

Say that HAARP is evil and out to start earthquakes or alter the weather, it would stand to reason that you would only need chemtrails in the area, or in a path to the area you're wanting to affect .. not everywhere, not every day and not dozens of times per day as most "chemtrailers" allege

It still doesn't strengthen the case that chemtrail supporters usually make.. again I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying that proponents of the phenomena tend to think every trail from a plane is a chemtrail when my stance is that it's not.. the contrail phenomena is well known, well understood and common occurrence and I just think it's bad to feed into the belief that every trail is a chemical trail.. or even to suggest that a significant amount are for that matter.

But to be fair, I also don't buy into the HAARP myth because I've seen no solid evidence and lots of assumptions point several different ways.. I'm open to the possibility, just like I'm open to the possibility that planes may seed the atmosphere with chemicals for HAARP targets .. when I say I'm open to the possibility I still need good evidence for it.. but until then when I see a trail in the sky I'm going with contrail because it's just the most likely thing.

Originally posted by miniatus
The issue I have with chemtrails is not that they don't exist or couldn't exist it's that every time someone sees a contrail they tend to think CHEMTRAIL .. I think that's bogus for this purpose:

Say that HAARP is evil and out to start earthquakes or alter the weather, it would stand to reason that you would only need chemtrails in the area, or in a path to the area you're wanting to affect .. not everywhere, not every day and not dozens of times per day as most "chemtrailers" allege

It still doesn't strengthen the case that chemtrail supporters usually make.. again I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying that proponents of the phenomena tend to think every trail from a plane is a chemtrail when my stance is that it's not.. the contrail phenomena is well known, well understood and common occurrence and I just think it's bad to feed into the belief that every trail is a chemical trail.. or even to suggest that a significant amount are for that matter.

But to be fair, I also don't buy into the HAARP myth because I've seen no solid evidence and lots of assumptions point several different ways.. I'm open to the possibility, just like I'm open to the possibility that planes may seed the atmosphere with chemicals for HAARP targets ..

edit on 14-4-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

I think you are wrong, I think the majority of people realize there is a big difference between chemtrails and contrails and don't through them all in the same basket. I have seen contrails all my life, only twice did i see something so different and strange that I believe it was chemtrails.

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by miniatus
The issue I have with chemtrails is not that they don't exist or couldn't exist it's that every time someone sees a contrail they tend to think CHEMTRAIL .. I think that's bogus for this purpose:

Say that HAARP is evil and out to start earthquakes or alter the weather, it would stand to reason that you would only need chemtrails in the area, or in a path to the area you're wanting to affect .. not everywhere, not every day and not dozens of times per day as most "chemtrailers" allege

It still doesn't strengthen the case that chemtrail supporters usually make.. again I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying that proponents of the phenomena tend to think every trail from a plane is a chemtrail when my stance is that it's not.. the contrail phenomena is well known, well understood and common occurrence and I just think it's bad to feed into the belief that every trail is a chemical trail.. or even to suggest that a significant amount are for that matter.

But to be fair, I also don't buy into the HAARP myth because I've seen no solid evidence and lots of assumptions point several different ways.. I'm open to the possibility, just like I'm open to the possibility that planes may seed the atmosphere with chemicals for HAARP targets ..

edit on 14-4-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

I think you are wrong, I think the majority of people realize there is a big difference between chemtrails and contrails and don't through them all in the same basket. I have seen contrails all my life, only twice did i see something so different and strange that I believe it was chemtrails.

edit on 14-4-2011 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)

I didn't throw them in the same basket, I said most.. not all .. and that's based on my observations of the threads here.. I'm sure there's a large number that realize the difference, but I've not seen those people speaking up .. the ones I see posting threads here, or posting videos on youtube generally are convinced that the majority of the trails they see are chemtrails.. but I don't think every chemtrailer believes that.

Describe those two trails that made you believe they were chemtrails rather than contrails?

Edit: I only ask because I'm curious what compelled you to think they were not just ordinary contrails.. some suggest that because they persist that they are chemtrails when really if they were chemical in nature they would go away faster than a normal contrail, if they were even visible to begin with.. that all depends on the chemical weight and the density of the spray

If you want to see an example of something that DOES to me look like it could be a chemical spray ( or as it suggests in the title, fuel ) then this is what I think you'd see ..

Notice how you see it quickly and then it's gone? .. this isn't to say it can't still be condensation, but in the case of a chemical spray I think you're most likely to see it like this..

Originally posted by miniatus
The issue I have with chemtrails is not that they don't exist or couldn't exist it's that every time someone sees a contrail they tend to think CHEMTRAIL .. I think that's bogus for this purpose:

Say that HAARP is evil and out to start earthquakes or alter the weather, it would stand to reason that you would only need chemtrails in the area, or in a path to the area you're wanting to affect .. not everywhere, not every day and not dozens of times per day as most "chemtrailers" allege

It still doesn't strengthen the case that chemtrail supporters usually make.. again I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying that proponents of the phenomena tend to think every trail from a plane is a chemtrail when my stance is that it's not.. the contrail phenomena is well known, well understood and common occurrence and I just think it's bad to feed into the belief that every trail is a chemical trail.. or even to suggest that a significant amount are for that matter.

But to be fair, I also don't buy into the HAARP myth because I've seen no solid evidence and lots of assumptions point several different ways.. I'm open to the possibility, just like I'm open to the possibility that planes may seed the atmosphere with chemicals for HAARP targets .. when I say I'm open to the possibility I still need good evidence for it.. but until then when I see a trail in the sky I'm going with contrail because it's just the most likely thing.

edit on 14-4-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

I understand your point. Similarly, I take issue with someone finding a dime and determining it's a token from dear-old grandfather's afterlife! I've had a handful of paranormal experiences and find this mindset idiotic. Not every sound is a ghost, not every contrail is a chemtrail. However, with all due respect, I encourage you to see what this documentary suggests. It's about 40 minutes, and in the least, offers the science behind the impact of elf/ulf waves. It even suggests the technology may have been used to re-route Hurricane Katrina off of its expected course and pursuing an altogether abberant path.

For me, acquiring solid evidence of HAARP would entail full admission by TPTB, or actually witnessing the antennae array cause a geological disaster while I'm on HAARP premesis. I don't think I'm going to get either of these argument supports. But when my understanding of the science merges with evidence, I have to wonder if that thing looking like a duck, and quacking like a duck, is actually a duck.

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by Char-Lee

Originally posted by miniatus
The issue I have with chemtrails is not that they don't exist or couldn't exist it's that every time someone sees a contrail they tend to think CHEMTRAIL .. I think that's bogus for this purpose:

Say that HAARP is evil and out to start earthquakes or alter the weather, it would stand to reason that you would only need chemtrails in the area, or in a path to the area you're wanting to affect .. not everywhere, not every day and not dozens of times per day as most "chemtrailers" allege

It still doesn't strengthen the case that chemtrail supporters usually make.. again I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying that proponents of the phenomena tend to think every trail from a plane is a chemtrail when my stance is that it's not.. the contrail phenomena is well known, well understood and common occurrence and I just think it's bad to feed into the belief that every trail is a chemical trail.. or even to suggest that a significant amount are for that matter.

But to be fair, I also don't buy into the HAARP myth because I've seen no solid evidence and lots of assumptions point several different ways.. I'm open to the possibility, just like I'm open to the possibility that planes may seed the atmosphere with chemicals for HAARP targets ..

edit on 14-4-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

I think you are wrong, I think the majority of people realize there is a big difference between chemtrails and contrails and don't through them all in the same basket. I have seen contrails all my life, only twice did i see something so different and strange that I believe it was chemtrails.

edit on 14-4-2011 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)

I didn't throw them in the same basket, I said most.. not all .. and that's based on my observations of the threads here.. I'm sure there's a large number that realize the difference, but I've not seen those people speaking up .. the ones I see posting threads here, or posting videos on youtube generally are convinced that the majority of the trails they see are chemtrails.. but I don't think every chemtrailer believes that.

Describe those two trails that made you believe they were chemtrails rather than contrails?

Edit: I only ask because I'm curious what compelled you to think they were not just ordinary contrails.. some suggest that because they persist that they are chemtrails when really if they were chemical in nature they would go away faster than a normal contrail, if they were even visible to begin with.. that all depends on the chemical weight and the density of the spray

edit on 14-4-2011 by miniatus because: swapped some words.. oops

I will describe them even though I am usualy immediatly told it is normal...some kind of air exercise or such in an area with nearly 0 air traffic other then small planes mostly at whale watching season, a few small comuter jets coming to the airport in Crescent city nothing huge. I have no opinion as to what they are doing or why...I doubt they are trying to harm us though.

Both occasions were pretty much identical except on 2 sides of the same mountain range.
One we were walking a lonely trail in the boonys west of cave junction Ca. There was a jet with 2 trials behind it making large squares in the sky, it was weird and iteresting but we had never given any thought to Chemtrails and watched a bit wondering what they were doing that for and just walked on.

The second time was really the first time we paid attention having heard of the chem trail thing by then but again never really though on it one way or another. This was in bookings Or. The whole town was crossed by huge squares in the sky they stayed for the whole hour or so we was in town just as they were and as we headed south out of town we happened to be following the huge chess board designer, we saw it eventually make the kind of turn I had never seen a jet do except at an airshow, it turned a hairpin turn back toward us making another line to the grid. I thought the pattern stopped at the mountain and sea and that he had turned at Smith River area ca. but my husband said it went much further then it looks in all directions and he said the jet was turning probably well past Crescent City Ca.