Skip to content

Politeness Policy

I would greatly appreciate it if commenters would be polite to one another, and constructive in their criticism.

Any comments that contain insults, direct or implied,  may be edited or removed.

This does not mean you should avoid telling people they are wrong, simply that you be polite about it, and that you explain why they are wrong.  As a general rule of thumb, imagine you are talking to a new friend of a close relative, and be as polite as you would in that situation.

I would also appreciate it if you would try to stay on topic with your comments, and keep away from side topics like 9/11 conspiracy theories, unless there is some direct contrail connection (like the 9/11 air shutdown)

Thank you.



Leave a Comment
  1. Lee / Jun 16 2010 4:23 am

    Great website, brilliant attitude to open and honest debate.

  2. Anonymous / Jul 5 2010 10:03 pm

    thumbs up on politeness policy

  3. faithinscience / Jul 16 2010 8:55 am

    Even though I understand the reason to have a politeness policy, I have to explain my reasons for NOT being polite with many of the “chemtrail” believers. To make claims of fact when one has never properly studied the facts in the matter is LYING. It’s fraud…To pretend that watching youtube videos made by OTHER people who are uneducated in these subjects is “educational” is delusional! This fact MUST BE made perfectly clear! I see so many claims about how it’s “impossible” for trails to last…and how there is “evidence” to support the “chemtrail theory” (hoax). And all I see when reviewing this evidence is ignorance. It happens EVERY SINGLE TIME. There isn’t a single shred of evidence that actually supports the claims of the “chemtrail” believer community. I think it is VERY important to reference this from time to time regardless of how hurtful it may be to some feelings. It’s VERY important to point out that those UN-educated in some particular subjects are teaching others the same mistakes. I don’t see how this would be “insulting” to others when all it is, is the truth. If I wanted to learn about a subject, I would seek out those who are educated (and I’d avoid those who aren’t). Pointing out that some people who are making these claims haven’t taken the time to learn the peer reviewed material MUST be done! It’s like someone pretending to be a surgeon simply because he watched surgery videos on youtube. It’s ridiculous that these people are unaware of their lack of education. What is wrong with reminding them?! And these people are CERTAINLY impolite when they accuse me of being a “paid shill” and and “agent” simply because I actually understand the science.

  4. Uncinus / Jul 16 2010 11:07 am

    Sure I understand, but if they think that they are educated, then telling them they are not educated is going to be perceived as an insult. That erroneous perception then stifles conversation.

    I know you don’t agree with the approach, but it’s just what I’d like to try here.

  5. faithinscience / Jul 16 2010 11:32 am

    Well, reminding them what education is can’t be a bad thing. I’m starting to come around to your way of thinking and I fully understand your intentions. But, this education thing is a basic stumbling block that they shouldn’t be able to ignore. Especially considering how easy it is for someone who has taken the time to learn these subjects to spot someone who obviously hasn’t taken the time to be properly educated. And man, is it easy! That fact shouldn’t be ignored in the name of civil communication. They NEED to know how obvious it is that they haven’t got the first clue about which they speak. Yeah, that may be hard to accept without feeling insulted. But it’s the truth! If they are having a hard time understanding that it isn’t an insult, then they need to be educated on THAT also!

  6. Madeleine / Jul 19 2010 3:40 am

    I think CTYForg’s attention needs to be drawn to this policy.

  7. Uncinus / Jul 19 2010 4:10 am

    He’s not been around for a while. I suspect this is because the contrails in Los Angeles did indeed vanish in the summer as I predicted, and he’s moved on.

  8. steve windisch / Aug 2 2010 7:40 am

    People, it is important to understand that this site is government dis-info all the way.

    You can try to convince people they are not seeing what they are seeing, but good luck getting thinking people to believe that. Chemtrails certainly exist, in many areas, on most days of “clear” weather… They can be easily seen by anyone who simply “looks up”. As a sailor all my life, i have watched the sky since i was a child. What started happening over 10 years ago, that has changed the sky dramatically, cannot be denied by the poor examples of sophestry used here. You can change all the cloud charts, but you cannot erase people’s memories. Go look at a chart in an old BOOK about clouds… Then compare that to the latest NASA/NOAA chart; that is total dis-info…

    Look in shots of old movies or TV shows: NO chemtrails can be seen. Air travel in the 1970’s was almost as common as it is today (perhaps even more then)…. So all your theories of “persistant contrails” (…lol there is no such thing as contrails that persist for hours and grow into nearly complete light coverage, that is a total baldfaced LIE), fall apart right there.

    I live in Key West now, and they can be seen most days (and where is the crowded air corredore to account for that, lol)….

    Except for a period of 5 consecutive days several months ago. Why? Because of the air show at Boca Chica Naval Air Station that the Blue Angels performed at. One day before their arrival; massive chemtrails could be clearly seen over the entire sky. During their stay.. NONE anywhere in the sky. The next day after they left (2 days after their show), chemtrails again. Coincidence? Lol. This is NOT the only reported instance of them stopping the spraying during air shows… It is commonly seen across the country. If you plot this “coincidence” during air shows, it is more likely for us to win the Super Lotto than for this to happen.

    You see, the people trying to prop-up this massive LIE messed up. They did not want people to notice them, so they stopped spraying when thousands where “looking up”. Well, all that did is prove that they are hiding something.

    It is very difficult to deny what your eyes and experience tells you… Should i just take a chill pill and forget about it lol? Not going to happen. And for those here who obviously like to use derision to try and scare people away from mentioning this topic: I’m your Huckleberry, and i despise LIARS and paid shills.. and i know just how to deal with them. Try that ad homenim nonsense on me and you will look like a moron, that i can promise you.

    It is time that this silly denial nonsense end and the REAL discussion, on what they hell they are doing up there, begins. Is it an attempt hold back global warming, so the energy cartels like “BP” and her sister can go on polluting and destroying the planet as usual (clearly these manufacted clouds raise albedo which lowers the global heat budget over time… no matter what you call them)? Probably, imo. But i would not trust that to be the ONLY reason.

  9. Uncinus / Aug 2 2010 7:52 am

    So all your theories of “persistant contrails” (…lol there is no such thing as contrails that persist for hours and grow into nearly complete light coverage, that is a total baldfaced LIE), fall apart right there.

    Then how do you explain these accounts of just that thing?:

  10. faithinsciene / Aug 2 2010 9:18 am

    steve windisch, Thanks for stopping by and showing the world what you don’t know about your own atmosphere and aviation.

    Why would planes from an air show be flying high enough to produce persistent contrails?!


    And PLEASE, don’t take a chill pill and forget about it! tell ALL of your friends, spread the word! It’s only a matter of time before someone hears about the plight of the “chemtrail” hoax believer and helps you understand where you make your HUGE mistakes in logic. Good luck!

  11. faithinsciene / Aug 2 2010 9:32 am

    “It is very difficult to deny what your eyes and experience tells you”

    And now you know why pilots who have learned about persistent contrails REFUSE to accept the “chemtrail” hoax as fact. I’m glad you understand that.

    Please show where a SINGLE lie is written on this site. I’d hope that with the accusation comes the evidence to support it. Ooopps….You’ve been called out! Now it’s time to disappear/change your name and ignore the request for proof.


    “Go look at a chart in an old BOOK about clouds… Then compare that to the latest NASA/NOAA chart; that is total dis-info…”

    Apparently you didn’t get the memo about this… I’m not surprised! I won’t bother wasting my time explaining this to you…you won’t believe it for a second!


    Thanks for the laughs..

  12. captfitch / Aug 2 2010 12:16 pm

    faith- to be fair, I think he was stating that the chemtrails disappeared because everyone at the airshow would be looking up. “They” didn’t want the trails to be “discovered”.

  13. faithinscience / Aug 2 2010 12:32 pm

    Ahh…my mistake and my apologies…

  14. Artyom / Aug 3 2010 5:40 am

    Yes, damn that 15th aerosol attack squadron…. They are a sneaky lot!!! They spray only when your not looking! hahhaa.. At Air Shows, the airspace is tightly controlled. Lots of millions of dollars and international pilots flying around. It is all quite dangerous. Doubt they want a passenger jet lumbering overhead while a jet doing stunts sores into the sky…

    So the airshow is the real “gotcha” moment? Офигеть!

  15. Steve windisch / Aug 3 2010 1:46 pm

    I am afraid that link appears to be bunk: There is no credible evidence of widespread man-made clouds from approximately 15 years ago. I never saw it, and i lived in several areas of the country that were in busy air corridors. There is no proof that those photos existed before (and no note of persistent contrails in old cloud charts in BOOKS, and not LATER MODIFIED web sites). Some of them look like cirrus clouds, to me…. And i do indeed know the difference as the manufactured clouds, once spread out, are very thin and translucent. The photos also appear to be retouched, the color is obviously wrong for any sky on Planet Earth, anyway 😉

    As i stated before, i am a sailor, and always look to the sky, it’s an old habit. I remember noticing the chemtrails and more-spectacular than usual red sunsets starting about 1996.

    BTW that does not coincide with the advent of GE or Rolls Royce high-bypass jet engines, they came in before then; and there is no proof at all that high-bypass jet engines cause “persistent contrails” and more than others would, or an old prop-job “B-17” bomber for that matter… When we can see normal, non-persistent contrails in the same sky as very persistent and spreading “chemtrails” (lasting literally hours, spreading over 100 times in size), imo it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics and Cognitive Dissonance to stick to your guns, fellas 😉

    The air show phenomena can be seen before and after at most major airshows, from what we have been seeing from some other anecdotal reports (and from my own experience)… Although this is an always an important point: It depends on local weather conditions; as they generally appear to not spray a given area when there is more than 50% natural cover…. Odd that these “persistent contrails” are always absent then, too… apparently this “new” phenomena is amazingly very selective where it happens and when it happens, and doesn’t often happen at night either lol 😉 You see, that is pretty damning evidence right there: These “persistent contrails”, as claimed here, should be present in many more weather situations than they are… Why do they only exist on mostly cloudless days, only at VERY PRECISE altitudes (we know this, because it is a VERY COMMON OCCURRENCE to see two planes, flying in parallel or close to it, at apparently the same speed and nearly at the same height, where ONE is spraying chemtrails, and the other has “no” or very short-persistent contrails). See, when this happens over and over, every day, it just doesn’t wash: It is just another “amazing coincidence” that we are expected to believe 😉

    Regarding “pilots”, they are just people, like everyone else. No special intelligence, or ability to tell right from wrong… Just specialized training. I know pilots who agree with you guys. They believe the government story, apparently… That suddenly man-made clouds are a “normal” occurrence, in thousands of places around the world (not just the US), and in large numbers, DAILY. When in old movies and TV shows, they could not be seen in the background; when millions of people like me remember them NOT being there before the mid ’90’s AT ALL.

    I do not believe this government cover-up fairy tale… and millions more people every year agree with me… fewer people every year believe the phony government stories… Because all they have to do is look up into the sky, and consider it for themselves.

    As for who is paying for it, that is a very good question. There was an odd fact, that in September 10th, 2001, the TV national evening news (all the networks; as it was “huge story” at the time that was eclipsed and utterly forgotten the next day), aired an amazing press conference by Donald Rumsfeld that stated over 1 trillion dollars were missing from the Pentagon’s accounting. This is fact, look it up, and happened one day before “9/11”, Rumsfeld did indeed say that on the news: WTH! There are many folks who say that the government’s black budget is actually larger than the reported military one.

    When we consider the possible “Motive” here… that is, going on using oil and coal “forever” in ever-larger amounts for as long as they can get away with it despite what it does to the ecology (using the chemtrails to raise Albedo and generally lower temperatures)…. Then it is in the best interests of the large corporations who make huge monopoly profits on energy (many trillions every year), to see that this is done. And their vast and UNPRECEDENTED influence over the government and Society.. Was proved very graphically recently by the BP Gulf Disaster; where a corporation that was obviously guilty of gross negligence was given carte blanche control over the Gulf of Mexico.

    This whole denial of Chemtrails reminds me of the book “1984” :

    “We are at war with EastAsia, we have always been at war with EastAsia” 😉

    That may work on weak-minded people stupefied by constant TV watching, or those who can be easily intimidated into “conforming”; but it doesn’t work for those whose thinking is not controlled; or who don’t give a damn what a lies a corrupt government continues to make in the face of blatant empirical evidence. But i also am sure some of you out there believe this story “honestly”, to you i can only say, “you’re wrong about that”; and urge you to please take the time to consider this subject carefully.

    There are now, from what i have seen, at least 3 independent analysis of chemtrails, plus residues collected on the ground, all showing the presence of Barium. Barium is not an additive of jet fuel (no logical reason for it to be, anyway). Please explain the presence of Barium in the analysis. What is it doing there then?

    BTW, thanks to some of you for rising to the Derision bait (lol as i know from experience that many could not help themselves to do it.. leading us to consider how easily they can be manipulated). The use of derision is clearly not helpful to your cause. It has been called: “the first and last resort of the incompetent”…. And for good reason 😉

    Because if you had anything else to use, but attempts to paint people who do not agree with your rather narrow definitions of consensus reality as somehow “inferior”… You would have used it 😉 But i am afraid that all this does, is show a general lack of credibility, and prove that effective debate points to counter the ones put forward don’t exist. In other words, the objective readers here can see for themselves what is going on, and that only makes it easier for the “pro chemtrail” argument 😉

    I am not coming here to pick fights with shills. I am, however, providing an alternative view for those attempting to study this subject for themselves. They should realize that 10, 100, or even 1,000 consecutive posts in a row “for”, or “against” a particular position are completely meaningless, only the content of the posts are of importance (especially here at this site, lol).

    See ya around fellas, i wish you all well.

  16. Uncinus / Aug 3 2010 2:09 pm

    I am afraid that link appears to be bunk: There is no credible evidence of widespread man-made clouds from approximately 15 years ago. I never saw it, and i lived in several areas of the country that were in busy air corridors. There is no proof that those photos existed before (and no note of persistent contrails in old cloud charts in BOOKS, and not LATER MODIFIED web sites). Some of them look like cirrus clouds, to me…. And i do indeed know the difference as the manufactured clouds, once spread out, are very thin and translucent. The photos also appear to be retouched, the color is obviously wrong for any sky on Planet Earth, anyway

    So you are saying it’s all fake? All those articles I linked to? What about the book “Clouds of the world”, which gives detailed descriptions of contrails, including persistent contrails.

    That’s from 1972. Are you going to claim that’s fake as well?

    What about “A colour guide to clouds”, from 1963, that says that contrails often last for several hours.

    You can get your library to order you a copy for free. Or see here to find libraries that have a copy:

    Or you can buy one for $40.

    Can you point to ANY science books, old or new, that say that contrails never persist and spread out?

    If you give me a link to the barium analysis, including how it was collected, then I’ll discuss it.

  17. faithinsciene / Aug 3 2010 3:33 pm

    I saw the trails LONG before my first flying lesson… Which was a discovery flight in 1975. And before that, It was the persistent contrails that had me interested in Jets. There is absolutely NO WAY that anyone will convince me that I haven’t see these trails in the sky since I was a young boy. Around 1970.

    Any and every atmospheric scientist on the earth will tell you that any added moisture (as there is with ALL engines) in a saturated sky will result in the inability for the air to absorb the moisture…and if it’s cold enough, it will condense and create a trail. This is BASIC science.

    Good luck telling ANY pilot that that persistent contrails showed up first in the late 80’s.

    “I am not coming here to pick fights with shills.”

    That’s right, you aren’t! There are no “shills” here. The information posted is the truth as science understands it. Feel free to provide ANYTHING that refutes ANY of the information on this site. If you have some evidence that supports the “chemtrail” hoax, bring it! I have yet to see anything from you people but the misinterpretation/misunderstanding of known facts.

    It looks to me as if YOU are the one coming here and posting lies in an attempt to sway others. Why?

  18. faithinsciene / Aug 3 2010 3:51 pm

    Do you have any idea how may sources of barium you have to completely IGNORE before you can pin it’s presence, ON THE GROUND, on an airplane at around 26,000 feet?! Finding ANYTHING on the ground and then claiming it came from an airplane, without ANY proof, is insane…No, really, it’s THAT ridiculous! This goes to show how narrow minded so many people are. They can’t comprehend that there are millions (BILLIONS) of sources of pollution all around them and they focus on what appears to be an “obvious” source, while ignoring the actual sources. All because they “choose” to accept information from others as fact, when there is no reason to DO SO! Yes, I understand that from the ground, these trails look like “smoke” and “dust”. But, VERY basic science EASILY explains them.

    Until I see someone sample a trail, and analyze it in front of me, I have no reason to believe these trails are anything but persistent contrails. And there is NO REASON for anyone else to believe otherwise! But go ahead and insist that I’m somehow “wrong” or a “shill” for accepting the known facts instead of ignorant assumption….and I’ll keep laughing at you.

  19. Artyom / Aug 3 2010 8:39 pm

    *Remember, I am a sailor….. Pilots are just people with no special knowledge…..* TROLL ALERT!!!!!!

  20. captfitch / Aug 3 2010 9:14 pm

    I saw someone on the news today who said he was a “doctor”. He was making all sorts of claims about health and biology. But he’s wrong about that stuff. Special training, in his case, medical school- didn’t make him any more qualified to speak about those things.

    Even this example isn’t really accurate because in the medical field there are certainly some disagreement regarding many things. But in aviation we are ALL on the same page. No one sits there and argues why a thunderstorm does what it does or how slow the plane has to go before it stalls. It’s all easily learnable and black and white. That property makes aviation very appealing to many people. In fact, the current trends in training, safety and professionalism have replaced virtually all of the romance with cold, hard science. The sad thing is we have abolished many of the virtues that made aviation great and brought us to where we are today in terms of technological advancement. Just look at the current pace compared to the first 50 years of aviation history. (many might argue that last point I’ll admit)

    I digress (if you can write long posts so can I).

    I’m totally being serious here and I hope you actually debate me here but in your opinion, what is the delivery method? I promise to keep an open mind. Military, commercial, private?

    And why Barium? Are you aware of something it is capable of regarding cloud formation or sun reflection? I’m just trying to actually figure the Barium thing out because I haven’t seen the evidence that points to any effect it has on anything.

  21. faithinsciene / Aug 4 2010 9:35 am

    When is SOMEONE going to provide evidence that I believe what I believe because I’m a “paid shill” and NOT because the subjects of Aviation and Atmospheric Science EASILY prove that the trails in the sky are persistent contrails. I see all these accusations but no one is providing any evidence to support their irrational and paranoid claims. If I could be getting paid to write the facts, as they are so VERY well known in the industry, I’d like to know where I can sign up!

    Also, do the “chemtrail” hoax believers actually think I’m here because I want to change their minds?! Hardly! I enjoy the smug sense of satisfaction I feel when ANOTHER “chemtrail” hoax believer makes the same mistakes 5,000 OTHER WRONG “chemtrail” hoax believers made before him.

    I certainly welcome any and all evidence that I’m a “shill”. Anyone have ANY!?

  22. faithinscience / Aug 4 2010 11:06 am

    Looks like I forgot how to spell my name recently. See, we ALL make mistakes!

  23. JRR / Aug 12 2010 2:36 am

    Great website,
    Looking forward to future debates.

  24. captfitch / Aug 12 2010 6:19 am

    Well don’t hold your breath. There seems to be a shortage of good “debates” around here. Mostly just drive by postings.

  25. CTYForg / Aug 20 2010 2:32 pm

    I reluctantly ended up watching Mike moore’s “Capitalism” film.
    I believe there was a segment in there about the state of the commercial airline industry.
    Basically that many pilots actually get paid LESS than a manager at a fast-food chain.
    AND…I have to point out, that MANY MANY MANY planes/drones/UAV’s commercial or private are flown BY COMPUTERS.
    Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.
    Also, one of the main members of my group is now working with his dad (experimental aircraft pilot) i believe at an airport near venice, perhaps lax(?). When I get the chance i’m going to ask him a bit more about the PC phenomenon. Whether he thinks it is an issue at all.

  26. robin peoples / Oct 5 2010 12:27 am

    Wow. Because a sailor didn’t notice contrails until he was conditioned to worry about them, he believes there is a conspiracy and that this website is a government disinformation site.

    I mean, it could be. I just found it through Google tonight. But I kind of doubt it.

    I think people who come to this site should also use the search engine of their choice to search for “Occam’s Razor”. I’d also suggest searching for the “Dunning–Kruger effect”, but, well…

  27. Artyom / Oct 5 2010 3:36 am

    Brilliant reply Robin. Especially about the Dunning Kruger effect and Occam’s Razor.

  28. Donny / Apr 29 2015 2:47 pm

    For me i guess its hard for me to understand why there is an absolute refusal to consider the idea that chemtrails are used, or that some of the lines in the sky may be areosol spray or chemical dispersants. There are public companies that engage in cloud seeding, weather management, and geoengineering. For example weather modification incorporated. Name is pretty clear. Its a public company that does public activities. In which they emplore all types of processes to control weather. (Dont worry its all ‘safe’). Let alone the controversial stories of government geoengineering schemes. I think there is some real questions to ask here. And of course theres alot of disinformation in the way distracting us from the real answers.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: