Welcome to All Aircraft Are Not Involved.

Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, make your voice heard!

NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

dialogue and research on chemical trails

NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby socrates » Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:27 pm

All members and respected guests are invited to participate on this thread. It's time for the real chemmies to take over the reins of chemtrail research and dialogue. One of the motives behind the disinfo script has been to portray chemtrails as nutty tinfoil. Yet the fact that such a script even exists somehow helps prove that specific aircraft are deliberately tampering with our atmosphere.

This will be a work in progress. It will be based on debunking the following NASA web page.

NASA Langley Contrail Page


I can explain any part of the script. For example, a good chunk of the reason why paid, disinfo writers exist is to steer the curious towards getting bogged down in convolution. They also desire to turn people away from the only chemtrail website that explains it all.

Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans contains many nuggets which are not hidden. While the other major forums are all about forcing folks to search for needles in haystacks, we have taken things up a notch. The dark side never expected this domain to survive and flourish. Hopefully this thread can become yet another shining example of what AAANI represents.

The following was written by a former moderator at Chemtrail Central.




Now before anyone laughs too hard, take a look at this.
The first comment is by Thermit, the second by Deb from Indiana.



Who is Thermit? He is Mark Steadham, founder of Chemtrail Central. He put together this famous contrail report. Will Thomas publicized it. Chemtrail Central quickly became the most successful chemtrail forum and the #1 search engine result.

Patrick Minnis has been the top dog debunking the existence of chemtrails. Was Minnis really posting at Chemtrail Central as Mark Steadham would like us to believe? Here was Thermit's response to Deb.


Deb, not to be confused with prolific copy and paster Deborah/FootSoldier, was one in a list of many "chemmies" who would convert to the debunker camp. It is striking how no skeptics were ever convinced to join the believers. This theme has played a big part in the psychological operation.

Do I think Canex is Patrick Minnis? One can check out his bundle of posts at CTC and decide for themselves.


I never looked at them too closely. I never thought it was really him. Maybe someone can send him an e-mail and ask.

When I first started interacting with Jeff Ferrell of KSLA-News12, I told him that one of the biggest pieces of evidence for the existence of chemtrails was the Terry Stewart story. Jeff thought the same thing. But unlike me, he made a call to Mr. Stewart and was informed that the story was a hoax. Will Thomas was involved in that one. Thomas was also involved with a "Lou Aubuchont" and another fabrication called Deep Sky. But that's getting off-topic. The point is, Mark Steadham, Will Thomas, and many others have turned out to be unreliable at best. Their credibility is near zero. Are Canex and Minnis the same person? I wouldn't bet too much on that one.

Mark Steadham has proclaimed on an obscure message board that he has done work for NASA. In the beginning, Chemtrail Central was not nearly as zany as it is now. The Steadham contrail report, along with allegedly having Minnis as a member, must have given CTC tremendous credibility.

ForumWise: About Us :mrgreen:


Here's the first post that Canex wrote. Fairly impressive, huh?


Here was Steadham's response.


Now that the tinfoil connection is out of the way, it is time to start going after the NASA propaganda which says that chemtrails are contrails. I think it's all a big bluff. I believe our pair of kings will beat their jack high. An ace may have shown up on the river, but they don't have one.
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby BlueSkyHope » Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:43 pm

Just to quickly and briefly note the "Talk of the Bay" broadcast of March 16th, 2006:

Talk of the Bay - Thursday, March 16 Listen Image
Host John Sandidge speaks with Patrick Minnis, Senior Research
Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, about contrails and
the theories involving chemtrails.

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby socrates » Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:26 pm

Hi BlueSkyHope,

I spruced up your post with the direct link to the show. I can now listen to it. Thanks. :)

There's a picture of Minnis on his web page. He looks kind of young to be such a genius. I just sent him this letter.

A Few Quick Questions Please

Hello Dr. Minnis,

Did you post at Chemtrail Central as the username Canex? Mark Steadham, the owner, claims that you have. He also claims to have worked for NASA, himself. Can you verify that? Was there ever any relationship between yourself and Mr. Steadham?

Also sir, was there a reason for the naming of SUCCESS beyond any use of an acronym? Is it a success for aviation to be able to produce massive amounts of fake cloud cover?

Take care, Socrates

Why should we speculate about Canex, when we can go right to the source. Either answer he gives, it will be interesting!

Uhm, I was gonna ask him why if chemtrails are such a crazy hoax has he felt the need to debunk them so much. Like doesn't he have better things to do, if it's such crazy nuttiness to even consider it as the truth? But then I thought he'd say well, we don't want any unfounded hysteria building up or so on.

I've already found some good nuggets from the pdf on SUCCESS. It isn't that long. When I tried to check out the high resolution shots of the alleged contrails, they were unavailable.

But thanks for fixing me up with the radio show. Yippee. Shoud be fun. :D

If chemtrails were good for us, they wouldn't be conducted in
secrecy. Why are the ptb's so against democracy and freedom?
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby socrates » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:48 am

Here's an update. Dr. Minnis has quickly responded to my questions, and I have sent him back another email. I also listened to the interview last night and will be able to give a review when time permits.

Dr. Patrick Minnis wrote:I did post as Canex, but I have no clue whether Mark Steadham worked for NASA or not. I do not know the name and do not remember any relationship with him. Why do you ask?

SUCCESS was just a catchy acronym and was not all that successful because the conditions for forming contrails were not very frequent. We only had one decent spreading contrail near the end of the experiment and had to go all the way to the Pacific to find the right humidity conditions for that. So, much for climatology guiding an experiment.

socrates wrote:Thanks for the reply, sir. Mark Steadham posts as Thermit. He's the one who did the trail report, if that rings your memory. He claims to have worked for NASA. Oddly, he never mentioned this once at Chemtrail Central. Hmmm.

I asked, because a lot about how chemtrails has been portrayed on the internet doesn't add up. This goes beyond whether one is a believer, debunker, fence-sitter, or newbie. Chemtrail Central has been part and parcel of the convolution.

Despite where one stands on this topic, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to think that CTC has been all about controlled opposition.

I know you are very busy, and I don't want to bog you down with rabbit holes. I do, however, find it very curious why the most logical theories for chemtrails have never been addressed.

1) Climate Change: This is now considered a national security issue. This would give any project the secrecy needed to continue without any disclosure or accountability. Also, with severe weather increasing and with movement towards converting our economy to clean, renewable energy stalling, this theory argues that chemtrails are being used to tame wild weather. There is a new weather bill being pushed by Hutchison {senate version} and Udall{house version} which speaks of climate change and weather mitigation.

2) UV_B Radiation: We are told how dangerous it is to be outside for over fifteen minutes without protection. A study by Paul Crutzen has argued that ozone in the troposphere is more effective in attenuating the effects of the harmful rays than that to be found in the stratosphere.

Both of the theories above would explain why many are observing trails much lower than the 35,000 feet you have used as the generic altitude for where most persistent contrails form. Albeit, you have argued that altitude can be deceiving and not easily pinned.

But I have shared with you these more realistic theories not with the intention of initiating yet another "debunker versus believer" discussion. I have shared these thoughts to set the table to explain why I asked you about Mark Steadham {Thermit} of Chemtrail Central.

There is this idea of the strawman, and Steadham, Will Thomas, and many others fit the bill. Thomas has been shown to be involved beyond knee-deep in false claims and what appear to be outright hoaxes. {e.g. The Terry Stewart Hoax concerned an airport manager stating that he had been informed by a military source that a bombardment of trails had been the result of a joint US/Canadian military exercise. Reporter Jeff Ferrell of KSLA News12 Louisiana has spoken to Mr. Stewart who said he recieved no such information.}

I could write you a book showing how chemtrails as portrayed on the internet has been more likely than not a rigged operation.

The global warming theory can be shot down pretty quickly, as the geoengineering plans have been put forth to be done much higher up in the stratosphere. So why did Will Thomas and many others keep pushing ideas with no credibility?

While the 9/11 clear air showed that aviation can have a cooling effect, the atmosphere is complex and trails as high as 35,000 to 40,000 feet, unless I'm mistaken, will ultimately have a net warming effect.

I am not a newbie. I know about Mt. Pinatubo, the 9/11 airplane/atmospheric connection, the global dimming, etc..

My main point for writing to you was because I do not trust that the discussion on the internet pertaining to chemtrails has been legit. In fact, it has slanted so far towards being about kookiness, that as a social scientist, I cannot help but feel this has been done to obfuscate and hide the real truths about chemtrails. There are plenty of facts that can show that weather manipulation is not science fiction. China recently guaranteed good weather for the olympics. There is EnMod. There is a company named Dyn-O-Gel, now Gel Tech Solutions, which claims the ability to temper the severity of hurricanes. The idea of chemtrails is anything but kooky. The predominance of the meme that chemtrails are kooky, to me, represents a deliberate disinformation campaign to repel as many citizens as possible from considering the true nature of the trails we witness.

Newbies and fence-sitters are being guided towards convolution. Real people have been squeezed out. What we are left with is apparently a psychological operation including closed-minded debunkers, crazy believers, and believers who eventually agree with your all aircraft can produce persistent contrails explanation, that chemtrails are anything but deliberate, that chemtrails and contrails refer to the same thing.

This is turning into too long a letter. I apologize. I am grateful that you took the time to respond to my questions. Have an excellent weekend.

socrates at
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby Lophofo » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:41 pm

Remote Sensing Tutorial Page 14-1
Primary Author: Nicholas M. Short, Sr.
Clearly, the most widespread applications to date of remote sensors operating from space platforms have been to image water - either in oceans, lakes, and streams or in the air as water vapor - in its main functions in the Earth System. But, as the sensors improved, the ability to measure temperatures, and indirectly pressures (highs and lows), in the atmosphere as well as wind speeds and the rates of movements of air masses became possible in a quantitative way. But, the single most obvious thing that meteorological satellites could observe from the beginning are clouds. Most cloud formations (cumulus, stratus, nimbus, and combinations thereof) are straightforward and obvious as to types, but some unusual atmospheric effects expressed by clouds warrant special attention.

One of the most striking, and common, cloud patterns is the so-called cyclone, in the northern hemisphere a counterclockwise (ccw) spiral swirl often associated with a major low that delivers rain and even stronger storms, such as hurricanes. Wide field views can encompass the full systems of clouds comprising such lows. Here are two cyclonic cloud banks off the coast of Iceland:


Here's a section discussing fog:
Fog is simply a cloud bank so low that it pervades the environment on the ground, often creating conditions of poor visibility. One of the most famed of fogs is that which can blanket the London, England area, producing "spooky" conditions that seem to be favored in movies featuring that city. In mid-December, 2006 several nights of thick fog covered London, making travel difficult as the airports were closed. Here is this fog as seen by MODIS:


They should have just said "gravity waves" instead. And, the question is WHAT makes them arrange themselves like that?
Stratocumulus clouds can often arrange themselves in waves, much like ripple marks on sand dunes, as evidenced in this Landsat image taken over the Barents Sea, near the Kola Peninsula:


Stratocumulus clouds are common above the oceans, as seen here in this MODIS image of the west coast of the United States. Of special interest is the crosslink between these clouds and low fog along the coast and especially in Puget Sound (state of Washington) and the San Francisco Bay (California).


Lenticular waves:
A particularly pleasing assemblage of clouds is seen in this image over the Indian Ocean. Most intriguing is the V-shaped waves east of the small Amsterdam Island. That island serves as an obstruction which disturbs the air so as to produce the distinctive lenticular waves beyond it.


now, here they mention gravity waves:
Another special cloud feature is gravity waves formed at the top of stratocumulus clouds. Formation mechanisms are covered on page 14-1d (in the Meteorology tutorial accessed at the bottom of this page). Here is an example of these "ripples" as they formed over the Indian Ocean:


They look the same as the other waves which they called "ripples" earlier.

Now, here's the best part of this entire page of the remote sensing tutorial...which also applies to this topic:
One unique type of cloud is manmade. Contrails occur when water-laden exhaust from jet engines condenses. A narrow line of moisture makes up the contrail. Winds eventually dissipate it; in some instances conditions permit the contrail to survive for many minutes (their straight lines do distort). Contrails are believed to affect weather by raising both short and long-term temperatures (one estimate is for about a third of a degree per decade). Here is a MODIS image taken over the southeast U.S. on January 29, 2004 showing a large number of contrails (at times more than 2000 planes are over the North American continent at any one time):


They do admit they are manmade. So, NASA admits they are not "naturally occurring," but instead, they want us to believe, once again, that these have always occurred and are now more prevalent due to an increase in air traffic...noting their statement about the number of planes. I call B.S. True, wind dissipates these. True, they do last for many minutes....like 180 or 240 minutes...which is the same as 3 or 4 hours....or more. And yes, they do affect weather. But, they are not contrails...they're chemtrails.

I remember Patrick Minnis on the Discovery Channel special. He wants us to believe that his job is to study cirrus cloud formation and to accept his expertise that all these lines in the sky have always existed and are now being seen more because we have more air traffic. Nice try...might fool the uneducated or the people who don't care.

Any way, more on this later. But, I thought you should check that out...fog, gravity waves, and "contrails" all mentioned on the same page. Throw in the word HAARP and change "contrails" to "chemtrails" and it would have been more accurate.

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby socrates » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:30 am

Thanks for the excellent information, Lophofo.

Patrick Minnis Gets Tossed A Softball

I listened to the interview a few days ago and took notes. The host had a good radio voice but came across as shallow and incompetent. The intro was less than stellar as he couldn't even get Minnis' name correct. He did set the topic, though, of being chemtrails versus contrails.

Minnis has been in the field for 25-30 years. He started specializing in "contrails turning into cirrus" in 1994. He said that he wasn't sure, but that he thinks NASA reports coming out in 1996-1998 triggered a media response. Shortly thereafter, whether coincidence or not, Will Thomas and lots of folks were buying into chemtrails.

Minnis doubts that "contrail cirrus" contributes to harsh weather. He said there is a 1% increase per decade, and that a Jim Hansen {sp?} study says that there would need to be a factor of ten to have such an impact.

Then they started talking about the kooks. They mentioned population culling, where the elites are innoculated and the useless eaters are dispensed with. Talk about a softball. The things I mentioned in my second letter got not air play. The strawman of chemtrails for global warming certainly did. This interview was all about using the cookie cutter, where you have the scientific contrailers pitted against the paranoid believers. The host even made a crack about how the chemmies have gotten an upgrade from the black helicopters to unmarked, white, military jets.

Then before getting to the callers, Minnis explains the strange looking colours in the sky as ice crystal refractions of the spectrum. He didn't inform the listeners of NASA's barium tests resulting in purple clouds. Minnis' answer for everything is that we are simply ignorant of the atmospheric sciences, that our minds are running away towards unfounded conclusions.


Again, the host can't get Minnis' name correct. What's up with that? He sounded sober. He was clearly in over his head. If this was the best audio NASA could come up with to debunk chemtrails, they failed miserably.

Judith says she has a brother in the Air Force. She says he saw training film where trails are coming out of the wing tips and not the engines. We have a photo of that on this forum. There is so much proof, that chemtrails are not science fiction. Minnis explained something about a rapid change in pressure. I don't believe the caller or Minnis were discussing the same thing.

Dee from Santa Cruz

She said a couple years ago at dusk she saw heavy activity going on over the ocean by San Francisco International. She said she talked to somone who seemed to know what was going on. His answer was fuel drops. Minnis said fuel drops disperse very quickly, that there wouldn't be enough to account for "contrail outbreaks."

Dee also felt that the aircraft were flying very low, sometimes one could see them right over the trees and the town. Minnis went into the it's tough to tell altitude spiel.

Fred from Boulder Creek

Fred was curious about the life span of the trails, He figured contrails were only supposed to last a few minutes. Minnis acknowledged that most contrails last about ten seconds, but he added that in supersaturated air, contrails can last 14, 15 hours.


Tinfoil time. It's not that hideous experimentation hasn't been proven. But it shouldn't be front and center for chemtrail theories. The elite do not get special vaccines. It's ludicrous to think there is any population culling or deliberate poisoning taking place. Daniella spoke of how In the 70's, cancer cells were put into women. She mentioned HAARP, monsanto, weapons in space, that she wouldn't put it past the govt., the cpellatt spiel, yes we are being sprayed.

She then mentions educate-yourself, an absolutely, awful, nonsense website. She mentioned the "Mechanic Hoax" as if it was a legit story.


Bob basically kissed the toes of the evoker of authority. The conspiracy is implausible. There's no science behind it. The government testing part may be true, but life is complex. You have particulates latching onto water. People are just looking for easy answers. Minnis says that his crowd explains everything at the NASA website rather than speculate like us dumbasses.


She was cool. She was a regular chemmie like any of us. She felt bad that the show wasn't balanced. She mentioned samples taken. She went into the Dr. Evil, geoengineering patents for global warming. She mentioned the aluminum particulate idea to reflect the solar energy.

Then she went granola. Good for her. She said the eyes don't lie, that this is all new, with the criss-crosses and all kinds of configurations. She said that there is more air traffic, but that doesn't explain how the chemtrails end up all over the place, that these chemjets are not flying normal routes.

The global warming angle is a strawman. This website is the only one I know of which has articulated this point. This became yet another softball for the evoker of authority. He explained the volcano. He called it a bunch of bunk. I think he went on a bit again about the media and the internet. He spoke of NASA's excellent satellite imagery and some 1977 study by De Grand {sp?}. He mentioned WW2 bombers at 25,000 feet. He said that wherever aircraft are, contrail outbreaks can happen.

So are the eyes lying or is it the government?

Tim from Santa Cruz

He was also disappointed with the unfair format of the show. He mentioned the chemtraills911 website out of Santa Cruz. He didn't understand why they couldn't get balanced guests. Right on, Tim.

Tim also pointed out that the aircraft were flying too low. Minnis was robotic and predictable. He argued that altitude is deceiving. He said one needs lidar and special equipment. He mentioned a study done on Lake Michigan which simulated the contrail to cirrus process.



She mentioned something curious. She said emails were going around a few years back about air traffic controllers having their screens get all fuzzy. She said how when the flights were tabled, the screens became clearer. She mentioned aluminum dusting. The host mentioned Will Thomas again. I think there were grumblings about speculation and Minnis passed on answering the question about the radar screens getting fuzzy.

Sky from Monterrey

The host liked her name. He said it was appropriate, like if Chem called in. Not kidding. She said she noticed within 24-48 hours of activity, her clients were coming in with sinus and allergy problems. When she was asked what her credentials or field was, she said the allied health field, Minnis said there could be a connection, because lower pressure means warmer air leading to allergies and whatnot. Then something about the middle ages and comets was mentioned.

Minnis is saying chemtrails are contrails and nothing new. He is arguing that we are simply just starting to notice them. He's Patrick Minnis of NASA! He's an astronaut or something. He's a genius. He'd never lie. He wants us to stop fretting over the conspiracy hoax. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby BlueSkyHope » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:48 am

Thank you so much for this excellent review. That is exactly how it went! The host kept referring to "Patrick" as "Paul" and I could not believe that ridiculous "extra piping in the plane bathroom" hoax was cited by that caller Daniella. And they kept asking that "Sky" just WHAT her health background was, as if not being a "doctor" and only previously having a background in nursing but now being a "reflexologist" disqualified her from any type of commentary.

Minnis states that his experiment "back in 1996" demonstrated that airplane (i.e. WATER VAPOR) contrails in the sky spread out and formed cirrus clouds. The host then asks if "comtrails" (saying he has to get his terms straight, haha) had anything to do with the bad weather that had been experienced recently.

Answer from Minnis, no effect, contrails would have to be increased BY A FACTOR OF TEN (says he is quoting "Jim Hansen" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen ). I recall Hansen being the one that said in 2005/2006 that his speaking on global warming was being suppressed by NASA administration. So Minnis is quoting someone that NASA had no public confidence in.

Well, anyway, I'd say it is far more than a X10 chemtrail or comtrail or contrail or WHATEVER we're supposed to call it, going on these days, as even evidenced by the pictures on http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/non-javascript-index.html under the heading "Contrail Outbreak Images." Therefore isn't that amount (that Minnis has pictured there) AFFECTING WEATHER, hmmm?

The scientific studies involving Stratospheric Atmospheric Gases being measured (i.e. he mentions volcanic eruptions, etc.) historically are discussed by Minnis. He says no one really noticed the "contrail outbreaks" until media and the Internet started discussing them, in the last ten years, with "people looking up in the sky" and (he says condescendingly, in a speaking-to-a-little kid tone to her) there were 1977, 1987 "outbreaks" plus bomber military planes were known to have done this in the World War II days! The tic-tac-toe patterns are just layering on, over time, too!

Just a sham, but not surprising to me. Thanks again for detailing it so well!

A lot of what he said on the interview was mumbled and just sounded to me like "buzzwords" strung together, with references to scientific studies and people, and it was very hard to distinguish what he was saying.

Host: (caller mentions getting Chemtrails911 on there - on the show) snidely says, what would be the point of that, we tried to, couldn't do it. (This to me was a dismissal of this entire topic forever, and completely convinced me that the host was in league with this entire farce and deception.)

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby socrates » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:03 pm

Patrick Minnis wrote:I did post as Canex, but I have no clue whether Mark Steadham worked for NASA or not. I do not know the name and do not remember any relationship with him. Why do you ask?

SUCCESS was just a catchy acronym and was not all that successful because the conditions for forming contrails were not very frequent. We only had one decent spreading contrail near the end of the experiment and had to go all the way to the Pacific to find the right humidity conditions for that. So, much for climatology guiding an experiment.

Minnis was on Chemtrail Central for 164 posts and never realized that Thermit was Mark Steadham? Steadham admits to working for NASA, albeit I don't think he ever expected any real chemmies to find out that factoid.

Anyway, Minnis is admitting that it is very rare for contrails to turn into any kind of substantial cirrus. He was quick to write back the first time. Now after calling his bluff, all we hear is crickets chirping. Does Paul Menace, er, Patrick Minnis need more time to figure out a quality explanation for my second email? If he doesn't know who Steadham is, then he certainly has never heard of this website until I mentioned it in my reply. Perhaps I have given him a splash of cold water?

I don't believe the radio host was in cahoots. I think he is a run of the mill shallow person who has a radio voice. He doesn't have the talent of a Paul Moyer to do television news. He doesn't have the sense of humour to have a real talk show. I've heard people like this before. They are usually on at odd hours and talk folksy. They have a milk and cookies atmosphere. I think he's [John Sandidge] just the opposite of the shock jock. He's the old-school Andy Griffith apple pie type. He is the male version of Kathy Lee Gifford.

I was in Ireland for a few years and returned in the early nineties. The skies were one thing I quickly became aware of. I went from experiencing the fast moving systems flying over an island to the classic New England four seasons. I noticed how we would get tons of days of clear blue skies. I remember the puffy clouds. The clear skies were obvious to me, because in Ireland it was raining half the time, even if you couldn't predict when. You notice things like this going from one culture to the other.

So how does a 1% increase in cirrus cover per decade, as I think Minnis said, turn into a 50% increase or whatever it is? Our days of blue skies are over. Yes, we get some breaks in the action here and there. But then they get right back to it. We need a full congressional investigation. We need to take the power away from shadow parts of the government and give it back to we the people.

SUCCESS seems to have shown how rare it is for contrails to form into cirrus, imho.

The interview is simply shocking. I could have sworn Minnis said that this has been always going on, that we are only more aware of it now. And how are simulated results produced by their own aircraft any sort of proof? One can check out the link above and find out that it was government aircraft that created the fake cirrus.

And talk about grainy images that don't say much.


Here NASA admits that SUCCESS utilized military aircraft.

1996: October 26 GOES-8 images showing obliteration of Kansas by contrail cirrus. GOES-9 and NOAA-12 images from May 12-13 showing a NASA DC-8 racetrack contrail, Minnis et al. (1998).

Minnis, P., D. F. Young, L. Nguyen, D. P. Garber, W. L. Smith, Jr., and R. Palikonda, 1998: Transformation of contrails into cirrus during SUCCESS. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 1157-1160.

"NASA DC-8 racetrack contrail"


I am getting curious what SUCCESS stands for.

Why did Minnis mention on the radio military aircraft at 25,000 feet creating chemclouds? Where do the debunkers ever get the idea that using WW2 bomber jets etc. to debunk chemtrails makes sense? When convolution is taken out of the picture, things start to get very clear.

From the above:

A cluster of contrails from commercial aircraft lasted over 17 hours.

Are you sure, Paul, oops, Patrick?


"apparently from commercial aircraft"

His silence with the second email is speaking volumes, imho.

All he has is grainy images that look nothing like chemtrails.


But you have to appreciate the shiny graphics.


We're to believe that this unconvincing study initiated the buzz about chemtrails? That's what Minnis wants us to think.


People should be easily piecing the scam together now about the portrayal of chemtrails on the internet. Has anyone else read any of it? You know, the Jay Raynolds, Aubuchont, Jim Phelps, Thermit, Maverick, Ed Snell, Swampgas, Chem11, Deborah/footsoldier. I know it looks to be an immense rabbit hole. My point is, if you focus in on the simplicity of the closed-minded debunker versus the crazy believer, you end up with either noise or an enigma. Patrick Minnis is the kingpin. There's no explanation for how he was able to email me back so fast with the first email but has chickened out with the second.

I was never afraid of Jay Reynolds or any debunkers. But the thing has been a convoluted closed shop. When it gets like that, and no one is giving any consistent straight forward responses, I can't help but think that every single one of them has been a planted username.

It's just too convenient how maddening the whole thing has been. Then when I called the script's bluff, they went cybersmear on me and tried to circumscribe me into the noise. But they have failed miserably.

I swear this isn't about me. But I stand behind the screenshots and other proof showing that more likely than not, the internet has been rigged. More likely than not, chemtrails are deliberate activity. I am calling all the bluffs. I am going all in. If I have to, I will find even better cliches than from poker to prove my point.

It's just too convenient how fried the internet is. It's ok to be unique, spunky, passionate, shy, whatever, it is ok to be a voice. It's just outrageous how nearly all of the things people come across appears to be planted convolution. My wish is that I have documented it well enough, where people won't have to strain too much to understand it and avoid the pitfalls I went through.

Of course, a lot has changed in the last two years. The chemtrail forums have become stagnant and caricature-like. There is nothing of value coming out of them. I know some people question us blogger types and say that keyboard commandos are not going to be able to change the world. I disagree. I think as long as there has been one place that has said enough is enough with the psychological operation nonsense, then we have gotten the job done. I am also not afraid to shove my internet face around to make sure we are heard. I have the username at Randi Rhodes. I am sure there are other places I can try. People can do the same thing for AAANI. Link to us please. Join in. We have the dark side on the ropes. We are untouchables. There is even a share this button at the bottom. There are the Indy Media websites, etc..

I was also thinking if someone like Howard Stern might let me go on his show. I get goofy ideas like this once in a while. I am not into the perversion he deals with, but he does have a big audience. An audio could be made and put on youtube. I am not afraid. This can be done. Chemtrails can be exposed and stopped. I believe in the 100th monkey.
Nobody - I mean nobody - pulls the wool over the eyes of a Gambini
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby socrates » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:15 pm

That's a lame presentation by NASA to debunk chemtrails. It would only be effective, if no one real were to be included in the debate. The interview was lame. The SUCCESS and other examples are lame. The newspaper articles are useless propaganda. Real people are not allowed into this discussion. We are talking about controlled opposition.


Jet trails just water vapor, not sprayed chemicals, experts say

By ANNE PAINE Staff Writer

Blue skies have been turning white this month as airplane traffic crisscrosses the sky.

The trails that jets leave behind grow, creating thin, cirrus-style clouds that aviation officials say result from water vapor from engine exhausts and in the air turning to ice crystals.

At least two Nashvillians aren't convinced. They subscribe to a concept that chemicals are being sprayed from planes.

"Why are there times that you don't see them at all?" said Scott Webb. "That's regardless of weather." Lynn Lowrance, spokeswoman for the Metro Nashville Airport Authority, said it is, in fact, a matter of the weather.

The jet trails — called contrails — can disappear quickly, she said.

When the air is moist and it's colder, the trails can spread in a chain reaction as water vapor turns into ice particles. Feathery clouds result.

"They don't pose any health risk," Lowrance said.

Scott and Guy Avery, a local running coach, disagree, pointing to articles and talk on the Internet alleging that the government is spraying chemicals from planes, perhaps for experimentation.

"Chemtrails," as they're called on Web sites, have been a topic for several years, with unmarked military planes often accused of releasing them.

Representatives of Fort Campbell, which only has helicopters, the Tennessee Air National Guard, which has 10 marked propeller planes here, and a U.S. Air Force spokesman in Washington, D.C., said this week they do no such releases.

A NASA researcher said contrails are a cause for concern, but it's not related to chemicals.

A study has shown that the thin, cirrus clouds that plane exhausts can trigger are trapping heat next to the earth, said Pat Minnis, a NASA senior research scientist in Hampton, Va., and a Vanderbilt University graduate.

As air traffic increases, cirrus cloud coverage over the U.S. is rising by 1 percent a decade, Minnis said.

"A single plane can produce a rather large cloud," he said.

After 9/11, when all but a few planes were grounded, scientists had a chance to see that one lone military plane's contrail extended over Ohio and Pennsylvania, he said.

The icy cloud eventually covered about 6,170 square miles.

While NASA papers indicate that the impact on temperature of plane-produced clouds is significant, not everyone agrees, Minnis said.

"Whether or not it's a global climate problem, we'll see," he said. More research is going on to try to determine that. •


Why would you mention this unless something needed to be defended?

Was this a 3rd-grade journalism project? I've seen the jet trails and the photo in this story does not do them justice at all. On the days that this is happening, the trails are much thicker and much more obvious and this has been going on in very warm weather, so this 'official' weather explanation does not hold weight.

Who cares about the theories about WHY it is being done, that ought not take away from the fact is that it IS being done. There is a WHY, but obviously that is not going to be readily revealed. Recent events ought to tell anyone that there is always a WHY.

Something is very, very different. On the same days that the repeated criss-cross patterns are being laid up there, commercial airplanes have been flying their normal routes with only the typical vapour trails, so the weather explanation does not hold weight. Sounds like an official hand-me-down answer to deflect questioning. Sounds real familiar, but it does not take a genius to read between the lines.

I love how 9/11 is conveniently placed in there. Too funny.

Unless plane technology all changed suddenly in the last 3 months, something is very different in the Nashville skies. Watch for yourself as it is being done, although I hope it will stop.

At least the question is being asked. Unfortunately, most good web information is much more accurate and neutral than anything that will ever be provided by the Tennessean, especially on a controversial subject.

More questions need to be asked about this. People need to question the 'official' word a little more. Too many people do not even qusetion poor explanations.

Bravo for running the story. Too bad Gannett spun it their way with zero respect for reader intelligence. Our media coverage remains lame and completely incompetent. Definitely get your real information elsewhere.

I hope this will stop what is going on. I want to know our air is somewhat clean.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:41 am

Hey frank brown I agree, the comments are the best part of the paper :) I hope that running coach is not a paid teacher in a Tennessee school, does anyone know?

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:53 am

The idea that the government is spraying stuff in the atmosphere is a bit near going over the edge. Think about it for a minute, how would they be able to control where it is going. Yeah, they can see where the wind is blowing but that changes all the time without warning.

To say contrails are totally harmless is a lie. The contrails are the result of hot exhaust. Exhaust is hot gases and what is left of burnt fuel. We all know what that is like down here on the ground, what makes you think it is any cleaner up there.

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:47 am

I read the internet Tennessean comments for entertainment...A lot of spooky illinformed,illogical and seemingly uneducated people out there. Thanks MDduncan for your intelligent comments

Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:47 am

That's quite an undramatic shot of chemtrails in the photo above. Could those be normal contrails? Maybe. I was talking to MightyMike today about how he first learned about them. He said it was from me. He told me he is now convinced that chemtrails are deliberate. He says he always thought they were contrails, that who would ever think to take an hour or two to see what they become.

I went to google to find a real chemtrail photo. I found a blog to go with it. If I ever post a bad source, please call me on it. Maybe this person would like to post here. Maybe someone could write a note to her on her blog. I can be a spunky fighter as regards to trying things like this. I feel eventually, that shy folks will stop being afraid and will start helping make this place a force for explaining chemtrails.

Is this what the 1% increase in fake cirrus looks like, Dr. Patrick Minnis of NASA?


by Wendy Usually Wanders

Every hour or two all night long, I woke up with a full bladder and was soaked in sweat.

Both kidneys sting this morning.Now I remember how I used to feel before Mestinon. I would tell people somebody turned the gravity up! By the time I woke up for real this morning, I could barely lift any of my body parts. Another few minutes and the Mestinon and Motrin should kick in.

My body has been horribly swollen, so all that peeing made my ankles more ankle like. I’m still wicked bad swollen. My buddy, Darlene, has Sweet’s disease. Chunks of flesh just fall right out of her ;-o Other than that, her symptoms and those of my lupus are similar. Last week she had kidney failure and a swollen liver. My liver is swollen more often than not. Last week I woke up morning after morning in agony from pain there.

As I have mentioned before, I am curious and sometimes heartsick about the chem trails in the sky. When so many people in the US have the same flu or other distress at the same time and folks with chronic problems develop stuff at the same time, it makes me wonder what is going on.

In Missouri the chem trails were thick and nasty. They would lay them down in tight parallel lines with a few x’s in the sky. The chemicals smelled bad, made my breathing labored and burned my throat and eyes. Here in Florida, it’s not as thick or as blatant, but I see chem trails more days than not. Sometimes they do the parallel lines, but mostly make lots of big x’s. These are always laid down with big white jets that fly lower than most commercial aircraft.

I’ve been pointing out the chem trails to folks. Hardly anybody looks up for long and most people do not look all over the sky. When I point out the (to me) oh, so obvious chem trails, folks are astonished. There they are in long lasting patterns all over the sky!

I want to know what’s going on up there. Why is someone spending soooo much money to fill the sky with this stuff? What is it doing to us? I have way more questions than answers….


On March 14, 2008 at 7:45 pm Doug Said:

Oh Wendy, don’t fall for the conpiracy websites blather on chemtrails. There are many thousands of commercial flights everyday in the US. The difference in contrails that you see is due to the many different altitudes they fly to avoid hitting each other. THe sky is a many leveled highway for the aircraft. Each level is a different temperature, and the jets contrails will form differently due to the temp, and type of aircraft engine. I live in the Roanoke valley are of VA, where a great many planes cross over each day on several distinct flight paths laid out decades ago,on many altitude levels, giving us a criss cross pattern of contrails every clear day. While i believe in the JFK and Lincoln assasination conspiracy’s, and a misuse of HAARP, I don’t lose sleep over chemtrails…….they simpy are a product of conspiracists that wish to make a buck or a name for themselves. www4.passur.com/jfk.html cool link, check out how many jets for just one airport

On March 14, 2008 at 10:20 pm WendyUsuallyWanders Said:

If you think I came to my conclusions about chemtrails from reading stuff, you are hugely mistaken. I have eyes to see and a nose to sniff chemicals. The chemtrails were laid very thick in Missouri and I would watch for hours as planes systematically put them there.

Contrails go away in a few seconds or minutes and are random. Chemtrails are methodically done with several planes stopping and starting their trails at precise points. Like I said…I have watched for hours upon hours. There is no mistaking one for the other.

What I’m curious about is why more people don’t look up and notice? They are soooooo obvious.
Chemtrails are much whiter, thicker and opaque than contrails. You can usually see some of both in the sky at once.

On May 3, 2008 at 9:48 am john Said:

Chemtrails are known to contain toxins,they are long lasting and eventually obscure the sun.Contrails(vapor) disperse in minutes. If they are for national defense or communications why are spores and dried blood products in them? Since they fall on everyone I feel they are part one of a plan that come to fruition when those responsible are safe in thier D.U.M.B.s when the end comes upon us.This is a multi billion dollar undertaking, therefore there is a purpose to this.

On May 3, 2008 at 9:54 am WendyUsuallyWanders Said:

We go for days at a time with no chemtrails, then bam! I’m not sure if it was yesterday or the day before, but there were BIG chemtrail x’s in the sky and the very weird fake wispy clouds that form after them.

The chemtrails are sooooo obvious, yet I hear very little local buzz about them. Many of the people I have pointed them out to in person have become very aware of them as a result.

It's not Wendy's fault, but there was an automatically generated reply leading directly to convolution. This reply was placed above the comments. Can Wendy delete that? I don't know. I do know that the image she used was one of the first results from google.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

* Chemtrails After Dark


blackop064 wrote:Every night when I leave work I see a crisscrossed pattern of chemtrails. They are usually a perfect crosshatch pattern. Now there are no large aircraft in the area during this time. (At least none in the visible realm.) I have never understood what these chem-trails are used for. In my opinion they are mass control aerosol dispertion. The drug or drugs sprayed will dumb down the population . It will also make the public submissive . This leads to advertisers using chem-trails to sell their products. In conjunction with subliminals used on television and radio, leads to bigger profits, and the blunting of the populations intellect. It makes the population into a mass of idiots spending money like mindless zombies to feel euphoric. It is a viscious cycle really. Does anyone else see these glorified advertising crop dusters in their region? I am interested in hearing from you.

This entry was posted on April 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm and is filed under Illuminati, Mind Control, Secret Socities, conspiracy, rants. . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
User avatar
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: NASA's Big Bluff Called: They're Chemtrails Not Contrails

Unread postby BlueSkyHope » Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:29 pm

Here we go, check out:
for SUbsonic aircraft: Contrail & Cloud Effects Special Study (yes it's 1996 like P. M. said - by the way, they use that acronym for "Particulate Matter" don't they, eh?).

The meeting agenda is at
Updated Agenda - 96 10 17
SUCCESS Science Meeting 24-26 October 1996
NCAR Boulder Co.

Here is the list of participants
Aerodyne Research, Inc
Colorado State University (CSU)
Desert Research Institute (DRI)
Gerber Scientific
Harvard University
Kansas State University at Manhattan (KSU-M)
Kansas State University at Salina College of Technology(KSU-S)
NASA Ames Research Center (ARC)
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
NASA Headquarters
NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL)
NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)
NOAA Environmental Technology Lab (ETL)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Phillips Labs
Scripps Institute of Oceanography
Spec, Inc
Stanford Research Institute (SRI)
Pennsylvania State University (PSU)
University of Missouri
University of New Hampshire
University of Wisconsin at Madison (UW)
University of Utah
US Air Force(USAF)
US Department of Energy (DOE)

On Saturday, 10/26/1996 at that meeting at NCAR, they had "Sulfur impact on particle formation in young exhaust plumes, results of the SULFUR experiments behind ATTAS and Airbus A310 - Andreas Petzold"

The SULFUR thing seems to be related to "SULFUR 1-7"
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2 ... 0813.shtml
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/mauersberger/a ... raffic.htm


Return to Frankensteinian Atmospheric Shenanigans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests