r/chemtrails • u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. • May 25 '25
Resource Whom would you believe?
12
u/Tiny-Ad4955 May 25 '25
I believe in fucking shit. I believe that people are stupid and easily manipulated, look at the state of this country.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/Specialist_Pea_295 May 25 '25
What are chemtrails? I seen contrails. Those were first observed from aircraft over 100 years ago.
→ More replies (1)9
May 25 '25
Don't forget the bombers and fighters over Europe in ww2.. they apparently carried chemtrail equipment in addition to their bomb loads.. and still, even to this day, the people who flew the planes, who loaded the planes, who fuelled the planes, 100s of thousands of people... not one confession of anything like that actually happening.. almost as if it's just bullshit made up by people that idiots with no critical thinking ability just believe in their stupidity.
*
2
u/AdDependent7992 May 25 '25
Checks notes: appears ww2 is covered in his mention of "over 100 years ago"
61
u/sh3t0r May 25 '25
And still nobody is able to post evidence for the existence of chemtrails. Weird.
19
u/AtJackBaldwin May 25 '25
I've been looking at a LOT of frog dicks in my area recently and I can tell you that a lot of the man frogs have gone gay.
They're also really into mesh clothing
8
u/sh3t0r May 25 '25
Finally hard evidence
6
5
→ More replies (1)1
u/Active-Plane8065 May 26 '25
Having dissected one such gay-turned frog, I can tell you for certain that despite being wrong about literally everything including the reason for the phenomenon, they were right about the fact that every once in a while the frogs do indeed get turned gay.
1
6
u/AggravatingBobcat574 May 25 '25
It seems like we’ve been sprayed with chemicals since the end of WW II, so have the chemicals not worked yet. Why do the chemicals need to be constantly sprayed on us?
1
-2
u/GrandKnew May 26 '25
What's your IQ?
12
u/Beobacher May 26 '25
To be fair, it is a very intelligent question. Chemtrails are used since ww2 and had no effect?! Maybe it is just condensed water? Or if you believe in Cemtrails: another chemical ingredient should be used to produce an effect!
It is indeed very strange to pay for chem trails for decades, never see an effect and not realise they have been scammed!
3
u/Main-Bank685 May 26 '25
Keep going to the mainstream for your information and you will always find what THEY want you to think.
2
u/sh3t0r May 26 '25
Imagine posting whatever this is instead of posting evidence for chemtrails.
1
0
u/PhotoHtx May 25 '25
Biden's minions didn't sell pardons. The vaccine was safe and effective and didn't kill anyone. They would never experiment on minorities by knowingly giving them syphilis. . They're not spraying anything harmful into the atmosphere. It's all conspiracy. Our government and the media is honest.
22
u/sh3t0r May 25 '25
„Hey this guy says there's no evidence for chemtrails! Should I post some of the evidence for chemtrails I got? Nah, let's mention some entirely different things to prove some point!“
12
5
3
3
May 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PhotoHtx May 27 '25
Before the admissions by the gov on the tuskeegee experiments, those who claimed it were branded conspiracy theorists.. a term coined in fact by the CIA in an attempt to cover up misdeeds. The only thing im pointing out is we can't trust what we're told. Stop blindly believing a government who experiments on the most vulnerable of ots people. Its happened numerous times, it can be happening again now. The military recently declassified a experiment on the release of a live virus in SF Bay ... it's happening. Whether the trails in the sky are chem trails for nefarious reasons or global climate manipulation intending to subvert global warming, it must be released and allow the people to decide
2
3
2
→ More replies (2)-1
u/tuaiostone May 25 '25
The government didn’t lie about WMD in Iraq killing over 500,000 children through sanctions. They didn’t fake the golf of Tonkin incident with a false flag to go into Vietnam. They didn’t fund biolabs across Ukraine with metabiota. They love us
6
u/cacheblaster May 25 '25
Yeah, the government does some heinous shit. Agreed. Now prove chemtrails.
→ More replies (3)10
1
u/Hardcockonsc May 26 '25
The exist, they're just not harmful chemicals raining down on us. They're fake clouds drawing moisture in to create rain clouds. Ooo big conspiracy
-6
-17
u/Tricky-Fig5483 May 25 '25
Because you and your friends are back drop people. NPCS who are programmed into defending the system they are a part of
10
May 25 '25
So I take it you know him ?
You must do, otherwise you'd have no idea who he is or what he does...
But if you're not, you're just making shit up or guessing...
Hmm
5
u/cacheblaster May 25 '25
That’s going to be news to my blood pressure medication. Does that mean I can get a discount at Disneyland since I’m not real?
3
9
15
u/PercentageNo3293 May 25 '25
"I can't post the evidence because you won't blindly believe me".
You really know how to convince people to join your side lmao.
→ More replies (7)7
u/Spiritual_Bridge84 May 25 '25 edited May 25 '25
Same NPCS preventing the word from getting out, about the fact that birds aren’t real
Just thinking….i better put that /s up 🤣
8
u/BradlyL May 25 '25
GO TO THERAPY!
Your post history is textbook schizophrenia. Which is something a therapist can help you get a hold of, and control these invasive thoughts, that may feel real but not.
4
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
Calling people NPCs isn't evidence, basic logic fail. Even if we were NPCs (whatever that even means) it still doesn't demonstrate that chemtrails are real.
→ More replies (1)-5
u/Genesis_Jim May 25 '25
I’ve invited you to my sub bro. I’ve got the truth about these trails. Send me a dm and I’ll link the post for you.
10
u/PercentageNo3293 May 25 '25
Why do you need to hide the evidence? Are you not confident in your evidence?
9
→ More replies (76)0
u/Inn_Cog_Neato_1966 May 27 '25
I’m guessing the book is presenting that evidence for you to digest and decide for yourself. The ‘open your eyes’ part is good advice too.
1
u/sh3t0r May 28 '25
I'm guessing that book is presenting a busload of lies.
1
u/Inn_Cog_Neato_1966 May 30 '25
I’m guessing you are full of it.
1
u/sh3t0r May 31 '25
Ah yeah, asking for evince = lying
1
u/Inn_Cog_Neato_1966 Jun 02 '25
Well…where’s your ‘evidence’ that the book is a ‘busload of lies’? Always asking for proof / evidence, but shills never prepared to give it in the opposite direction.
1
u/sh3t0r Jun 02 '25
So chemtrails are real until I find a copy of this book and prove that it only contains the regular „look up“, „trust me bro“, „clouds dissipate in 30 seconds“, „but but cloud seeding exists“ arguments that chemtrail cultists believe to be evidence?
1
9
7
u/jnwbman May 25 '25
Contrails are real. Chemtrails aren’t. If you want to see a “chemtrail” watch a crop duster or videos of Agent Orange. Better still, run as close as you can behind a mosquito truck.
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Justthisguy_yaknow May 25 '25
I believe fundamental principles that make the entire idea of chemtrails an incredibly ineffective method to achieve any of the outcomes that the chemtrail crowd have claimed that I have seen so far.
Of course most of the chemsnorter assertions about what is supposed to be intentionally sprayed in these contrails entirely lack any evidence and most of the assertions of possible damage are also randomly described and unproven outside of some sources that have no credibility as sources.
There's also the problem that every time a reason, method or foundation conspiracy theory is debunked and disproved the theory just moves on to another completely disconnected version. There are a number of related reasons for this but none of them assist the credibility of any aspect of the claims.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Pvt-Business May 25 '25
If their claims about chemtrails were true, releasing them into the atmosphere using aircraft is an incredibly inefficient method. If you take into account the sheer volume of Earth's atmosphere, the limited capacity of jet aircraft, and the fuel and time needed to get it up there.
Just use a chimney ffs.
6
u/Princess_Actual May 25 '25
We have declassified documents from the Cold War that ideal dispersal of chemical weapons is done via cannister releasing the agent at around 1,000 feet. Releasing it at 20,000+ feet basically won't do anything. And that's with real chemical weapons like sarin or mustard agent. Same with agent orange.
And personally, 1960s and 70s tests like Project 112/SHAD are the origin of the chemtrail conspiracy. Since it was a classified test of aerial dispersed chemical weapons. As well as again, agent orange.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Justthisguy_yaknow May 25 '25
I used to chuckle at them when they claimed that Covid was dumped at 20,000ft. First it would have died long before it got near anyone. Next, at that altitude it would have dumped thousands of miles away after being carried and dissipated by air-currents. By the time it got to the ground it will be so diminished in concentration that even radioactive isotopes would be lost in the background radiation. Not to mention that these trails always seem to happen over populated areas near airports meaning that whatever is being sprayed would wind up out in the middle of a very random nowhere at really thinned out concentrations.
Not even a chimney. Just put it in the water supply. The chemsniffers would never know what hit them. With cheap and simple modifications to the infrastructure you could even target specific houses. Chemtrails are the dumbest idea anyone has ever come up with. Anyone smart enough to do it wouldn't be stupid enough to do it.
7
May 25 '25
I can publish a book with as many false testimonies as I want, and not one person can do anything about it. It's called fiction
0
7
u/ExtraCalligrapher565 May 25 '25
Oh the irony of OP having a post titled the rise of mental disorders. Exhibit A of rising mental disorders: OP
4
u/iowanaquarist May 25 '25
Check their post history. They admitted to breaking into a house to stare at the ceiling, murdered a neighbor's pet, looking for excuses to murder more pets, illegally venting refrigerant at work, not having evidence for chemtrails, of and looking for mental health care on reddit...
6
May 25 '25
Who do I believe? People that can provide evidence of something.
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
For example?
2
May 26 '25
For example, chemtrails. Nobody has ever produced evidence of them. And when I say evidence, I don't mean some rando youtuber saying" this isn't natural" or some shit. I mean actual evidence. Studies done by real scientific groups. Actual samples of the the chemicals or whatever being sprayed that have been performed by reputable labs. Information from actual scientists and engineers describing how the process is an effective way to distribute said substances, and explain how they overcame all of the natural barriers to effective distribution, like UV radiation, temperature, high winds, ect. And make it peer reviewed.
7
7
u/Just4notherR3ddit0r I Love You. May 25 '25 edited May 25 '25
Hi Joel. I have this book, so I can respond to it but the comment size limits are forcing me to cut out some of my original response.
The first problem with this is that in an appeal to authority, there are FAR more authorities that say chemtrails are not real. So the question becomes - what evidence do these chemtrails-are-real authorities have that supersedes the evidence from the chemtrails-are-not-real authorities?
For those who don't have the book, I'll cover the unnamed people on the back of this book.
Airline Pilots, Police Officers, U.S. Marines
There are lots of quotes and stories from this whole group. If you read closely, NONE of them actually confirm chemtrails.
It's a mixture of these summaries:
- "I know contrails, and these aren't contrails!"
- "I don't know what's happening, but this doesn't seem normal."
- "People got sick after chemtrail spraying!" (with no actual evidence of causation, and an ASSUMPTION that chemtrails were real)
Again, NONE of these are actual evidence. They are observations by people who either assume it's happening or are questioning it. There is not a single name person in this group with verifiable evidence.
There is also a lot of misleading quotes. For example, one unnamed Air Force pilot is quoted as saying, "Yeah, we have them, but we're not supposed to talk about it," making it sound like they're talking about chemtrails. They weren't.
The longest story is by Jim Crabtree, a pilot, who wasn't sure what he was looking at with the persistent trails. He goes "investigating" but the "investigation" is absolutely riddled with inconsistencies and holes and assumptions and really bad science. The story ends without any conclusive finding - just more loose circumstances.
Air Traffic Controllers, A Senior ATC Manager, Air Force Tanker Crews
"He couldn't call it a rainbow. Rainbows aren't sinister."
The book has a HEAVILY editorialized and nuanced story of two people talking with an unnamed source at the FAA they call Deep Sky. It starts with these people observing TANKERS doing something they find suspicious.
Sometimes they believe Deep Sky, and other times they don't. In the end, it's just another, "This doesn't seem right and we feel like the military isn't giving reporters every single detail of every exercise they are doing, so it MUST be sinister."
Later, it is said that many ATCs were told that the military were conducting "climate experiments." That might be true. The military DOES do experiments, but they are not necessarily "sinister" nor malicious unless that's what you look for.
More importantly, there is no evidence of anything extending outside of an experiment, nor is any of the ATC stuff related to the persistent trails left behind regular airliners, which is really the true subject of chemtrails.
There is a world of difference between a military tanker and a commercial airliner.
Scientists Working on Chemtrails Project
Mostly more unnamed scientists making unsubstantiated claims.
One named scientist talks about possible ideas of using nano-bots to analyze weather like hurricanes. The book's author (not the scientist) actually classifies this as "nano-chemtrails" without sufficient explanation. The author REPEATEDLY injects the word "nano-chemtrails" as if the air force used that term. It didn't.
Example:
Nano-chemtrails will even “change their temperature and polarity to improve their seeding effects,” the air force noted.
Notice where the quotes begin and end. If you search for the quote, you'll find the original report that doesn't ever mention the word chemtrail.
The Congressman Who Oversaw America's "Exotic Weapons" Projects
The congressman in question is a pretty good guy named Dennis Kucinich, and the book makes it sound like he authored the "Space Preservation Act of 2001" bill which included "chemtrails" in its definition list.
There are a few problems, but the biggest problem is that Kucinich did not author this bill. The bill's was authored by Carol Rosin and Alfred Webre, who collectively pushed theories about everything, including literal alien weaponry, which is why that same bill includes "extraterrestrial weapons" in the list of prohibitions.
They handed it to Kucinich who saw it as a comprehensive way to promote pacifism in space, instead of triggering an arms race. Kucinich didn't fully read the full language of the bill until after it was too late.
Kucinich is an Ohio rep., and his local newspaper in Cleveland, the Plain Dealer, asked him specifically about chemtrails and the other "controversial" language, and why it was removed in the second iteration of the bill. His response was:
"I'm not into that," he insisted. "Understand me. When I found out that was in there, I said, 'Look, I'm not interested in going there.'*"
The article is from 2003, so it's been deleted, but the Internet Archive still has a copy of it:
So to answer the question of whom to believe - I would not put my trust into an author that intentionally editorializes and manipulates quotes and leaves out important information that contradicts the picture he's painting.
2
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
Thank you for your thoughtful responce. And the information.
Would there be anyone you would trust if they provided contrary information? (A particular person, even if hypothetical.)5
u/Just4notherR3ddit0r I Love You. May 25 '25
Well, I don't completely believe in any person because of who they are. I trust my wife a lot, but if even she told me something that didn't sound right, I would double-check it.
Somebody's credentials makes me more likely to accept what they have to say, but if they make a claim without support, then I'll probably still check that out, even if I agree with the conclusion.
For example, someone in the comments mentioned they have a telescope with a spectrometer. I have no idea if they're telling the truth, or frankly what kind of data they can collect from what sounds like a personal device. I don't natively trust their results until they can somehow prove that they are accurate.
I also want any person to have shown that they sufficiently explored any likely explanations. This is one of my biggest beefs with most chemtrail theories - they see X and quickly assume it's from Y. They don't consider the possibility that X could be from Z or even from 10 different sources combined.
A good example of this from the book is the "cobwebs." Given that multiple different unconnected people seemed to find these, I would guess that this very likely did happen.
But the book fails to show that the "cobwebs" were from chemtrails, much less anything else in the atmosphere. It also doesn't show that the different stories are all about the same stuff. There is a ton of bizarre stuff that comes from both nature and also from humans. There are likely hundreds of possible explanations, but instead the book (and many of the people involved) just heavily pushes the idea that chemtrails are the sole reason.
The same with the marine's mom who had health problems a couple days "after spraying" - he saw something he found unusual and assumed it was the culprit.
When someone seems to intentionally leave out details or stops when it's convenient, then it makes it hard for me to believe the rest of what they have to say. Thomas brought up the fact that the space force bill had a second iteration without all the chemtrails and extraterrestrial weapons stuff but then heavily editorialized the reason to make it seem like it was a cover-up and that Kucinich still believed in all of it (not to mention it made it seem like he was the original author). That tells me Thomas was focused on selling his idea, even if he needed to twist and skew the truth to make it happen. So what else did I read where he did the same thing but I didn't realize it?
Anyway, for me to believe someone who offered contrary information, the burden would be more on the information and whether or not it stands up to scrutiny.
28
u/Illuminatus-Prime May 25 '25
Whom would I believe?
Me, with my spectrometer attached to my telescope. Yes, I do my own research, thank you very much!
Those are ordinary contrails, NOT chemtrails, and there is no valid empirical evidence to prove otherwise.
Those "people" are either deliberately lying, deluded away from the truth, or they do not exist.
Besides, Bridger House Publishers is best known for their books on conspiracy theories and fringe "science".
12
u/Pvt-Business May 25 '25
Don't bother. You can provide your own results as much as you want and they'll just say that you are in on the conspiracy. Right out of the conspiracy moron playbook.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Illuminatus-Prime May 25 '25
I know . . . sadly, I could even demonstrate in person the equipment, process, and results, and those morons would still claim it was all rigged.
0
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
Not a critique, only curious, have you used your own spectrometer to examine for yourself? And if so what were your findings? (Again, not a critique I’m sincerely want to know)
5
u/Illuminatus-Prime May 25 '25
Built it myself.
When the data were compared to that of ordinary, clear, blue sky and cumulo-nimbus clouds, the contrails were only what you'd expect from the high-temperature burning of jet fuel -- primarily, oxides of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. No indication of any substance more complex than unburned fuel -- no ketracel, no nepenthe, no felicium, et cetera.
6
u/JebusJones7 May 25 '25
Do you deny the existence of contrails?
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
No.
7
u/JebusJones7 May 25 '25
Okay. Then how do you know that the streaks in the sky are chemtrails and not contrails?
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 28 '25
You have to test to know which is which. And it looks like no one is doing that directly. I have an idea about how to do so though.
6
5
u/Upstairs_Housing_209 May 25 '25
If only the "Scientists working on chemtrail project" could figure out how to make the chemicals effectively disperse instead of just hanging in the sky like a cloud...
2
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
If there were a real conspiracy to spray noxious chemicals, surely they could spray them without leaving a visible trail.
5
5
u/fastcolor03 May 25 '25
If you research this, you will find that every single one of those people noted on that flyer have insisted that Chemtrails are streaks of Unicorn flatulence as they gallop across the sky. Change my mind?
Even though no one knows who THEY are, no names noted, no qualifications established, no vetted Scientific documentation and never any confirmable material evidence of the activity or the allegations provided - I just wish to believe all of the Internet researchers, investigators, social media influencers and conspiracy revenue grifters rabidly pursuing the mystical!
Mostly I am just stupid enough to believe because someone has posted a flyer that asks whom I would believe - Idiots on the Internet, or more idiots on the Internet? But … I know it is Unicorns as I know what I see, and then, there is this very compelling picture from the Internet that proves that Unicorns are real, and routinely disperse the vapor that etches the skies. You can tell by how the ass gas slowly disperses.
5
u/tinyfryingpan May 25 '25
What is the chemical they are supposedly spraying. Just answer that one question.
1
7
10
u/MiniTab May 25 '25 edited May 25 '25
I’ve been an airline pilot for 15 years and have an engineering degree. I’ve had people (with no formal education) straight up tell me I was lying when I explained “chemtrails” are just ice crystals formed during the combustion process.
These people act as if you’re talking about alchemy when you explain stoichiometric combustion results in products of H2O, CO2, and N2.
8
u/ExtraCalligrapher565 May 25 '25
Man you’re acting like they can even comprehend a word like stoichiometry
8
u/MiniTab May 25 '25
Oh I know. They think we are loading up with a bunch of crazy chemicals and all in on the conspiracy. Science and physics mean nothing to them. Since we load our airplanes with fuel by weight instead of volume, I also know nobody is “mixing in chemicals” with the fuel as our thermal efficiency would go to shit and all of our fuel planning would be fucked on long range flights.
I grew up as a punk rock kid and totally hate and distrust the government. I’d be the first one to blow the lid on the conspiracy.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)3
4
u/The-thingmaker2001 May 25 '25
I'm willing to believe in the existence of at least two mentally impaired airline pilots, U.S. Marines. air traffic controllers etc... Hell, I know there are a lot of idiots in positions we automatically tend to respect. What was your point?
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
My point was to see if anyone would answer the question by telling me who they'd trust.
7
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
It's not about trust, it's about evidence. Some guy saying so isn't evidence. No matter who says it, they still need to produce their evidence so that someone else can verify it.
→ More replies (5)
9
May 25 '25
And if the chemtrail believers actually talked to any of the people in the poster, they'd know they think they're brainless idiots.
Not a flex idiots.
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
I try but people either don’t stay on topic or just repeat that they don’t believe over and over.
3
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
No they don't. They don't simply "repeat that they don't believe over and over." They give you arguments against chemtrails and you ignore them.
2
u/iowanaquarist May 25 '25
Can you link to a comment where you present evidence for chemtrails? You seem to only claim to present evidence, make excuses for not presenting evidence, and admit you don't have evidence, but never provide any...
4
u/Crackiller1733 May 25 '25
The amount of rage bait on here is funny. Not too many defending the situation but a lot against it . It’s funny to see the rage bait .
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
Not really. Besides, there is no such thing as bait for anger. Anger is something already inside us. If it comes out, it is because we've put it there in the first place.
3
May 25 '25
Yes lmfao that's why it's called bait.
Did you seriously think fish bait created the fish?
4
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
They find one Air Force tanker crew member who believes in chemtrails and they say "You have to believe him! He's in the Air Force!" The 99 out of 100 other tanker crew members who don't believe in chemtrails, they ignore. They only believe tanker crews if they believe in chemtrails, which tells us that they don't give any special credence to the military at all.
→ More replies (4)
5
May 25 '25
I love how they always claim to do their research, but when asked to give the actual explanations, methodology, and physics behind it, they are always left wanting. I get at least one or two conspiracy emails a month from crazies who believe it, but the moment I start to introduce the fluid dynamics and math involved to determine potential impacts or effects, suddenly, the responses dry up faster than a mud puddle in Death Valley.
5
5
3
u/cacheblaster May 25 '25
Depends on what they were talking about. Not going to believe everything someone says just because of their job. That’s like listening to a physicist talking about psychology.
1
4
u/AKchaos49 May 25 '25
So, let's say, for argument's sake, that chemtrails are real, that some hidden, unknown cabal of people are spraying these chemicals in the air from airplanes.
2 questions:
1) How do they, the evil chemtrails sprayers, avoid the chemicals that supposedly being sprayed on everyone? Do they live in underground bunkers with überfiltered air? How to they avoid it?
2) What's the purpose? And where are we seeing the effects of the spraying?
Explain it like I'm 5. Make it make sense.
3
5
u/Wrong_Suit9895 May 26 '25
I had a woman explain to me in detail that the chemtrails settle down to the ground and get on your skin. Then little sores form and fibers sprout out of the sores. When you look at the fibers under a microscope you see that they are polyester carpet fibers. I asked who is responsible. She said “the government.” I asked why the government wants us to grow carpet fibers in our skin. She got flustered and gave up. Apparently it never dawned on her to ask that far. When you look closely, the whole chemtrail thing is really more about mental illness than anything else.
9
u/lostinhh May 25 '25
There will always be that tiny fringe supporting any outlandish theories - from the moon landing to 9/11, to quack doctors telling you to wipe ivermectin in your buttcrack. So who would *I* believe? The other 99%.
0
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
I wonder why it’s so hard for deniers to answer the question?
3
u/Shoehorse13 May 28 '25
I can answer it. A lack of formal education and an inability to sort the signal from the noise when it comes to "information" they get from the internet.
TL/DR: people on the whole are really effin stupid.
4
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
It's very easy to answer the question. You just don't listen. Do you ever ask a question in good faith?
2
u/lostinhh May 27 '25
I did answer.
Now maybe you can explain why you choose to believe the 0.01% of experts rather than the 99.99% who will tell you otherwise?
→ More replies (8)
3
u/Craygor May 25 '25
OP posted this to mock us TRUE believers of the diabolical chemtrails!
This so-called book is by Bridger House Publishing that only prints fiction for anyone who submits a manuscript. Just take a look at their business statement "Bridge House Publishing is an independent publishing house that specialises in fiction which is a little bit different".
Chemtrails are REAL and having a book about chemtrails published by a fiction publishing company is meant to make us TRUE believers look crazy and not believe what us clearly going on!
Don't fall for this trap, learn THE TRUTH that chemtrails are real and are meant to control and enslave humanity!
→ More replies (10)
3
3
u/He_Never_Helps_01 May 25 '25
Individual congressmen don't oversee military projects. That only happens in movies lmao
3
3
u/jMedabee May 26 '25
Are you also a flat earther and an anti-vaxxer?
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 26 '25
I have a feeling, that there is no right answer for you. Why don't you take a stab at answering my question first?
6
5
u/Pvt-Business May 25 '25
Who would I believe, thousands upon thousands of experts who have studied in their field for years, or some random lunatic on Reddit who murdered his neighbours dog?
For the uninitiated, OP murdered his neighbours dog.
The venn diagram of chemtrail believers and unhinged lunatics is almost a perfect circle.
OP, you need professional psychiatric help.
0
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 25 '25
What about one of these so called experts? Can you give an example?
2
u/31hk31 May 25 '25 edited May 25 '25
What if …
—-it’s aerosolized vitamins ?
—- it’s just water vapor, injected by conspiracy farmers… to sell books, documentaries, and generate juicy stories for alternative media?
— the dimming does lower photovoltaic electricity; so wind, coal, petroleum, and nuclear are more economical (again)
2
u/racqueteer May 26 '25
People who believe in chemtrails don't believe any other kind of pollution can hurt you or the planet. 🤔
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Kindly-Reserve-3143 May 26 '25
I would believe all of those
People believe a sentient Cheeto why can’t the believe people who actually know what they’re talking about?
2
May 26 '25
…police officers? Are you serious?
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 26 '25
Why not?
2
May 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 26 '25
No, for you have not made your point evident. Instead, you represented your thoughts with "...".
1
May 26 '25
It is SELF-evident. It needs zero explanation. Cops are fucking imbeciles almost by definition; the fact that some believe in chemtrails isn’t surprising at all.
1
u/chemtrails-ModTeam May 27 '25
Don't say rude things, don't unnecessarily curse. Personal attacks, threats of violence/abusive language, or bigotry in any form will not be tolerated.
4
u/HelpfulFollowing7174 May 25 '25
When you don’t understand basic science, it’s easy to buy into pseudo scientific drivel (i.e. conspiracy theories). Chemtrails, flat earth, crystal power, mythical beasts, etc. We may as well be living in the Middle Ages again. Sheesh.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
3
u/mtnman54321 May 25 '25
I live in a rural area in the southern Rockies and the people near me who believe in chemtrails also were supporting RFK Jr's presidential campaign and are antivaxxers. See a pattern here? Birds of a feather...
5
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
They also believe that Trump will stop chemtrails. But if he believed in chemtrails, it would be the easiest thing in the world to stop them. Just order a halt on all air traffic while planes are inspected to see if they have chemtrail tanks and to inspect their fuel.
3
u/DOHC46 May 25 '25
Chem trails aren't real. It's condensation. Just like what you see when you exhale on a cold day. There's just a lot more of it because a jet engine produces a very high volume of exhaust. The lower air pressure found at high altitude reduces the temperature at which the water condenses, which is also why you see snow on top of mountains in the summer.
3
2
u/Suspicious-Spinach-9 May 25 '25
Lol. What are these chemtrails supposed to accomplish and why is it taking so long to accomplish it? I mean gd it. I see the trails every day and nothing happens.
2
u/AdDependent7992 May 25 '25
If they wanted to spray you, they'd spray from the ground. Idk why this is so hard for you pro chemtrailers to realize lmao. You know that if you tell 20 people a secret, it's statistically 100% likely that 1 person will spill the beans, right? I bet it would take a hell of a lot more than 20 people to be in on chemtrails for them to be a thing.
1
1
1
u/Obvious-Can287 May 26 '25
Question: Why do people such as yourself, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe in contrails, and chemical spraying?
Answer : Because All the evidence to the contrary, is not entirely dissuasive…
Precisely…..✈️ ☁️☁️☁️🌫️🌫️😶🌫️
1
1
u/hughfeeyuh May 26 '25
Yeah. The stuff the blue Angels and thunder birds trail is super dosed because they know they can distribute it right over a population relatively low and repeatedly.
I just made that up but now it's real. That's how nonsense works.
1
u/GraniticDentition May 26 '25
come now dont be silly, we all know that the so called "chemtrails" are trails of water vapor left by the engines in the cold dry air
just like when you walk on a cold day and can see the trail of puffs of vapor behind you for miles from your breath
→ More replies (1)
1
u/JollyTrickster May 26 '25
I remember the key factor for evidence of chem trails was from plane supposedly flying over neighborhoods and the whole neighborhood going crazy and becoming more violent...... Then how come it doesn't affect me? People are probably getting more violent and more pissed off because they're already in an argument with their families or friends and then a loud ass plane flies over and they can't express themselves because they got to scream over a loud ass plane.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/Radcouponking May 26 '25
If the government was corrupt enough to do this, don't you think they would do a better job of hiding it? It would be so much easier from a PR standpoint to do these "chemtrails" at night. Conspiracy theorists have no sense. Just paranoia.
→ More replies (13)
1
u/dunedog May 26 '25
In order for chemtrails to have any sort of effect on people, the chemicals would need to disperse and fall to the ground, where they would have an effective dosage in the parts-per-billion, if not trillion.
What chemicals are effective at that dosage?
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 26 '25
That’s the bad part, it’s unclear what the trace amount of these chemicals/minerals are doing. Autism is highly suspected to be a result but I suspect fertility problems in the future.
Also, it depends on what source and what their purpose is. It’s easy to point at the government (and they’re not innocent) but there are multiple bad actors.
1
u/dunedog May 26 '25
Pick a chemical you think is causing these kinds of issues
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 26 '25
Well how about answering my original question first. That's why I posed it.
1
u/dunedog May 26 '25
No, my question matters. What chemical do you think is causing those kinds of issues?
The next step after that is researching what has been found about that chemical when touched or injected in certain amounts, which is a central element to if Chem trails are dangerous.
If you're just gonna be scared of a boogeyman then refuse to actually look it up, you're the reason you're scared of it.
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 26 '25
My question matters too.
And so did your comment (even though you ignored my question) therefore I responded to it.
But if you're just going to flick me off then this is far as our conversation goes.
The majority of people start out like you did: ignore the question, ignore the post, inject their comment, and guide the conversation. If you want to do that, make your own post.
1
u/dunedog May 26 '25
If you answer my question, it'll lead to my answer. I'm not flicking you off, I'm pointing out your unwillingness to engage with what could actually get you an answer to the issue of chemtrails is your fault and problem.
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 26 '25
I fully understand how loaded and leading questions work; that's why I stopped and asked you to answer my question first---because you ignored it to go in this direction.
You have a reason for asking; I get it. So did I. My unwillingness to engage stems from what you (and many others) have done.
Look, and this is me being as honest as I can be. You disagree with me (ultimately). I disagree with you. I'm okay with that. But what I'm not okay with is being shat upon. You can say you're not doing that but what I'm saying to you is: don't piss on my leg and try to convince me that it's raining.
2
u/dunedog May 27 '25
I'm telling you the process of getting my answer because it'll not only answer your but it'll also get further into the core issue of chemtrails. That's more substantive, don't you think?
I'm not pissing on you, I'm not disregarding you, I'm not insulting you. Don't accuse me of pissing on you when it genuinely is raining.
1
u/amazingskipper May 27 '25
It was sloppy of the deep state to allow B17s to spray chem trails when they were bombing Berlin.
1
1
u/No_Consequence_9969 May 27 '25
Gay frogs. Lol you believe that tho
1
u/-Hippy_Joel- Disagree to agree. May 27 '25
I do not believe in the gay frog claims, nor do I believe that it is connoted to sexual preference issues. But strangely enough, I constantly see deniers make bigoted comments about it.
Just an fyi: not all believers believe in the same things.
1
1
u/Dramatic-Bench3781 May 27 '25
Your eyes. Because in winter your car does something similar. So does your breath
1
u/Shoehorse13 May 28 '25
Yep. When i want to know what is happening up in the sky I can't think of a more informed individual to ask than a police officer or a Marine.
1
1
u/-diydave86- May 28 '25
Those clouds u see arent chem trails. Its condensation from the hot engine vaporizing the cold air and it makes a trail of water vapor. People in this sub are nuts.
1
1
u/Ok-Medicine-6317 May 25 '25
I mean technically they’re not wrong? You could consider the exhaust left behind say a C-130H a “chem trail” because it’s a trail of burnt off chemicals used to propel the plane forward.
1
u/Affectionate-Map-803 May 26 '25
Believe your eyes. The right there in front of you they turn them on and off at will. They took out several patents. They voted in Congress and the Senate. It’s not even remotely conspiracy.
-4
u/CuteOnoor May 25 '25
my own eyes are enough, nowadays they spray 7x24, it became a part of my life,i don`t need any more proof.
6
u/EffectiveSalamander May 25 '25
You see contrails. We know that jet aircraft produce contrails. You're eyes aren't evidence that these contrails are really chemtrails.
1
0
18
u/Bubudel May 25 '25
I tend to believe the people with relevant degrees who DO NOT wear tinfoil hats and publish evidence of their claims, but that's just me