What in the world are they smoking? [part 2]

So, in our last episode, we’d just discovered that Murphy’s geoengineering article had stirred up some interest. What’s the skinny…?

00:00 – 00:10
The ‘people’ want someone to investigate.

00:10 – 03:00
We’re off to talk to G. Edward Griffin. What does he know about it all? He’s aware of it! “It’s an open and shut case,” he says. Some reminiscing about early jet travel. A quick explanation of contrails. Which. Is. Wrong. He totally lays the “persistent chemtrail = contrail” meme on us. Seriously? They are going down this path?

03:00 – 04:00
Some talk (from scientists, I assume) about geoengineering and the moral implications thereof (and whether or not geoengineering could actually be controlled).

04:00 – 05:20
Griffin tells us that it seems to be NATO countries doing the spraying (and New Zealand, and Australia, and Cuba, it would seem). “Anyone who wants to investigate that,” he points out, “has to take that fact into consideration.” Griffin offers to help.

“We’re not scientists.” Ne’er a truer word spoken.

05:20 – 06:00
Some more words of wisdom from Griffin; rallying the troops for the investigation ahead.

06:00 – 06:40
Some DJ going on about criss-cross contrails.

06:40 – 07:20
Conspiracy website owner gives his theory: spraying is to counter global warming.

07:20 – 07:30
Yes, geoengineering has been discussed.

07:30 – 08:05
We’re off to Northern California! Dane Wigington owns some land and has tested some stuff.

08:05 – 08:10
Slo-mo handshake! Awesome!

08:10 – 08:20
Dane establishes some credentials.

08:20 – 09:30
We look at the sky. It’s cloudy. Supposedly all contrail-formed cirrus. Oh, there are some contrails. Apparently on cloudy days it gets hazy and harder to see to the horizon. Go figure.

09:30 – 13:30
Aluminium! Thousands of times higher than normal! Apparently. Some results from a nearby skifield show aluminium levels of 61100ug/l. Which is a lot. That’s interesting. (I hope they didn’t take the snow from anywhere where people might have skiied.) The soil is more acidic than in the past as well, apparently. He doesn’t really seem to be following the sampling guidelines though. The assumption here, of course, is that it’s all down to the ‘chemtrails’. Not any other sort of airborne pollution (or something else entirely)?

13:30 – 14:15
Sad music. Young girl tell us to ‘wake up’. Oh, awesome, more non-scientific sampling. “We collected some rain-water in some jars.”

And more sampling. Surely that pond in the video isn’t the pond he’s talking about? Anyway, further analysis in part 3…

What in the world are they smoking? [part 1]

The chemtrail community is abuzz with a new documentary doing the rounds: What in the world are they spraying?

So, what’s the hullaballo about? Have the film-makers really stumbled across something that breaks the story open? Or are they just rehashing the same old misinformation and logical fallacies that are typical of other chemtrail believers? Let’s take a look…

00:00 – 00:55
Ohhh, scary music. A Delta airlines plane (not leaving contrails?). Some credits. Shaky hand-held video of some contrails.

00:55 – 01:50
Clips of some news shows reporting on the ‘chemtrails’ phenomenon. Oh god, someone just said: “A contrail would be dissipated by now.” They’re not going to go down the “persistent contrail = chemtrail” path are they?

01:50 – 02:15
We’re off to San Diego. There’s a ‘Geoengineering’ panel at a scientific conference. They’re discussing the ‘plausibility’ (I really like the way he said that, you totally know he believes they’re actually doing it) of blocking sun-light with substances sprayed into the atmosphere.

02:15 – 02:20
When asked about existing programmes they stated clearly that no such programmes have ever been implemented.

02:20 – 02:30
Oh, but people still think geoengineering is happening, because they think that’s what contrails are.

02:30 – 03:45
Some journalist is interested in geoengineering. The scientists are sceptical that there are any existing chemtrail programmes. Nick Smith! NZ FTW! Some guy: “the government doesn’t seem that capable to do something on such a large scale.” Indeed.

03:45 – 04:50
What? Chaff? Why are we talking about chaff? Why are they showing a plane leaving contrails when we’re talking about chaff? And now some cirrus cloud? Could they not find any file footage of actual chaff?

04:50 – 05:30
Nick Smith again! Lockwood! NZ FTW! “This conspiracy theory does not have an iota of truth.” Much amusement in the House.

05:30 – 06:00
What? Cloud seeding now? Oh, we’re back to geoengineering. More clouds = more sunlight reflection. Picture shows some giant mirrors in space. Here’s John Holden, adviser to President Obama for Science and Technology: “There are a variety of schemes that have been discussed for geoengineering. Classic example is injecting reflecting particles into Earth orbit.” Earth orbit? Not just dropping it out of a plane then into the stratosphere then.

06:00 – 06:25
Who’s this guy talking about aluminium in the stratosphere? Turns out aluminium is quite shiny and reflective. Who knew?

06:25 – 08:30
Someone else talking about aluminium. Yes, it’s shiny. Uh-oh, turns out aluminium is even shinier than sulphur, and the authorities are trying to hide this fact? More talk about aerosol engineering possibilities. Actual scientist: If we do more research, then it’ll probably turn out that it’ll be harder to do that we imagine. We need to look at the environmental impacts.

08:30 – 11:00
Question to the scientists: What are the effects of sub-micron sized particulates and aluminium on human health, waters and soils? Scientist answer: we haven’t researched that yet. “There could be something terrible that we find tomorrow that we haven’t looked at.” Fair enough. Video shows some research done with aluminium nano-particles on rats. Ok. Documentary maker is, for some reason, excited by the fact the scientists haven’t researched this yet. “They’ve let the cat out of the bag!”

11:00 – 11:34
Random and illogical leap of faith #1: “They’re proceeding because they have an agenda that’s separate from trying to thwart this crisis of global warming. There’s obviously…” (obviously?) “…several other objectives: depopulation, control, weapons aspects, communications aspects, all kinds of things, wild cards we know nothing about.” Where did all that come from?

11:34 – 13:30
More discussion on ins and outs of geoengineering, from actual scientists: “We might get desperate enough to want to use it.” “What would we do in the year 2040 or 2060 if there’s a severe climate crisis…” “You don’t want people going off and doing things that involve large radiative forcing, or go on for extended periods, or for that matter, provide lots of reactive surfaces that could result in significant ozone destruction.” “It’s hugely risky.” Well, the scientists don’t seem that keen on the idea.

13:30 – 14:30
The doco-makers look at the benefit/risk breakdown of large-scale geoengineering. Yep, it’s risky. Random and illogical leap of faith #2: the doco makers now seem convinced that the scientists, despite all they’ve just said, want to forge ahead (or already are) with geoengineering, regardless of the impacts.

So, Murphy writes a story about it. Turns out aluminium (mentioned in the geoengineering research), is turning up in massive quantities way above normal levels in rain, soil and snow.

End of Part 1.

So, to summarise…

Scientists are talking about geoengineering. They think it’s risky, and there’s more research to be done. It might, possibly, be a last-resort measure to counter global warming in the future. From this, the documentary makers have concluded that they’re up to ‘something’. Turns out aluminium is turning up in the environment. What’s up with that? On to part 2

Shocking revelations! Alcohol can kill you.

And it seems to kill a lot of people. You see, there’s a chemical in there called alcohol, which the body can deal with in small amounts, but, which in larger quantities, is really quite dangerous, in quite a lot of different ways.

Coffee? Dangerous. Caffeine (by the uncensored measure) is thus a ‘poison’.

Table salt? Dangerous! ‘Poison’!

Even vitamin supplements, which are often purported to be good for you (and, actually, probably are if you’re not getting enough from natural sources), can be dangerous if you take too many.

Which makes this post over at Uncensored — Queensland Health caught out on Fluoridation! — (exclamation mark not added by me, I should point out) a little puzzling. To sum up, someone has dug up a document from the Queensland Health Department, warning workers (who are presumably dealing with the fluoridation of the water supply there) to be careful of not getting too much of the stuff into their system.

Well, that’s very sensible, isn’t it? Too much of the stuff is toxic. A tiny little amount in your water is good for your teeth. As Mike points out in the comments

It has never been news that fluoride is toxic in high enough doses … You’d have to drink several thousand glasses of water at a single sitting to get to 2 grams of NaF!

Indeed. As usual, the ‘article’ itself is a mish-mash of sources that don’t really make a solid argument. Presumably the idea is to present us with examples of how toxic fluoride can be (and, no debate, it can be), and thus, by association, damn the practice of fluoridating our drinking water. From the aforementioned Australian document — Review of Water Fluoridation and Fluoride Intake from Discretionary Fluoride Supplements (NHMRC, 1999):

Fluoride can exert acute toxic effects … and the lethal dose in the range of 2-5 g NaF for an adult …

From The Merck Index (Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals)

Severe symptoms have occurred from ingestion of less than one gram; death from 5 to 10 g.

…and there’s several reported instances of people getting sick and/or dying from ingesting too much of the stuff, eg.

In 1973 a fatality occurred in Queensland with a 2-year old child. It had swallowed almost fifty 2.2 mg sodium fluoride tablets. Five days after admission to the hospital it died.

But, you know, I reckon if I swallowed the equivalent of 50 tablets of just about anything you’d find in your average medicine cabinet (nurofen, aspirin, cough medicine, etc.) then I’d probably be expecting to get pretty sick (at best) as well. It seems that this is, in fact, the case. That aside, the common theme there is that it seems you need to be working in the realm of whole grams of the stuff to make you sick.

Anyway, the level of fluoride in Australian drinking water is in the range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L (with the optimum concentration being 0.9 mg/L), as outlined in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. As per Mike’s comment above, you’d need to drink a vast amount of water before you started to get anywhere near a toxic dose (and you’d probably risk dying of hyponatremia before you got there — it even turns out that water can be a ‘poison’).

As an aside, it’s interesting to note that Queensland has the lowest rates of fluoridated water in Australia, but the highest rates of tooth decay (warning: PDF file). From the same document we learn that Townsville, which has had fluoridated water since 1964, has 45% less tooth decay than Brisbane. You could nearly draw some sort of conclusion from those facts, couldn’t you?

No chemtrails over Cuba?

Apparently not!

Betty Hooper, the 90-year old Hikurangi resident, whose idea it was to start this Watch group, visited Cuba for a holiday in August and said she didn’t see any chemtrails in the Cuban skies. Likewise, it is apparent that Iran is not being chemtrailed either.

Well, how nice for her! But, really, is one holiday to Cuba really going to give you an authoritative overview of what’s going on in the Cuban skies? Maybe the weather wasn’t conducive to contrail formation. And there’s probably far less air traffic over Cuba than other, richer nations.

(And how does this relate to Iran? Why is it “apparent” that Iran is not being chemtrailed? Did Betty pop in there on her way back from the Caribbean? No explanation is forthcoming, although Clare does link to a nice video of American Rick Steve visiting Iran. I couldn’t see any chemtrails in the skies during the course of the video, so maybe that’s proof enough. Having said that, I watched an episode of UK show The Inbetweeners the other night, and didn’t see any contrails/chemtrails in that either.)

Anyway, a five minute browse through Flickr throws up these lovely images of the Cuban sky

Criss-cross chemtrails: La Habana, Cuba


Dissipating chemtrails over the coast: Varadero Beach, Cuba

HAARP activity visible in chemclouds: Santa Clara, Cuba


Ohmigod! Chembow crossed by chemtrail! Cayo Largo, Cuba

The sunrise photo is my favourite. Every time I see a beautiful sunrise/sunset photo now, I can’t help but think of this YouTube video, where self-professed cloud expert Liara points at what look like pretty normal (if not extremely picturesque) sunset photo, and proclaims:

…this is what they’re calling a cirrus cloud at sunset. I just about crapped my pants off!… I’ve never seen anything natural have this kind of a vibe.

The Fighting Temeraire, JMW Turner (1838)

Brilliant. They do the same sort of thing over at Pacific Chemtrail. It would seem any particularly vibrant orange/red sunset/sunrise is now automatically labelled as evidence of (non-natural) chemicals in the atmosphere (in the same way persistent contrails = chemtrails).

It makes you wonder what they’d make of Turner’s The Fighting Temerarie (painted in 1838). Without planes, just how did the Illuminati get all those chemicals into the air?

But, man, that Liara video really needs a post of its own…

Nikola Tesla’s 1899 Yakutat Bay Weapon and The 111 Year Anniversary Christchurch Earthquakes by The Biblical Prophet

Here’s one over at you-know-whos that I’m not entirely sure is just standard bat-shit-crazy, or a fantastically well thought-out parody designed to get under the ‘delete-any-comment-that-disagrees-with-my-viewpoint’ policy being operated by that site’s owner. (Or maybe something else entirely?)

Basically, what Freemason Illuminati (who would also appear to have made the ‘Elijah the Proper John‘ comments on the same page) has done is to make a vague claim that the US Geologic Service is in on some sort of conspiracy that is suppressing the fact that good ol’ Nikolas Tesla invented some type of earthquake machine back in the 19thC, and that some published research they’ve done is, in fact, disinformation. (Tesla’s invention, it would seem, was used to help cause the recent Christchurch earthquake, as part of some 111 year thing the Freemasons have got going on with earthquakes — if I read correctly, which I probably don’t. Anyway…).

His comment (supposedly) recounts the history and technical points that are pertinent (or, as the case may be, totally irrelevant) to the discussion at hand.

But what’s interesting to me is that they’ve just cut’n’pasted the abstract from an actual USGS research paper (Geological and Geophysical Evaluation of the Mechanisms of the Great 1899 Yakutat Bay Earthquakes), and then replaced sections and words with what they imagine are ‘the facts’. Main differences from the first couple of hundred words are highlighted with yellow (generally removed on the left, and added on the right):

We have used tectonic, geologic, and seismologic observations to reevaluate the mechanisms and seismotectonic significance of the two great (Mw = 8.1 and 8.2) September 1899 Yakutat Bay earthquakes. In their comprehensive study of these earthquakes between 1905 and 1910, Tarr and Martin (1912) showed that these events were accompanied by shoreline changes in Yakutat Bay that ranged from 14.4 m emergence to 2.1 m submergence, uplift of about 1 m at Yakataga 160 km west of Yakutat Bay, and by several zones of surface fissures on land. Although major earthquake faults were not found, Tarr and Martin postulated that the shoreline displacements were caused by vertical movements on a system of concealed steep normal faults and that the fissure zones on ridges were along subsidiary faults.
Our geologic studies in the Yakutat Bay region indicate that: (1) the emergent shorelines along Yakutat Bay define a broad upwarp roughly 50 km x 30 km that is primarily related to reverse slip on local concealed shallowly dipping thrust faults; (2) the reported subsidence was due largely, or entirely, to nontectonic surficial submergence of unconsolidated deposits; and (3) most, if not all, of the zones of surface fractures related to the 1899 earthquakes are “sackung” that were probably caused by large-scale gravitational slumping of steep slopes, rather than faulting. A small number of early damped seismograms and the vertical uplift data were used to constrain the fault slippage that occurred during the two great earthquakes of 1899.
Freemason Illuminati
We have used tectonic, geologic and seismologic observations to reevaluate the mechanisms and seismotectonic significance of the two great man-made Mw 8.1 and 8.2 September 1899, Yakutat Bay, Weapons of mass destruction. In their comprehensive study of these Tesla Weapons between 1905 and 1910, Tarr and Martin [1912] showed these events and what accompanied their deployment, including the all time world record for shoreline changes in Yakutat Bay man beat nature with simply the record uplift ever recorded that ranged from 47.2 ft. emergence to 6.9 ft. submergence, uplift of about 3.3 ft. at Yakataga 160 km west of Yakutat Bay, all caused by Nikola Tesla who was several thousand miles away at Knob Hill in Colorado Springs. There were similar noises at both places. The same crackling sound that gives away the biggest secret of all time. Although major earthquake faults were not found, Tarr and Martin postulated that the shoreline displacements were caused by vertical movements on a system of concealed steep normal faults and that the fissure zones on ridges were along subsidiary faults. 

My studies in the Yakutat Bay region indicate that: (1) the emergent shorelines along Yakutat Bay define a broad upwarp roughly 50 km by 30 km that is primarily related to a Nikola Tesla “reverse slip” on local concealed shallowly-dipping thrust faults; (2) the reported subsidence was due largely, or entirely, to Nikola Tesla’s tectonic shock; and (3) most, if not all, of the zones of surface fractures related to the 1899 Weapon are “sackung” that were caused by Nikola Tesla’s large-scale gravitational pumping of the planet itself cracking at steep slopes, rather than natural faulting. A small number of early damped seismograms and the vertical uplift data were used to constrain the fault slippage that occurred when Tesla conducted the weapon testing during the twenty six+ days of near constant palpitation of the earth’s surface due to great Weapon in 1899.

I don’t know — does the mere fact of inserting “Nikolas Tesla” into a scientific text enough times make your desired reading of said document come true? Actually, I do know, it doesn’t.

Now, still not sure of the serious/parody nature of this comment, I thought I’d poke around teh intawebs to see if I could find anything else to help me make up my mind one way or the other. Freemason’s comment title was linked to: thenumberofthebeast.org — which, upon closer inspection, would make you think, “yes, batshit insane”. All the ingredients: long rambling text; terrible layout, injudicious use of comic sans, and a background that makes most of the text unreadable.

A google keyword search on the first bit of text from the ‘altered’ version — Saint John the Baptist: Nikola Tesla’s 1899 Yakutat Bay — leads us to two other sites: one a flickr account which you would think from the content (lots and lots of tesla stuff, registered to a user who lists his occupation as ‘Biblical Prophet’), is certainly related to our Freemason character. And another, which you wouldn’t: golfclubspromotion.com. But then, when you visit, you do — the altered text has been copy’n’pasted here as well, somewhat undermining the golfclub promotion that’s going on at the very bottom of the page.

So, what the hell? Has someone hacked the site? What is going on here? The contact on the golf page is someone called Chris, which coincidentally (uh-oh, I’m starting to connect disparate facts using nothing but coincidence), is also the metatag author name of thenumberofthebeast.org site. The domain name attached to the numberofthebeast.org Chris is imprintX.com, which, at the time of writing had this introduction…

BREAKING NEWS – (10 minutes ago) Christopher [redacted] Put your pens on an (A). That means the same thing as a (P). You say crazy is me?

…and has lots and lots on our beloved Tesla. But also lots and lots (and lots) of products of all shapes and sizes (including Golf Accessories!). ImprintX also seems to be responsible for at least a couple of other golf and general product marketing sites.

So, it is, in fact, some bizarre marketing scheme? Designed to intrigue inquisitive idiots like myself with their crazy talk of tesla, numerology and freemasons, and then, having teased me in, sucker-punch me with an irresistible offer of a new set of novelty golf-club heads at knock-down (dare one say ‘crazy’) prices?

I suppose I could just ask, but, as is often the way when delving around the conspiratorial corners of teh intawebs, my brain hurts a bit, and I think a nice drink a lie down would be better for me…

Persistent contrail = chemtrail?

WWII American bombers on a, errr, 'chemtrail' run.

The assertion that you can tell a contrail from a chemtrail by watching how quickly they dissipate (contrails disappear ‘within 30 seconds’, chemtrails last for minutes or even hours), is a fairly common and widely disseminated ‘fact’ amongst the chemtrail-believing community.

It is, of course, completely wrong. Visit contrailscience.com’s page on the ins-and-outs on the science of persistent chemtrails for a good overview. It’s just a matter of physics: given the right combination of temperature, humidity and air pressure contrails can persist and (depending on wind) even spread out and form clouds. It’s just water vapour, after all.

Most chemtrail sites avoid the topic, or regurgitate the incorrect “persistent contrail = chemtrail” meme, but at least one chemtrail site does acknowledge the reality of the situation, at chemtrailcentral.com they write

… it is scientifically accepted that normal contrails may persist for hours and spread … the speed of dissipation of a contrail can be from a few seconds to hours. This varies with differing atmospheric conditions due to seasonal, daily, and frontal weather changes as well as global placement as varying local temperatures and humidity at flight levels provide differing ranges of persistence.

But, for the most part, it’s something the chemtrail-believers, once they’ve grasped, seem completely unwilling to let go. On this discussion over at uncensored, we have the usual recipes for contrail/chemtrail misdiagnosis.

  1. The original photos shown are, as per usual, nothing out of the ordinary. They could be contrails. There’s nothing about the photos that would make you think they were anything else.
  2. In order to support the argument, commenter CCCP claims that aluminium is being found in Christchurch rain water (the photos are from Auckland, but, whatever…), and then links to a Youtube video, made by none other than Clare Swinney, in which the persistent contrails = chemtrails meme is repeated, and the presence of aluminium (and, for good measure, barium) in the rain water is pinned on the ‘chemtrails’.

Astonishingly, in her video, Clare Swinney has actually resorted to some genuine science to try and support her claims. She’s sent off her rain water sample to a lab, and received back a nice breakdown of the elements found within. The numbers shown are…

  • Aluminium – 0.058gm/m³
  • Arsenic – 0.0011gm/m³
  • Barium – 0.0025gm/m³
  • Boron – 0.0166gm/m³

So, yep, there’s some aluminium in there, but is it suspicious that a (tiny) amount of aluminium (and the other stuff) should be found in a rain water sample? Short answer: no. The World Health Organisation point out that…

Aluminium is the most abundant metallic element and constitutes about 8% of the Earth’s crust. It occurs naturally in the environment as silicates, oxides, and hydroxides, combined with other elements, such as sodium and fluoride, and as complexes with organic matter … The concentration of aluminium in natural waters can vary significantly depending on various physicochemical and mineralogical factors. Dissolved aluminium concentrations in waters with near-neutral pH values usually range from 0.001 to 0.05 mg/litre but rise to 0.5–1mg/litre in more acidic waters or water rich in organic matter.

If we convert 0.058gm/m³ to the mg/litre (it’s ends up being the same, but just so we’re measuring oranges with oranges) we get 0.058mg/litre. So, ever so slightly into WHO’s ‘acidic or rich in organic matter’ range. And that’s actually less aluminium than you’d find in the drinking water of some areas…

In a large monitoring programme in 1991 in the United Kingdom, concentrations in 553 samples (0.7%) exceeded 0.2 mg/litre (MAFF, 1993). In a survey of 186 community water supplies inthe USA, median aluminium concentrations for all finished drinking-water samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.1 mg/litre; for facilities using aluminium sulfate coagulation, the median level was 0.1 mg/litre, with a maximum of 2.7 mg/litre (Miller et al., 1984). In another US survey, the average aluminium concentration in treated water at facilities using aluminium sulfate coagulation ranged from 0.01 to 1.3 mg/litre, with an overall average of 0.16 mg/litre (Letterman & Driscoll, 1988; ATSDR, 1992).

And the barium? It’s not surprising to find a (very small) amount in a random sample. Here’s WHO’s factsheet on barium. Again, the levels found in Clare’s sample are well within normal ranges. And from this site we learn (emphasis mine)…

Barium is surprisingly abundant in the Earth’s crust, being the 14th most abundant element … Because of the extensive use of barium in the industries human activities add greatly to the release of barium in the environment. As a result barium concentrations in air, water and soil may be higher than naturally occurring concentrations on many locations. Barium enters the air during mining processes, refining processes, and during the production of barium compounds.

Refining processes? Clare Swinney just happens to live down the road from New Zealand’s largest oil refinery. You’d surely be more surprised to find no trace of barium in any sample taken in the area.

Anyway, my point?

Just because a contrail persists, doesn’t make it a chemtrail.

Just because there are some ‘chemicals’ (ie. naturally occurring elements) in some rain water, doesn’t mean they came from a ‘chemtrail’.

There are normal, rational explanations for most things in life, and the existence of persistent contrails and the presence of chemicals in water are two of those things that can be explained quite easily with a solid scientific basis, without having to resort to a massive worldwide conspiracy.

If it looks like a contrail…


How can you tell the difference (answer: you can't)

…it’s probably a chemtrail.

Now, of course, there may be such things as chemtrails, but to distinguish a chemtrail from a contrail (which, given the photographic evidence displayed on various conspiracy websites and youtube), you’d presumably need to do some sort of analysis of the cloud material itself to be able to truly tell one from the other.

A long straight line of ‘cloud’ emanating from a plane could be either, couldn’t it? (There are ‘chembows’ and the like, of course, but we’ll leave those for another day; for the moment let’s just look at our classic long white con/chem trails).

But no. Without fail, any contrail spotted in any form is always labelled a chemtrail.

Here we have Clare Swinney complaining that a recent WordPress theme is using a chemtrail in one of its photographic elements (it’s actually a commonly used wikicommons stock photo that can be found on dozens of sites in a variety of contexts, but the argument here would be that it’s all part of the NWO agenda to make chemtrails seem like a ‘normal’ occurrence). But what marks out the contrails in that photo as chemtrails? Nothing.

Even more hilariously is this interplay between a commenter on the site, and Clare…

Says Raymond, pointing out that persistent contrails (as per previous information posted by Clare) are possible…

Planes taking people somewhere. Just like if you wanted to go see someone in christchurch there is a good chance if the atmosphere supported it(very comon) that your plane could be leaving a nice big contrail right over Roses head and she would think its a chemtrail.

So then your’ve said it yourself the air temp up there would of been about -40 to -50degC and there was moisture in the air so the ice couldn’t just sublime back meaning the contrail was persistent.

Replies Clare (emphasis mine)…

You have implied that the trails were left by planes “taking people somewhere,” yet, as is typical for your statements, there is no evidence to support it. Those, I believe, are chemtrails in that picture.

“No evidence to support it”! Classic. Clare’s belief trumps any other speculation, it would seem. But it gets better, as Clare then states, as part of her argument against the trails shown being contrails:

I don’t know what the temperature was when the photo of the cherry tree was taken.

Surely this is another case “no evidence” then? But Clare doesn’t let such contradictory viewpoints stand in her way. Oh no, if it’s a persistent contrail, whether or not anyone has proof to the otherwise, her belief that it’s a chemtrail is all that’s required to make it so.