I have asked one simple question about something we can all observe. Both times I got shut down immediately. I am simply concerned with us humans trying to 'own the weather by 2025'...of course there is an awful lot we don't hear about on mainstream media. That is because our media is controlled by the government...the internet is full of junk. But I feel it is our duty to question things we don't understand. There is too much real information to discount something we can all observe. I sent a few sites to substantiate the problem (Chemtrails) and still my question was discounted as if I were an idiot. Contrails dissipate. Chemtrails are recognizable for hours. Simple. There are sites that show huge tanks installed in old passenger airplanes. They show the chemical dump out the back end of the plane. There are patents on the chemicals. Spraying is done almost everyday or night. If you are constrained about talking about chemtrails because of the presidential order to protect National Security, I understand. Unbelievable that this can occur (for the past 60+ years) and we are not able to talk about the reverberation of all these heavy metals on our environment. If this is truly NOT TRUE, I'd really love to be convinced...

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Have you read the help center? $\endgroup$ – J. Musser Jan 7 '15 at 0:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Sites"? The one link - buried in the comments - I see from you in your question on chemtrails is to reddit. Not a great source. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jan 7 '15 at 0:39
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, there are two questions on skeptics about chemtrails as well: skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/191/3581 and skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/8402/3581, both coming to the conclusion that there is no evidence for the claims you're making. If you really would like to be convinced, read them too. $\endgroup$ – Cascabel Jan 7 '15 at 3:01
  • $\begingroup$ Also, we are not censoring you, your question is still there and still publicly viewable, as are our peer-reviewed evidence based link based answers. $\endgroup$ – user889 Jan 7 '15 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ Okay! I am much happier. I WILL look at your sites. Really, who the heck WANTS to be a 'CONSPIRACY THEORIST'?? Thank you for looking into the sites (my hubby) sent you. I've been around and educated quite well. I think I know when stuff is bull---- and when stuff is possible. I BELIEVE in NOTHING. All I want is to have a discussion. There are so many intelligent humans that interact on this site and sadly, I am removed from truly intelligent, caring, un-brainwashed humans right now. But why would this question cause such down-votes? $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 7 '15 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ And...no, my question has NOT been answered. Mind control properties? Possible I guess but YES our military has said it wants to control the weather by 2025. Many times. Heavy metal pollution is just a by-product of this control attempt...so if I use 'weather modification' I would be Okay with this topic. Even though one of the results would be heavy metal pollution? I'll spend some time with the information you've given me. Thank you for responding...whew!! $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 7 '15 at 21:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In meta, generally, downvotes signal disagreement from the community. $\endgroup$ – user889 Jan 7 '15 at 22:16
  • $\begingroup$ your 2nd comment gives examples of claims you make that must be backed up with credible sources (e.g in the case of atmospheric chemistry - peer reviewed results of experiments). Just by you stating in repeatedly is not evidence. $\endgroup$ – user889 Jan 7 '15 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ Sabre Tooth...sorry I didn't just edit my first question. My brainiac hubby got involved and oh well. Our second 'question' had a number of sites included. Please understand we would LOVE to be convinced that chemtrails are bogus. I made a boo boo with the question/comment thing. Not the first time, either. Trying to copy sites to add to my question and having a few problems. I am new to this stuff. Peer review typically does not include all experts. I am not interested in popularity or points. I simply asked a question and it is now ON ME to provide credible info to substantiate...! $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 8 '15 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ I think it was you, Sabre Tooth that sent the picture of curly 'contrails'....can you imagine any pilot making contrails for fun? Why would they make such obvious layouts? Usually they fly from point A to point B. Please help to alleviate my worries about us humans trying to control weather. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 14 '15 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ @stormy Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I asked a question "Why is the sky in Antarctica yellow every Tuesday", you'd want me to provide some evidence, and then you'd want the opportunity to criticise my evidence (for example, that my camera is broken, or the person who provided me with the photographs was doctoring them), before you tried to come up with some theoretical explanation for why such an unlikely phenomenon might happen. That's Okham's Razor. $\endgroup$ – naught101 Apr 1 '15 at 2:25
  • $\begingroup$ @stormy: On this site, you will probably get really good answers if you ask more specific sub-questions that are related to the actual physical science (like "how can if be possible that some plane trails dissipate quickly, while others dissipate quickly?", or "How much do contrails affect the weather?" (we know they do), and "would adding heavy metals increase [known effect of contrails]?"), because those are the kinds of questions that this site deals with. $\endgroup$ – naught101 Apr 1 '15 at 2:28
  • $\begingroup$ Okay...good advice...I'll be back as new information has been made available. Thanks naught! $\endgroup$ – stormy Apr 2 '15 at 19:43

No topic is censored, but some are off topic. Your original chemtrail question is visible on the site, and your second was closed as it should have been an edit to the first question, not a separate question. Future chemtrail questions are very likely to be closed as duplicates of your chemtrail question. This isn't censorship, but the realization that the question has been answered on this site.

The big problem with chemtrails is that there is a disconnect in what that word means. Chemtrails are typically presented as having 1) mind control properties, 2) heavy metal pollution and 3) weather modification. The evidence presented to justify these assertions is 1) pictures of contrails and 2) legislation on weather modification. The argument does not follow.

Where the disconnect lies is that contrails are a well understood phenomenon, and weather modification is a heavily researched and practiced topic, but they are not related. Neither of the two contribute to mind control or significant ground contamination. We can discuss contrails and mixing clouds all day, but that is not a chemtrail (the time scale for dissipation of the control is dependent on atmospheric conditions, both long and short lived clouds are just clouds, not chemtrails. We can talk about weather modification all day, but that is not chemtrails.

Since you are so concerned with "spraying", I'll assume the topic you are really concerned about is weather modification. No one is trying to hide that activity and if you happen to be in Pheonix this week you can attend numerous talks on the subject (and even ask questions). Here are links to some of the talks (save them, as in a month or so the presentations will be available online to watch and listen to for free).

Among these presentations you'll find information on cloud and precipitation seeding by various methods. You'll find talks by government institutions, academic institutions and private sector companies. You'll find analysis of trace chemicals in the resulting precipitation.

While asking a question on chemtrails is not likely to get you anywhere except closed as a duplicate, I invite you to ask questions about what actually interests you when you invoke chemtrails. Questions on why some mixing clouds last longer than others would be on-topic. Questions about the dynamics of contrail clouds would be on-topic. Questions about weather modification, cloud seeding and precipitation seeding would be on-topic. Questions about other types of low-level spraying, however, (e.g. mosquito control) may be better suited for another site. I hope you'll come to the conclusion that weather modification is real and that contrails are just clouds, neither has anything to do with the other, and none of the above are "chemtrails".

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Awesome list - very interesting reads there! $\endgroup$ – user889 Jan 7 '15 at 13:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Very awesome list, casey! We are reading them. What is the difference between 'spraying'...'seeding'...and chemtrails? Maybe we have a huge semantic problem, here? $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 7 '15 at 21:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @stormy, I am hoping that the answers here and to your question show you that we do not do censorship, we give answers. Also, hopefully it shows that we feel that you are most certainly are not an 'idiot' and that we are trying our best to provide scientific information and research. $\endgroup$ – user889 Jan 7 '15 at 22:29
  • $\begingroup$ @stormy spraying is generally low level chemical application e.g. cropdusting, mosquito control, pest control. Cloud seeding is done at various levels and is a release of specific aerosols that serve as cloud and ice condensation nuclei (water will not naturally condense until around 400% RH without the help of aerosols. Neither is related to contrails. $\endgroup$ – casey Jan 8 '15 at 0:52
  • $\begingroup$ Heh, heh...I live in a 'rain shadow' environment. Think that is what the area behind big mountains is called where there's an 'eddy' of sorts preventing rain. This is so far beyond crop-dusting we aren't talking about the same thing. I'll post just a few sites that I deem worthy...I just want to make sure we are on the same page. $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 8 '15 at 1:12

Quite simply, topics such as 'chemtrails', especially those that do not have peer-reviewed articles based on them are considered conspiracy theories - and questions of chemtrails and other conspiracies are best asked on Skeptics.SE (provided the questions are written in the format required for that site).

The answers provided do use resources that are sourced from reproducible scientific experiments, observations and measurements. Things that do not convince us are:

  • sites and articles that do not have peer review or reproducible evidence.
  • shouting (capitals)
  • emotive ranting
  • accusations of anything (censorship, being constrained etc)
  • repetition of the same claims without supporting credible evidence.

What does convince us is:

  • evidence from credible sources - please feel free to add a comment should you come across them.

One final thing, in response to

If you are constrained about talking about chemtrails because of the presidential order to protect National Security, I understand.

This really is not necessary and does not help your cause.
A fun fact: your President has no jurisdiction over me whatsoever (I am not an American)

Just because someone does not believe in what you believe about chemtrails does not mean that:

  • we are part of some government conspiracy
  • that we are 'blinded' by the media (we tend to ignore mass media and go to scientific evidence)
  • that we are 'silenced'.

What it means is that the peer reviewed observations and measurements of many scientists discount the chemtrail conspiracy theory. There is no censorship here - you asked a question and you were answered - and provided with links to credible sources (as in my answer to your only non-duplicate question here). As for you to be convinced, well, that is up to you.

Your question was closed as being 'unclear what are asking' - please read the help centre as to how best ask a question for this site and what is on topic. A suggestion is that you'd get more traction if you ask your question in an objective manner, based on a scientific inquiry.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just to note: there was, in fact, a second question, but this was closed as a duplicate and deleted by an employee since it was posting a closed question again with no more information or sources. $\endgroup$ – hichris123 Jan 7 '15 at 3:13
  • $\begingroup$ ah! okay - I will edit a point about that in - thank you for that! $\endgroup$ – user889 Jan 7 '15 at 3:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is what I was hoping for! Thanks so very much! I feel like I am walking on eggshells here but I want to hear your arguments. I'll keep reading...this is the first time I've gotten good information to look at on this subject. Sorry, I don't follow rules well...grin. Sincerely, thank you! $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 7 '15 at 21:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @stormy I can also tell you that I have performed experiments (unpublished) near airfields and in the flight path from people who asked the objective question "Is there any evidence to suggest that the soils in a flight path have been contaminated by air traffic?", I found nothing outside background levels of all chemicals (especially heavy metals) $\endgroup$ – user889 Jan 7 '15 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I've got sites to show you about that exact topic. I think you of all people will find very interesting! One is from an 'industrial hygienist'. A Whistle-blower from the Airforce. Back tomorrow...thanks, Sabre Tooth $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 8 '15 at 1:23
  • $\begingroup$ www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA Check this out and please let me know what you think. $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 9 '15 at 0:08
  • $\begingroup$ What do you think about Meghan? $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 14 '15 at 20:43

Let me break down your question, because I can't cover it all in one fell swoop.

I am simply concerned with us humans trying to 'own the weather by 2025'

Not going to happen. Moving right along. . .

our media is controlled by the government

What country are you in? The United States? If so, know that you might want to speak with Woodward and Bernstein. The free press criticizes the government a lot. Also, we aren't the media. Well, most of us probably aren't.

But I feel it is our duty to question things we don't understand. There is too much real information to discount something we call all observe.

I agree, and I think scientists feel the same way - at least about the first part, because the second is slightly unclear (to me).

I sent a few sites to substantiate the problem (Chemtrails) and still my question was discounted as if I were an idiot.

A) You're not an idiot. B) I'm not sure why the answers are invalid, nor do I see why people thought you were an idiot. From what I could see, things were kept civil.

Spraying is done almost everyday or night.

Not sure there's evidence for this, but I think that angle was covered somewhere in the actual question.

If you are constrained about talking about chemtrails because of the presidential order to protect National Security, I understand.

I believe Sabre Tooth's fun fact disproves that theory. Also, is President Obama a member of Stack Exchange? Most likely not. Stack Overflow is semi-prominent on the internet (i.e. it turns up on many search engine searches); the other sites, such as Earth Science, are not (yet). I highly, highly, highly doubt the government would see this question. By the way, who would have access to that kind of secret information?

Unbelievable that this can occur (for the past 60+ years) and we are not able to talk about the reverberation of all these heavy metals on our environment.

We aren't able to talk because they don't exist. Q.E.D.

And above all, as Deer Hunter said,

Such questions are generally a better fit for Skeptics.SE. – Deer Hunter Dec 11 '14 at 4:45

But to answer the title of your question . . . Yes, such topics do exist. Sort of. Unofficially. But they generally involve obscenities and/or indecent exposure and/or offensive things, to put it one way. Your question does not appear to involve them.

I'm a (very, very) new Earth Science user, so feel free to discount this, but I have been with SE for a bit longer (still not a while), and I'm familiar with some general policies. I feel that these policies cover the point at hand.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "so feel free to discount this" - not at all. You (along with casey & Saber Tooth) hit it straight on. $\endgroup$ – hichris123 Jan 7 '15 at 3:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ chemtrailsinourskies.wordpress.com/tag/… Let us see if this works. When one tells someone else 'Not going to happen...moving right along' that one feels like one is being called an idiot. Grin. Still wading through the 'true' scientific sites. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 7 '15 at 23:27
  • $\begingroup$ @stormy Sorry, I was trying to use humorous understatement. I guess that didn't work. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jan 8 '15 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ Hey, I am a bit tougher than that, GRIN! Right now I am trying to get a couple of other sites to be viewed...discussed, whatever. I AM an idiot at certain times, have been for sure. Just want to talk with BRAINIACS about some of this stuff. I am the ultimate skeptic... $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 8 '15 at 0:36
  • $\begingroup$ And sigh...'We aren't able to talk because they don't exist. Q.E.D.' We haven't discounted anything that quo erat demonstratum. I am not sure of my spelling, actually took Latin as a course. Seeding, spraying has been going on for decades. Also a way to 'win' the Vietnam War...this is an amazing topic. Our military is and has been so VERY involved in 'owning the weather'... $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 8 '15 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ Have you been able to watch any of the sites I've sent? What about Ms. Meghan, the airforce whistle-blower? See comment above...www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA Thanks, HDE... $\endgroup$ – stormy Jan 14 '15 at 20:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .