Truth News Australia

Hereward Fenton

Update on Assange, Bitcoin and abortion law Get the podcast »

Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?

13 May 2012

By Hereward Fenton

Categories: [ Chemtrails ]

Contrails over London in 1944

Vapour trails left by British bombers on route to attack flying-bomb sites encircle the dome of St. Paul's Cathedral. London, 1944.

All those who passionately believe that "contrails dissipate quickly" whereas "chemtrails linger" and are deeply offended by the sceptical position that TNRA takes in regard to these claims, are free to "unlike" Truth News.

If, on the other hand, you would like to engage in rational debate, you're most welcome to do so.

However, please be advised that the information I have to impart may be shocking and difficult to grasp if you have been a "chemtrail alarmist" for a long time.

The often cited claim that "normal contrails dissipate quickly" is total bunkum.

There is not a shred of science to backup that claim.  Nothing, nada, zippo!

Those who promote this idea are simply repeating something they read on a web page without checking sources.



For a contrail to form, suitable conditions must occur immediately behind a jet engine in the expanding engine exhaust plume. A contrail will form if, as the exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity becomes high enough (or, equivalently, the air temperature becomes low enough) for liquid water to condense on particles and form liquid droplets. If the local air is cold enough, these newly formed droplets then freeze and form ice particles that make up a contrail.

Because the basic processes are very well understood, contrail formation for a given aircraft flight can be accurately predicted if atmospheric temperature and humidity conditions are known.

After the initial formation of ice, a contrail evolves in one of two ways. If the humidity is low, the contrail will be short-lived. Newly formed ice particles will quickly evaporate. The resulting contrail will extend only a short distance behind the aircraft. If the humidity is high, the contrail will be persistent. Newly formed ice particles will continue to grow in size by taking water from the surrounding atmosphere. The resulting line-shaped contrail extends for large distances behind an aircraft. Persistent contrails can last for hours while growing to several kilometers in width and 200 to 400 meters in height. Contrails spread because of air turbulence created by the passage of aircraft, differences in wind speed along the flight track, and possibly through effects of solar heating.

Thus, the surrounding atmosphere’s conditions determine to a large extent whether or not a contrail will form after an aircraft’s passage, and how it evolves. Other factors that influence contrail formation include engine fuel efficiency, which affects the amount of heat and water emitted in the exhaust plume.
- source

TNRA is informed by science and is not interested in propping up anyone's belief systems, and we don't apologise for that.

But, please, don't take it from me, speak to any meteorologist or any pilot and they'll tell you straight, that there is HUGE variation in the length and persistence of contrails. Sometimes they don't form at all, other times they form, but disspate quickly, other times they persist and spread out.

That's the facts folks, and it's been that way since planes first went up in the sky.

If you believe otherwise, I'm afraid you've been conned.

Forgive me if I seem rude or impatient on this topic, but every few months I come across a new wave of people who have been subjected to the same false propaganda about chemtrails, and I have to run the same arguments and cite the same articles over and over again. It does wear one's patience down.

Before making some kind of angry reply, I urge you to read this article and associated links. It's fairly detailed, and deals with most of the usual claims made by chemtrail alarmists.

Finally, let me qualify all this by saying that I do not doubt that geo-engineering programs exist, and that, indeed, some of the patented techniques discussed at international forums  include the creation of artificial cirrus cloud. Does this, however, entitle you to conclude that every spreading contrail you see is an example of such geo-engineering?

Think about it.

Related Links


Please review the Terms of Service before reading or responding to comments.

To “Unliked”:

Oh, no, it’s that VERY old TankerEnemy video again with the aerodynamic contrailing! Hard to count how many times this was debunked.

Google for “aerodynamic contrail” and switch to “Images”.

Are there gaps between clouds? Why should it be different with contrails?

Regarding “”, they have collected countless fakes and plenty of outdated material on their site.

See a recent discussion about that:


By Josh on 2012 07 01 - 19:13:46

Unliked, you have got us all back into chemtrails vs contrails, i.e. Josh’s preferred territory (he has nothing to say if we approach the subject from another viewpoint).

And not only that but enabled him to draw on the wisdom of one of the oldest and nastiest full-time chemtrails debunkers in the business, Jay Reynolds, who for years pursued me from forum to forum when I was still trying to play the game he enjoys so much.

Perhaps it is time to invite Leonard Clampett to offer one of his many conflicting opinions.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 01 - 20:03:49

Wayne Hall, “us all” are sticking to the issue of the original article. Why don’t you?

While I can understand that you bear some personal grudge, this discussion is about facts, not persons.

I could not find any comment from you which refers to the issue of the original article. I assume you take “chemtrails” as a given, but as long as you can’t make your case about that, I’m not going to further consider your “other” issues (which obviously lack any basis without the “chemtrail” prerequisite).

By Josh on 2012 07 01 - 22:21:05

The subject that interests participants here is what can be done to facilitate rational discussion of, and possibly rational countermeasures against, phenomena they see in the sky.

I explained here on 6th June that the question is not one of “contrails” versus “chemtrails” but one of why the moratorium on most forms of geoengineering including “solar radiation management” is not being implemented.

You asked me to prove that the moratorium is not being implemented and I invited you to check with the ETC group whether they think the moratorium is being implemented, something which you refused to do.

I made it perfectly clear why I do not propose to have my own dealings with the ETC group predicated on your ridiculous agenda but interpret your own unwillingness to ask them the questions you ask me as indicative of a disingenuous stance on your part and a lack of interest in having your question answered by someone who might give you an inconvenieent response.

On the other hand they might give you a response that favours your agenda.  I took a risk in making this proposal to you, but you yourself do not like taking risks. You only like debate where everything is safely pre-programmed and predictable.

I do not interpret this as lack of intelligence or intellectual curiosity on your part. Everything you do and say appears to be quite well calculated.

Having said that, there should be more input into this discussion.  It is not just a matter of Josh vs WH. 

But other would-be participants think: do you really want to argue forever about whether the phenomena you see should properly be called contrails or chemtrails? 

Arguing with a person who cannot or will not debate any other aspect of the subject?

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 01 - 23:52:02

Wayne Hall,
my impression is that you dodge the message of the article itself.

The central argument of chemtrail believers (that assumably includes you) is that “normal” contrails do not persist or spread. The article refutes that. So what is left to tell a “normal” and an “anormal” trail apart? If there is no difference, there is no chemtrail.

“No chemtrail” means there is no active geo-engineering or whatever-ray-management going on, at least not in the skies. Discussing this in theory and doing it, even on a research scale, is not the same thing.

So, one more time: do you think that contrails can persist and spread? If so, what is your argument for “chemtrails” then? How can you decide which is a cloud and which are “obscenities that are to be seen in the skies”?

About “calculated”: why should I not think a bit about how to convince people? Don’t you do that?

By Josh on 2012 07 02 - 00:05:31

If the purpose of the contrails versus chemtrails discussion is to determine whether geoengineering activity is in progress or not, one way to get some information about this would be to ask the people mostly responsible for the Nagoya moratoriumm whether they believe the moratorium is being enforced. They gained admission to the relevant international fora by paying lip-service to the prescribed taboos on chemtrails discussion so it is by no means certain that their answer would be the same as mine. Nevertheless it could get you further towards knowing whether geoengineering is actually being implemented than the approach to which you are determined to confine your own and everyone else’s inquiry.

For a start they are well informed specialists, not like the people here who you are asking to prove to you that chemttrails exist. (Presumably. if this was their/our forum, we/they would be asking you to prove that chemtrails do NOT exist.)

It is time for others to contribute as this exchange is becoming repetitive.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 02 - 00:35:29

So, Wayne Hall, no comment on the article? Not even a tiny one?

By the way, the demand for proving non-existence is a well known strategy.

“The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.”

By Josh on 2012 07 02 - 03:12:41

ok.. there was nothing posted for a week, i found something that i .. and the pilots in the video found interesting..  and it starts up again..  sorry bout that raspberry

im interested in both sides point of view.. and appreciate all input so far, however.

this is a bit like 911.

theres information, disinformation, flat out lies and truth. im not a rocket scientist, and have no tertiary formal educatoion apart from 50 years in the school of life… ( i have to keep repeating… )

now theres an official version of events, and then there is what i have come to conclude through observation and research.. and theres a thousand points of view in between.

theres is no way in hell that problem will be solved ( and it is a problem according to recent polls where a majority of populations deem it not unreasonable to hold further investigations ) by arguments on teh interwebs.. ( thats just me being l337 )

the proper course of action, would be an independent transparent unfettered investigation with subpoena power..  but..  well… the powers that be and the media refuse to acknowledge the afore mentioned problem..

now.. back to - whatever it is i see coming out of planes, turning into clouds, stuff that i know i didnt see as a kid.. but now, i see planes criss crossing the sky from dawn to dusk.. slowly turning the clear blue sky into a pale mist.

am i qualified to explain or even understand an explanation? nope.. i admit.. im stupid.. but i tell ya what..

to not want what im seeing totally investigated and explained by experts under cross examination by equal experts, until it can be resolved beyond all reasonable doubt..  then ill continue to be insulted when i hear people tell me that my concerns are nothing to worry about.

the way i look at it, truth fears no investigation, so if people have concerns, they should be addressed properly.. the way i said.. because a random entity on the internet just telling me something has been “debunked” and expecting me to accept that as fact.. is too stupid even for me.

the fact that there is as much silence in the media around chemtrails.. is as concerning as the silence regarding the impossibility of the official version of 911 being true..

and those that speak so loudly against any investigation, it makes me wonder what they are trying to hide.

By Unliked on 2012 07 02 - 13:42:33

One of the complications in the chemtrails discussion is that because of the stance of leftists and ecologists (ignoring and/or ridiculing the notion that there has been a significant change what is happening in the skies) - this may well be a by-product of relentless, ubiquitous and never-ending debunking, chemtrails activism has largely been pursued by right-wingers, libertarians, climate change sceptics, etc. etc.

As a result chemtrails discussion very very easily got derailed into the mainstream climate change debate between the anthropogenic climate change sceptics and the ecologists/leftists.

This only began to change with the Copenhagen Summit and the emergence into prominence of the ETC group and their campaign Hands off Mother Earth. The ETC group avoided contrails vs chemtrails arguments. In fact their public statements on the subject were often so respectful of official representations of reality as to make many thoroughgoing conspiracy theorists perceive them as a Rockefeller-funded diversion (proponents of the “limited-hangout”).

Nevertheless, with the de facto moratorium they pushed through at Nagoya the ETC Group then made it possible for a new approach to be implemented to the whole subject of climate modification/geoengineering/spraying of aerosols from aicraft.

This was taken up by Michael Murphy and others (such as Enouranois in Greece) in the form of critiques of the “Financialization of Nature”.

The citizens’ group ATTAC brought out a video on the subject:

and shortly afterwards even put up on their ATTAC TV site the chemtrails video “Enouranois”.

A long-awaited breakthrough from a group that has long been perceived by “conspiracy theorists” as a bastion of the gatekeeper left.

The “Financialization of Nature” approach takes us away from the deadlocked climate change arguments and looks as if it may be opening a new phase in this discussion.  Let’s hope so.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 02 - 20:50:45

To get to Josh (because, as you said, Unliked, you ‘appreciate all input ao far’), yes, I did say that under other circumstances I might be asking you to prove a negative. But I could also ask you to prove a positive, i.e. that the Nagoya moratorium on geoengineering is being respected. After all, you make the claim that it is.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 02 - 21:04:37

Wayne Hall,

I don’t have to prove that what you and I are seeing in the sky is just normal weather plus some man-made (or man-induced) clouds. The existing science does that with all thoroughness.

You on the other hand are implicitly making the claim that there are sky phenomenons showing intentional manipulation. You have evaded showing any evidence for that claim so far.

You can talk moratoriums all day, but it’s just theory as long as there is nothing to show with respect to measurements or images.

Why don’t you just tell me what a chemtrail (or “radiation management”, if you want) looks like? Probably with an image link?

By Josh on 2012 07 02 - 22:30:08

All roads lead to contrails vs chemtrails.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 02 - 23:08:28

Here is Pat Mooney talking after Rio + 20.

This is the aspect of this subject that is of some interest and relevance.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 03 - 02:25:11

Wayne Hall,

how is this talk about exploitation of biomass relevant in the “chemtrail” discussion? It’s a valid issue, no doubt, but of no relevance here.

The question is still: do normal contrails persist and spread sometimes?

By Josh on 2012 07 03 - 22:12:20

Look the chemtrail vs contrail discussion is just a dumb argument started by people in the weapons laboratories who wanted to make a weapons system, a new post-Cold-War money making boondoggle and then in a later privatized phase a level for financial speculation, out of more and more features of what was once called “the natural world”. Discussion has been derailed for years by this dumb argument for losers and plebs and also by the “climate change debate”, which has got mixed up with it. Fortunately a discussion is starting up now on “the financialization of nature” that might make it possible to initiate a new approach. I don’t know who started you off on the contrail vs chemtrail thing, or what - if anything - you are getting out of it. But if I were you I would get over it, and quickly. Nobody is going to want to talk to you about this rubbish subject.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 03 - 22:45:48

Mooney’s comment on the pirates becoming the masters is, partially, an allusion to the ETC group’s own vocabulary, for they call geoengineering not geoengineering but geopiracy.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 03 - 23:32:55

today is a clear blue sky, not unlike many others experienced here in a regional center..

except today, i see planes crisscrossing the sky, with massive plumes following behind, that seem to be turned on and off at designated areas, the trails are not dissappearing, they are spreading.. there is still no other cloud that has not come out the back of a plane.. they are flying from horizon to horizon, there are no commercial flight paths that these planes are following..

come to my place wayne hall. and tell me im seeing things..

hurry up.. because in a few hours, the whole sky will be covered in a man made overcast haze..

there is no argument - its obvious these are not normal contrails.

if you think im going to trust what you say over what im witnessing as i type this, well theres no words to describe that as yet.

By Unliked on 2012 07 06 - 09:54:05

I wonder if this “Unliked” is the same “Unliked” as in the previous postings because the lack of understanding of my position does not make me feel confident that it is.

It is not I who have to be convinced that you are not seeing things. It is our colleague Josh.

And you are not right when you say there is no argument, because unless he has changed his position, he will argue with you, with a single-mindedness that deserves to be harnessed to a better goal. 

Ir is because I believe the argument is for losers and plebs that I suggest a different approach to the subject that does not depend on persuading Josh and the Joshes of anything.

Fortunately here in Greece they seem largely to lay off with the chemrails in summer time, so that we have an alomst normal looking blue eky.

But I can understand your outrage, All that I can’t understand is why you address these remarks to me. Please DO trust what I say when I say you should stop arguing with Josh about chemtrails.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 06 - 10:48:59


My name is Mike Glynn and I am an A330 captain with Qantas. I heard about chemtrails a few years ago and had a quiet chuckle and didn’t think too much more about it until a group of chemtrail activists decided to “confront” the captain of the QF 64 flight from Jo’Burg and demand to know why he was spraying Melbourne. This got my attention and further perusal of the issue reveals a gigantic hoax, perpetrated out of the US for the personal gain of a few. Carnicom is one… Morgellons research?!?!? give me a break. Michael J Murphy is another peddling his silly videos.

I have done all my arguing on Youtube and Facebook. I want some answers from you CT theorists.

The chemtrail hoax should be very easy to see through by anyone applying some very basic critical thinking. According to the theory, people like me are spraying people like you, including our own families, with substances like aluminium oxide, which is alledgedly in the fuel.

Many of the videos of persistent contrails that you claim are chemtrails are from verifiable commercial airliners like the ones I fly.

If this is so, there are only two valid scenarios. As a pilot I either;

A. Know about it


B. don’t know about it. (remote control)

Can you apply some critical thinking to answer some questions for me about each scenario?

Scenario A questions.

1. Aluminium oxide burns at 7000F and has a hardness factor of 9 on the Mohr scale; one less than diamonds.It is used a cheap alternative to industrial diamonds. Would you be happy to demonstrate how such a substance would react to being in a jet engine by putting a few pounds of it inside your own gas tank and letting us know how far you get before destroying your car?

2. I am legally responsible for any aircraft under my command. Why would I willingly accede to an airline managements complicity in this conspiracy to poison my own family or destroy my own country?

3. If I and all other pilots know about this, considering the fractious nature of airline labour disputes, and the opportunity presented for ANY operational staff to have their bosses thrown in jail for criminal conspiracy as outlined in Q.2, why has no whistleblower emerged…...ever!

Scenario B questions,

1. You probably don’t know about the process an airliner goes through to be certified to carry passengers. It takes around two years of testing on average. The Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767 and Airbus A320 and A330 all were designed in the 60s 70s and 80s. Do you expect me to believe that secret remote control chemtrail systems including tanks, plumbing, electrics and pumps were installed during the design and certification process back in the 60s, and that these systems remain hidden to pilots/engineers/mechanics to this day?

2. I do a walk around check of my aircraft before every flight. Why have I never noticed suspicious nozzles, plumbing, pump switches or circuit breakers. If the remote control system malfunctions… How is it managed without me knowing it?

3. Aluminium oxide has 4 times the mass of Jet A-1 for a given volume. It weighs a lot. I calculate takeoff performance figures for every takeoff and landing so they can be done safely. How do I do this safely if there are tons of chemicals on board, in a location I don’t know about and say, I have an engine failure on takeoff?

4. The air in a aircraft cabin comes direct from the outside and is not filtered. According to CT theory, people like me have been flying around in this stuff since about 1995. Why am I not dead?

Please take your time… I have other questions as well but would be very interested in a rational response. You can google Captain mike Glynn Qantas,  if you would like to verify my identity and my email address is mike.glynn59 AT

By Mike Glynn on 2012 07 07 - 15:49:50

Mike Glynn you don’t seem to have paid the slightest attention to any of my postings.

Perhaps you will tempt Insider into arguing with you or will encourage Josh to chip in again.

I accept debate only on my own terms.

This is something we seem to have in common.

By Wayne Hall on 2012 07 07 - 15:57:18

Page 3 of 55 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›

Listen Live

Recent Comments


Although I agree with many of their ideas, the forces reigned against RAM are too great, violent, statist and reactionary for them to remain a non-political, broad based, multi-ethnic, community protest group for much longer. The Left and their Antifa nihilist fellow travelers are already pushing them towards the extreme Right, by calling them racists and Islamophobes and so on. Whilst the extreme Right have aligned themselves with RAM. With fascists of the Left and Right pressuring them they will not be able to remain beyond the Left-Right divide and will inevitably move to the Right - the extreme Right. Which is already happening. A development which will alienate decent Australians of all ethnic backgrounds many of whom currently support them. 

The RAM leadership have already established open alliances with the Patriotic Front (the ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration) Australia First and Golden Dawn, a Greek neo-Nazi party. Members of these collectivist groups are currently attending RAM demonstrations all over Australia.

There is a real need in Australia to establish a political movement beyond the Left-Right divide and their vested interests, a movement that questions the current direction Australia is heading i.e. the direction the Left/Right and their extremes would like to take it; that questions the efficacy of state sponsored multiculturalism, as opposed to a proper, non-discriminatory immigration policy; that questions the validity of political correctness; that is politically neutral, anti-war and pro environment; that is opposed to all collectivists ideologies (fascisms of the Left and Right); that would dismantle the power pyramids of corporations and banks and their ability to impact on government; that would dissolve all anti-terror laws and all laws that impose on the rights and freedom of the individual and the people.   

(The ape in the photograph is a Patriot Front supporter at a recent Richmond demonstration)

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 07 26 - 15:36:56
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.

Hello there I am so thrilled I found your web site, I really found you by error, while I was searching on Digg for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thanks for a incredible post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I donÚčÖ have time to go through it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the great work.

By Prova a Adidas Neutro Originals Nizza Nero Giallo on 2015 07 20 - 08:41:30
From the entry 'Statism, the greater good and the big lie'.

I second Keith’s assertion that Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake.  He bangs on about Halaal being a scam and money maker for Islam (and no I don’t support Halaal whatsoever), but makes excuses for its counterpart Kosher as being a somehow legitimate.  Double standards?  When I confronted him about this fact he went off on a convoluted tirade about Israel being some sort of “Bastion of Democracy” in the middle east…Really!, I will leave that one up to the readers to decide on.  I found that MH came across as disingenuous to say the least.

By Citizen Scorn on 2015 07 19 - 07:33:43
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.

Without doubt, TNR is one of the best, if not the best alternative news source on the net. Which doesn’t mean Herewood is always right. His job, I believe, is to present the facts as he sees them as an objectively as possible, without fear or favor.  For this, he has my respect and support. But I believe he needs to be careful and to think a little deeper about the problems of “racism,” in Australia. He has labelled the Reclaim Australia Movement as racist. I’m wondering if his objectivity is a little weak on this point, a little without foundation.

Of course all political movements have its fringe groups and individuals. We make a distinction between, for example, a Muslim and a fundamentalist Muslim (Islamist), and by so doing we don’t claim that all Muslims are blood thirsty fanatics. If its good for the Muslims, then its good for RAM, which is bound to attract a few lunatics and real racists. But to brand the entire movement as “racist” is wrong; it is the same ploy that is used by the mainstream media and its left-wing, establishment Marxist boot boys.

One of the first things I noticed when i attended a RAM rally recently were the amount of non-white people in attendance, including Aboriginals. In fact the main banner of RAM contains an Australian flag and an Aboriginal flag. Speakers at their rallies have included Jews, Arabs, Indians, Aboriginals, Chinese and so on. What does this tell you? Is this really a fascist-Nazi-racist movement whose stated aim are the eradication and exclusion of other cultures, in place of some sort of Aussie white Reich, or is this just propaganda that is being propagated by the left for their own political interests. Consequently, we all know where the culmination of their politics have led, historically speaking, which are to the imposition of terror and dictatorships.

We can be thankful for small mercies, in terms of the Left, which today mostly tends to attract collectivists, establishmentarians and the privileged sons and daughters of the upper bourgeoisie, who seems to share one thing in common, nativity….

By Eugene on 2015 07 18 - 16:03:54
From the entry 'Dylann Roof: soldier in a new race war or just a pawn in the game?'.

Mike Holt from Restore Australia is very much a fake.  He hasn’t even been citizen for but a few years.  But, he makes out like he was born there.  ALSO - this guy spent 30 years in Thailand working shady businesses.  I would wager that his primary purpose in being an activist is that he wants to make money off selling merchandise.

By Keith on 2015 07 17 - 20:51:15
From the entry 'Restore Australia!'.

good to see you putting out some new shows heraward

freely the banana girl is to a certain extent a troll, as is her boyfriend durian rider. they have been trolling the fitness community on youtube for some time… and yes they are extreme but they are also trolls. They use their trolling to spread their message. currently, another dude called vegangains is trolling the fitness community as well.

i am a vegetarian, and it was seeing this documentary on the pork industry that started me on the vegetarian path. for anyone interested, its pretty off the charts disturbing and its australian as well. its pretty much made by dudes breaking into pork farms and filming what they find

Would the world be better if people cared where their food came from? probably, they might then care about other things too

do you become a better person if you dont eat meat? i feel like a better person mainly because animals aren’t being hurt because of me. i dont feel humans have to eat meat really… or at least not much. How can you watch that documentary on pork, know that that is pretty much whats going on and turn a blind eye to it? I think its basic empathy and just saying well ‘i like bacon so yeah’ is in my opinion wrong and i can see freleys point of view to an extent. In my opinion, at least these people believe in something. i see my money as my vote, henceforth im ethical as to what i do with it. free range eggs became mainstream for exactly this reason… although im pretty sure woolies and coles lobbied the state to change the definition of the word ‘free range’ at some point. I dont eat beef because the amount of resources that go into growing a cow are pretty crazy. Think about how much grass that cow needs to eat before it is harvested and how much space it requires. think of how many vegies you could grow in the same space with the same amount of water. lamb? comon, think about what your doing here… but that being said i think most vegans are total loons. People like freeley should be advocating for the destruction of lions and tigers, as lions and tigers murder other animals in truly horrific style. if we humans are smart enough to not harm animals, then we should be stopping the animals that harm other animals from existing. Freeley also kills birds when she flies in aeroplanes so she is a hypocrite.

feminism is one of the biggest problems in society today and although there is some valid historical basis to it, the liberation of the human female from their biology is in my opinion largely a product of the technological advance of humans. sufferagettes where never machine gunned on the streets, unlike the men that where drafted and sent off to war to die just a few years earlier. as technology has advanced, women have advanced as well, however now its going way too far and is pretty blatantly anti male in many respects. i view feminism in its modern context as a tool of the social marxists that really isnt doing society a great deal of good at this time. its screwing up gender dynamics and is wrecking women and men for each other. i see it as low frequency, lowest common denominator idiocy, just like a lot of the the race baiting ‘is this racist’ stuff getting around that is being perpetuated pretty much as a distraction, divide and conquer strategy by the power elite. idiots love this kind of bicker and beef… it would be funny if it wasn’t so serious


I agree with steven friar. gods a maniac

good show… keep making them

By r0Kb3B0p on 2015 07 14 - 21:05:32
From the entry 'Addictions, obsessions, fanaticisms and distractions'.

Really truthfull.

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:56:36
From the entry 'Defending your personal health choices'.

Yeah sure authority aware.

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:28:55
From the entry 'What is the future of Australia?'.

Stay tuned for more rules here as usually is the case!!!

By OZE on 2015 07 07 - 16:21:50
From the entry 'Mass media disinformation and brainwashing dissected'.

Almost two months since the last broadcast! How the hell can you expect people to donate when you don’t broadcast? Looks like the ship of truth has sprung a leak. This broadcast has been part of my life almost since its inception…it is one of the few alternative news sources that hasn’t gone off the deep end, by dilution credible information with crap e.g. Fairdinkum Radio and Info Wars…Pittard started FR with some incredibly interesting material, but then he flipped…Today he sounds like a fundamentalist preacher, the Christian equivalent to a Fanatical Islamist. As an atheist, I think he’s really ###### up a potentially good show. As for Info Wars, all they would have to do to improve is dump Alex Jones, what a shit-for-brains. I reckon Jones and Pittard are allowed to proliferate, because they’re so stupid and harmless. I suppose they have some entertainment value, and along with David Icke are living examples of how low the alternative media has sunk. Truth News Radio is, or should I say was, way ahead of them all ahead of them all in terms of credibility How sad that its come to this.

By Eugene on 2015 06 28 - 17:28:56
From the entry 'Introducing Mark Zuckerberg's free 'private' internet which will soon be rolled out to 4 billion+ people'.