Posts Tagged ‘explanation’
Making an argument
Although often we make arguments to try to learn about and understand the world around us, sometimes we hope to persuade others of our ideas and convince them to try or believe them, just as they might want to do likewise with us. To achieve this we might use a good measure of rhetoric, knowingly or otherwise. The term itself dates back to Plato, who used it to differentiate philosophy from the kind of speech and writing that politicians and others used to persuade or influence opinion. Probably the most famous study of rhetoric was by Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, and over the years philosophers have investigated it to try to discover the answer to questions like: What is the best (or most effective) way to persuade people of something? Is the most convincing argument also the best choice to make? Is there any link between the two? What are the ethical implications of rhetoric? Although we might take a dim view of some of the attempts by contemporary politicians to talk their way out of difficult situations with verbal manouevrings that stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition, hoping we’ll forget what the original question was, nevertheless there are times when we need to make a decision and get others to agree with it. Since we don’t always have the luxury of sitting down to discuss matters, we might have to be less than philosophical in our arguments to get what we want. This use of rhetoric comes with the instructional manual for any relationship and is par for the course in discussions of the relative merits of sporting teams.
In a philosophical context, then, we need to bear in mind that arguments may be flawed and that rhetorical excesses can be used to make us overlook that fact. When trying to understand, strengthen or critique an idea, we can use a knowledge of common errors – deliberate or not – found in reasoning. We call these fallacies: arguments that come up frequently that go wrong in specific ways and are typically used to mislead someone into accepting a false conclusion (although sometimes they are just honest mistakes). Although fallacies were studied in the past and since, as was said previously, there has been something of a revival in recent times and today people speak of critical thinking, whereby we approach arguments and thinking in general in a critical fashion (hence the name), looking to evaluate steps in reasoning and test conclusions for ourselves.
Logical fallacies are common errors of reasoning. If an argument commits a logical fallacy, then the reasons that it offers don’t prove the argument’s conclusion. (Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that these particular reasons don’t show that it’s true.) There are literally dozens of logical fallacies (and dozens of fallacy web-sites out there that explain them).
Fallacies of Distraction
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options.
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force.
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person’s character is attacked.
(2) the person’s circumstances are noted.
(3) the person does not practise what is preached.
Appeal to Authority:
(1) the authority is not an expert in the field.
(2) experts in the field disagree.
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.
Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.
Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.
Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed.
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.
Missing the Point
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.
Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion.
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.
Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says.
Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.
Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property.
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A.
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B.
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.
Stolen Concept: using a concept while attacking a concept on which it logically depends.
•Appeal to Authority
•Appeal to History
•Appeal to Popularity
•Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
•Correlation not Causation
•Restricting the Options
You need to be able to recognise each of these fallacies, and also to explain what is wrong with arguments that commit them. Once you’ve learned what the fallacies are, pay attention and see if you can spot any of them being committed on TV, the radio, or in the press. it’s fascinating to see how the conspiracy-theorist’s minds work. They seem to be especially fond of (all of them, really):
Perhaps the most basic error in the use of empirical data is simply “misrepresenting” it. This can occur in a number of ways. One possibility is simply deliberate distortion, claiming that a data set proves something when it doesn’t. If people have an agenda, and set out to prove it, they may reach for the first bit of evidence they can find that even seems to fit their position. Closer examination may show that the evidence isn’t quite as supportive as was first claimed. Alternatively, someone confronted with potentially problematic evidence for their position may misrepresent it to make the problem go away. A similar error can be committed accidentally. Sometimes when people look at a data-set they see what they want or expect to see, rather than what is actually there. The effect of our presuppositions on our interpretation of evidence should not be underestimated. It can lead to conclusions being drawn which simply aren’t supported by the evidence. A further way in which data may be misrepresented is if it is presented selectively. A varied data set can be described focusing in on certain sections of it. The data set as a whole is thus misrepresented; it is effectively replaced by a new set comprising of unrepresentative data.
A common problem with evidence sampling is drawing conclusions from “insufficient data”. This is related to the generalisation fallacy. To prove a theory, it is not enough to observe a couple of instances that seem to support it. If we want to know what percentage of the population take holidays abroad, we can’t find out by asking five people, calculating the percentage, and applying the result to the population as a whole. We need more data. This raises the question: how much data is enough? At what point does a data-set become sufficiently large to draw conclusions from it? Of course, having enough data is not a black-or-white affair; there is no magic number of observations which, when reached, means that any conclusion drawn is adequately supported. Rather, sufficiency of data is a matter of degree; the more evidence the better. The amount of confidence that we can have in an inference grows gradually as more evidence is brought in to support it.
Simply having enough data is not enough to guarantee that a conclusion drawn is warranted; it is also important that the data is drawn from a variety of sources and obtained under a variety of different conditions. A survey of voting intentions conducted outside the local Conservative Club is not going to provide an accurate guide to who is going to win the next general election. A disproportionate number of people in the vicinity will be Conservative voters, and so the results of the survey will be skewed in favour of the Tory party. The sample is not representative. A survey to find out what proportion of the population own mobile phones would be similarly (though less obviously) flawed if it were conducted near a Sixth-Form College. The sample of the population would be skewed towards teenagers, who are more likely than average to own mobile phones, distorting the figures. Collecting data from a variety of sources is one thing; collecting it under a variety of conditions is another. A survey of what type of vehicles use local roads conducted at a variety of locations, but always at the same time of day, would not yield representative data. Conducting it during rush-hour would mean that commuter-traffic would be over-represented in the results; conducting it in the evenings might mean that public transport would under-represented in the results. Differences in what types of drivers drive at what times would need to be factored in when designing the experiment. The quality of a data-set is thus not just a matter of how much data it contains, but also of how representative that data is likely to be. To minimise the problem of “unrepresentative data”, evidence must be collected from as wide a range of sources as possible, and under as varied conditions as possible.
Appeal to Force
(Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion. It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader. If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent’s argument that he will smash your nose in if you don’t agree with his claim doesn’t change the truth of an issue. Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration. The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however. The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash–financial, professional, and so on. Example: “Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000. I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.” While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community. Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators’ constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn’t vote the way they want. Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers, or risk failing the class. Note that it is isn’t a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!
Appeal to Popularity
The “appeal to popularity fallacy” is the fallacy of arguing that because lots of people believe something it must be true. Popular opinion is not always a good guide to truth; even ideas that are widely accepted can be false. An example is: “Pretty much everyone believes in some kind of higher power, be it God or something else. Therefore atheism is false.”
Two million people watching does not mean a video is true. Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true; consequently, just because a lot of people do not believe or understand something, does not make it false.
“Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase. Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.” – Associated Press, Sept 3rd, 2009.
The appeal to popularity is almost automatically controversial at times, as sometimes the right move is unclear or sophisticated. Robert Gates is choosing to go against the grain because he feels he is justified by a greater cause than appeasing popular opinion.
Be also careful of an Appeal to Unpopularity. A lot of pseudoscience claims they are being persecuted by the mainstream, and there is thus a conspiracy to keep their knowledge hidden. The number one way to avoid both of these appeals is to stick to the data and ignore the marketing. I’ll give you a hint: real science does not depend on flashy graphics or bold typeface every other word, just to get your attention because the truth can speak for itself. Go against the flow…
Science is all about defeating the Appeal to Popularity. The idea is that people are inherently flawed and easily fooled. The best way to know something is to try your damnedest to prove it wrong. If you actually prove something right, make sure you send it to numerous other scientists and see if they can prove you wrong. It’s humbling and time consuming, but it is the reason your monitor is beaming photons into your optical lobe right now. Science struggles with acceptance because the populace usually despises its cruel, sometimes boring conclusions. No gods on Olympus? Fooey! No psychic healing? Frogswallop! Besides, I don’t want to be a loner with obscure views, so I’m going to go with the flow… and if I’m wrong, then everyone’s wrong, so who cares?
Think of Mob Rule. Imagine you are a black man in the 1700’s and some racist white folk are about to lynch you for the crime of being born. Almost everywhere you turn, you find nothing but racism. You know it’s absurd, all the claims they make about you, since you know yourself better than their superficial judgments. You have facts, and evidence; they have hate, and ignorance. Now do you care? Sometimes it’s dangerous to go against the flow, there are bullies at every stage in life. The cruelty of others is endless, and thus the will to fit in is powerful. It is hard to resist the “Appeal to Popularity”. The key is to always question the facts, to buy based on reality not perception. Are you sick and your friend is suggesting some sort of weird “new age” treatment? Ask an expert, read some journals, examine some tests.
The Appeal to Popularity is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy. It usually starts off as a perception with a low sample size, and grows larger not because it is efficient at what it claims, but is effective at marketing itself, since it is essentially a feedback loop of ever increasing loudness. Your turn… Can you think of a moment where you, or someone you know of, fell for the “Appeal to Popularity”?
“Circular” arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove. If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular. The problem with arguments of this kind is that they don’t get you anywhere. If you already believe the reasons offered to persuade you that the conclusion is true, then you already believe that the conclusion is true, so there’s no need to try to convince you. If, on the other hand, you don’t already believe that the conclusion is true, then you won’t believe the reasons given in support of it, so won’t be convinced by the argument. In either case, you’re left believing exactly what you believed before. The argument has accomplished nothing. An example is: “You can trust me; I wouldn’t lie to you.”
Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
“Necessary conditions” are conditions which must be fulfilled in order for an event to come about. It is impossible for an event to occur unless the necessary conditions for it are fulfilled. For example, a necessary condition of you passing your A-level Critical Thinking is that you enrol on the course. Without doing so, there’s no way that you can get the qualification. “Sufficient conditions” are conditions which, if fulfilled, guarantee that an event will come to pass. It is impossible for an event not to occur if the sufficient conditions for it are fulfilled. For example, a sufficient condition of you passing an exam is that you get enough marks. If you do that, there’s no way that you can fail. Some arguments confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. Such arguments fail to prove their conclusions. An example is: “People who don’t practise regularly always fail music exams. I’ve practised regularly though, so I’ll be all right.” Not having practised regularly may be a sufficient condition for failing a music exam, but it isn’t necessary. People who have practised regularly may fail anyway, due to nerves, perhaps, or simply a lack of talent.
Correlation not Causation
The “correlation not causation” fallacy is committed when one reasons that just because two things are found together (i.e. are correlated), there must be a direct causal connection between them. Often arguments of this kind seem compelling, but it’s important to consider other possible explanations before concluding that one thing must have caused the other. An example is: “Since you started seeing that girl your grades have gone down. She’s obviously been distracting you from your work, so you mustn’t see her anymore.”
An argument is “inconsistent” if makes two or more contradictory claims. If an argument is inconsistent, then we don’t have to accept its conclusion. This is because if claims are contradictory, then at least one of them must be false. An argument that rests on contradictory claims must therefore rest on at least one false claim, and arguments that rest on false claims prove nothing. In an argument that makes contradictory claims, whichever of those claims turns out to be false the arguer won’t have proved their conclusion. This means that it is reasonable to dismiss an inconsistent argument even without finding out which of its contradictory claims is false. Examples are: “Murder is the worst crime that there is. Life is precious; no human being should take it away. That’s why it’s important that we go to any length necessary to deter would-be killers, including arming the police to the teeth and retaining the death penalty.” This argument both affirms that no human being should take the life of another, and that we should retain the death penalty. Until this inconsistency is ironed out of the argument, it won’t be compelling. Also: “We don’t tell the government what to do, so they shouldn’t tell us what to do!” These were the words of an angry smoker interviewed on the BBC News following the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England. Her claim that she doesn’t tell the government what to do is instantly refuted as she proceeds to do just that.
Arguments often use specific cases to support general conclusions. For example, we might do a quick survey of Premiership footballers, note that each of the examples we’ve considered is vain and ego-centric, and conclude that they all are. (Or we might offer one example of an argument that moves from the specific to the general as evidence that others do the same.) We need to be careful with such arguments. In order for a set of evidence to support a general conclusion, the evidence must meet certain conditions. For example, it must be drawn from a sufficient number of cases, and the specific cases must be representative. The more limited or unrepresentative the evidence sample, the less convincing the argument will be. Arguments that base conclusions on insufficient evidence commit the “generalisation fallacy”. Examples are: “Smoking isn’t bad for you; my grandad smoked thirty a day for his whole life and lived to be 92.” and “Estate agents are well dodgy. When we moved house… [insert horror story about an estate agent inventing fake offers to push up the sale price].”
Restricting the Options
We are sometimes faced with a number of possible views or courses of action. By a process of elimination, we may be able to eliminate these options one-by-one until only one is left. We are then forced to accept the only remaining option. Arguments that do this, but fail to consider all of the possible options, excluding some at the outset, commit the “restricting the options” fallacy. An example is: “Many gifted children from working class backgrounds are let down by the education system in this country. Parents have a choice between paying sky-high fees to send their children to private schools, and the more affordable option of sending their children to inferior state schools. Parents who can’t afford to pay private school fees are left with state schools as the only option. This means that children with great potential are left languishing in comprehensives“. Quite apart from any problems with the blanket dismissal of all comprehensives as inferior, this argument fails to take into account all of the options available to parents. For the brightest students, scholarships are available to make private school more affordable, so there is a third option not considered above: applying for scholarships to private schools. Unless this option can be eliminated, e.g. by arguing that there are too few scholarships for all gifted children to benefit from them, along with other options such as homeschooling, the conclusion that children with great potential have no alternative but to go to comprehensives is unproven.
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself. Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “Don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”. Any attack on irrelevant biographical details of the arguer rather than on his argument counts as an ad hominem, however: e.g. “that article must be rubbish as it wasn’t published in a peer-reveiwed journal”; “his claim must be false as he has no relevant expertise”; “he says that we should get more exercise but he could stand to lose a few pounds himself”.
“Tu quoque” is Latin for “you too”. The tu quoque fallacy involves using other people’s faults as an excuse for one’s own, reasoning that because someone or everyone else does something, it’s okay for us to do it. This, of course, doesn’t follow. Sometimes other people have shortcomings, and we ought to do better than them. We can be blamed for emulating other people’s faults.
“Straw man” arguments are arguments that misrepresent a position in order to refute it. Unfortunately, adopting this strategy means that only the misrepresentation of the position is refuted; the real position is left untouched by the argument. An example is: “Christianity teaches that as long as you say ‘Sorry’ afterwards, it doesn’t matter what you do. Even the worst moral crimes can be quickly and easily erased by simply uttering a word. This is absurd. Even if a sinner does apologise for what they’ve done, the effects of their sin are often here to stay. For example, if someone repents of infanticide, that doesn’t bring the infant back to life. Christians are clearly out of touch with reality.” This argument distorts Christianity in a couple of ways. First, it caricatures repentance as simply saying the word ‘Sorry’. Second, it implies that Christianity teaches that all of the negative effects of sin are erased when one confesses, which it doesn’t. Having distorted Christianity, the argument then correctly points out that the distortion is ludicrous, and quite reasonably rejects it as “out of touch with reality”. The argument, however, completely fails to engage with what the Church actually teaches, and so its conclusion has nothing to do with real Christianity.
Appeal to Authority
An “appeal to an authority” is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true. In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to make a mistake. The mere fact that someone says that something is true therefore doesn’t prove that it is true. The worst kinds of appeal to authority, however, are those where the alleged authority isn’t an authority on the subject matter in question. People speaking outside of their area of expertise certainly aren’t to be trusted on matters of any importance without further investigation.
Appeal to History
There are two types of “appeal to history”. The first is committed by arguments that use past cases as a guide to the future. This is the predictive appeal to history fallacy. Just because something has been the case to date, doesn’t mean that it will continue to be the case. This is not to say that we can’t use the past as a guide to the future, merely that predictions of the future based on the past need to be treated with caution. The second type of appeal to history is committed when it is argued that because something has been done a particular way in the past, it ought to be done that way in the future. This is the normative appeal to history fallacy, the appeal to tradition. The way that things have always been done is not necessarily the best way to do them. It may be that circumstances have changed, and that what used to be best practice is no longer. Alternatively, it may be that people have been consistently getting it wrong in the past. In either case, using history as a model for future would be a mistake. An example is: at the start of the 2006 Premiership season, some might have argued, “Under Jose Mourinho, Chelsea have been unstoppable in the Premiership; the other teams might as well give up on the league now and concentrate on the Cup competitions.”
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison between two cases. They examine a known case, and extend their findings there to an unknown case. Thus we might reason that because we find it difficult to forgive a girlfriend or boyfriend who cheated on us (a known case), it must be extremely difficult for someone to forgive a spouse who has had an affair (an unknown case). This kind of argument relies on the cases compared being similar. The argument is only as strong as that comparison. If the two cases are dissimilar in important respects, then the argument commits the “weak analogy” fallacy.
Sometimes one event can set of a chain of consequences; one thing leads to another, as the saying goes. The “slippery slope” fallacy is committed by arguments that reason that because the last link in the chain is undesirable, the first link is equally undesirable. This type of argument is not always fallacious. If the first event will necessarily lead to the undesirable chain of consequences, then there is nothing wrong with inferring that we ought to steer clear of it. However, if it is possible to have the first event without the rest, then the slippery slope fallacy is committed. An example is: “If one uses sound judgement, then it can occasionally be safe to exceed the speed limit. However, we must clamp down on speeding, because when people break the law it becomes a habit, and escalates out of control. The more one breaks the law, the less respect one has for it. If one day you break the speed limit, then the next you’ll go a little faster again, and pretty soon you’ll be driving recklessly, endangering the lives of other road-users. For this reason, we should take a zero-tolerance approach to speeding, and stop people before they reach dangerous levels.”
Appeal to Ridicule
The “appeal to ridicule” is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form: X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). Therefore claim C is false. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!” It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non-fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.” Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false. Some examples of “appeal to ridicule” are: “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition fees, but that is just laughable.” and “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!” and “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant. “Post hoc” is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many cases of superstitious religious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.
Alias: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. Translation: “After this, therefore because of this”, Latin. Type: Non Causa Pro Causa Forms. Event C happened immediately prior to event E. Therefore, C caused E. Events of type C happen immediately prior to events of type E. Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.
Example: “The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically. Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. … Evidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work. For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business. The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%”.
Source: “The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership”, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000. Source: “Fact Card”, Handgun Control, Inc.
Analysis of the Examples
Counter-Example: Roosters crow just before the sun rises. Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.
Exposition: The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its “effect”. Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.
Exposure: Post Hoc also manifests itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences. Superstition and magical thinking include Post Hoc thinking; for instance, when a sick person is treated by a witch doctor, or a faith healer, and becomes better afterward, superstitious people conclude that the spell or prayer was effective. Since most illnesses will go away on their own eventually, any treatment will seem effective by Post Hoc thinking. This is why it is so important to test proposed remedies carefully, rather than jumping to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence.
Analysis of Examples:
These two examples show how the same fallacy is often exploited by opposite sides in a debate, in this case, the gun control debate. There are clear claims of causal relationships in these arguments. In the anti-gun control example, it is claimed that so-called “right-to-carry” laws “effectively reduce” public shootings and violent crime. This claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates since the mid-1980s in states that have passed such laws. In the pro-gun control example, it is claimed that state and local gun control laws “work”, presumably meaning that the laws play a causal role in lowering handgun crime. Again, the claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates in one state. However, the evidence in neither case is sufficient to support the causal conclusion.
For instance, violent crime in general fell in the United States in the period from the mid-1980s to the present, and – for all that we can tell from the anti-gun control argument – it may have fallen at the same or higher rates in states that did not pass “right-to-carry” laws. Since the argument does not supply us with figures for the states without such laws, we cannot do the comparison.
Similarly, the pro-gun control argument does not make it clear when Massachusett’s drop in crime occurred, except that it was “after” – “post hoc” – the handgun control law was passed. Also, comparative evidence of crime rates over the same period in states that did not pass such a law is missing. The very fact that comparative information is not supplied in each argument is suspicious, since it suggests that it would have weakened the case.
Another point raised by these examples is the use of misleadingly precise numbers, specifically, “7.65%” and “5.2%” in the anti-gun control example. Especially in social science studies, percentage precision to the second decimal place is meaningless, since it is well within the margin of error on such measurements. It is a typical tactic of pseudo-scientific argumentation to use overly-precise numbers in an attempt to impress and intimidate the audience. A real scientist would not use such bogus numbers, which casts doubt upon the status of the source in the example. The pro-gun control argument, to its credit, does not commit this fallacy. This suggests, though it doesn’t nail down, an appeal to misleading authority in the anti-gun control one.
Sibling Fallacy: Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Source: T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 131-132.
Julian Baggini, “Post Hoc Fallacies”, Bad Moves.
Robert Todd Carroll, “Post Hoc Fallacy”, Skeptic’s Dictionary.
Moving the goalpost
“Moving the goalpost”, also known as “raising the bar”, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt. This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion. Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features. An example is: Bella Donna claims that Sybil Antwhisper, her room-mate, is not sharing the housework equitably. Sybil tells Bella to go away and itemize and record who does what household tasks. If Bella can show that she does more housework than Sybil, then Sybil will mend her ways. A week passes and Bella shows Sybil clear evidence that Sybil does not “pull her weight” around the house. Sybil (the advocate) responds: “That’s all very well, but I have more work and study commitments than you do – you should do more housework than me… it’s the total work of all kinds that matters, not just housework.” In this example the implied agreement between Bella and Sybil at the outset was that the amount of housework done by both parties should be about the same. When Sybil was confronted by the evidence however, she quickly and unilaterally “changed the terms of the debate”. She did this because the evidence was against her version of events and she was about to lose the argument on the issue as originally defined. By “moving the goalposts”, Sybil is seeking to change the terms of the dispute to avoid a defeat on the original issue in contention. The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met. Accusations of this form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another. For example, killing all the fleas on a cat is very easy without the usually unstated condition that the cat remain alive and in good health.
Non sequitur in normal speech
The term “non sequitur” is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.” However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase. Other examples include: “If you buy this car, your family will be safer.” (While some cars are safer than others, it is possible to decrease instead of increase your family’s overall safety.) and “If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog.” (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.) and “I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.” (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)
Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
The “fallacy of the undistributed middle” is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy. More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur. It takes the following form: All Zs are Bs. Y is a B. Therefore, Y is a Z. It may or may not be the case that “all Zs are Bs,” but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion. What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that “all Bs are Zs,” which is ignored in the argument. Note that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to “All Zs can only be Bs” then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound. This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs. An example can be given as follows: Men are human. Mary is human. Therefore, Mary is a man.
Affirming the Consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur: If A is true, then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true. Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises. This sort of non sequitur is also called “affirming the consequent”. An example of affirming the consequent would be: If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B) I am a mammal. (B) Therefore, I am a human. (A) While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another type of mammal without also being a human. The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises – it is a ‘non sequitur’. Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.
Denying the Antecedent
Denying the antecedent, another common non sequitur. is this: If A is true, then B is true. A is false. Therefore B is false. While the conclusion can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur. This is called denying the antecedent. An example of denying the antecedent would be: If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan. I am not in Tokyo. Therefore, I am not in Japan. Whether or not the speaker is in Japan cannot be derived from the premise. He could either be outside Japan or anywhere in Japan except Tokyo.
Affirming a Disjunct
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: A is true or B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is not true. The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both true. This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive. An example of affirming a disjunct would be: I am at home or I am in the city. I am at home. Therefore, I am not in the city. While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could have her home in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.
Denying a conjunct
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: It is not the case that both A is true and B is true. B is not true. Therefore, A is true. The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both false. An example of denying a conjunct would be: It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city. I am not at home. Therefore, I am in the city. While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.
Logically Fallacious Fallacies
by James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe
Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards. Therefore, they are invalid.
If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn’t argue from an appeal to pity.
What would your mother say if you argued from an appeal to sentiment?
I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity.
If you argue from an appeal to force, I’ll have to beat you up.
You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity.
Everyone knows that an argument from appeal to popular opinion is invalid.
Circular reasoning means assuming what you’re trying to prove. This form of argument is invalid becuase it’s circular.
As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are invalid.
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc arguments often precede false conclusions. Hence, this type of argument is invalid.
Using the Argumentum ad Consequentiam makes for unpleasant discussions. Hence, it must be a logical fallacy.
The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. If three repetitions of this principle haven’t convinced you, I’ll just have to say it again: the argumentun ad nauseum is invalid.
Ancient wisdom teaches that the argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.
An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion. But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument. Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof.
If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other forms of weak arguments. Eventually, we won’t be able to reason at all. Hence, we must reject slippery slope arguments as invalid.
A real logician would never make an argument based on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. If anyone who claims to be logical and makes arguments based on this fallacy, you may rest assured that s/he is not a real logician.
An argument based on a logical fallacy often leads to a false conclusion. Affirming the consequent often leads to a false conclusion. Therefore, affirming the consequent is a fallacy.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is often used by politicians, and they often try to mislead people, so undistributed middles are obviously misleading.
Reasoning by analogy is like giving a starving man a cookbook.
Non sequitur is a Latin term, so that’s a fallacy too.
And I bet the gambler’s fallacy is also invalid – I seem to be on a roll!
In a way, it makes me sad — because some of these folks are clearly intelligent and well-spoken… but haven’t been armed with even a basic grounding in scientific method or the traps of various logical fallacies. It says quite a lot about our educational system.
Barker, Stephen F. The Elements of Logic. Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Cedarblom, Jerry, and Paulsen, David W. Critical Reasoning. Third Edition. Wadsworth, 1991.
Copi, Irving M., and Cohen, Carl. Introduction to Logic. Eighth Edition. Macmillan, 1990.
Rand, Ayn Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Second Edition. Penguin, 1990.
•Brian Yoder’s Fallacy Zoo
•Charles Ess, Informal Fallacies
•Fallacies: The Dark Side of Debate
•The Galilean Library Guide to Fallacies
•The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacy entry
•Logical Fallacies .Info
•Michael LaBossiere’s Fallacies Introduction
•Philosophy.Lander.Edu, Introduction to Logic, Informal Fallacies
•Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies
•Wheeler’s Logical Fallacies Handlist
I can’t reply on drewswebsite because he has BLOCKED me. He’s the seventieth site to do this so far.
There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses a “VAPOR TRAIL”, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidities are frequently only hundreds of feet thick and ARE CONSTANTLY VARIABLE in speed, direction, temperature and humidity. Aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are nowadays 1000ft above or below each other.
So you’ll see SOME planes laying vapor trails while others don’t – it depends WHICH transparent stratospheric layer a particular plane is flying through.
Jet exhausts are NITROGEN, STEAM, and CARBON DIOXIDE at 2000 deg C (with traces of NOX and SOX). This cools RAPIDLY in an ambient stratospheric air temp of between -40 and -80 deg C to a FINE “WHITE SMOKE” OF ICE CRYSTALS in N2 and CO2.
If the stratospheric layer it is in is SUPERSATURATED (more than 100% humid), the ice crystals accrete more ice, get heavier, and fall faster.
If the stratospheric layer it is in is SATURATED (exactly 100% humid), the ice crystals REMAIN, but SLOWLY DIFFUSE TO FILL the stratolayer. The powerful WAVE VORTEX generated by the aircraft wing continues for tens of minutes after the aircraft has passed by, slowing to a stop very slowly.
If the stratospheric layer it is in is BELOW SATURATED (less than 100% humid), the ice crystals will slowly SUBLIME back into vapor AND THE TRAIL WILL DISAPPEAR.
The layers themselves aren’t perfectly flat – they roughly conform to the ground profile AND any rising CUMULUS clouds. So even if the plane flies straight and level, it may be the layer it is in slopes gently down or up, and THE CONTRAIL EITHER APPEARS OR DISAPPEARS as it enters a NEW stratospheric layer with a DIFFERENT HUMIDITY. You have to remember these layers, though different, are ALWAYS themselves transparent.
So you can’t SEE them. You can only see which layer is really humid by a plane throwing a vapour trail in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. It is NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT FROM TABLES STRATOSPHERIC LAYER TEMPERATURES FROM GROUND LEVEL TEMPERATURES.
The stratospheric layers vary in thickness, more densely packed close to the TROPOPAUSE, thinning out to nothing much above twelve miles up. It’s very smooth and calm up there – the layers slide over each other WITHOUT MIXING. Layers with HIGH GROUND SPEEDS are called JET STREAMS.
If there are MORE vapor trails in the sky than there used to be, then the answer is that there is MORE AVIATION TRAFFIC and MORE WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
At this point someone will interject “Your Theory…” and I want to plainly cut this short.
THIS IS ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and NOT MY THEORY.
If you wanted to PASS ANY EXAMINATION IN THIS FIELD then you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE THE TRUTH.
Eurodele, at least you are TRYING to ask questions, but:
“why many jets, laying persistent contrails, would converge in time and space 100 miles from any large airport” – Easy. The speed of stratospheric layers over your head can reach 100mph. If contrails are persistent, then they could have been laid just an hour previously “over” an airport. Next time you see this phenomenon, time the movement of trails from horizon to horizon, and estimate the speed of the stratosphere
“strangely concentrated and patterned jet trails through or over which other jets can pass with normal contrail dissipation” – From FIVE miles beneath, you CANNOT TELL between “through” and “over”. This makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE if one (invisible!) layer is HUMID, and the layer above or below it (also invisible!) is DRY. Contrailscience cannot be held responsible for your failure to INTERPOLATE information…
Look, Ever, I am a normal guy looking at PURE BUNK: this last statement of yours. The proof that this last statement of yours is HORSE FEATHERS can be found by any sensible person merely by going to their LIBRARY, and READING any book they like which covers ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. Now you wouldn’t object to that, would you?
“I’m one of the many victims” – of an industrial economy.
“They are spraying” – IT IS MAKING AUTO FUMES, PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG, AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS.
“I will not go out to see them because my asthma is terrible” – ASTHMA IS CAUSED BY THE ABOVE AND ALSO BY POLLEN.
“Whatever these things are” – I thought you KNEW
“they are indeed making people sick” – People have been made ill by industry for 150 years in your country.
“The quality of the air is so poor in the Bronx and lately it is worst than ever” – Your country is producing effluents at an ever-increasing rate
“I wonder why” – NO YOU DON’T. You have already come to a WRONG CONCLUSION.
“Debunkers/ experts/ authorities on/ chemtrails/80-90%/ real info/hidden propaganda” – Why did you write this and why the quotes? What hidden propaganda? There’s NOTHING hidden here – check my channel – I’m a MUSICIAN here.
“If you are a Musician, why do you get so defensive about this topic? I see that you spent a lot of time proving your point, great.” – I am defending (quite literally) – nothing. I am ATTACKING false and dangerous beliefs.
The Bard of Ely (with whom I have worked) enjoined me to support his “chemtrail” blog. When I read it I was astonished – I’d never met such rubbish in my life. I knew FROM EXPERIENCE (I’m an ex-aeronautical engineer) that the whole idea was wrong for a HOST of reasons. I thought that a small campaign of scientific advice would clear it up – more fool me! There have been 60 Google pages listing my attempts.
My main concern is with HEALING. If one suffers from the delusion that aircraft are deliberately spraying you with substances to make you ill, and you ARE living in polluted air, then any illness you get merely serves to CONFIRM your delusion. If, however, I manage to convince a person such as YOU, suffering from such a delusion, that after all, aircraft are NOT spraying you, you may PERMIT yourself recovery from what was a temporary state of illness. You also have a choice: to MOVE to cleaner air, or to AGITATE to remove the sources of pollution.
There is a third and most important point, that almost NO-ONE has any confidence in our system. This is because PAST APATHY has allowed the wrong people in. The ONLY WAY to get the government you want is to BE the government you want. Frank Zappa was right: you MUST stand for office.
The very best outcome of this “chemtrail” movement would be a NEW PARTY – neither Republican nor Democrat – which would seek to redress ALL the terrible imbalances to Nature that we have created, whilst preventing both a cultural CRASH, and a Global Warming CRISIS.
But you’ll never do it without a full understanding of SCIENCE…
New Developments of the Theory of Everything
(Nothing whatsoever to do with “chemtrails”, but I don’t care!)
Startling progress has been made towards a final physical theory of Everything (sometimes called TOE) which unifies and brings into comparison the disparate Theories of Relativity and Quantum Fields.
If true, the gaps in our knowledge will be displayed. That which we don’t know that we don’t know – we will know!
And here are more references for you to follow up:
“serve to cause confusion to the issue” – That seems to be YOUR role here as it is QUITE OBVIOUS that what comes out of a gas turbine IS what makes SODA-POP.
“attempt to make rational people who are making observations and discussing their experiences appear to be conspiracy nuts and/or uneducated” – ANY “rational” person would know to read up on technical aspects BEFORE “making observations and discussing their experiences” especially if they felt they were uninformed.
“You are using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection (example “This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public”) as the basis of your argument” – the public IS under-educated. YOU are under-educated. YOU are KNOWINGLY using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection when confronted with my challenge that you ARE under-educated (see the subject of EVIL below).
“These are exactly the tactics that are used to manipulate rather than uncover the truth” – for you this statement ISN’T a discovery!
“You should know that your posts are smacking of someone with an agenda” – and yours positively REEKS of one.
“government plant” – AHA! We’re sophisticated these days at
– hope you like the blog, piccies and music.
“No one mentioned anything about what the trails were” – DISINGENUOUS hypocrite! I quote – “Obvious trails, definitely converging” – “latest plane curving at same angle” – “they just keep coming” – “it’s pretty obvious” – “that’s the one” – “somebodies doing something” – “really strange spiralling effect” – “they’re just non-stop”. My, my, how “INNOCENT” you really are….
“YOU were the one to put forward a theory for what they are” – It is THE EXPLANATION made from an understanding of atmospheric physics. It isn’t a “theory”. It is established atmospheric science. Your “chemtrails” are a theory.
“YOU said the video post is “wrong” which makes no sense – my video was only making an observation that something is going on” – OF COURSE it is wrong. If I hadn’t typed in “CHEMTRAILS” I wouldn’t have pulled you up. That very WORD is a LIE with no basis.
“In additional YOU brought up the subject of evil, no one else here did” – IT IS EVIL TO KNOWINGLY MISDIRECT AND TERRORIZE OTHERS.
The stratosphere temperature at the tropopause NEVER RISES ABOVE -40 deg C.
In A FRACTION OF A SECOND the exhaust, a mixture of NITROGEN, STEAM, AND CARBON DIOXIDE cools down from 2000 deg C to -40 deg to form a WHITE SMOKE OF FINE ICE CRYSTALS in a column of N2 and CO2 gases.
In HIGH HUMIDITIES that trail will PERSIST and even GROW. In LOW HUMIDITIES the ICE will SUBLIME to invisible WATER VAPOR.
There is no-one alive that can possibly be sufficiently clued-up on this. Whether you’re a specialist or a generalist makes no difference – from now on some aspect of our developing world is going to take you completely by surprise.
There is no doubt that one day soon an off-the-shelf computer will possess a greater processing power than the Human Brain.
But in the interim we will all have created (and endured) a startingly-exponential rate of change which could easily be totally out of our control. In the generation after the next we might well have produced a computer powerful enough to help us regain control of our civilization, but in the meantime – we’ll just have to rough it.
Extreme? I find myself arguing with people who know the extremes of NOTHING. They’re hardly capable of anything. They know the extents of their boundaries, and kinda suppose that the rest of the world goes on just a bit longer…
Chemtrailers are like people who are hammering their hands with hammers and complaining about the pain. They know no extremes other than their own extremities.
THIS IS EXTREME!
“S-I-C-K ! !” “D-U-D-E ! !”
FIRST CONTRAIL (PHOTO)
“other planes left Con trails that vanished” – then the trails were left in a DRY layer.
“other planes did not have trail” – they ALWAYS leave a trail in the stratosphere, but it may be VERY SHORT.
“at various heights” – ABOVE FIVE MILES?
“other trails lingered, spread” – then the trails were left in a SATURATED layer.
“are these trails Chem or Con trails” – CONTRAILS.
“I don’t know, I’m not a bird or a scientist” – I DO know. I AM a scientist.
“length/linger/sheet/layer/haze/slide/spray pattern/within 5-10 minutes/suspicious” – just coincident with a WET layer of the stratosphere.
“not natural/condensation trails” – you’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?
“know that planes dump fuel/not sure they dump it this low” – a plane that dumps fuel is doing it in order to survive an immediate landing. Being mobile it normally goes out to sea to do it, and will be LOW DOWN. Your chances of seeing THAT are RARE indeed.
“don’t know if it is fuel or something else/fuel = chemical” – EVERYTHING is a chemical, unless it is an ELEMENT. You’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?
“This is not the first time” – that aircraft have left persistent contrails in saturated air? Flying Fortresses in 1943 certainly did!
FRACTALS IN NATURE
Fractal calculations have an ever-expanding relevance to the task of understanding Nature with the tools of Science.
first of all, the theme by thomas tallis is very good and the pictures too, i am from germany, so my english is a little bit poor.
it seems to me that you have a good knowledge about atmospheric procedures, so i want to ask you a question.
i have watched “chemtrails” for over 2 years now, and i am still not clear, if it’s chemical spraying or normal contrails.
i understand the “layers of differing humidities” principle, that can explain some “chemtrails”. so that i see here a “chemtrail” and there a normal contrail. ok but i have filmed airplanes that have no contrail at all, and beginning to spray, and make an longstanding contrail and then stop it, to make no contrail again.
the confusing thing here is for me is that this airplane made a wingwidth stripe almost direct behind the plane. so you dont’ see two or four stripes, or how much engines it had, you see only a thick stripe all over the wingspan and it stays for hours and diffuses to thick cloud, and before it had no contrail and after that, and it sprayed at the end some little short trails, as if it stop the spraying, and there nor come a little bit of it. you can literaly see how it sprays. and in the spray direct behind the plane there were colours in the trail, because of the angle to the sun.
what do you think of that, how is it possible, if an airplane had two or four engines that it can make such a trail, and then the trail stays for “ever”? thanks for your time, and sorry for my english. i am waiting for your answer.
Hi FROZEMAN – I appreciate your English, and how hard it is to write in a different language… I’m glad you liked my music video. It makes the hard work (and a lot of musical pleasure) even more worthwhile.
The plane was NOT “spraying”. “Chemtrails” don’t exist. It is ONLY contrails that exist. The phenomenon you describe is the trail of ice crystals left by an ordinary passenger jet flying through a supersaturated stratosphere. *The separate engine trails become “bound up” in the wave vortex of each wing – these may be more than fifty metres across.
Read my blog at http://jazzroc.wordpress.com, especially SCIENCE ON TRAILS. It is towards the end of the alphabetically-sorted compendium.
There, a scientist describes carefully how and why the whole body of an airplane generates a trail in a supersaturated stratosphere.
“Saturation” is a term used to describe how the air is “full” to its limit with water vapor. Ice cannot sublime into the air, and so cannot “disappear”. Trails laid in such conditions persist indefinitely.
“Supersaturation” occurs in calm clean “laminar” conditions, where the air becomes “over its limit” with water vapor, and just needs the slightest disturbance to precipitate out its overload of ice. Trails laid in such conditions get LARGER and HEAVIER and FALL….
The ICE crystals in the trail generated by the wings and body are microscopic in size and can REFRACT and DISPERSE light by INTERFERENCE, which accounts for the colors one can sometimes see.
Ordinary cirrus clouds also produce (on occasion) such coloured effects. They are called PEARLESCENT CIRRUS. There is another name for them – NACREOUS CLOUDS.
There used to be stories of a pot of gold to be found at the foot of every rainbow. Now science shows that everyone sees a different rainbow, and there is NO WAY you can approach its foot – ever.
“Chemtrails” are like this; a myth which, like a rainbow, disappears as soon as science looks at it. Let it go…
FUN IN THE SUN
It is only very rarely that I return to Blighty. I do it when I feel strong enough within myself to withstand a WEEK (well, three weeks max) of its brute power and brazen importunity.
I had a truly wonderful time whizzing through London on an Oystercard to yak with old buggers my age about software, businesses, engineering, aircraft, steam trains, (nothing about cars – hardly), beer, booze, and women. (All the women we know, by the way, talk about us, so it’s only fair to even up the ante. If they let us.)
Anyway, that aside I was aghast that once again British weather was making with the knee-freezing combination of 18 deg C and 85% humidity as I departed, mercifully freeing myself from being charged 30 pee to pee.
Back to a balmy 32 degrees, I discovered THIS idiocy had, as they say, GONE VIRAL. So – possible fun!
NOTE: Comments text arrives higgledy-piggledy according to the vagaries of YouTube, so sometimes you have to fish around to find the connections. This amuses me considerably…
Missymoo, have you just removed a concealed compliment to me, because your PROGRAMMING just kicked in?
Tch. Tch. Naughty, naughty…
“wise pensioner who knows name calling is unbecoming” just made me blush from head to foot, and now we’re BOTH blushing
Too embarassing… LOL )
Another irritating thing…
Chemtards are woolly-headed, I know, and cannot describe anything because even if their eyes are good, their brain doesn’t work
So let me tell you EXACTLY what CHAFF really is
It is ANY electrical conductor of an exactly specified LENGTH
In large amounts they REFLECT electromagnetic radiation (RADAR) with a wavelength of EXACTLY the same length
This was called WINDOW and used by the Allies in WW2 to confuse German radar air defences and prevent huge bomber losses
Then it was aluminum-coated paper, now it is zinc-plated glass fibres – which I think isn’t so nice and biodegradable
But in neither case is it harmful or poisonous – the fibre length is in the range 15-45 millimetres depending on the radar frequencies used by the enemy, and cannot be ingested by living beings
The amounts involved in a chaff release are in pounds – small beer
ANYONE using CHAFF as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”
Just as ANYONE using CHEMTRAILS as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”
The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
Once the water vapor becomes RAIN, then that rain will fall into a rain gauge so that some poor ignorant girl can become the victim of another slimy and vicious “chemtrail” video
Contrails are the IQ test that “chemtrailers” FAIL
beachcomber seems like a bit of a shill but not for the big pharma as expected I think for a much different organisation perhaps one they would tell u doesn’t exist. Iluminating ppl with the BS. Don’t let his desperate negative explanations get 2 you. You know the truth when it is presented, don’t let him second guess your well versed inner knowing of Truth. The trick of giving you the truth shrouded amongst lies esp regarding aluminium and barium – truth but lies moulded to deceive you.
@MissyM005 If you KNEW scientific method, missymoo, then all you have to do is
SHOW THE EVIDENCE
There’s absolutely NO POINT in telling others not to believe what I say
It is THE EVIDENCE that counts
and those white lines in the sky ARE evidence – evidence of CONTRAILS
It IS the TRUTH that aluminum and barium are in SOIL
and TRUE that soil dust puts aluminum & barium in RAINWATER
And also TRUE that that I’m a PENSIONER
You can call me the PAT CONDELL of chemtards
Who are YOU, MISSYMOO?
Quoting myself: “Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor”
And as a consequence you will find in your rain gauge ALUMINUM and BARIUM – courtesy of your local farmer
Then, if you are ignorant, you may appear on a “chemtrail” video
In the old days we had Jacques Tati, Benny Hill, Monty Python, Bill Hicks
Now “chemtrails” – a whole world of a comedy of errors
Aluminum is the MOST PLENTIFUL metal in the Earth’s crust
Not far down the list is BARIUM
You find BOTH in SOIL – CLAY is aluminum silicate
Exposed soil becomes dried and makes DUST which becomes easily WINDBORNE
The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
ALL plants are “aluminum resistant” because they EVOLVED in aluminum-rich conditions
Despite ALL the crap you wrote in this post, THE EPA CERTIFIED LAB SAID 0.5 MICROGRAM PER LITER IN RAIN WATER IS NORMAL. 3450 IS 6900 TIMES NORMAL YOU CEREBRAL MIDGET.
Energydrain, I WAS impressed by your little search, and must confess I KNOW the way it could be done
Forming large amounts of tungsten is very nearly impossible
Forming NIMONIC (nickel/molybdenum steel alloy) is a little easier
EVERY PART of the exhaust turbine section of a gas turbine is air-cooled from the rear face of the alloy sheet material they’re made of
Your “tube” would have to be streamlined concentric pipes of nimonic alloy
They would HAVE to be BROKEN for EVERY refit
The liar bastard in you said that jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees Celsius. The maximum temperature for (JET A-1) fuel is 980 Celsius.
The following have melting points higher than that: Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Cobalt, Titanium, Chromium, Iridium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Carbon
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, kiddo, I’ve just been back to the FAST exhibition at Farnborough where they have a cutaway Rolls-Royce Conway engine with the combustion temperature labelled at 2,400 degrees Centigrade
Why don’t you go there and tell them (the designers and manufacturers) that they are wrong?
And I know for a fact that the delivery requirements for the Welsbach materials in Teller’s paper were 80,000 feet. It kinda stood out, you know
Melting point isn’t a good indicator. Softening point IS
And while you’re watching the documentary, you will see that the WHOLE of the work force, and the technical staff, live and work right round the plane
The wings are glued together, so there is NO WAY of picking them apart to RETROFIT “stuff”
This means EVERY ONE OF THEM, including the lady with the glue gun, would have to know the “chemtrail” equipment installed
EVERY FITTER in EVERY WORK BAY ALL OVER THE WORLD would have to know about Energydrain’s “tungsten pipes”
Yet no whistleblowers
There are whistle blowers, you just have to look for them. Two aircraft mechanics found that tubing was leading to the lighting protection rods on the wings and they had been hollowed out. When his supervisor spotted him looking too closely, he was suspended for two weeks. They threaten whistle blowers with losing their jobs and blacklisting them.
@EnergySupply2008 There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found
Ignorant people everywhere like conspiratorial conversations and activities because it makes them feel important
Intelligent people everywhere are NOT impressed by threats or blackmail or blacklists
If there WAS any truth in any part of this it would have been gone already
So HOW DO YOU get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
In WHAT FORM is the barium/aluminum distributed?
Stop changing the subject & answer my questions
You wrote: “There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found”
YOU are delusional. I found rain water tests, patents, geo engineers talking about spraying 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum per year and so much more that cannot be covered adequately with this 500 character limit shitty interface. I already told you, the patent calls for 32800 feet and they could spray lower if they wanted to really blast us with aluminum particles in our lungs.
It has always puzzled me…
Why do chemtards believe “chemtrails” are used to fight Global Warming, when they are known to be Global Warming DENIERS?
Why do they believe EVERYONE but them corrupt?
In my experience, clever people who study hard and pass exams in engineering do so because THEY LOVE THE SUBJECT
All my classmates did. They also loved cars, beer, music and the opposite sex
Entering some corrupt organization is the LAST thing they would do
You should watch “The Making of the 777″
This will solve your puzzlement. 2900 flights per day needed to deliver 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum PER YEAR to the atmosphere. RAIN RAIN RAIN water tests showing up to 6900 times more aluminum than normal. Class is over.
Energydrain: “chemtrail patent 5,003,186 issued to HUGHES AIRCRAFT, which talks about adding the aluminum to the fuel“
was formulated by someone who WASN’T a gas turbine engineer
There are patents for a hotel on the Moon – so it must exist
Why don’t you go there?
Scotty can beam you up
You will find thousands of morons already there
Energydrain: “Tungsten melts at 3400 degrees Celsius. Care to try again you shit for brains?”
I’m terribly sorry. You ARE correct about its melting point
To confirm, could you check the price and availability of tungsten tubing?
When that’s done, we could consider you to have won the argument
Where can you get it, and how much it costs, price and availability
Shouldn’t take a moment
Just get back to me
The current price for tungsten is $297 per metric ton (2204.6 US pounds) Only 13.5 cents per pound. It is used in incandescent light bulbs, cathode-ray tubes such as TV and computer monitors, vacuum tube filaments, heating elements, and rocket engine nozzles. 2009 production was 53 tons.
Aerosols are always present in the atmosphere, otherwise there wouldn’t be any clouds at all
Aerosols are generated by the oceans, forests, tundra, and volcanoes (85%) – and the industrial and farming activities of Man (15%)
Aerosols have existed in Earth’s air for FOUR POINT FIVE BILLION YEARS
That’s a little ahead of Edward Teller and chemtards
Why aren’t we BURIED in them?
WATER transports them down to land and sea
Even when extinction-event asteroids fell, the aerosol effects were GONE in 10 years
Shit. I had to rewrite it so many times because youtube blocks me every time I write something because I talk shit to all you shills. BTW. They don’t use commercial airliners. But seriously… all spelling aside, Shit will leave your mouth. Nasty.
@stephenbowman311 Yes, YT has a shit filter
It’s a pity it doesn’t apply it to shitty vids like this one
The thing is that it doesn’t know shit about science, just as you don’t, so it is unable to discriminate diahorrhea from honey, just as you can’t
I extend my sympathies to both of you and other chemtards everywhere
It must make shopping difficult
How do they deliver Welsbach materials to 80,000 feet? Mmmmm……
@beachcomber2008 Its funny you consider this to be a shitty vid, but you look through the comments and you’ve been here for a long time. I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology. I just came to F with you shills for a while and talk shit. Your not here for facts anyway. You are here on your shift spewing disinfo. I don’t go shopping. Thats for the women.
@stephenbowman311 “I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology”
What’s a B.A. in Biology? Since when was Biology an ART?
I got my degree in the sixties before DUMBING DOWN took place
I have been, and my wife presently is, a physics teacher, and I know for a fact that Advanced level today is what Ordinary level physics was for me
So don’t bullshit me, bro’
Tell me, how do YOU think they get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
Well, I am terribly sorry, but you have not posted anything at all scientific!
Like explaining where all the barium and aluminum comes from and why?
Where does the 100 to 200 millions tons of aluminum come from considering the total world yearly production is only 33 million tones?
In other words, the uneducated authors of this video just do not know enough to make out a viable case!
Why should any sensible person take this cause at all seriously?
The video corrects it to 10-20 megatons with an annotation and you know it. David Keith, when asked 10 megatons will gave no human health impacts, does not offer a different number.
I have already posted twice, if you go to Worldal.com you will see that world production of alumina (aluminum oxide) is 67 megatons per year, yet you insist on lies and being a scumbag that it is 33 megatons per year.
Your knowledge of chemistry is pitifully small. Aluminum metal and alumina are two entirely different compounds. Aluminum has a formula weight 27 while alumina, aluminum trioxide, has a formula weight of 102. Thus 102 grams of alumina contains 54 grams of aluminum.
Thus the world output of 67 million tones of alumina would represent some 35 million tones of aluminum, EXACTLY what I said.
That is enough of this paranoidal Chemnut rubbish for tonight! Thanks for the laugh!
YOU are a total idiot. According to you 35 million tons of aluminum is turned onto 67 million tons of aluminum oxide and there is no aluminum left over to have aluminum for other purposes.
I like the way this has “gone viral”
With little effort thousands of chemtards line up to get drubbed
So energydrain thinks there are tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines
Well, the NEXT time I go flying I shall take a camera and snap away at them
I WON’T ask the captain if he can fly at 80,000 feet because I know the answer (he cannot) and I wouldn’t want him to think I’m a moron – or a CHEMTARD
Edward Teller’s idea requires aircraft to LIFT the Welsbach materials to EIGHTY THOUSAND FEET, otherwise they won’t stay up for long
Unfortunately for Edward (and chemtards) only the U2 and the X15, and maybe the B1 can get up there
That’s certainly the reason why “chemtrails” don’t exist
Chemtards point at passenger plane contrails
and that’s why sensible people KNOW chemtards are just plain stupid
Contrails are an intelligence test which chemtards fail
HUGHES AIRCRAFT chemtrail patent 5,003,186 calls for spraying at 32,800 feet and says 10-100 micron sized particles will stay aloft for up to one year. Geoengineer David Keith wants to use NANO sized particles. A nano is 1000 times smaller than a micron and estimates particles will stay aloft for 2.5 to 4 years.
mikemb123: “condensation does not require aerosols”
NO. It ALWAYS REQUIRES AN AEROSOL
AEROSOLS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS PRESENT
When they are NOT present to allow condensation, the saturated vapor becomes SUPERSATURATED
Why are the dunces in the classroom shouting from the teacher’s desk?
I guess the Chemnuts satisfy their paranoia just just posting some nonsense they took from some other dud Chemtrail nonsense video.
OK so be it !
Written by JazzRoc
November 5, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with aerosol, agenda, aluminium, aluminum, ambient, apathy, arthritis, aviation traffic, bard of ely, barium, blocked, blog, book, breathing difficulties, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, chemtrail, civil aircraft, confidence, confusion, conspiracy nut, contrail, crisis, cultural crash, cumulus, delusion, different humidities, diffuse, direction, disingenuous, drewswebsite, eamination, effluent, emotion based redirection, established, established atmospheric physics, eurodele, evil, experience, explanation, faulty logic, filaments, fortress, frank zappa, frozeman, gas turbine, global warming, gold, google, government, government plant, healing, heavy haze, high ground speed, horizon, horse feathers, humidity, hypocrite, ice crystals, industrial economy, innocent, interference, jazzroc, jet exhaust, jet stream, large airport, library, lie, lines in the sky, lung disease, metallic salts, misdirect, morgellons, movement of trails, music, nitrogen, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, NOX, observation, oily clouds, pearlescent cirrus, persistent contrails, phenomenon, piccies, ptb, pure bunk, rainbow, rational, rense, saturated, soda pop, sox, speed, spraying, steam, strato-layer, stratospheric, sublimate, sublime, supersaturated, technical aspects, temperature, terrorize, tic-tac-toe, transparent layer, tropopause, Truth, understand, uneducated, uninformed, unnatural cloud, vapor trail, variable, water in the atmosphere, wave vortex, webby material, white smoke, whiteout, wrong conclusion, your theory
ME DRIVING AROUND TOWN – MEN AT WORK – MILITARY – MINNIS AT WORK – MORONS STUMBLE INTO OFFICE – MUST WORK – NICSCICS “NICKED” – MAKING THE 777
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
ME DRIVING AROUND TOWN
Dude, the writing is on the wall, give us all a break!
Contrails ARE a man-made cirrus. The daily dumping of a MILLION TONS of ICE into the very cold and rarefied stratosphere is LIKELY to SATURATE it. The WAVE VORTEX of each passing plane is a powerful STIRRER. It would be unreasonable for you to expect blue skies as a consequence. Do you ever travel by air?
If that writing on that wall weren’t an incoherent scrawl of mistakes, myths, lies, and deceit, without a SINGLE evidential trail, I WOULD give you a ‘break’.
But there is NOTHING there…
I quote: “Let us stop the fakers & hoaxers who ruin the credibilty of certain subjects with their moronic videos who spread lies, hate & deceit, catching people in their web of delusion. We are against doom and gloomers & UBDCT’s: “uneducated basement dwelling conspiracy theorists.” It is not a crime to expose the slanderous lies these people tell, and debunk their videos with conclusive evidence, more like a social duty.”
like planes leaving long “clouds” that linger for hours and turn nice days into shitty ones, and speaking of shitty, watch you tone with me pal, you are coming off as a total asshole.
I thought you said you watched the whole 9:56 of the video. I am talking about about those black clouds at the end of the video the planes left behind. let me explain a simple fact to you, I live in Las Vegas, you might not know this, but Vegas is like a small island surrounded by desert, we have one major airport, and one major air force base, and outside of the city limits there is no other major cities for hours. its like living in a fish bowl, its easy to notice things
personally, i think they have turned the atmosphere into a huge plasma screen. it ought to get interesting around the 17th of this month when we switch to all digital delivery of television signals.
wow makenwaves, you got hit by epoxynous and jazzroc! that puts you in the bigs! keep posting, and keep watching the sky and the weather for more freak tornados, downpours, droughts, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.
p.s. thanks to jazzroc for bagging the soda pop line…
I am going to post a new video every Sunday night, because I have noticed Chem trails every Sunday Morning, and from this week forward, I am going to document it, and along with it I am going to post numbers and address to local and national offices that people can use to express their thoughts on the matter. its time to start asking the right people some serious questions, and don’t worry, Jazzroc will not be listed.
Contrails mon. Go to wikipedia and type in “contrail”, for a pretty good explanation of the mechanism. The planes in your vid that did not have contrails were too low for them to form. It’s thought that contrails affect the weather, but I’m not sure it’s been proven positively.
There are NO chemtrails. That’s bs from the fringe. They want you to buy their books and videos. Of course, if you’re a true believer, I’ve wasted my time typing this. Truth, reason and logic does not apply to them.
MEN AT WORK
Men at WORK…
DUST in air,
Pollens flying everywhere…
Sun, wind, air,
Distribute “poisons” everywhere.
See a trail…
‘Tis but a CLOUD,
It’s IGNORANCE that shouts so LOUD!
“pictures prior to 1998 hardly showed vapor trails” – Wrong. First seen 1943 US B17s daylight bombing of Nazi Germany from 29,000 feet. All stratospheric flights since.
“identified as military KC-135 planes” – ALL planes leave vapor trails, short to long, dependent on stratospheric humidity.
“why do they appear when humidity v. low” – THERE’S NO CONNECTION between troposphere and stratosphere. It can be (and often is) DRY down here and WET up there.
“why can’t they be tracked on flight explorer?” – KC-135s? Why can’t you track the MILITARY on flight explorer? Are you serious?
MINNIS AT WORK
www.forum.planeta.com – The difference has led to some surprises, said Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist.
www.greenbug.synthasite.com – From those isolated contrails, unmixed as they were with the usual dozens of others, Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, and his colleagues were able to gain valuable insight into how a single contrail forms. Those once-in-a-lifetime data sets are so useful that Minnis is about to analyze them again in an expanded study.
Briefly Empty Skies Offer Climate Clues
The ideal way to measure such an effect would be to look at the same piece of sky when air traffic is heavy and when it is absent, said Dr. Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.
But the skies are never devoid of aircraft. At least that was the case until Sept. 11.
Since then, Dr. Minnis and others have been reviewing satellite images of clouds and contrails. “Near dusk on the 11th, the only contrails in the East were three streaks heading from Nebraska to Washington, almost certainly Air Force One and its escort taking President Bush from Offutt Air Force Base to the White House”, Dr. Minnis said.
Everything matched, he said: “the trajectory and timing and the fact that nothing else was flying.” The most valuable data were collected the next day. Only nine military flights crossed a region from Ohio to Virginia, an area normally cloaked in cirrus clouds from the 700 to 800 jets crossing daily, Dr. Minnis said.
With those images, his team was able to chart precisely how those nine threadlike contrails fanned out over five hours to form a shield of cirrus clouds covering 24,000 square miles.
Dr. Minnis provided other satellite views of the area on a more typical day which show a broad area of clouds fringed by fading contrails. Having an isolated view of individual contrails spreading into clouds should allow scientists to refine computer systems that scan satellite images for contrails’ effects, he said. “Ultimately,” he said, “the observations will refine computer models of the overall effect of aviation on climate”.
AGU newly elected Fellows
Patrick Minnis NASA/ LARC, Hampton, VA
AReCO in the News
NASA scientist Patrick Minnis has studied contrails and believes they may have a prominent role in global warming. A 2002 report by the British Scientific Commission agrees, concluding that “aviation-induced cirrus clouds will be a significant contributor to warming.” But Minnis says another NASA study concludes that the contrails have little effect on global warming. Further research is being done.
Contrails, the thin, white clouds that planes leave behind in the sky, are responsible for a portion of the warming recorded in the USA from 1975 to 1994, says Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia. During that period, the USA’s average temperature rose by 1 degree – hardly a heat wave, but significant by climate standards.
Minnis acknowledges that it’s difficult to calculate exactly how much of the U.S. warming is attributable to contrails. It could be only a small fraction. Even so, he says, the contribution is “significant.”
A research team of American and German scientists, headed by Patrick Minnis of the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, reports evidence that contrails cause a warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.
From those isolated contrails, unmixed as they were with the usual dozens of others, Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Langely Research Center, and his colleagues were able to gain valuable insight into how a single contrail forms. Those once-in-a-lifetime data sets are so useful that Minnis is about to analyze them again in an expanded study.
In a study published in 2004, for example, Minnis and colleagues reported that contrails are capable of increasing average surface temperatures sufficiently to account for a warming trend in the U.S. between 1975 and 1994.
But some climatologists believe Minnis and his colleagues may have overestimated the contrail warming effect.
For his part, Minnis intends to keep his eye on condensation trails and their aftereffects.
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect,” said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.
The study was published April 15 in the Journal of Climate.”During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady,” he added.
“This study indicates that contrails already have substantial regional effects where air traffic is heavy, such as over the United States.As air travel continues growing in other areas, the impact could become globally significant,” Minnis said.
Patrick Minnis NASA Contrail Scientist “IT COULD BE AN INFLUENCE WE REALLY HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT”
When air traffic was grounded after September 11th — NASA scientist Patrick Minnis was astonished to see contrails from just 6 fighter jets cover more than 11-thousand square miles.
“WE LEARNED THAT ONE CONTRAIL CAN PRODUCE A VERY LARGE CLOUD ALL BY ITSELF.”
Other scientists noticed that without commercial traffic show thermometer readings with the red temp range increasing from 80 to 78 … to 80 to 75) to temperature swings between daytime highs and nighttime lows widened by as much as 5 degrees. Minnis now believes contrail clouds increased surface temperatures in the United States up to one full degree between 1975 and 1994.
“IT’S JUST ONE OF A NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT EFFECTS THAT TOGETHER COULD RELEASE A SIGNIFICANT SIGNAL … “
Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric researcher with California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) and ardent chemtrails critic at NASA’s Langley Research Center, reports that cirrus cloud cover over the US is up 5 percent overall because particulates in engine exhaust are acting as cloud-forming nuclei.
in their limited airspace, says Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist at NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. Contrails form and then disperse to look almost exactly like cirrus clouds.
Minnis and his co-workers tracked them to see how they spread, presenting their results at a 2002 meeting of the American Meteorological Society and incorporating the data into models.
On a global scale, Minnis’ team reported in the April Journal of Climate that from 1971 to 1995, cirrus coverage increased over the northern oceans, the United States and Western Europe, matching growth in air traffic over those regions. Eastern Asia also saw an increase. Humidity measurements incorporated into the study, Minnis says, indicate where contrails (and cirrus) were likely.
“When it comes to human impacts on climate”, Minnis says, “contrails are one of the most visible.”
On this point of fact, the program’s government expert, Pat Minnis of NASA claimied that all exhaust, commercial and military, was perfectly normal.
The Associated Press distributed a lengthy article, praising the findings of Minnis.
‘This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect,’ said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.
The study was published April 15, 2004 in the Journal of Climate. ‘During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady,’ he added.
‘It indicates that contrails should be included in climate change scenarios,’ Minnis said. Minnis determined the observed one percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the United States is likely due to air traffic-induced contrails.
Using published results from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (New York) general circulation model, Minnis and his colleagues estimated contrails and their resulting cirrus clouds would increase surface and lower atmospheric temperatures by 0.36 to 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. Weather service data reveal surface and lower atmospheric temperatures across North America rose by almost 0.5 degree Fahrenheit per decade between 1975 and 1994. www.agu.org/inside/fellows2009.html
“The jury is out on the impact of contrails,” said Patrick Minnis, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Langley, Virginia.
Project scrambling for funds “We’re scrambling trying to find other funding,” so far unsuccessfully, says Patrick Minnis, a NASA atmospheric scientist who is a leading figure in contrails research.
Meanwhile, scientific data are growing ominous: *Cirrus cloud cover has increased an average of 5 percent over three National Weather Service stations in Northern California since 1971, says Minnis, who is based at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va.
It is presently impossible to know how much, if at all, Minnis said. But he says that much increase in cirrus cloud cover would cause anywhere from 0.5 to 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit increase in temperature “if all things held equal.”
The amount of global aircraft emissions is expected to increase by up to six times by the year 2050, based on studies by the International Civil Aviation Organization, Minnis says.
Says Minnis: “You’re going to see more contrails because the number of airplanes is increasing”.
During the days after 9/11, when the FAA grounded all commercial flights, Smith tells us that it provided an opportunity for Dr. Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center to perform some research.
Minnis was able to study the affects of a single contrail’s movement from the Washington, D.C. corridor tracking it through the mid-Atlantic states.
A research team of American and German scientists, headed by Patrick Minnis of the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, reports evidence that contrails cause a warming of the Earth’s atmosphere.
“If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy,’ ” says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. “Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.”
According to AFP, Patrick Minnis, a senior researcher at Langley, stated that the man-made “cirrus clouds are already having an impact on climate, increasing temperatures on regional levels as much as two to five percent. “Hmmm …I wonder how long it will take my chemtrail debunker knuckledraggers to smear and eat their own? Think they’ll be calling Minnis a kooky conspiracy theorist anytime soon?
Travis’ results are difficult to argue with, says Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. He and his colleagues will report their analysis of satellite images of contrails at the same conference. In a series of photos taken Sept. 12, individual cloud trails of high-flying military aircraft stand out clearly in a nearly cloud-free region west of Washington, D.C. In just a few hours, six contrails, each of which started out a few meters wide, spread to cover more than 20,000 square kilometers. The observations of these single contrails along aerial highways normally crowded with dozens of aircraft may help scientists develop better models of how contrails spread and affect climate, says Minnis.
Patrick Minnis (N.A.S.A.), Ayers, Rabi Palinkonda, and Dung Phan from Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., of Hampton, Va.
‘As air travel continues growing in other areas, the impact could become globally significant,’ Minnis said.
It indicates that contrails should be included in climate change scenarios,’ Minnis said. Minnis determined the observed one percent per decade increase in cirrus cloud cover over the United States is likely due to air traffic-induced contrails.
Using published results from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (New York) general circulation model, Minnis and his colleagues estimated contrails and their resulting cirrus clouds would increase surface and lower atmospheric temperatures by 0.36 to 0.54 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
Weather service data reveal surface and lower atmospheric temperatures across North America rose by almost 0.5 degree Fahrenheit per decade between 1975 and 1994. Minnis worked with colleagues Kirk Ayers, Rabi Palinkonda, and Dung Phan from Analytical Services and Materials, Inc., of Hampton, Va.
As air travel continues growing in other areas, the impact could become globally significant,’ Minnis said. ‘This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975, but it is important to acknowledge contrails would add to and not replace any greenhouse gas effect,’ said Patrick Minnis, senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. The study was published April 15, 2004 in the Journal of Climate. ‘During the same period, warming occurred in many other areas where cirrus coverage decreased or remained steady,’ he added.
Presenting on March 2 will be Dr. Patrick Minnis of the NASA Langley Research Center.His lecture is titled “Global Warming – A Cool Appraisal.”
Currently their impact is currently small as compared to other greenhouse effects. They predict, however, that it may grow by a factor of six over the next 50 years. The researchers emphasize that these are conservative estimates, which take into account only the thicker contrails that can be readily observed.
“If you try to pin these people down and refute things, it’s, ‘Well, you’re just part of the conspiracy,’ ” says atmospheric scientist Patrick Minnis of NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. “Logic is not exactly a real selling point for most of them.”
Air Traffic Blues – Popular Science
Patrick Minnis, the senior researcher of the NASA study, admits that the outlook is gloomy. ‘It’s not like you’re never going to have a blue-sky day, he says, but you’re certainly going to have fewer and fewer’.
AirHead : News
Dr. Patrick Minnis, a senior research scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, reported that his team was able to use satellite photographs to track the nine contrails as they spread out to create a layer of cirrus clouds covering 24,000 square miles over five hours.
MORONS STUMBLE INTO OFFICE
Yes, they actually DO stumble into a government office, make unsubstantiated accusations, receive dull acknowledgment and bluff denial, and leave without leaving ANY document of any sort.
The hapless government is obviously perplexed, but too polite or stupid to ask WHY they are there, for he can see no reason for it.
He cannot see the tiny spy videocamera they have pointed at him. They are a 39 buck bargain buy. That is the reason. What’s that smell?
You are invited to contact Ross Bell (530) 225-5674 or email firstname.lastname@example.org and ask him what he thought he was doing in a government office with a spy camera and unsubstantiated accusations.
The comments (remember YouTube comments run backwards in time) will have run on in their nasty way since this WHOLE DAY of baseless accusations and unanswered practical questions:
Hi witless, I see you’re
STILL adhomming away like there’s no tomorrow
STILL avoiding ALL the practical questions
STILL losing your temper when you’re losing
That last part was never suggested in my Jay Reynolds piece called
HOW TO RUN A CONTRAIL SCARE FOR FUN AND PROFIT
which you will find on my page “HERE”, at
jazzroc. wordpress. com
You should reread it and get back up to speed
You should learn to delegate – not defecate
Genuine Bull does it better
@EnergySupply2008 Let the “evading” begin…
Why did they bring NOTHING (except of course a SPY CAMERA) to that office?
Let’s see you even START to even answer them
What was it? Ah, yes
EVADE, SPLIT & RE-EVALUATE
Get going, then…
@flickervertigo1 Also google: chemtrails and crimes against humanity.
@beachtroll2010 What exactly is your problem? How did you end up being a lousy, lowlife, lying shill, who is ruthlessly involved with trying to cover-up the illegal and murderous chemtrail spraying campaign? What happened, your parents didn’t show you any love growing up, so as a result you feel the whole world is going to suffer because of what you didn’t get as a child?
Why can’t thousands of air samplers running 24/7 find them?
How can airborne dust (containing clay, therefore aluminum) be distinguished from these particles?
Where and who are these “injured people”?
Why didn’t the “investigators” bring? this INFO into the office?
Wouldn’t it have been to their benefit to have done so?
@beachcomber2008 “Why can’t thousands of air samplers running 24/7 find them?” Do you really think a covert operation like chemtrails would allow for data on air samplers to be released to the public? Moron. Aluminum at 6900 times and 122200 times normal in rain and snow cannot be clay. Moron.
@EnergySupply2008 says, “…Aluminum at 6900 times and 122200 times normal in rain and snow…” – please post the provenance of those samples, including when and where they were collected, who collected them, the name of the lab that did the testing, and the chain of custody from the time of sampling to the present.
@EnergySupply2008 Air samplers are privately manufactured by private companies and are are privately bought by members of the public throughout the western world
You could go and buy one tomorrow
Yet NO-ONE ANYWHERE has produced EVEN A SINGLE VERIFIED CHEMICAL ANALYSIS of the filtrate sheet out of one of these machines
There IS a good reason for this: you are all INEPT
You cannot do the science, you cannot do the math
You cannot even produce a FAKE
You haven’t a ……. clue
You just THINK you think
these “chemtrail” people are accusing… who? …of serious crimes, so they are obligated to provide evidence of those crimes, adhere to the rules of evidence and the chain of custody procedures that safeguard evidence.
but the “chemtrail” people apparenly have no concern about due process, evidence, logic or justice.
why is that?
google: “rules of evidence”
google: “chain of custody”
these guys refuse to provide any evidence, but we’re supposed to believe them…
it would be so sad, wouldnt it, if we had the altitude, temp and humidity present when these pictures were taken, and those altitudes, temps and humidities were just right for forming contrails?
it looks to me like alex jones is getting ready to ditch this “chemtrail” business… otherwise, he wouldnt have posted such an inept video. i guess it could be, though, that he’ll persist with the chemtrails, operating on the theory that texans have been dumbed down far enough that they’ll vote for him despite his loony theories. another “wait and see” situation, i spose.
@Skywitness The reason so many disinformation trolls get into trouble is because the deck is stacked against them. Truth can never be stiffed forever and the disinformation trolls do not even believe what they are saying. Their lack of belief puts them at a HUGE disadvantage. In those moments when they are alone with themselves, the horror of what they are doing eats them up inside.
@EnergySupply2008 if you cant post evidence, give us one good reason to believe you. all we got is pictures… no flight data, no meteorological data, no samples with credible chain of custody… the rules of evidence have gone out the window. why should we believe you?
@EnergySupply2008 Yes it does eat them up, because somewhere in their lives there was someone who sincerely gave them love and or helped them out in their lives. They know that they are repaying decent people with hate and destruction because of all their lying in an effort to cover-up the chemtrail spraying campaign of death. No matter what they do, they can never justify their actions within themselves and as a result they suffer.
@Skywitness I have a different theory. I believe that anyone who could be so adamant that chemtrails are not real, when they clearly are, has never really had anyone love them. Their parents were neanderthals who did not show them love, therefore, they hate everybody because they never learned to love even their parents.
@flickervertigo1 Actually, Alex Jones said about three weeks ago that his chemtrail film will be out in late summer, early fall.
given the absence of proof, we have to assume that this chemtrail propaganda project is nothing more than an effort to befuddle americans… which will make them easier to herd around. let’s see some real evidence… or are you content with a system of “trial by youtube”, due process, justice and evidence are irrelevant.
@flickervertigo1 In war, one should never reveal their game plan to the enemy. Chemtrails are war on the people and? the people will prevail, good always does eventually. The evidence you seek is in the sky in plain view.
flickervertigo1 This has been flagged as spam
@EnergySupply2008 says, “The evidence you seek is in the sky in plain view.” what pressure altitude are the airplanes flying at? what is the temperature and humidity at that altitude? you have no idea about the altitude, temperature and humidity, so we have no idea whether or not contrails are possible. we seem to be pressing the limits of gullibility, here.
@flickervertigo1 You forget that you signed up with Youtube just today and came straight to this video with strong anti-chemtrails crapola. YOU cannot even be honest about what your real account name is so YOU have NO credibility here. YOU are a non-person.
@EnergySupply2008 if your lawsuits are gonna have any chance of success, you’re gonna have to come up with credible evidence. so far, you’ve been unable to provide any credible evidence. that evidence would include, of course, data showing the altitude of the airplanes, and the temperature and humidity at that altitude. none of that has anything to do with my youtube account, does it?
@EnergySupply2008 says, “this is war, and I would not reveal the evidence people are working on, because you do not give your enemy that info.” it’s so convenient for you, isnt it…?…so very convenient that you’ve absolved yourself from the responsibility of providing evidence… most likely because you can’t. do you suppose the altitude of your “chemtrail” airplanes is secret? …is the temperature and humidity of the air mass they’re flying through secret, too?
@EnergySupply2008 says, “50 years, no white lines in sky, 25 months MASSIVE white lines in the sky.” …and we’re supposed to take your word for that, just like we’re supposed to take your word for the existence of “chemtrails”… despite your unwillingess to provide evidence or data. you seem to be unable to understand the big thing here: if you could provide reliable evidence, we would have to believe your stories. but you got no evidence.
@EnergySupply2008 says, “…no less that 41 chemtrails”. how many operations happen daily at atlanta? in conditions of persistent contrails, what would be so astounding about 41 contrails in the sky at the same time?
@flickervertigo1 “in conditions of persistent contrails, what would be so astounding about 41 contrails in the sky at the same time?” Lived 50 years, NEVER saw one damn “persistant contrail” – In the past 25 months I have seen at least 7000 of them and possible as many as 20000.
@EnergySupply2008 ” If your enemy is superior, evade him. If angry, irritate him. If equally matched, fight, and if not split and reevaluate.” – Sun Tzu, the art of war [as quoted by Bud Fox in the movie "Wall Street"]
@beachtroll2010 Do you ever get ashamed of yourself for investing so much of your time in lies and deceit? Even though you think of yourself as one of the higher ranking trolls in the disinfo game, what do you expect to get for your efforts in trying to cover-up the truth of the chemtrail spraying activities?
Look how mystified the guy looks here, with his privacy intruded with a spy camera. You think it’s OK to do this because he’s THE ENEMY. But actually, you’re WRONG, and this man’s privacy is intruded upon. That makes YOU the enemy…
@beachtrollr2010 Hmmm… beachtroller has reevaluated, and is trying the bleeding heart for other’s privacy distraction. Your own words prove you to be a babbling idiot. You’ll cry like a baby over this man’s privacy, but in truth you don’t give a damn about everyone else’s privacy that is being invaded by the results of the chemtrail spraying. A lot of ailments and death have been inflicted on people because of the chemtrails that you are desperately trying to cover-up. Hypocrite.
@Skywitness Evading the tough questions is what the disinformation trolls are the very best at, that right there shows that they are NOT genuine people and cannot be trusted. If they could only see themselves as everybody else sees them then they would realize their battle is already lost. 98 percent of the people are good people. The trolls are vastly outnumbered and the situation gets worse for them every day, as more people wake up to chemtrails.
@EnergySupply2008 “Evading the tough questions”… Could you post the FULL info on these “test samples” & how they were collected? Could you post the altitude, temperature and humidity of your pictures? Where exactly, and from what, are these particles emitted? If from the engines, why aren’t the exhaust flames COLORED by these particles? If they exist, where will these particles be the day after tomorrow?
@beachcomber2008 The rain water samples were collected from a single days rain in a rain gauge. Almost all engines today are turbofan engines for fuel economy. 80 percent of the air they intake bypasses the combustion process and exits out the back. A nozzle in the back of the engine could inject the aluminum into the bypass air. It would not have time to heat the aluminum oxide and it would not burn, therefore no color. but the white aluminum oxide.
@EnergySupply2008 says, “A nozzle in the back of the engine could inject the aluminum into the bypass air.” you got any pictures of “chemtrails” that are present immediately behind the engine? …or do all your pictures show the normal lag time and distance required for the water vapor to condense?
flickervertigo1 This has been flagged as spam
@EnergySupply2008 says, “…anyone who could be so adamant that chemtrails are not real, when they clearly are, has never really had anyone love them.” …or, maybe people who are skeptical of chemtrails are concerned about justice, due process, and real evidence instead of youtube videos.
@beachcomber2008 what’s so wrong about asking for real evidence, i wonder? these people are accusing other people (too bad they cant seem to pin down exactly who’s to blame) of “crimes against humanity”… you’d think, given the seriousness of the charges, these people would come up with some evidence. *shrug*.
Perhaps you could point out exactly where you imagine the SPRAY RING might be here:
And explain how all this glowing white powder NEVER shows on the inner engine nacelle. Are they ALWAYS WASHED immediately upon landing, or is TEFLON added to the mix? Are airfield engineers given secret instructions as to how to rig this spray ring every overhaul?
@Skywitness Correct. Beachcomber2008 is the A team for the disinformation trolls. Whenever the more stupid disinformation trolls gets in trouble, Beachcomber2008 is sure to show up. I have seen it time and time again over the past year.
@beachcomber2008 There is only no proof if you do not make an honest effort to see it. My go a rounds with you in the past, demonstrate very clearly that you are a non-person because you refuse to take a look at the evidence. Deaf, dumb and blind, that is your motto.
@EnergySupply2008 so, first of all, since you have no flight data, we can assume that your “chemtrails” are most likely contrails. since you have no reliable evidence — you’re not following the rules of evidence or documenting the chain of custody of that evidence — your evidence is inadmissable. no flight data, no evidence. …and no credibility.
@flickervertigo1 If I had flight data, that would prove no aluminum is coming out of the planes? Are you really stupid? Time to call in the disinformation A team, you are not very good at what you do.
@mikemb123 This enemy is just plain dumb, they think they can explain chemtrails by calling them contrails. So the enemy is obviously not superior. Are they angry? Damn straight, because they have so much going against them. People are not as stupid as the enemy would like to believe. Thanks for keeping up the fight.
@EnergySupply2008 if you could post the altitude, temperature and humidity of your pictures, we’d be able to judge whether or not contrails were possible. but all you got is pictures… no flight data, but we’re supposed to take your word for it… “those are chemtrails”. seeing as how it’s gonna take weeks for your particles to settle out — assuming for the sake of argument particles are present — by which time those particles will be thousands of miles downwind… well, then what?
@flickervertigo1 It is NOT about altitude, temperature and humidity. 25 months ago when they began spraying my area, it was just like turning on a light switch. 50 years of blue sky followed by 25 months of some of the most horrible looking sky imaginable. To think you can get away with your agenda, you absolutely must think your enemy is stupid. There are vast numbers of people not as stupid as you would like them to be.
@flickervertigo1 I am not reluctant to provide data. Geo-engineers conference in February 2010 talking about spraying 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum PER YEAR. Obama’s science adviser on record, stating in April 2009 that they are vigorously discussing spraying particles into the atmosphere. 60,000 Youtube videos showing horrific looking sky. RAIN water tests at up to 6900 times normal aluminum. Snow at up to 122,200 times normal aluminum. The fact that you are a moron evades you.
@EnergySupply2008 talking about geoengineering and doing it are two different things. please post evidence that geoengineering is taking place, now. 60,000 youtube videos could be evidence of contrails, all right… yup. please show us the chain of custody of the rainwater and snow samples, and provide evidence that those samples were collected in accordance with the rules of evidence.
Pay no attention to the endless disconnected ramblings of flickervertigo1. Flicker is another one of the numerous disinformation failures who try and trick people into believing that chemtrails are not real. This is their way of trying to cover-up the truth of the ongoing chemtrail spraying campaign.
the beauty comes in “might makes right”. you don’t need proof or evidence. all you need is a belief in “might makes right”. if it’s not a matter of law, and verifiable evidence, then what is it a matter of? must be a matter of faith. …faith in what? faith in the fucked-upness of israel? america? surely you don’t need chemtrails to have proof of that. so it’s always the same old thing… the chemtrail people can’t come up with any proof, so they resort to distractions. where’s the lawful proof of the existence of chemtrails?
@flickervertigo1 “so it’s always the same old thing, the chemtrail people can’t come up with any proof” The proof is in 60000 Youtube videos about chemtrails, RAIN and SNOW tests with up to 122200 times normal aluminum in snow, what geo-enginners are discussing, what Obama’s science adviser John Holdren says, that the white house is discussing geo-engineering. It must suck to be you with so much mounting evidence. I pity you, you sold your soul for money.
@EnergySupply2008 you dont have any “proof” that will stand up in a court of law. but that’s okay. law and rules of evidence and justice no longer count for anything. welcome to america.
flickervertigo1 This has been flagged as spam
@EnergySupply2008 says, “the proof they have would blow your socks off.” but it’s a secret, isnt it? just like the evidence we used to start those wars in afganistan and iraq. where’s the data about pressure, altitude, humidity, and temperature?
@flickervertigo1 It is NOT about pressure altitude, humidity, and temperature. THAT is just what the disinformation trolls want us to believe. It is about the 3450 micrograms per liter of aluminum in RAIN water and the 61100 micrograms per liter in snow, when the EPA certified lab said 0.5 microgram per liter is normal. It really is too bad for trolls like YOU that your argument is so damn weak.
@EnergySupply2008 if it’s not a matter of presure altitude, humidity and temperature, why did the people in world war II pay so much attention to presure altitude, humidity and temperature when they were trying to defend themselves? where’s the data? and late night radio was useful in fucking up the minds of people who had time enough to think… assuming that people who could stay up all night were marginal, and might come up with real ideas. so it became a matter of managing the collapse. the collapse would be easier to manage if the hapless citizens of america were reduced to idiocy.
there was, in the beginning of the israeli american empire after WW2, a certain amount of faith in science and logic… that degenerated pretty quick into propaganda…. because, by 1970, it had become fairly obvious that american oil production had peaked, and was on its way down. carter tried to warn us.
Late night radio, like art bell, has given the lunatic fringe a certain amount of credibility. you have to wonder about the timing. seems like alex jones has political ambitions, so he’ll have to come around, sooner or later, to common sense, which means he’ll have to abandon his chemtrails. rense could be content with his position… willing to stick with his chemtrail position to the bitter end…. and end so fucked up that his position is the least of our worries.
in the meantime, late night radio is probably the worst thing that ever happened. you can present evidence that is credible, or you can continue to be ridiculed… if you can come up with real evidence, i’m on your side. if you cant come up with real evidence, i’m not. simple.
@Everybody Google – Megatons of aluminum to rain down from global experiment – The article is about the February 2010 geo-engineering conference, held in California. From around the world GEO-ENGINEERS got together and discussed spraying up to 20 metric MEGATONS (44 BILLION 92 MILLION POUNDS) of ALUMINUM PER YEAR. Aluminum destroys plant DNA. That is a fact.
flickervertigo1 This has been flagged as spam
@EnergySupply2008 would you like to comment on alex jones stance on global warming after “avatar”, a movie that blew reality to hell, we’re supposed to rise up in arms and start shooting… who?… on evidence which consists of youtube videos. good deal …but, given america’s performance lately, maybe justice and truth are not really that important. maybe the only thing that counts is the number of people you can kill. who you gonna kill? who’s doing the chemtrail spraying? you don’t even know that.
america was apparently built on the gullibility of its citizens… i dont see any reason why america should not be destroyed by the gullibility of its citzens. one scam after another, but we no longer have the resources to sustain the nonsense. which doesnt deter sociopaths from looting as america goes down.
@Skywitness if you could discipline yourself into providing one instance of real proof, and the evidence to back it up — evidence that adhered to the accepted rules of evidence and the chain of custody of evidence– i’d be on your side. but you cant, and i’m not.
any sociopath with any ambition, and an appreciation of how far we’ve fallen, would become a looter, because there’s no sense in playing. the game isnt worth playing anymore. so you find a wrinkle to cash in on, and so what if that wrinkle further demoralizes your countrymen. things have degenerated to the point that it’s every man for himself, and if you can cash in on sheep who bleat about chemtrails, so be it.
@flickervertigo1 Open your eyes, there’s plenty of evidence of the chemtrail spraying… how many times do you have to be told this? That’s right, I forgot… you’re paid to keep your eyes closed.
@Skywitness if there’s so much evidence of chemtrail spraying, why are you unable to provide evidence that conforms to the accepted rules of evidence? google: rules of evidence. google: chain of custody.
@flickervertigo1 Here YOU go YOU piece of scum. In this video, I count no less that 41 seperate chemtrails and it is TRULY MASSIVE. Come back here and say “oh, that is just normal clouds” then everyone will have all the proof they need to know that YOU are truly scum.
@EnergySupply2008 since when is a youtube video legal proof of a crime? …especially in view of the fact that you have no other “evidence”? why are you unable to provide critical data, which would include altitude, humidity and temperature? we have to assume that you dont care about justice. if you were concerned about justice, you would provide iron-clad evidence before you started accusing people of mass murder.
@flickervertigo1 Go flicker go!… how many distracting and useless posts can you post in a minute? Don’t forget that you failed in your efforts to debunk the video of the low altitude chemtrails which were sprayed below the Cumulus clouds.
flickervertigo1 This has been flagged as spam
@Skywitness says: “Don’t forget that you failed in your efforts to debunk the video of the low altitude chemtrails which were sprayed below the Cumulus clouds.” dont forget we have no idea how high the clouds were, and we have no idea how high the planes were. we have no idea of the temps or humidity at those altitudes, and we have no idea of the winds aloft. but given all that lack of evidence, you’re wlling to accuse people of genocide. wonderful. so we’re nibbling around the edges of the usefullness of this “chemtrail” campaign, aren’t we? chemtrail enthusiasts are not nearly mighty enough to bomb chemtrail sprayers, nevermind evidence proving the existence of chemtrails. but the impotence of people who believe, without evidence, that chemtrails exist demoralizes them, makes them easier to push around. in the long run, we have to start wondering who the chemtrail people are working for.
of course, it might makes right, there’s no need of collecting real evidence. all you have to do is accuse someone of something, then bomb them… and that seems to be the US operates, these days. so… you got the right to bomb these “chemtrail” sprayers if you’re mighty enough to bomb them. simple. and fuck a bunch of justice.
for starters, it would be good to know the altitude of the clouds in your video “Low Altitude targeted Chemtrail Spray… below the Cumulus Clouds”… and it’s necessary to know the altitude of the airplanes that made the contrails. looks to me, depending on the winds aloft, the contrails could be higher than the clouds, but we don’t have enough data to figure out what’s going on there, do we?
@flickervertigo1 Nice new account there flicker that you started today…this wouldn’t be another of the numerous shill accounts that are here on YouTube, would it? LOL. Btw flicker, you sound just like the poster who goes by the name of groundresonance1. Oh my, you wouldn’t be the same person now would you? LOL..again.
flickervertigo1 This has been flagged as spam
@EnergySupply2008 please explain why you are unable to come up with proof of chemtrails. you accuse people of a project that will kill millions. why are you unable to substantiate your accusations with evidence that would hold up in a court of law?
message to truthmedia productions. Thanks for the work you are doing. however as you can see nobody is able to post comments on your videos because you refuse to take the time to block the trolls. Thats why your great videos are now failing to get more views and comments. nobody can really talk here as long as the trolls are here doing there job so I’m going to stop trying to post comments until they are blocked.
@mikemb123: judging from your lack of response, you are unable to post evidence of chemtrails forming in areas contrails could not form. you are unable to cite evidence that was collected in compliance with accepted procedures… the “chain of custody”… see wikipedia “chain of custody”. given the total lack of credible evidence, we have to assume you’re running some kind of scam.
@groundresonance1 Here’s video evidence of 2 chemtrails that were sprayed at a low altitude below the Cumulus Clouds where contrails do not form. “Low Altitude targeted Chemtrail Spray…below the Cumulus Clouds”
@Skywitness you have to know the altitude of the airplanes, the temperature and humidity at that altitude to tell whether or not contrails are possible. what is the altitude of those contrails, and what temperature and humidity is present at that altitude?
“you must work for the gov” – NO I MUSTN’T. Perhaps I’m on a beautiful sub-tropical island and my sky is BLUE.
“can’t believe the rationale” – I CAN’T BELIEVE YOURS. We live in a marvellous age of invention and design, where BEAUTIFUL passenger aircraft can take people all around our Earth at affordable prices and fabulous efficiencies, and you lot are staring up at the WET skies (an obvious and natural consequence of this) thinking you are being poisoned – by WATER.
“defence mechanism’s working overtime” – NO, YOURS IS. YOU ARE BECOMING MENTALLY UNBALANCED BY FALSE WORDS – “CHEMTRAIL”, for instance.
“what covers our skies” – IS WATER.
“phoney stars” – CLIFFORD CARNICOM?
“underground military bases” – Have been around since WW2.
“chemtrail video troll” – Another FALSE WORD.
“same comment” – SAME DELUSION.
“spend 24 h/day” – Well, you are self-deluded 24 h/day.
“Do you get paid for this shit” – “this shit” is SCIENCE and GOOD ADVICE. No, I don’t get paid by ANYONE. The only SHIT round here is your paranoia.
“Our skies go to shit” – What do YOU know? They are merely becoming WETTER.
“global level” – YOU ARE SO EASY WITH THAT IDEA. You know what? The WORLD IS FIFTY TIMES BIGGER THAN THE US. REPEAT TO YOURSELF FIFTY TIMES! COUNT UP TO FIFTY, IMAGINING THE US EACH TIME!
“play the fiddle” – THAT’S WHAT CHEMTRAILS ARE DOING WITH YOUR MIND.
“get paid” – STOP RUINING YOUR LIFE. THAT’LL BE PAYMENT ENOUGH.
and/or MY BLOG and go get yourself a life…
MxMxSxDx is an “inside job”
It’s not the volcanoes my friend…it’s the idea of the New World Order pumping chemicals down on our damn heads guy! Just as they fluoridate our water…sounds like you’ve been living in a jazz fantasy, you need to wake up and smell the globalisation man, over here we are moving towards total enslavement.
MxMxSxDx, If you consult my blog you’ll discover that persistent contrails have been photographed since 1940, and that “chemtrails” simply do not exist at all.
“Proof” of “chemtrails” is EXPOSED as mere confirmation of persistent contrails, the existence of which is CONSISTENTLY DENIED by “chemtrail” conspiracy theorists… but they have NEVER marshalled a SINGLE scientific argument in their defense.
So if the MEANS doesn’t exist, then “New World Order pumping chemicals down on our damn heads” is HARDLY LIKELY TO OCCUR, is it?
It’s like you saying “He is going to shoot me!” and my replying “He hasn’t got a gun“. He could still STAB you! But HE HASN’T GOT A GUN SO HE CANNOT SHOOT YOU!
And anyway, if FLUORIDE is so damn effective, why doesn’t he poison you via THAT vector?
Get a LIFE!
This is about a video purporting to be the inside of a government chemtrail aircraft made by an Italian “gentleman” calling himself nicscics. His preamble goes: “Look at the luggage drawers on the right side in the photo. Let’s consider the operations necessary to dismantle something. If you get an assembly of the interior of an aircraft for tests, you don’t have to mount the luggage drawers, because you do it after. Vice versa, when you dismantle, you remove only what you need to remove. On my opinion, it’s clear that this is not an aircraft used for some test, as many people guess, even if the furniture is similar to what is used for flight test. We can see that in an aircraft used for flight tests, there are not luggage drawers. It’s logic: this furniture is not assembled, before tests are over. But in the photo you can see this furniture, i.e. four luggage drawers. So I think that this is a dismantled airplane. Any other “information” against this hypothesis is, in my opinion, very suspicious.”
And then Tim White, Viet Nam Vet (USAF), “Concerned Citizen” writes: “The C.I.A.-N.S.A facility at Pinal Airpark-Marana, (Arizona) is the most important centre that modifies a wide range of aircraft types to conduct the chemtrail spray operations that began the entire United States in November of 1998. Prior to this, selected areas of the U.S.A. had chemtrails operations to test all the technology employed in these chemtrails spray operations and to determine parameters related to aircraft performances and atmospheric conditions. The program is conducted under different code names: “Operation clover leaf”, “Operation raindance” and so on. It is now spread in many countries in the world.
The photo shows the inside of a chemical tanker, that may be was a civil airplane, in which the original furniture was substituted by hydraulic structures, managed by an automatic and computerized system. In the photo, look at the containers probably used to stock chemical liquid compounds (trimethylaluminum) connected by means of a complicated tubes system. Look at the writings: over the black and yellow square, you can read “Sprayer!!”, below “Hazard inside”. Upon a container on the right, you can read “Lock care”.”
(The above video, titled “Inside a Chemtrail Sprayer”, remained in YouTube after I was ejected for a further six months, disappeared, and then reappeared under a different title “Chemtrails from the Inside”.)
I was startled and concerned by this, for I couldn’t see how this would come about, knowing as I do that in general, the physics of “chemtrails” would require tanks that would not be at all like these “barrels”, and wondered whether they weren’t, perhaps, a device for varying the CG of a prototype aircraft.
I happened across a YTer calling himself ToniEvola who appeared to be knowledgeable in this area, and asked him what he thought this might be. Although he thought he was talking to a “chemtrailer” he came up with this stunning revelation, which it delights me to share with you, seeing as SCIECHIMICHE are generally a stunningly professional bunch of liars.
“hi jazzroc – Please man, think with me for just a second. Use your brain and leave all the incoming external media channels apart that try to influence your brain, just for a second. (I know its probably my wasted time since I know you want to believe it’s really happening.) With commonsense ask yourself these questions:
Do the barrels contain chemicals? If so… then why did they bother to put the “hazard inside” placard only on that “cabinet”?
Also, according to nicscics, one of the “containers” reads: “Lock care”. Same question, why did they bother to put it only on that particular “container”, while all the other “containers” are identical?
I’ve been asking other simple questions that any one can answer with a little bit of effort. Thing is… do you want to answer the questions, and find yourself looking at the whole deal from a different point of view? Or do you want to dismiss everything straight away? And believe what you are forced to believe. I hope you can continue to read this as I will show you my side of the story, like you asked.
The first thing that came in mind was: new build aircraft in testing phase. The “containers” are water tanks that are filled to weigh, trim and balance the aircraft, and the avionics computer in the back monitors all the test data. I then searched on the net to find a clear copy of the photo myself.
I managed to find the one I posted here above and immediately you can notice some differences. Instead of “Lock care”, this photo clearly shows “Load bank” written on the tank. And instead of “Hazard inside” it shows “Hazmat-inside”. Also the cabinets appear to be lavatories and you can see people working in the back. But let’s keep on searching for more, since the “sprayer” part still seems odd.
Nice thing to know is what kind of plane it is. There are 2×3 seats installed on both sides of the aircraft with still space left in the middle. This means that it has to be a large wide bodied aircraft. With my experience I can clearly see that it is not an Airbus, because they use different tanks and setups. So it has to be a Boeing and that leaves only 2 wide bodies that are wide enough to seat 9-10 people on one row, the 747 and the 777. I’ve worked most of my career on 747 aircraft and I know one when I see one, so this has to be a 777. The last couple of years Boeing have built them newer, larger, and with a longer range. Plenty of testing had had to be done on them.
Here are pictures that I found, that I want you to look at. You probably won’t like to see them: From the official Boeing website, here are some photos from the first ever build Boeing 777-200LR (Longer Range). This was the aircraft that broke the record of longest non-stop flight ever:
And then please specifically take a look at these pictures that start to answer your question:
(all broken links)
You can see some familiar things on these pictures. It must be strange when a “secret, dismantled” chemtrail plane starts to look like a brand new Boeing 777 that is being prepared for test flights, don’t you think?
That leaves one thing still unanswered. What does the “hazmat-inside” placard mean? I decided to search on airliners.net for more photos. What I found was the photo that explains it all:
You can scroll down for yourself on this page to find the original photo where “suddenly” the placard is “gone”. There’s also another photo taken from the opposite side. I hope this will clear things up for you.”
WHAT A STAR!
Sadly, over time, some of these links are now broken. Shame…
MAKING THE 777
Planes are made by people. The ten thousand people at Boeing that teamed together for many years to produce their new (in 1995) 777 became adept by telling each other their troubles, and giving and receiving help as a consequence. It is a wonderful story.
Now compare these wonderful people and their actions with NICSCICS, “Straker”, and TANKERENEMY. What do YOU reckon?
Written by JazzRoc
October 29, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with aerosol, aircraft performance, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, asshole, barium, barrel, basement dwelling, boeing 777lr, breathing difficulties, carnicom, chem trail, chemical tanker, chemtrail video, chemtrails spray, clifford carnicom, clouds, cloverleaf, code name, comment, computerized system, concerned citizen, conclusive evidence, conspiracy theorists, contrail, contrails, credibility, daylight bombing, debunk, deceit, delusion, digital delivery, dismantled, dontspraymebro, downpours, droughts, earthquakes, enslavement, epoxynous, evidential trail, explanation, faker, filaments, flight explorer, fluoridate, freak tornados, furniture, globalization, gnorville, hate, hazard inside, heavy haze, hoaxer, humidity, hydraulic structures, jazzroc, lies, lines in the sky, lock care, luggage drawers, lung disease, makenwaves, man-made cirrus, mechanism, medrivingaroundtown, metallic salts, military kc-135, million tons of ice, morgellons, mother nature, new world order, nicscics, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, operation, parameter, phoney, plane, plasma screen, poisoned, ptb, raindance, rense, saturate, sciechimiche, slanderous lies, social duty, spraying, stratosphere, stratospheric flight, technology, thechemtrailreport, tic-tac-toe, tim white, tonievola, trimethylaluminum, troll, troposphere, underground military base, uneducated, unnatural cloud, vapor trail, volcanic eruption, wave vortex, webby material, whiteout, wikipedia