Posts Tagged ‘stratospheric’
GROUND LEVEL – EARLIEST PHOTO – WAVE VORTICES – PROPELLER VORTICES – ‘SHOCK’ CLOUDS
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
This aircraft is on approach in humid stormy conditions. Its wheels are down and its flaps are set at fifteen degrees. A temporary “cloud” is visible over the flapped part of the wing indicating the strong pressure reduction caused by the extended flaps, and flowing back from the outermost flap edges is a pair of very strong vortices (“ectoplasm”!) thrown into sharp relief by the clouds of water droplets condensed by the severe reduction in air pressure at their centres. The vortices rise and fall with pressure fluctuations, generated in part by ambient conditions, and also changes in aircraft attitude. Some distance behind the aircraft its wave vortex is remarkably apparent. This is the “mixing engine” that causes contrails to fill supersaturated stratospheric layers.
Why are vortices so stable? Because they spin. Their rotational energy is high, and they can only be brought to a stop by viscous friction between them and the surrounding atmosphere.
The pillar of a tornado is a natural vortex, and is also typically so energetic that water vapor condenses into a “mist” (of water droplets) in the core of its vortex from what one might call the “centrifugal pressure drop” – but one shouldn’t - because the real reason for this condensation is the drop in temperature which occurs as a consequence of this drop in pressure.
THE EARLIEST PHOTO
OF PERSISTENT CONTRAILS (a.k.a. “chemtrails”)
The left-hand side of the picture was probably taken towards the end of August 1940, when the first high-altitude gun battles were being fought between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The participants were Hawker Hurricanes and Me 109s, which were both fitted with superchargers which enabled them to manoever and fight at around 27,000 ft. The photo is taken over St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Apologies for the poor state of the picture, but who knows how many times this picture has been copied…
There is a barrack-room lawyer who has claimed the above picture to be fake. If so, then so is this:
Seeing that I am still being spammed by this guy and others, I’m forced to point out the obvious…
These are NOT identical pictures, they ARE of St. Paul’s Cathedral, they are obviously fighter battles, and just as obviously NOT anti-aircraft fire, they AREN’T obscured by much bomb smoke because fighter battles tend to PRECEDE major bombing, as the bombers wouldn’t be able to survive fighter attacks. The defending fighters would have had to be “cleared” first, which is what happened.
As they AREN’T identical, (and yet one can see elements common to both) these pictures VALIDATE EACH OTHER. (I’m not sure that a NASA site would use “made up” material. Why would they need to, in this instance?) They are, of course, NOT the only pictures available for validation either…
The right-hand side of the first picture is a more contemporary copy of St. Paul’s for comparison.
And here is another picture of St. Paul’s, taken somewhat later in the war, where Allied bombers are circling to assemble prior to setting out to attack Germany. In this case one may discern further familiar contrail features such as ice agglomeration, falling, and shear.
WAVE VORTEX (1)
This was originally titled “Cessna Downwash” but a better name for it is “aircraft and its wave vortex climbing through clouds”. The powerful vortex generated by the pressure difference (inflight) between the topside and underside of aircraft wings is responsible for the lift which keeps the aircraft aloft and also the drag which demands the power input from its engines. The wave vortex of a jumbo jet has been known to cause light aircraft to crash five minutes AFTER the jumbo has passed. It causes “distrails” (negative contrails – ice crystal trail agglomeration and descent) and much furore in the “chemtrail community” where it is thought to be some new and misunderstood aspect of “spraying”. In reality it is the “mixing engine” which causes contrails to fill stratospheric layers with ice, and as a consequence, turn blue skies to white skies. (The”chemtrail” community immediately starts coughing!)
Let me quote you one of our “heroes” who calls himself skywitness because he believes himself to be a lone watcher of the skies on the side of the brave and true. (But on the other hand he blocked me immediately from his channel and then pursued me avidly through other channels’ comment boxes, claiming his contrail videos were irrefutable proof of “chemtrail spraying”). He asks:
“I would like to know if anyone has seen a rip in the clouds as it was taking place. Was it something that flew through the cloud, or did it just start to appear out of nowhere? I have seen more than a few of these type of rips or trails, but I have never seen how it takes place…”
All I’m asking is that anyone that knows him and reads this, could you get back to him and put him out of his misery?
WAVE VORTEX (2)
The USAF transport plane has just released its “decoy” flares into what would have been its invisible wave vortex. Chemtrailers in particular have to realise that this twin vortex extends backwards (and keeps rotating!) for at least fifty miles behind the airplane, and also, whether it is visible or not, it is always there.
These flares, by-the-way, are making the only definite “chemtrails” that can be proven to exist. Wherever this smoke falls, it will provide a few plants with a little extra fertilizer…
….Aaaaah. And of course I completely forgot these:
These have also been fervently denied by the relentlessly science-blind as “figments of a feverish imagination”.
(Also known as a “Mach Cones”):
Wow! (Conspicuous consumption or what?)
Written by JazzRoc
November 21, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with 1940, aerosol, agglomeration, air, aircraft, altitude, aluminium, aluminum, ambient, anti-aircraft, approach, arthritis, attitude, barium, battle, bomb, breathing difficulties, carnicom, centre, chem trail, chemtrail, cloud, condense, condition, contrail, degree, descent, distrails, down, droplets, ectoplasm, edge, engine, extend, filaments, flaps, fluctuation, furore, ground, Hawker, heavy haze, high, humid, Hurricane, ice, jumbo, layer, lines in the sky, Luftwaffe, lung disease, manoever, Me 109, metallic salts, mixing, morgellons, NASA, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, pressure, ptb, RAF, reduction, rense, shear, skies, spraying, St. Paul's Cathedral, stormy, stratospheric, strong, supercharger, supersaturated, temporary, tic-tac-toe, troposphere, unnatural cloud, validate, visible, vortex, vortices, water, wave, webby material, wheels, whiteout, wing
ATLANTIC OCEAN – MID-EUROPE - THE CROW INSTABILITY - MORE ABOUT VORTICES – THE 9-11 VORTEX – THE “THIRD” TRAIL – SUPERSATURATION – “GAPS” – FUEL VENTS – AIRBUS 340 RTO BRAKE TEST
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
A monochrome view of the North Atlantic Ocean by AtlanticSat shows Greenland, Iceland, the British Isles, and part of Norway. Prominent in the photo is a north-south ridge of high pressure, with cold dry air to the west, and warmer wetter air to the east. Aircraft approaching or leaving this ridge have struck permanent contrail conditions on its west side. The trails are at even intervals which suggest there are only TWO great-circle routes involved (London-New York and London LAX) with regular flights from each. The stratosphere (where the trails are) is obviously moving north-to-south.
The trails peter out approaching or leaving the British Isles, where the wetter conditons don’t obtain (for a change).
Chemtrailers must ask themselves why the pilots’ aim was so poor…
Here we are centered roughly over Hamburg; Copenhagen is right center top and the Baltic Sea further to the right. We are looking at a “triangle” of air travel activity between Kiel (center top), Berlin (bottom right) and the Rhineland (bottom left).
You can see evidence that the stratosphere is sliding along at possibly 100kph from the northwest – maybe!
THE CROW INSTABILITY
I originally thought these were local control surface vortices, but I have been better advised since, by Jay Reynolds. Thanks, Jay!
MORE ABOUT VORTICES
The Crow instability is a vortex pair instability, and typically goes through several stages:
- A pair of counter rotating vortices act upon each other to amplify small sinusoidal distortions in their vortex shapes (Normally created by some initial disturbance in the system).
- The waves develop into either symmetric or anti-symmetric modes, depending on the nature of the initial disturbance.
- These distortions grow, both through interaction from one vortex on another, and also ‘Self Induction’ of a vortex with itself. This leads to an exponential growth in the vortex wave amplitude.
- The vortex amplitudes reach a critical value and reconnect, forming a chain of vortex rings.
Initially the vortex pair falls rapidly downward. Perturbations of the vortices from the ambient atmosphere grow in a sinusoidal mutual inductance instability (the Crow instability). Eventually the vortices touch, reconnect and form vortex rings which oscillate, interact with themselves and the atmospheric turbulence and stratification, and finally dissolve. During their lifetime the rings continue to drop, giving rise to the periodic series of puffs often seen in contrail evolution.
These are spin-stabilized and follow the deflected air and take a while to spin to a stop. Ice is precipitated out of the -40 deg C water vapor in the vortex vacua. Altogether an intriguing visual phenomenon!
http://www.cerfacs.fr/cfd/wake_vortex_26.php is a useful reference…
And this low-quality video reveals…
And this high-quality video shows how far our understanding has progressed…
# A vortex (plural: vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid. Any spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow. …
Vortices display some special properties:
* The fluid pressure in a vortex is lowest in the center (where the speed is greatest) and rises progressively with distance from the center. This is in accordance with Bernoulli’s Principle. The core of a vortex in air is sometimes visible because of a plume of water vapor caused by condensation in the low pressure of the core. The spout of a tornado is a classic and frightening example of the visible core of a vortex. A dust devil is also the core of a vortex, made visible by the dust drawn upwards by the turbulent flow of air from ground level into the low pressure core.
* The core of every vortex can be considered to contain a vortex line, and every particle in the vortex can be considered to be circulating around the vortex line. Vortex lines can start and end at the boundary of the fluid or form closed loops. They cannot start or end in the fluid. (See Helmholtz’s theorems.) Vortices readily deflect and attach themselves to a solid surface. For example, a vortex usually forms ahead of the propeller disk or jet engine of a slow-moving airplane. One end of the vortex line is attached to the propeller disk or jet engine, but when the airplane is taxiing the other end of the vortex line readily attaches itself to the ground rather than end in midair. The vortex can suck water and small stones into the core and then into the propeller disk or jet engine.
* Two or more vortices that are approximately parallel and circulating in the same direction will merge to form a single vortex. The circulation of the merged vortex will equal the sum of the circulations of the constituent vortices. For example, a sheet of small vortices flows from the trailing edge of the wing or propeller of an airplane when the wing is developing lift or the propeller is developing thrust. In less than one wing chord downstream of the trailing edge of the wing these small vortices merge to form a single vortex. If viewed from the tail of the airplane, looking forward in the direction of flight, there is one wingtip vortex trailing from the left-hand wing and circulating clockwise, and another wingtip vortex trailing from the right-hand wing and circulating anti-clockwise. The result is a region of downwash behind the wing, between the pair of wingtip vortices. These two wingtip vortices do not merge because they are circulating in opposite directions.
* Vortices contain a lot of energy in the circular motion of the fluid. In an ideal fluid this energy can never be dissipated and the vortex would persist forever. However, real fluids exhibit viscosity and this dissipates energy very slowly from the core of the vortex. (See Rankine vortex). It is only through dissipation of a vortex due to viscosity that a vortex line can end in the fluid, rather than at the boundary of the fluid. For example, the wingtip vortices from an airplane dissipate slowly and linger in the atmosphere long after the airplane has passed. This is a hazard to other aircraft and is known as wake turbulence.
Cause and effects
A wing generates aerodynamic lift by creating a region of lower air pressure above it. Fluids are forced to flow from high to low pressure and the air below the wing tends to migrate toward the top of the wing via the wingtips. The air does not escape around the leading or trailing edge of the wing due to airspeed, but it can flow around the tip. Consequently, air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion. This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and reduce the lift that the wing can generate. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast-moving air with curved streamlines. Wingtip vortices only affect the portion of the wing closest to the tip. Thus, the longer the wing, the smaller the affected fraction of it will be. As well, the shorter the chord of the wing, the less opportunity air will have to form vortices. This means that for an aircraft to be most efficient, it should have a very high aspect ratio. This is evident in the design of gliders. It is also evident in long-range airliners, where fuel efficiency is of critical importance. However, increasing the wingspan reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft, which is why combat and aerobatic planes usually feature short, stubby wings despite the efficiency losses.
Another method of reducing fuel consumption is the use of winglets, as seen on some modern airliners such as the Airbus A340. Winglets work by forcing the vortex to move to the very tip of the wing and allowing the entire span to produce lift, thereby effectively increasing the aspect ratio of the wing. Winglets also change the pattern of vorticity in the core of the vortex pattern, spreading it out and reducing the kinetic energy in the circular air flow, which reduces the amount of fuel expended to perform work by the wing upon the spinning air. Winglets can yield worthwhile economy improvements on long-distance flights.
Visibility of vortices due to water condensation and freezing
The cores of the vortices are sometimes visible because water present in them condenses from gas (vapor) to liquid, and sometimes even freezes, forming ice particles. The phase of water (i.e. whether it assumes the form of a solid, liquid, or gas) is determined by its temperature and pressure. For example, in the case of liquid-gas transition, at each pressure there is a special “transition temperature” Tc such that if the sample temperature is even a little above Tc, the sample will be a gas, but if the sample temperature is even a little below Tc, the sample will be a liquid; see phase transition.
For example, at the standard atmospheric pressure, Tc is 100 °C = 212 °F. The transition temperature Tc decreases with decreasing pressure (which explains why water boils at lower temperatures at higher altitudes and at higher temperatures in a pressure cooker; see here for more information). In the case of water vapor in air, the Tc corresponding to the partial pressure of water vapor is called the dew point. (The solid-liquid transition also happens around a specific transition temperature called the melting point. For most substances, the melting point also decreases with decreasing pressure, although water ice in particular—in its Ih form, which is the most familiar one—is a prominent exception to this rule.)
Vortex cores are regions of low pressure. As a vortex core begins to form, the water in the air (in the region that is about to become the core) is in vapor phase, which means that the local temperature is above the local dew point. After the vortex core forms, the pressure inside it has decreased from the ambient value, and so the local dew point (Tc) has dropped from the ambient value. Thus, in and of itself, a drop in pressure would tend to keep water in vapor form: the initial dew point was already below the ambient air temperature, and the formation of the vortex has made the local dew point even lower.
However, as the vortex core forms, its pressure (and so its dew point) is not the only property that is dropping: the vortex-core temperature is dropping also, and in fact it can drop by much more than the dew point does, as we now explain.
To a first approximation, the formation of vortex cores is thermodynamically an adiabatic process, i.e. one with no exchange of heat. In such a process, the drop in pressure is accompanied by a drop in temperature, according to the equation
Here Ti and pi are the absolute temperature and pressure at the beginning of the process (here equal to the ambient air temperature and pressure), Tf and pf are the absolute temperature and pressure in the vortex core (which is the end result of the process), and the constant γ is about 7/5 = 1.4 for air.
Thus, even though the local dew point inside the vortex cores is even lower than in the ambient air, the water vapor may nevertheless condense—if the formation of the vortex brings the local temperature below the new local dew point. Let us verify that this can indeed happen under realistic conditions. For a typical transport aircraft landing at an airport, these conditions are as follows: we may take Ti and pi to have values corresponding to the so-called standard conditions, i.e. pi = 1 atm = 1013.25 mb = 101\,325 Pa and Ti = 293.15 K (which is 20 °C = 68 °F).
We will take the relative humidity to be a comfortable 35% (dew point of 4.1 °C = 39.4 °F). This corresponds to a partial pressure of water vapor of 820 Pa = 8.2 mb.
We will assume that in a vortex core, the pressure (pf) drops to about 80% of the ambient pressure, i.e. to about 80 000 Pa.
Let us first determine the temperature in the vortex core. It is given by the equation above as
Next, we determine the dew point in the vortex core. The partial pressure of water in the vortex core drops in proportion to the drop in the total pressure (i.e. by the same percentage), to about 650 Pa = 6.5 mb. According to a dew point calculator at this site (alternatively one may use the Antoine equation to obtain an approximate value), that partial pressure results in the local dew point of about 0.86 °C; in other words, the new local dew point is about equal to the new local temperature.
Therefore, the case we have been considering is a marginal case; if the relative humidity of the ambient air were even a bit higher (with the total pressure and temperature remaining as above), then the local dew point inside the vortices would rise, while the local temperature would remain the same as what we have just found. Thus the local temperature would now be lower than the local dew point, and so the water vapor inside the vortices would indeed condense.
Under right conditions, the local temperature in vortex cores may drop below the local freezing point, in which case ice particles will form inside the vortex cores.
We have just seen that the water-vapor condensation mechanism in wingtip vortices is driven by local changes in air pressure and temperature. This is to be contrasted to what happens in another well-known case of water condensation related to airplanes: the contrails from airplane engine exhausts. In the case of contrails, the local air pressure and temperature do not change significantly; what matters instead is that the exhaust contains both water vapor (which increases the local water-vapor concentration and so its partial pressure, resulting in elevated dew point and freezing point) as well as aerosols (which provide nucleation centers for the condensation and freezing).
Condensation of water vapor in wing tip vortices is most common on aircraft flying at high angles of attack, such as fighter aircraft in high g maneuvers, or airliners taking off and landing on humid days.
A vortex can be seen in the spiraling motion of air or liquid around a center of rotation. Circular current of water of conflicting tides form vortex shapes.
Turbulent flow makes many vortices. A good example of a vortex is the atmospheric phenomenon of a whirlwind or a tornado or dust devil. This whirling air mass mostly takes the form of a helix, column, or spiral. Tornadoes develop from severe thunderstorms, usually spawned from squall lines and supercell thunderstorms, though they sometimes happen as a result of a hurricane.
In atmospheric physics, a mesovortex is on the scale of a few miles (smaller than a hurricane but larger than a tornado). On a much smaller scale, a vortex is usually formed as water goes down a drain, as in a sink or a toilet. This occurs in water as the revolving mass forms a whirlpool. This whirlpool is caused by water flowing out of a small opening in the bottom of a basin or reservoir. This swirling flow structure within a region of fluid flow opens downward from the water surface.
* In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.
* Smoke ring : A ring of smoke which persists for a surprisingly long time, illustrating the slow rate at which viscosity dissipates the energy of a vortex.
* Lift-induced drag of a wing on an aircraft.
* The primary cause of drag in the sail of a sloop.
* Whirlpool: a swirling body of water produced by ocean tides or by a hole underneath the vortex where the water would drain out, such as a bathtub. A large, powerful whirlpool is known as a maelstrom. In popular imagination, but only rarely in reality, they can have the dangerous effect of destroying boats. Examples are Scylla and Charybdis of classical mythology in the Straits of Messina, Italy; the Naruto whirlpools of Nankaido, Japan; the Maelstrom, Lofoten, Norway.
* Tornado : a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. A less violent version of a tornado, over water, is called a waterspout.
* Hurricane : a much larger, swirling body of clouds produced by evaporating warm ocean water and influenced by the Earth’s rotation. Similar, but far greater, vortices are also seen on other planets, such as the permanent Great Red Spot on Jupiter and the intermittent Great Dark Spot on Neptune.
* Polar vortex : a persistent, large-scale cyclone centered near the Earth’s poles, in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere.
* Sunspot : dark region on the Sun’s surface (photosphere) marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity.
* The accretion disk of a black hole or other massive gravitational source.
* Spiral galaxy : a type of galaxy in the Hubble sequence which is characterized by a thin, rotating disk. Earth’s galaxy, the Milky Way, is of this type.
# VORTEX – The Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment or VORTEX, field projects study tornadoes. VORTEX1 was the first time scientists completely researched the entire evolution of a tornado enabling a greater understanding of the processes involved with tornadogenesis. …
THE 9-11 VORTEX
As explained previously, vortices that come into contact with each reconfigure each other, regenerating intermediate “rings”, and ALL vortices will “stick” to a plane surface – like the ground (tornado), or the face of a building (World Trade Center Tower 2).
The Boeing 767, weighing around 180,000 kilograms and traveling at 260 meters/second, was pulling up in about a 2G banking turn before it struck the tower, so the energy it was putting into its (invisible) WAVE VORTEX was twice the normal, it occurred to me, so might not there be EVIDENCE of its existence in the smoke and dust after the collision?
Evidence there is, in embarrassing plenty. Embarrassing for “no-planers”, anyway, if they were to be well-informed and curious enough to CONTINUE TO WATCH after the collision took place. An oxymoron, I think.
Check back to confirm this if you like…
So now “no-planers” would HAVE to claim that the video artists that “falsified” these images were experts in aerodynamics as well.
To which the answer is OCCAM…
THE “THIRD” TRAIL…
In this case the fifth… is the trail left by the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which is a normal (but small) gas turbine/electrical generator set. As with the main engines, it burns kerosine to form carbon dioxide and steam. As with the main engines, it leaves a trail. But where’s it coming from?
“the whole plane is spraying”
When stratospheric air is very clean and stable it may contain MORE water vapour than it does when it is described as having 100% Relative Humidity. The slightest disturbance to it will cause ice crystals to precipitate out of it. It cannot go into super-saturation if there are ANY nucleative materials of any sort in this air.
Here is just such a case, which occurs on occasion in the sub-tropical stratosphere. The trail forms by “burst condensation” into super-cooled droplets which are microscopic initially and can refract sunlight by interference. Over a small space of time these droplets grow progressively as water vapor deposits more supercooled water into them. As they progressively increase their size they run through a progression of light frequencies which they interfere with. This is NOT a refraction effect.
Chemtrailers claim the colors to be indicative of “foreign materials” which is quite the reverse of the truth; only pure water will do this, and only pure air will have become supersaturated in the first place.
The fact that in supersaturated conditions, large aircraft can place thousands of tons of ice into the stratosphere is covered by the paper “Contrails to Cirrus” mentioned in the INTRODUCTION page.
“Gaps” are claimed by chemtrailers as “evidence that planes are spraying”. Such gaps will of course appear in any persistent contrail where the stratospheric air RH falls below 100%. Generally, of course, the humidity tails off gradually, and the transition of trail-to-no-trail is quite indistinct.
In THIS case, the “transition” is a hard and sharp right angle. Too sharp, in fact, for a whirling twin-vortex contrail… Close inspection of the “sky” each side of the “gap” shows it to be comprised of a chemtrailer’s vertical “airbrush strokes”! Naughty!
Here we have an aircraft actually spraying something; it’s fuel. If some in-flight emergency occurs and the plane must make a quick landing, it must first lose weight, for it cannot land at its take-off weight. Some of its fuel must GO.
Chemtrailers are quick to claim this shot as “spraying evidence”.
Written by JazzRoc
November 20, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with aerosol, aileron, air, airbrush, aircraft, airflow, aluminium, aluminum, apu, arthritis, atlantic, atlanticsat, autopilot, auxiliary, barium, berlin, breathing difficulties, british, burst, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, cold, condensation, condition, contrail, control, copenhagen, correction, crystals, deflected, dry, emergency, europe, evidence, filaments, frequencies, Gas, generator, great-circle, greenland, hamburg, heavy haze, high, humidity, ice, iceland, in-flight, interference, isles, kerosine, kiel, lax, light, lines in the sky, london, lung disease, material, metallic salts, microscopic, morgellons, movement, new york, no more blue skies, norway, not a normal cloud, nucleative, ocean, oily clouds, phenomenon, photo, power, precipitate, precipitated, pressure, ptb, refraction, relative, rense, rhineland, ridge, route, satellite, space, spin-stabilized, spraying, steam, stratosphere, stratospheric, sub-tropical, super-cooled, supersaturation, tic-tac-toe, trail, Turbine, twin-vortex, unit, unnatural cloud, vacua, vapor, vapour, vortex, vortices, warm, water, webby material, wet, whiteout
ANOTHER WASTE OF TIME – ANDREW JOHNSON – APPARENTLY NOT – ARESOLS – JUMBO FLAME-OUT – BAD SCIENCE
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
ANOTHER WASTE OF TIME
This technically isn’t “chemtrailer” material, but is thoroughly representative of one the “chemtrail” movement’s underlying religious “Ultimate Sacred Postulates”, which is that of “any human government is the work of the Devil, and no good will come of it, and there is no more to think about.”
Unameitltd’s preamble to his videoclip entitled (sic) “Bush’s CIA illegally spys on youtube & myspace users” goes: “CIA publically admits in its pdf document it spys on Americans “citizen media” sites like youtube & myspace. here is their document http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/naquin.pdf” (I must admit that spelling mistakes make me tense, for they always precede other mistakes!)
Another waste of time…
amazing how many people will defend CIA illegal domestic spying.
Looking at open source material is BY DEFINITION not spying. They have as much right to look at YouTube as YOU do. All activity on YT is PUBLIC. You must be crazy, or uneducated, or BOTH.
Open souce material isnt spying if members of the public do it. However, government is bound by the 4th admendment and needs probable cause and a warrant when their law enforcement INTENT is to look for criminallity. The CIA is banned by law from domestic spying.
If criminality arises in plain view it is the moral duty for ANYONE to do something about it, including YOU, and including a CIA spook (who is ALSO a “member of the public”). What you suggest is a COMPLETE ABSURDITY. Go boil your head…
A CIA spook on the job IS NOT a member of the public, when at work, on a government computer, they are agents of the US government banned by law from ANY spying on Americians. CIA employees may not legally spy on any american, WHAT PART OF THAT DONT U GET?
The illogical part that you suggest. Are you suggesting that BECAUSE someone works for the CIA he is AUTOMATICALLY unable to use YouTube? Since when EXACTLY did PUBLIC mean PRIVATE? Keep your head in that saucepan…
His website “Check the Evidence“
This a hard-working man. Grade A for effort. A pleasure to correspond with, too, at least at first. He holds the classic delusion, but is great on getting evidence. His photographs are of a very high standard. He simply falls down when he attempts to interpret the evidence he so patiently collects. One day, I hope, he will realize his true potential. In the meanwhile it really is such a shame…
Hi – just picking through the site. Wave trails are a natural phenomenon. So are the little downward puffs (great pictures), which are caused by ice accretion, increasing the weight, causing a downward acceleration. This entrains the air. Sometimes you see it happen inside cirrostratus and a “hole” opens in the cloud. A sunset event, quite often, as the dimming sunlight allows the air to cool and bring it closer to supersaturation.
No evidence to back up your assertions. Please send peer-reviewed reference for the persistence of trails for specifically > 2mins (with named and dated case studies and specific atmospheric measurements at the time). Also, list flight details of flights in the case study you are quoting (whether they are test flights, military flights or ordinary civilian flights).
Haha. Very funny. Shirty, eh? http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf takes care of the nature of contrail deposition, amounts, and quantities over time, and even progression of crystal aggregation. This is the one that tells you, but not directly, that a jumbo can lay down 80,000 tons of ice in six hours of flight…da, da!
Not even NASA would have timed, located and identified the particular aircraft, so I assume from your snitty response you’re going to dismiss it. I’m off to research on your behalf, (seeing that you seem unable) any real findings on fallstreaks and virga. (I’ll give you a tip – always exclude “chemtrails” in your searches if you would like results without speculation or lies in them.)
Google Search Results 1 - 5 out of 645 for “paper” “aviation” “saturated” “atmosphere” “contrails” “-chemtrails” “-aerosols” – Dec 19th 2008.
I’ll leave you to chase the rest of the 640 results.
“Hole punch”, “fallstreak” clouds with their associated virga, don’t seem to have made it into major scientific research, but there are a few informed quotes about, which, strangely, agree with my analysis. However no flight numbers are assigned to clouds.
Google Search Results 1 – 3 out of 10 for “hole” “punch” “clouds” “fallstreak” “research” “paper” “-chemtrails” – Mar 31st 2009.
Now apply these references to your double standards. I’m only doing this because you haven’t read my blog.
Thanks – have flicked through the paper and when time will respond with the problems in it. A very quick look suggests they have taken some data – then not really explained the mechanism as to how “condensation” can last that long – though they have put a couple of nice equations in and stuff (it’s what scientists do to comfort themselves when they don’t know what they’re dealing with).
(NO. That isn’t true at all. Scientific papers are written assuming that the reader understands basic physical science. Such a reader would KNOW that ambient vapor pressure prevents further sublimation of the ice to vapor, and EQUILIBRIUM is reached.
“It’s what scientists do to comfort themselves when they don’t know what they’re dealing with.”
NO. That’s what YOU write when YOU don’t know what you’re dealing with.)
But anyway this one looks better than Ulrich Schumann’s report, as it has more raw data in it. For the moment, I refer to my previous communications about the grid over my house and how no one could give me the flight numbers. Official responses are on my website – but you seem unable to research them….
I will maybe try to contact the NASA authors and ask them how to find out about my grid – and why these trails have gaps in them etc. Perhaps they’ll also be able to explain to me the movements of Hurricane Erin around the time of 9/11 – perhaps they will be coincidence theorists…
Anyway, can you explain this formation for me please:
The blue plane one is quite interesting – as the plane is almost certainly below 28,000 feet. A retired Naval Officer reported to me last week how he measured the height of several aircraft as approximately 8,000 feet (using the size of the aircraft and graticule measurements) and making trails. How is this possible? I will post this data when I have it nailed down more.
Would you like to see my photo of a trail in cumulus cloud (in an overcast sky) – probably at about 8,000 feet or so? Taken in Feb. On Sunday I was out for about 2 hours and saw 2 trails – beautiful day. Av ground temp was about 10 or 12C. This morning in 5 minutes, I saw about 20 as I was going to the train station… it was about the was about the same temp in the morning… Oh dear – looks like NASA is not telling us the truth (remember the mars photos you looked at…?)
“will respond with the problems in it.”
Well, it’s very confident of you to suppose there are problems with it at all.
“A very quick look suggests they have taken some data – then not really explained the mechanism as to how “condensation” can last that long – though they have put a couple of nice equations in and stuff (it’s what scientists do to comfort themselves when they don’t know what they’re dealing with).”
Well we all have our comfort zones. Condensation can be perfectly permanent at 100% saturation. It makes me wonder if you understand the technical term “equilibrium”. You haven’t coped with condensation yet. You should look at a Wilson Cloud Chamber. WIKI it.
Re NASA paper – another note. All references which refer to contrails, except 1, are post 1994 (and I think post 1996). I found the 1972 paper and it’s an interesting read. I might be able to put together another article to clarify further the misapprehensions that you and many other scientists seem to be labouring under – and the staggering assumptions you repeatedly reel off as if they are fact.
“They forgot to report a Cat 5 hurricane”. Classic – that’s super. re this: “We obviously perceive things very differently from each other. How do you suppose I’ve conducted a career in industrial engineering design with perceptual deficiencies with respect to analyzing space and dynamics?”
Yes – not much point in continuing – when you brush off grids of air craft trails and assume flight paths cross – but provide no evidence. Anyway, how do you suppose I’ve conducted a career in software engineering and software design and education with perceptual deficiencies with respect to analyzing data and developing solutions to engineering problems?
I liked your “shadow of a contrail” – highly entertaining.
Write to NASA and tell them what you think about the dome photos and sending a rover etc – see what response you get. Oddly, then, we share a similar perception about this dome. So why the difference between that and aircraft grids – they’re both “spatial awareness” related aren’t they?
I wrote to the one of the Mars Express team members and they showed little interest. And you didn’t answer why there was such a difference between the USGS and MSSS versions.
“clarify further the misapprehensions that you and many other scientists seem to be labouring under – and the staggering assumptions you repeatedly reel off as if they are fact”
They are fact. Perhaps you haven’t operated a Wilson Cloud chamber, run a gas turbine on a test bed, operated a wind tunnel. Water has several quite unusual properties. In fact they’re almost unique. Superheating and supercooling, latent heats of melting and vaporizarion, a specific heat eighty times that of metals.
The Earth’s atmosphere has some unique properties which you haven’t seen fit to acknowledge either, possibly because you remain unaware of them in spite of having had them pointed out to you.
With respect to condensation, I will reiterate to you that it cannot take place even when the atmosphere is in a stable supersaturated state until some “foreign” stimulus initiates it. Which is why an airplane flying through it may trigger a condensation trail. When the atmosphere is in such a stable supersaturated condition it is by definition PERFECTLY PURE: there is not one iota of impurity within it. The condensation clouds start initially as microscopically-fine crystals (so fine as to exhibit diffractive properties) but grow rapidly by progressively-accelerating accretion. Their weight/surface area ratio increases, and their rate of falling does so also. This progressive downward acceleration causes “pendules” (equispaced artificial “virga”) to form in trails. The exhaust gas particulate count greatly exceeds the number of ice condensate crystals that form from the combusted fuel alone, and up to TEN THOUSAND TIMES AS MUCH ICE may be precipitated at the same time. This is why I’m telling you that a single trans-USA jumbo flight may put EIGHTY THOUSAND TONS OF ICE into the sky.
“‘They forgot to report a Cat 5 hurricane’. Classic – that’s super.”
They also left the Eastern seaboard defended by fourteeen fighters which they misdirected elsewhere. That was super, too.
The direction that a hurricane takes is uniquely dependent upon its heat uptake from the sea. The amount of heat it can steal from the sea is equivalent to a 100 megaton thermonuclear weapon, so any unsubtle inferring that the PTB somehow redirected it will earn you my most ribald scorn…
“you brush off grids of air craft trails and assume flight paths cross – but provide no evidence.”
For your information the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Its rotation leaves one with the mistaken impression that the Sun goes round the Earth. If you think the Earth is flat, and the Sun goes round the Earth, why should I “provide evidence”? If you can’t understand “grids” why should I care? Flight paths cross at different heights. That’s what Air Traffic Control is all about. I’ve conducted this same conversation with hundreds over the years. Some people just can’t get it. Try not to be one of them.
“Anyway, how do you suppose I’ve conducted a career in software engineering and software design and education with perceptual deficiencies with respect to analyzing data and developing solutions to engineering problems?”
Extremely badly, by the sound of it. I never had time to pursue chimaeras as you do. Now YOU are my “chimaera”.
“I liked your “shadow of a contrail” – highly entertaining.”
I’ve seen many. Your perception isn’t good. Visit http://www.atoptics.com
A complete understanding of this very good website will do you WONDERS.
“Write to NASA and tell them what you think about the dome photos and sending a rover etc – see what response you get.”
No. I wouldn’t want to be such a dick. I’ll wait until a rover DOES visit the area.
“Oddly, then, we share a similar perception about this dome.”
Well, it DOES look remarkably like a dome. This info’s at least five years old, and I was on top of it at the time. The difference is that I have made mistakes about such “sure things” in the past. They’re in YOUR present. I’m just trying to prevent you from wasting your time here.
So why the difference between that and aircraft grids – they’re both “spatial awareness” related aren’t they?
Well, “looking remarkably like” isn’t BEING. I’ve watched progressive satellite pictures of trails from above. It’s even MORE obvious you’re looking at shuttle flights, in a prevailing wind. You can also see the effects of the moving belts of humid air in the stratosphere which are enabling these trails.
“I wrote to the one of the Mars Express team members and they showed little interest.”
You’re going to sound like a nut even if your interest is sincere. They’re busy, and you’re MAD. (So to speak.)
“And you didn’t answer why there was such a difference between the USGS and MSSS versions.”
Well, it’s a little odd. I see they’re marked as erroneous. That probably means they discard them from run-of-the-mill analysis. Somebody has obviously come along, seen the artefacts, had a go at cleaning them up, thought “****it!”, and discarded the attempt, thinking “There are errors here already”.
Then patient, assiduous, (dare I suggest it?) paranoid people like you come along, find these bits of wreckage, and attempt to “blow them up” as “things NASA doesn’t want you to know“. What utter crap. You seem like a nice guy. Concentrate on REAL issues.
“how is the cloud chamber analogy relevant”
It demonstrates the EXACT MECHANISM by which contrails occur.
“the conditions in question are totally different”
The conditions in question apply exactly. Overall pressure has nothing to do with the phenomenon.
“deadly cosmic rays or radiation from the earth”
Will also produce fine lines of condensate through a saturated sky. These are very fine and disperse instantly.
“Flight data for the grids please”
Do it yourself. Superimpose crossing flight routes from Flight Explorer upon the prevailing wind direction and produce yourself a spiderweb of “grids”.
“thanks for the “new leads” so that I can build up even more powerful data sets and arguments”
Data is not much use to someone whose powers of interpretation are poor. You bore easily. Thanks for your very excellent images.
PS. I have just read through some of your correspondence. It has become quite obvious to me that anything I might say to you has already been said to you by others equally qualified, and that it was a total waste of time beginning a dialogue with you in the first place.
To have a facility with science means being able to understand and interpret the data you gather. It is plain from your failure to understand the use of the word “may”, for instance, that it is in the ability to interpret you are somewhat lacking. But there are many other examples here.
People may pass exams in science (especially these days) without possessing the ability to conduct it, especially as it isn’t easy to examine someone for interpretive ability. The possession of fact concerning a matter of science is quite subservient to the possession of this power to INTERPRET. This power advances science. When this occurs to you, I would like to be a fly on the wall…
It will one day, for you are a hard-working individual.
All very well – but no one in the UK can give me the flight numbers for the day of the grids – that’s official. You have focused your attention on me as if I am “a lone voice” – I am not. Take a look at Rosalind Peterson’s site for example, California Skywatch – she worked for the US Govt.
Cliff Carnicom did the same.
Deliberate misinformation is being promulgated by some people who should know better (Ted Tweitmeyer claimed a refuelling pod on a plane was a chemtrail sprayer – he runs a website called Data4science).
20 people (some of whom I have never met) wanted to countersign my report when I’d compiled it. Why? Probably because they regard my interpretation of the raw data as more correct than yours and those officials who claim to know all about what is going on in our skies. None of them, when given the opportunity, have been able to provide the basic data I asked for.
None of them have sufficiently explained the video I sent you with the chemtrail and the contrail in the same part of the sky on the same day, at the same time. It is precisely these sorts of scenarios which are missing from that NASA study you sent (and the others I have looked at).
It is precisely the interesting and unexplained data on Mars which is ignored or ridiculed by those who are paid to investigate such. It is precisely the hexagonal craters on Iapetus that are ignored and glossed over. It is precisely the hexagonal pattern in the atmosphere of Saturn that is ignored and overlooked as some kind of irrelevance.
Studying these patterns – and those in the 9/11 data – along with former Professor of Mechanical Engineering Dr Judy Wood have lead me to a new understanding of the world we are enslaved in. Some people find the cage more appealing than the universe outside the cage – that’s up to them to live in it if they wish. The truth has indeed pissed me off, but it has also set me free and I am working hard to show others were the weak points in the cage bars are (there are many) and they can break them if they wish – or at least yank and rattle them.
Here’s a saying I coined: “By ignoring any amount of data/evidence, it is possible to come to any desired conclusion. However, the value of such a conclusion will be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored.”
“All very well – but no one in the UK can give me the flight numbers for the day of the grids – that’s official.”
I dare say they simply didn’t believe the effort justified the results. You must be aware of the vast numbers of crossing flight routes and flights involved. And that the flight control system is primarily concerned with real-time control. It must store records, that’s true. But to dig them out simply because an inquirer cannot comprehend how grid patterns may occur – is a waste of time.
“You have focused your attention on me as if I am “a lone voice” – I am not. Take a look at Rosalind Peterson’s site for example, California Skywatch -she worked for the US Govt.”
And I for the British. I have heard and seen some of her reasoning. I disagree with her too.
“Cliff Carnicom did the same.”
You really don’t read the work of people that disagree with you, do you?
“Ted Tweitmeyer claimed a refuelling pod on a plane was a chemtrail sprayer – he runs a website called Data4science.”
He too gets a mentch on my blog.
“20 people (some of whom I have never met) wanted to countersign my report when I’d compiled it. Why? Probably because they regard my interpretation of the raw data as more correct than yours and those officials who claim to know all about what is going on in our skies. None of them, when given the opportunity, have been able to provide the basic data I asked for.”
It doesn’t surprise me that others also misinterpret data as you do. However a check out with WIKI on TROPOSPHERE, TROPOPAUSE, STRATOSPHERE, (and all the links contained within) should be sufficient to cause you to reinterpret your data, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS WRITTEN THERE.
“None of them have sufficiently explained the video I sent you with the chemtrail and the contrail in the same part of the sky on the same day, at the same time. It is precisely these sorts of scenarios which are missing from that NASA study you sent (and the others I have looked at).”
“It is precisely the interesting and unexplained data on Mars”
“the hexagonal craters on Iapetus”
Natural. (Fingal’s Cave? There are hexagonal piles all over the Canary Isles, where I live.)
“hexagonal pattern in the atmosphere of Saturn”
A standing wave…
“we are enslaved in”
“Some people find the cage more appealing”
Society’s dysfunctionality is moderated by Man’s mortality…
“The truth has set me free”
But untruth does the reverse.
“Here’s a saying I coined: ‘By ignoring any amount of data/evidence, it is possible to come to any desired conclusion. However, the value of such a conclusion will be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored.’”
Amen. Here’s to irony…
Oops – you’re making false statements again… “I dare say they simply didn’t believe the effort justified the results. You must be aware of the vast numbers of crossing flight routes and flights involved. And that the flight control system is primarily concerned with real-time control. It must store records, that’s true. But to dig them out simply because an inquirer cannot comprehend how grid patterns may occur – is a waste of time.”
I completed an FOI to the CAA and the Dept transport – the response was “We don’t have the information you asked for” it wasn’t “we aren’t able or can’t be bothered to get it for some schmuck from Borrowash”. This is why our interpretation differs – and it illustrates again your willingness to ignore published data…. Standing wave? Where is the scientific study that shows this happening in the atmosphere of large gas-giant planets. More really wild assumptions on your part. Amazing behaviour! So is Iapetus made of Basalt? Hmmm – NASA say it’s “mostly ice”. Of course, we can *assume* it happens to be basalt where the craters are. We can assume anything – so why have science and measurements – if we just assume we are right, we don’t ever need to measure anything. Anyway, your original blog title was most apt “Jazzroc vs Chemtrails”….yep – that was the size of it!!
Oops – you’re making false statements again…
I haven’t made any false statements yet, so there’s no “again”. Whatever you were told, they may have lied to you. Records must be kept in the event there is an incident. It could be that after six months, or some other arbitrary interval, they are then discarded, but until then they will be kept.
I completed an FOI to the CAA and the Dept transport – the response was “We don’t have the information you asked for” it wasn’t “we aren’t able or can’t be bothered to get it for some schmuck from Borrowash”.
LOL. Great figure of speech.
“This is why our interpretation differs – and it illustrates again your willingness to ignore published data…”
You ignore it all the time by your interpretive failure. I wouldn’t claim to be infallible either – I’m not – but I’m just a smidgeon ahead of you.
“Standing wave? Where is the scientific study that shows this happening in the atmosphere of large gas-giant planets. More really wild assumptions on your part. Amazing behaviour!”
I don’t need a “scientific study”. My scientific understanding tells me it’s a standing wave because it’s a pattern I have seen before. Standing waves exist in all compressible atmospheres, unless they’re absolutely at rest. Scientific understanding may well be amazing behaviour to you if you don’t possess it. Have you checked Saturn references thoroughly? I dare say you have – it’s a useful tool, persistence. If nobody else has anything to say about it, then you heard it from JazzRoc first – it’s a STANDING WAVE.
“So is Iapetus made of Basalt? Hmmm – NASA say it’s “mostly ice”. Of course, we can *assume* it happens to be basalt where the craters are. We can assume anything – so why have science and measurements – if we just assume we are right, we don’t ever need to measure anything.”
No, I was simply arguing that hexagonal features are NATURAL. What those most exactly resemble are the regular hexagonal features and “sinkholes” found in permafrost on Earth.
“Anyway, your original blog title was most apt “Jazzroc vs Chemtrails”… yep – that was the size of it!!”
It IS about the size of it, exactly.
WIKI: “A persisting hexagonal wave pattern around the north polar vortex in the atmosphere at about 78°N was first noted in the Voyager images. Unlike the north pole, HST imaging of the south polar region indicates the presence of a jet stream, but no strong polar vortex nor any hexagonal standing wave.”
Shame. Someone beat me to it.
Here I quote the nub of Andrew’s difficulties:
Since contrail persistence requires at least ice saturation, a sky full of contrails but without natural cirrus shows that cases occur with humidity above ice-saturation but below the threshold for cirrus formation.
Andrew’s reply to this is: “This is not an explanation – it is a statement that ‘something happens’. It says that trails can persist without supersaturation – so, supersaturation cannot be the sole explanation for the formation persistent trails. The phrase is really, again, saying ‘persistent trails form, but we don’t know why’.”
But the answer is simple: between normal (dry-ish) air and supersaturated air there is saturated air. This is QUITE SUFFICIENT to prevent the ice crystals of the trail from sublimating away. Somehow Andrew has forgotten this. His conviction (that the Powers That Be are nefarious) prevents him from seeing this. All he waits for is some apparent perceived inconsistency. Once he gets this, his fears are confirmed, and he closes down rational thought.
It isn’t his only vice.
If I argue with him that it is only reasonable to suppose (for it is true) that crossing aircraft routes will produce “grids” in the sky on occasions, then he demands that I supply him with the SCHEDULING of these flights. It is as if I had become suddenly to him the REPRESENTATIVE of external officialdom, instead of a friendly stranger trying to give him good advice.
And then there is his petty-fogging “attention to detail”; adjusting the deckchairs on his Titanic by “counting” his “evidence”. He should learn to EVALUATE his evidence before counting it. Sadly, his skills there are lacking, and he lacks the means of countering that.
“Flight data for the grids please”
“you didn’t answer why there was such a difference between the USGS and MSSS versions”
“Chemtrails have been controversial since 1999.”
In eight years SOMEBODY would have DIED! ….APPARENTLY NOT
A “chemtrail analyzed”, an “employee” infected? ….APPARENTLY NOT
“Chemtrail material” in crashed plane? ….APPARENTLY NOT
ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL? ….APPARENTLY NOT
How old are you, sniker?
How did you escape Science class?
“sorry, but” – but nothing. You’re just plain sorry.
“if there was a layer of humidity the trail would not form!” – ALL AIR IS HUMID, SO WHAT YOU SAY IS BULLFEATHERS
“They only form above 30,000 feet or so where the humidity is low!” – Yep, you escaped. Stratospheric air (at MINUS FORTY degrees!) STILL contains moisture. It may even be SATURATED with water vapour, even though it contains LESS MOISTURE than tropospheric air. When it IS saturated, contrails PERSIST, and drift to form CIRRUS clouds.
“Aresols like barium” – Barium is an ELEMENT, not an ar****le. (Oh, I see you meant AEROSOL). It is an ALKALINE EARTH METAL. It is NOT an aerosol. The jet engine would GO OUT if barium (oxide) dust passed through it.
“a metallic salt can extract moisture from 30-40% humidity instead of the 70 for normal cloud formation!” – “Normal”? Tropospheric clouds? But we’re talking STRATOSPHERE mate if we’re talking about CT videos on YouTube. There’s been NO tropospheric trail recorded in YouTube, ever. And the word you never found is HYGROSCOPIC…
“Trails should form and dissipate or not form at all!” – No, it’s your THOUGHTS that should do all of that.
JUMBO FLAME-OUT DUE TO VOLCANIC DUST
Six months after checking ALL YouTube “Chemtrail” websites I have found NOT ONE IOTA OF PROOF regarding CHEMTRAILS.
They all think they’ve proved it because they TELL EACH OTHER that it’s so.
SEVENTY-THREE SITES have BLOCKED, “APPROVAL”(then none!) or DEACTIVATED comments, and have gone on to show PERFECTLY ORDINARY CONTRAILS, with witless comments which, apart from their abrogation of democratic accountability, DEMONSTRATE that they absolutely HAVEN’T A CLUE about ordinary CONTRAIL PROPAGATION.
I expected to find a THOROUGH STUDY of AIRPORT FACILITIES (after all, if they are SPRAYING stuff, you’d expect to find STUFF!)
WHITE materials would leave WHITE SPLASHES on AIRPORT TAXIWAYS.
TOXIC materials would give you a chance to see people wearing MASKS AND SUITS, special sealed TRUCKS, signs saying “HAZARD” – ALL SORTS OF STUFF.
It is often quite possible to walk up to aircraft and inspect them for nozzles, strange hatches, drips and stains. NO VIDEO has ever done this and made comparisons with easily-available external plans for almost every single type of aircraft.
I know that it’s a hard thing to do, but the ONLY WAY to PROVE such assertions is to FLY BEHIND A “CHEMTRAIL” AND SCOOP UP SOME FOR ANALYSIS. It should cost about $10000. Well that’s only $200 each for the RAMPANT HYPOCRITES I mention above.
Why haven’t they thought of this? I suggest it’s because they KNOW they’re onto a good wheeze. Thousands of eager terrified sheep are quite prepared to BELIEVE that the NWO is OUT TO GET THEM. WHAT A MARKET! IT’S OBVIOUS that these “people” are quite convinced that they are, indeed, EXPERTS!
They even insist that you mustn’t trust Science because it has been historically altered by the CIA! Well, that may do for the SHEEP, but it won’t do for ME.
Such a MUTILATION of TRUTH is harmful for everyone.
Now, the NWO may well be OUT TO GET US using FUNCTIONAL SCIENCE, for all I know. The ONLY WAY we can defend ourselves against such an onslaught is to use GOOD SCIENCE, OBJECTIVITY, and TRUTH.
Not BAD SCIENCE, HYPOCRISY, and LIES….
Written by JazzRoc
November 17, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with 4th amendment, abrogation, absurdity, activity, aerosol, agent, airport, aluminium, aluminum, american, analysis, analyzed, arthritis, bad science, barium, blocked, breathing difficulties, bush, carnicom, chem trail, chemtrail, cia, cirrus, citizen, crashed, crazy, criminality, deactivated, definition, democratic accountability, devil, domestic, drip, element, enforcement, expert, facilities, filaments, government, hatch, hazard, heavy haze, human, humidity, hygroscopic, hypocrite, illegal, in plain view, infected, intent, jet engine, law, legally, lines in the sky, lung disease, mask, material, metallic salt, metallic salts, moral duty, morgellons, mutilation, myspace, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, nozzle, oily clouds, open source, ordinary, private, probable cause, proof, propagation, ptb, public, rense, saturated, science, sheep, splashes, spook, spray, spraying, spying, stain, stratospheric, study, stuff, suit, taxiways, tic-tac-toe, toxic, trail, truck, ultimate sacred postulate, uneducated, unnatural cloud, warrant, waste of time, webby material, website, wheeze, whiteout, youtube
BAMBOOZLED – BALONEY DETECTION KIT – BOENOID – BARD OF ELY BLOG RESPONSE - A BLACK HOLE – BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING – CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU (NOT!)
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge — even to ourselves — that we’ve been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.) – Carl Sagan
BALONEY DETECTION KIT
As a society it falls upon us as individuals to live our lives using the best judgement possible.
For each of us it wasn’t always that way: as children we instinctively believed what our parents told us, which was a powerful defense mechanism that generally kept us out of harm’s way.
As we grow up this gullibility has to be exchanged for a healthy cynicism and sound judgment which will afford some protection from the intentional deception of sociopaths.
This is a comment posted at Uncinus’s excellent site Contrailscience late Sept 2009. It is rare to find such professionalism and terse accuracy in “chemtrailer” writing, and here is an experienced and technically competent writer presenting an opposite point of view. No surprise, there:
For what it is worth, I am a Boeing engineer with 20 years of experience in the aerospace industry.
* There are no special tanks anywhere on our airplanes to hold chemicals to be sprayed out.
* There are no spray nozzles on the airplanes either, unless you count the emergency fuel dump nozzles on the widebody jets.
* This can be readily ascertained by simply looking through an airplane before the interior wall panels are installed. Here is a list of all the tanks which are on a jetliner:
** Fuel, potable water, waste water, engine fire suppressant (Halon + other stuff), cargo fire suppressant (just Halon), hydraulic reservoirs. On the new airplanes you will also see tank-like devices which generate nitrogen to inert the fuel tanks.
* Further, there is no room for such stuff to get installed. You would have to carry TONS of liquid to make spray trails independent of the exhaust condensation, and the only liquid we carry tons of is Jet-A fuel.
* In Everett Washington, the Seattle flight museum has a restoration center where you can go see dismantled airplanes being readied for display in the museum. The work is done almost entirely by volunteers. I assume other flight museums have similar workshops. If you can find one where you live, go to the restoration center and see the planes up close. There’s no where to hide a sprayer system where it wouldn’t be seen by maintenance crews.
* The Boeing final assembly plant is open for tours by the public, and VIPs from all over the world can get close-up tours. The airplanes are built in a staggered sequence, so that two airplanes side-by-side are usually being made for two different airlines.
* The majority of Boeing’s production is sold overseas. In fact, the company is the nation’s largest exporter.
* Thus, if a domestic airplane was modified for “chemtrail production” in the factory, it would be as easy as pie for a foreign VIP to walk over and say, “What are these fancy tanks and sprayers on the American plane which aren’t on my airplane?”
* If any airplane WAS modified for chemtrail to add chemtrail sprayers, the thousands of Boeing employees would have to know. I don’t work in Fuels, and I can identify every tank and tube in the wing area.
* If thousands of Boeing employees knew, then so would thousands of supplier employees who go through our factories, thousands of airlines employees who go through our factories, and all the FAA and NTSB and DOT people as well. Also, our airplanes and factories are inspected by the Aviation Authorities of foreign countries (like EASA from Europe) and they would also need to be in on the conspiracy.
* There would simply be too many people involved to prevent this from leaking out. If the chem trail sprayers were being added in the factory, the secret would be out.
* So what if the chemtrail sprayers were being added by an aftermarket shop?
* You’re back to the same problem. It takes hundreds of people to design, build, and install a major modification on a jetliner, and the mod shops are just as open as Boeing is. You wouldn’t be able to keep the secret.
* Further, most airlines have their planes maintained by outside suppliers, who would have to be in on the conspiracy. Those who do their own maintenance do the work in open bays that again would make it easy to view the modification.
* And you have the same problem that you need to get thousands of maintenance people, suppliers, and certification authorities in on the conspiracy. It would have leaked by now. All it takes is one guy with a cell phone camera, and the world would know.
* So what if they somehow managed to do all this stuff anyway? Now you have to realize that somebody, somewhere, has to be pumping TONS of chemtrail chemicals into these mysterious hidden tanks on the airplanes. You would need a fill valve, and a distribution system, and special trucks carrying the chemicals disguised as fuel trucks. That would take thousands more people to be in on the conspiracy.
* One giveaway would be two fuel trucks pulling up to the same jetliner – one with the fuel and one with the chemicals. Remember, we’re talking about tons of liquid here.
* It just doesn’t work – you would need independent chemical fill ports, and somebody, somewhere, would notice.
* And while we’re talking about it, remember that every jetliner pilot has to check the weight of the plane and calculate a talk off runway length and other factors. The charts are the same for every jetliner of a given type, but if there really were chemtrail sprayers, then the charts for those airplanes would have to be different to account for the tons of chemicals that might be on the airplane.
* So, I really don’t think there is any way to hide the sprayers on jetliners. Too many people would have to know, and it would be too easy to detect by passerby.
* So, what if the chemtrail chemicals are in the jet fuel? This wouldn’t require ANY visible modifications to the airplanes, and far fewer people would have to know about the conspiracy.
* This would be harder to refute, BUT, you would have to discard the “on and off” contrails as being caused by pilots turning sprayers on and off. All the fuel on the plane came from the same fuel trucks and the same fuel tanks, so the supposed chemtrail would have to be continuous from takeoff until landing. I think that would have been noticed by now.
* So to my mind, that pretty much eliminates the possibility of using jetliners to create chemtrails.
* Which means you have to be using military jets, and thousands of them, flying unnoticed back and forth on normal commercial routes. So now you have to have all the air traffic controllers in on the conspiracy as well.
* And the planes will again need special tanks for the chemicals, and special fill ports, and special sprayers, and special tanker trucks filling the chemical tanks on the planes, special non-military suppliers delivering the stuff, and you’re right back to the same issue of needing to keep thousands of people from talking.
You would need a special delivery system on the airplanes.
You would need a special fill system.
You would need independent tanker trucks.
You would need a separate supply chain.
You would need thousands and thousands of people to hold their tongues, and never have even ONE person leave any incriminating evidence in a safe deposit box to be discovered after their deaths.
It ain’t happening.
BARD OF ELY BLOG – A RESPONSE
“Although chemtrails are conspicuous in our skies and thousands of sites exist about the menace the mainstream media and the authorities are very quiet about the matter or ignore and deny their existence. This of course, adds fuel to the conspiracy theories!
But it’s not just the media and the officials that are silent because there is a similar wall of silence from successful singer-songwriters and rock stars as well as celebrities in general! What does this mean? is there some memo that gets circulated warning that if you mention chemtrails your contract is terminated? Are people too scared to mention such stuff in public? What is going on?
I say we need people who can get the media exposure to come forward on this matter! We need stars to talk about chemtrails on live TV and radio!
I believe we need protest songs about chemtrails! If anyone knows of any please let me know!”
There is no evidence that I have seen that trails in the sky are anything except the water and carbon dioxide (and trace amounts of NOX) left by the passage of gas turbines in the stratosphere.
Now water is drinkable, carbon dioxide is respired by plants to make sugar, and the NOX combines with water to form dilute nitric acid which forms nitrates on contact with soil, helping plants to grow.
The majority of trails in the skies of Earth cross the US continent, so it is they that will bear the brunt of this “contamination”. So be it. Their plants will grow a little better, is all. Although the daily burning of a million tons of kerosine seems massive to you, in relation to the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere it is NOTHING.
ALL of Man’s conflagrations, his best efforts annually, will raise the sea level by 0.0000000000001 per cent, for instance (approximately).
Now, as to whether STRANGE COMPOUNDS are surreptitiously being introduced into burning gas turbines, in order to distribute them as an aerosol throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, why on Earth would anyone do that? (It would HAVE to be THROUGH the turbine because spray devices external to the motor would have to be plainly visible).
It just doesn’t stand up to any logical consideration.
Your ignorance has lead to your paranoia.
I blame Western Culture as a whole for failing to instil a minimum but requisite standard of scientific knowledge for the technological conditions under which we live.
Desist this crap!
“I totally disagree! Please do some research Tony! I have been researching this for a long time! The planet is being geoengineered under Caps & Trade schemes. there are many things being done including weather modification which I have seen in the UK and here and is all known about if you dig deep! Try californiaskywatch.com for starters.”
Seeding clouds for rain with silver iodide crystals (or powdered tea!) is completely harmless. It IS NOT “weather modification”!
I have checked through the website above and NONE of the things mentioned bears ANY relationship to NATURAL VULCANISM, let alone the masses of the land, atmosphere and oceans.
The amount of ocean: imagine a cubic mile of ocean. One mile square, up to the height of Vilaflor from sea level. Got it?
Then imagine 500,000,000 of them.
Counting them at the rate of one per second will take you SIXTEEN years.
The ocean weighs 114,398,298,100,000,000 tons. One hundred and fourteen thousand trillion tons. That’s a HUGE dilution factor…
“you can watch trails that last and spread and no trails or old style contrails at the same time, you can watch planes with no trail start a trail and then stop. you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky followed by loads of chemtrails and a sky turned to a mass of fake clouds and haze”.
Contrails are a stratospheric phenomenon (not in the troposphere, where your weather is). The stratosphere is generally stable, layered (like an onion skin) with layers of water/air solutions at various temperatures and humidities. When they are moving in different directions to each other (and falling slightly) they form CIRRUS clouds. When they fall without any relative motion, they form CIRROSTRATUS clouds.
Sometimes the layers are supersaturated and only require flying through (say by glider wings) to condense out water and form clouds. They understandably may get somewhat upset when a clumping great turbofan whistles through them. Sometimes (when the layer is SATURATED) the upset is permanent, but in general the stratosphere is less than saturated, and you see a temporary contrail which trails the plane for say a mile or so, before being re-absorbed. On days when the layers are ALL saturated, the contrails will hang there ALL DAY.
Contrails are WATER, and you are not being sensible.
“you can have a day or period of a day with old style normal clouds and blue sky”.
What you are talking about here is the TROPOSPHERE, which is the air between the ground and the stratosphere.
This is the atmosphere as you experience it at ground level. It is THE BULK of the total atmosphere, half of which is to be found beneath twelve thousand feet.
The STRATOSPHERE is to be found at DOUBLE that height and above, to a height of sixty thousand feet. It is relatively rarefied, very cold (-80 deg F, colder than Mars) and TRANSPARENT.
It is the atmosphere beneath twelve thousand feet which is responsible for the blue in the sky (by scattering of white light – the blue “scatters” whilst the red continues straight on).
On bad days in the latter part of WWII, the stratosphere was supersaturated when USAF Flying fortresses set out to precision-bomb German targets in their thousands. The Germans could see them coming from three hundred miles away, without radar, and could adjust their fighter attacks with time to spare. Bad days, with hundreds of bombers littering the path back to Blighty.
Do you suppose those bombing raids were chemical attacks?
“listen Tony I don’t see why you feel the need to insult me!”
No insult intended. I DESCRIBED you.
“i didn’t start this argument and if you have nothing f—ing better to do with your time f— off”.
It’s not an argument. It’s a discussion. I consider it important to correct the foolishness of a friend.
“I know what I see and have the opinions of thousands of others who see likewise”.
You don’t “know” what you see. That’s the point. You’re blogging others down a foolish path. That I feel compelled to prevent. The opinions of other deluded people don’t count for much, do they? Nor should you help to delude them, should you? It would be harmful, even evil, wouldn’t it?
“i certainly don’t need to be insulted by someone I thought was a friend”.
Then don’t FEEL insulted. You’re not the only person that has been foolish in the world are you?
I have given you an accurate account of what it was you thought you had seen. You have been given the benefit of my scientific experience.
Would it have been kind to remain silent?
You should should consider yourself assisted, helped, loved, by this friend, and as a consequence GIVE THIS STUPIDITY UP!
A BLACK HOLE
BLUE LIGHT SCATTERING
It seems to be normal for chemtrailers not to understand why our skies are blue.
Where were these people in junior school, or in science class? Outside?
White light is a MIXTURE of visible light frequencies. The Sun (which is the main source of all light by which we see, is a very hot body which radiates photons of many frequencies, some of which are so energetic that they would harm us if they could pass through our atmosphere – but they cannot.
What does pass through is mainly a tight group of frequencies, spanning just over an octave, which our eyes can see.
Our eyes have evolved to make use of these frequencies – naturally.
Wikipedia: Rayleigh scattering
Rayleigh scattering causes the blue hue of the daytime sky and the reddening of the sun at sunset
It is more dramatic after sunset. This picture was taken about one hour after sunset at 500m altitude, looking at the horizon where the sun had set, showing the more intense scattering of blue light by the atmosphere relative to red light.
Rayleigh scattering (named after the English physicist Lord Rayleigh) is the elastic scattering of light or other electromagnetic radiation by particles much smaller than the wavelength of the light. It can occur when light travels in transparent solids and liquids, but is most prominently seen in gases.
Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in clear atmosphere is the main reason why the sky is blue: Rayleigh and cloud-mediated scattering contribute to diffuse light (direct light being sunrays).
For scattering by particles similar to or larger than a wavelength, see Mie theory or discrete dipole approximation (they apply to the Rayleigh regime as well).
Small size parameter approximation
The size of a scattering particle is parametrized by the ratio x of its characteristic dimension r and wavelength lambda:
Rayleigh scattering can be defined as scattering in the small size parameter regime x < 1. Scattering from larger spherical particles is explained by the Mie theory for an arbitrary size parameter x. The Mie theory reduces to the Rayleigh approximation.
The amount of Rayleigh scattering that occurs for a beam of light is dependent upon the size of the particles and the wavelength of the light (lambda). Specifically, the intensity of the scattered light varies as the sixth power of the particle size and varies inversely with the fourth power of the wavelength.
The intensity I of light scattered by a single small particle from a beam of unpolarized light of wavelength lambda and intensity I0 is given by:
where R is the distance to the particle, lambda is the scattering angle, n is the refractive index of the particle, and d is the diameter of the particle.
The angular distribution of Rayleigh scattering, governed by the (1 + cos^2*lambda) term, is symmetric about the plane normal to the incident direction of the light (i.e. about lambda = 90°), and so the forward scatter equals the backwards scatter. Integrating over the sphere surrounding the particle gives the Rayleigh scattering cross section.
The Rayleigh scattering coefficient for a group of scattering particles is the number of particles per unit volume N times the cross-section. As with all wave effects, for incoherent scattering the scattered powers add arithmetically, while for coherent scattering, such as if the particles are very near each other, the fields add arithmetically and the sum must be squared to obtain the total scattered power.
Rayleigh scattering from molecules
A 5 mW green laser pointer is visible at night due to Rayleigh scattering and airborne dust. Rayleigh scattering from molecules is also possible. An individual molecule does not have a well-defined refractive index and diameter. Instead, a molecule has a polarizability a, which describes how much the electrical charges on the molecule will move in an electric field. In this case, the Rayleigh scattering intensity for a single particle is given by
The amount of Rayleigh scattering from a single particle can also be expressed as a cross section s. For example, the major constituent of the atmosphere, nitrogen, has a Rayleigh cross section of 5.1×10^-31 m^2 at a wavelength of 532 nm (green light). This means that at atmospheric pressure, about a fraction 10^-5 of light will be scattered for every meter of travel.
The strong wavelength dependence of the scattering (~lambda-4) means that blue light is scattered much more readily than red light. In the atmosphere, this results in blue wavelengths being scattered to a greater extent than longer (red) wavelengths, and so one sees blue light coming from all regions of the sky. Direct radiation (by definition) is coming directly from the Sun. Rayleigh scattering is a good approximation to the manner in which light scattering occurs within various media for which scattering particles have a small size parameter.
Reason for the blue color of the sky
Rayleigh scattering is responsible for the blue color of the sky during the day. Rayleigh scattering is inversely proportional to the fourth power of wavelength, which means that the shorter wavelength of blue light will scatter more than the longer wavelengths of green and red light. This gives the sky a blue appearance.
Conversely, looking toward the sun, the colors that were not scattered away – the longer wavelengths such as red and yellow light – are visible. When the sun is near the horizon, the volume of air through which sunlight must pass is significantly greater than when the sun is high in the sky. Accordingly, the gradient from a red-yellow sun to the blue sky is considerably wider at sunrise and sunset.
Rayleigh scattering primarily occurs through light’s interaction with air molecules. Some of the scattering can also be from aerosols of sulfate particles. For years following large Plinian eruptions, the blue cast of the sky is notably brightened due to the persistent sulfate load of the stratospheric eruptive gases. Another source of scattering is from microscopic density fluctuations, resulting from the random motion of the air molecules. A region of higher or lower density has a slightly different refractive index than the surrounding medium, and therefore it acts like a short-lived particle that can scatter light.
Rayleigh scattering at Hyperphysics
Maarten Sneep and Wim Ubachs, Direct measurement of the Rayleigh scattering cross section in various gases. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 92, 293 (2005).
C.F. Bohren, D. Huffman, Absorption and scattering of light by small particles, John Wiley, New York 1983. Contains a good description of the asymptotic behavior of Mie theory for small size parameter (Rayleigh approximation).
Ditchburn, R.W. (1963). Light (2nd ed.). London: Blackie & Sons. pp. 582–585.
Chakraborti, Sayan (September 2007). “Verification of the Rayleigh scattering cross section”. American Journal of Physics 75 (9): 824-826. doi:10.1119/1.2752825.
Ahrens, C. Donald (1994). Meteorology Today: an introduction to weather, climate, and the environment (5th ed.). St. Paul MN: West Publishing Company. pp. 88–89.
And so when we see aircraft from the ground (this is a Syrian Air Boeing 747) we cannot expect to see its markings. They have been “scattered” away. You will only see its markings by taking pictures of it from up close.
CHEMTRAILERS WE LOVE YOU
It’s that moment when you have engaged your sophisticated and educated brain in a discussion with a chemtrailer and he suddenly starts talking about vertical “chemtrails” and challenges you to to justify those… You point out that only some fighter aircraft can travel vertically, and this guy says no, it was a “tanker aircraft” and while you are wondering what the hell, you realize that he doesn’t understand perspective at all, and he’s really talking about trails coming towards you and passing overhead you. Which means, of course, that you’re wasting your time with exotic explanations involving crossing shuttle routes.
Or when someone sends you a picture of a broken trail, and you can see that it had been a continuous trail before some crook had photoshopped it. So you tell him it’s a fraudulent picture, and so he sends you a color-processed copy so damned effective that you can see each individual photoshop spraying pass, thinking he has proved his point. I drew lines and arrows pointing exactly where it was occurring, and he still couldn’t see it.
Enough from me.
“I want information, not a video of some guy’s grass saying “chemtard” over and over. “
But, that is what this video IS! You are complaining because I didn’t give YOU what YOU want in this video?! Are you f*****g kidding me?! I didn’t force you to come here and make the assumption that I’m supposed to “teach” you something! I make it PERFECTLY clear in my videos that I’m not here to educate any lazy and ignorant chemtard! I tried that in the past… It wasn’t worth my time. Learn for yourself!
I even make it PERFECTLY clear in the “info” area that I don’t have time to be wasting on f*****g ignorant chemtards! Where do you see ANYTHING about me being an information booth?! Who said it’s MY f*****g job to educate YOU?!?
I must say he seems reasonable to me. Stars, save me…
Written by JazzRoc
November 16, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with acknowledge, aerosol, aluminium, aluminum, arthritis, atmosphere, attack, authorities, bamboozle, barium, blighty, breathing difficulties, caps & trade, carbon dioxide, carnicom, chem trail, chemical, cirrus, cloud, conflagration, conspicuous, conspiracy, contamination, contract, contrails, cubic mile, dilute nitric acid, dilution factor, Earth, fail, fake clouds, fighter, filaments, flying, fortresses, gas turbine, geoengineered, haze, heavy haze, history, ignorance, kerosine, lines in the sky, live TV, logical consideration, lung disease, mainstream, mass, menace, metallic salts, million tons, million tons of kerosine, morgellons, natural vulcanism, nitrates, nitric acid, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, NOX, oily clouds, onion skin, paranoia, phenomenon, plant, plants, precision-bomb, ptb, radar, radio, rain, rense, rock star, scattering, scientific knowledge, seeding, silence, silver iodide, singer-songwriters, site, skies, soil, spray device, spraying, standard, stratosphere, stratospheric, stratus, sugar, supersaturated, surreptitious, technological, temporary contrail, tic-tac-toe, transparent, troposphere, unnatural cloud, US continent, USAF, water, weather modification, webby material, western culture, whiteout, WWII