Posts Tagged ‘Truth’
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 http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc – 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
HERE – HI – HOLE PUNCH CLOUDS/ SATELLITE CHEMTRAILS – HUBPAGES FRACAS – HOW STUPID ARE YOU? – HOW TO RUN A CHEMTRAIL SCARE – HYPOCRITES (Nuts for Soda-Pop) – IGNORANCE – INHALING – IS JAZZROC AN AGENT?
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
“aluminum, anthrax*, lupus*, fungus*, silver iodide, barium, bacteria*, titanium” – Those marked * would be incinerated by a gas turbine. A turbofan’s exhaust is as STERILE as a hospital SURGERY.
The rest you will find are COMMON INGREDIENTS OF HOUSEHOLD PAINT (excepting silver).
“the COMBINATION of pollens, auto fumes, and urban smog can cause severe auto-immune failure, asthma, and death in the young, weak, or elderly”
I’m quoting myself here. Didn’t you read it? HERE IS YOUR ANSWER!
Just to let you know I’m campaigning against anyone claiming the existence of chemtrails.
CHEMTRAILS don’t exist. There’s NO ROOM on passenger planes. No airport trucks or bowsers.
No white splashes, no guys in protective clothing, no nozzles (except fuel dump nozzles). No stories of employees or relatives with sickness/infection after TEN years of “use”.
Jet engines are PUT OUT by fine powders. It would take 3.4 MILLION tons to single-shot the Earth. The US has SOLD its silver.
Contrails PERSIST in a saturated stratospheric layer. Stratospheric layers ARE more saturated than they used to be – there’s nearly a million tons more water up there EACH DAY than there used to be forty years ago. So your skies are going to be WHITER, but it’s only WATER, and it falls and recirculates back into the system over a short time. Ambient air is FULL of dusts, pollens, pathogens, photochemical smog compounds which you are BOUND to ingest. But your body has proved itself over 4 billion years of evolution by being here NOW.
You have NO CASE and NO EVIDENCE. Standing a tray in the open air is NOT the way to analyse a CONTRAIL laid seven miles up in the stratosphere.
You are right to be suspicious of POWER, but WRONG to claim your case is backed up by using BAD SCIENCE.
YOU ARE WRONG TO BROADCAST A LIE !
HOLE PUNCH CLOUDS
He’s NOT a prophet
This is a prophesy
That one day you’ll realize
You’re wrong – and apologize
And gird yourself to neutralize
All your antics and your lies
The trails planes leave are NATURAL
“Hole punch”, rare, but natural
Planes cut through – that’s natural
The ionosphere’s a VACUUM
And that is ALSO natural
Ignorance is natural
To make amends is natural
So act naturally
Here I lay into KSD (a familar foe) who bowls into the Bard of Ely’s Blog “Chemtrails – My Story and Research” with a view to applying “corrective surgery”, thus:
No doubt this is complicated, there are multiple aerosol programs being conducted, there are different spray mixtures. If you become an internet debunker because you’re tired of paranoid flocks and then play devil’s advocate, you’ve lost your way. There times when there are regular contrails in the sky from commercial traffic, there are times when you can see the “special” planes at work selectively releasing aerosol in the sky. It helps to be a dedicated skywatcher to suss it out. If you don’t you may vaccilate in your beliefs, and take everyone along for the ride.
This is a militant attempt to dominate the full spectrum worldwide. To control the resources of precip, maybe terra-form, but it’s ultimate warfare of many forms. Nearly every great idea has been coopted as a weapon. It is a war economy. The public has been lulled into a coma or diverted to other causes. The fact that fleets of planes can overtly dump their powdered cargo over population centers without the strongest of us finding out who, what and where and stopping it, is testimony of power and domination, not fiction.
And my response was thus:
“multiple aerosol programs being conducted” – These happen to coincide with wet weather – strange that – especially when REAL researchers have noted that the fifty-fold increase in stratospheric civil aviation traffic in fifty years has caused the stratosphere to get WETTER, and trails persist in WET skies…
“If you become an internet debunker because” – You’re fed-up of ignorant “chicken little” jerk-offs self-aggrandizing themselves, lying, cheating, and slandering others. Probably.
“There times when there are regular contrails in the sky from commercial traffic” – Yeah. When the weather’s DRY.
“you can see the “special” planes at work selectively releasing aerosol in the sky” – Yeah. They’re “white, unmarked” and you can’t see squat. The phenomenon is known as “blue light scattering”, but seeing as that’s a SCIENTIFIC term, you wouldn’t know squat about it.
“It helps to be a dedicated skywatcher to suss it out” – Yeah! You’ve only got to lie on your back and dream! Might as well have a ****, eh? Beats getting educated, doing proper research, learning atmospheric science. Bash the bishop instead!
“take everyone along for the ride” – That’s what you are doing with the rest of the gadarene swine. Shall I direct you to the sea?
“militant attempt to dominate the full spectrum worldwide” – Resources, logistics, logic, reason. I recommend you RESEARCH the meaning of these words. (Oh, by the way, proper research is best conducted by using “-CHEMTRAILS” in “Advanced Search”. That way you’ll get to discover what really intelligent people have discovered…)
“To control the resources of precip(itation)” – They’ve been seeding clouds since the forties. “Seeding clouds” isn’t “controlling the weather”, no matter what some idiot general has proposed in a paper.
“terra-form” – If you knew any physics, you’d shut up about that. A one-megaton nuclear bomb buried deep in rock creates a 100-foot-wide spherical crater when it goes off. Not a lot of “terra-forming”, is it?
“ultimate warfare” – Haven’t you noticed you’re going broke? How’s General Motors right now? Perhaps it’s a consequence of Afghanistan and Iraq, eh? Then how “ultimate” is it gonna be?
“Nearly every great idea has been coopted as a weapon” – Yeah! Strange how Tesla’s “Death Ray” never made it into WWII, or KOREA, or VIETNAM, or BOSNIA, or KUWAIT, or AFGHANISTAN, or IRAQ, or….
“It is a war economy” – Well, it’s yours. You’re led by a big gang of crooks, cheats, and liars. Do something about it.
“lulled into a coma” – As a “chemtrailer”, you’re barely conscious. Your task is to stop doing harm, before you get around to doing anything good.
“fleets of planes can overtly dump their powdered cargo” – Air is tested everywhere, using “hoovers” pulling through fine filter papers, in their thousands (it’s a very standard piece of kit). If you had ANY wits about you, you’d know this.
“testimony of power and domination” – Testimony to your idleness and deceit.
“not fiction” – B——t!
HOW STUPID ARE YOU?
jazzroc how stupid are u ?!
Not as stupid as you. What distinguishes my behavior from yours is that I read the material that you suggest, additional to the real science that I read.
You, on the other hand, do not read the material I suggest, claiming it to be “propaganda”.
You will remain forever more stupid than me while you do this.
HOW TO RUN A CHEMTRAIL SCARE FOR FUN AND PROFIT
by Jay Reynolds
Before commencing on this enterprise, make sure you have the “enterprise” set up, after all, you are doing this for money, aren’t you? Yes, you must have a sales network all set up in advance, ready for your marks to “buy into” as soon as you begin. There are many items you can sell, including books, videos, T-shirts, and vitamins which you can honestly say have protected you from “chemtrail fallout.” After all, you know they really are just water vapor anyway.
Once the set up is all “set up”, you’ll have to steel yourself, because what you are about to do is mislead and deceive people, and it is difficult to do this if you aren’t really a psychopathic liar. If you’re not able to speak clearly, with a straight face, while lying through your teeth, and sound just as sincere as a preacher, you had better just stop right now, because the strain on most normal people is too great.
No matter what you do, some smart alec will come along and find the details you forgot, and try to spoil the whole thing, it never fails. Accordingly, you’ve got to learn the number one rule that anyone contemplating a chemtrail scare should make sure is covered: NEVER SHOW ANY REAL EVIDENCE AT ALL, NEVER, NOT EVER! (This way, anything you create out of thin air, exaggerate, or omit can’t be scrutinized.)
Portray all your evidence as “preliminary,” as “dangerous,” and as something “big,” a “national emergency,” but NEVER ACTUALLY SHOW ANY EVIDENCE! (Remember, you don’t really have to have any.)
Most people will be completely satisfied with this approach, especially the people you really want on your side. You see, you don’t really want people who need proof. Yes, that’s right. The name “con-man” is a shortened form of “confidence-man.” The “marks” you are seeking are not the ones who require real evidence. You don’t want them at all. You are trying to form a cadre of “true believers” who do what they are told, believe what they are told, and repeat it as quickly as they are told, whatever they are told. You want a big crew of gullible yes-men, rumormongers, and loudmouths, because they will end up doing 99% of all your work for you, while you sit back and watch with glee.
Where to find the people you need…
The people you need are people who have these attributes:
-They believe whatever they are told, and don’t need proof of anything. This is paramount, because critical thinking is the one thing that can kill your ploy.
-They respond and are motivated by fear, not to discover anything, but to run around screaming “The sky is falling!!” in as many places as possible.
Remember, you don’t want people to think, you want them to remain in ignorance, and fear is one of the best paralyzers of reason, so always seek to make the whole thing as scary as possible, and instill enough fear in your followers that they’ll just leave it up to you, being too fearful to look more closely.
-That have a belief that some things are unexplainable, that paranormal events and magic really do exist. These people will believe practically anything already, they come tailor made for you and your purposes.
-That are already physically ill, are predisposed to illness, or know someone who is, especially people who don’t go to doctors because they don’t trust them, and whose illnesses thus drag on and continue undiagnosed. These people can then be trotted out and displayed as “sufferers” whenever you need a “victim.” This tactic is one of the best, because any scoffers can then be portrayed as “inhuman.”
-The people who already fear any kind of technology, and do not understand scientific terminology are ripe for your exploitation, keep them dependent on you for information in pre-digested form, they will most likely just accept whatever you tell them. You’re not going to tell them much anyway, especially if it might refute your play, because this will encourage them to begin seeking knowledge on their own.
What to say, where, and when…
After choosing your audience carefully, format your story to best satisfy the objectives outlined above, remembering always to NEVER SHOW ANY EVIDENCE, NO, NOT EVER! (That way, you really don’t have to have any).
Your prime weapon is fear, your prime target those most vulnerable to fear and paralysis, thus the harder you can hype any aspect to promote fear the better. The following can be used to your advantage:
- Normal contrails are most often seen during the cooler parts of the year, especially October through springtime and thankfully for your cause, the cold and flu season coincides with this time period, so any normal illness at that time can certainly be said to be “possibly” caused by “chemtrails”.
- ANY other illness can be used likewise, remember YOU WILL NEVER SHOW ANY EVIDENCE ANYWAY, right? So all illness is fair game, bring in meningitis, lupus, any allergies, boils, asthma, emphysema, strep, and just about anything else. Don’t forget, there are numerous hypochondriacs who will willingly discuss all sorts of complaints who just need a sympathetic audience, encourage their stories, you will be amazed at how sad they can be, and how much they will speculate, extending the fear into all sorts of unlikely places.
- Keep your possibilities open, WIDE open, don’t just settle on illness, or you will be missing out on so many other popular ideas. Don’t forget, there is always the idea that *somebody* wants to kill a lot of people, that *somebody* wants to change the weather, that *somebody* wants to do almost anything. What you must do is keep it vague enough and there will be droves of people who will think up more outrageous ideas than you could even imagine. Remember, they will do 99% of the work for you if you just set the stage. You will be amazed, earthquakes, comets, droughts, floods, storms, even plane crashes will become part of the legend you can help create, mould, guide and develop.
- Use the media, use it, use it, abuse it. Use the most credible sources first, before they catch on, of course, the mainstream press will see right through what you are trying to do, they at least have to make some money after the whole thing blows off. Pick at least one media outlet that has some credibility as an opener, the best you can find. Of course, eventually, they will catch on, so then you just go down the line, and don’t forget the late night shows like Art Bell, he will promote anything and has millions of gullible insomniacs ready for their latest adrenaline fix. Actually, these hosts know that people are most vulnerable when they are in a semi-somnolent state, and are sometimes almost taken to the point of being hypnotized.
- The Internet is your prime stomping ground, and can distribute the most outrageous stuff imaginable, so just imagine it! What you will definitely need are lots of websites that can post pictures.
Visual stimuli are necessary to promote Mass Sociogenic Illness, and it is imperative that these images get implanted in the most sinister way possible. It doesn’t matter if they are normal contrails or not, it doesn’t matter if planes are visible or not, each and every contrail picture is a possible “chemtrail”, in fact, you really shouldn’t talk about what normal contrails are if you can avoid it at all costs, just call them all “chemtrails” and soon everybody else will too.
Almost all contrails will eventually be considered” chemtrails” after a time. These websites are your greatest tools, and the nice thing is that you can get other people to run them and set them up for you, they will be begging to do it, or just do it anyway.
- While we’re on the subject of websites, you can help promote fear by suggesting that people write their congressman, government agencies, and the military. These people and agencies will then visit the sites, and their visits can be construed as “inordinate interest” and be hyped as real evidence that “something big” is going on. These public servants do realize they shouldn’t insult the people they work for, and will do everything they can short of telling the correspondents they are nuts, or being lied to, they know darn well nobody wants to hear that. Some of them will see these contacts as so silly they may not respond, and that is your cue to state that “something big” must really be going on, because they are “afraid to respond” or “they are stonewalling.”
- There might come a time when one does respond and categorically deny all existence of “chemtrails”. Search carefully for anything said that supports your idea, but NEVER discuss anything at all that refutes anything you say. Remember, NEVER DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES YOUR STORY, you must be the filter, and you must keep people dependent on you for “information”.
Here come the critics…
If you’re lucky, critics, skeptics, and debunkers will just dismiss what you say and go on, but you may not be so lucky, and they will have to be dealt with eventually. These people, if dealt with directly, can be the real pox, so just ignore them if at all possible. In fact, you must remember that YOU are in control, you just don’t have anything to say to these people at all. Arguing with them will get you nowhere, and since there is no evidence to show, there is no evidence to discuss.
Remember rule numero uno: (THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, SO YOU NEVER WILL HAVE TO SHOW ANY.)
Now, sooner or later, someone will ask for proof anyway, so here are some tips on how to handle the eventuality:
-Acting very sincere, state that you “really aren’t sure what is going on,” but say that you have been getting hundreds, or thousands of reports from people all over the country,” who say they are seeing all kinds of “chemtrails”. This pits the critics not against you, but against unknown and unknowable hordes of people, and puts you as just the reporter of these “facts.”
Remember, these people can’t be expected to reveal their identity, and you have hyped the fear level so high, they probably never will, so none of it can ever really be checked out anyway.
-Portray any references, even incorrect or tangential ones as “facts,” everything else you can as “evidence,” all speculation as “hypothesis,” and all rumors as “possibilities,” after all, anything is possible, right?
-Do your utmost best to remain aloof from the critics, whenever possible, do not engage them in debate or respond at all. Since they are right, to respond is death. They can be your worst nightmare.
Since skeptics will show up wherever you are, unfortunately you will not be able to participate in open forums and can only use media sources that are “friendlies”, as mentioned above.
The Bottom Line
Eventually, either too many people will catch on (time has a way of eliciting the truth), or sales may decline to the point where this play becomes a waste of time. An exit strategy will have to be mapped out, or else one’s reputation may be irretrievably damaged.
One suggestion would be to simply connect this scam to the next one.
For instance, another conspiracy theory could be linked to the “chemtrails”, then a gradual easing out could be possible towards the new play. Fortunately, your followers, at least the “true believers”, will probably not even notice that contrails continue to be produced as before.
Good luck. You’ll need it.
HYPOCRITES – Nuts for Soda-Pop
These BLOCKERS, “APPROVERS”, DEACTIVATORS, are all to be found on YouTube. These miserable individuals below think it is OK to broadcast lies and disallow comment. They are messing up your world:
piasillo, executive4444, danynatural, jamessanger, AK47AR, RonBaggerman, Lynnskywatch, christian2868, WhereIsTruth, canadianufo, mipian, EllaMacfrell, rubyjackal, oneforallallforone, nicscics, jdmeglio, kissthisguy88, altnews, ufogovernment, iristube, skywatch, 7bandzatatime, googlepolice, Karrie, truthtrekker, PoiZinConTrol, VibesTube, WarriorMatrix, WhereIsTruth, cnufosdotcom, Airshipal, mrjustin5, DjSadhu, orgonetv, tcvm4141, QuoVadius, greenmts, octomedia, yesiamanalien, jdemeglio, skywitness, ruindweller, johnh23, HumildeHumano, MuWizard, thelegendaryweasel, octomedia, sciechimiche, vleeds, 123carrie, skywatch, PlafGridz, namastemedia, sickn7, svennsonsk, RALPHLAURINO, vrilian, rushfan9thcmd, CathyFromPensacola, aliasrc, ChemtrailsFrance, penultimateimprint, canUcWhateyeC, johnh23, drewswebsite, BlueLandscape, givemeabreakgivemeab, Zigga12345, timebandit2000, CowboyBebop2012, mashj50, ehmick, a3dking, politicalcorectness, ozobezleeb, newton2013, LeRebellareDaoud, dvdhitech, GRIDKEEPER, RedTribune, mattkazee, awakekiwi, annunaki2006, EpiphanyProductions
Hi “EpiphanyProductions”, I’m compiling a growing “Hypocrite” list, and you’re ON it. You got on it by not approving my posts. THAT ISN’T VERY CORRECT OF YOU. YOU DIDN’T WANT TO DO THAT. Hypocrisy doesn’t engender trust!
ANY GOOD scientist when confronted by A BETTER LOGICAL EXPLANATION accepts that he has to CHANGE HIS MIND. I am reminded of Professor Richard Dawkins remembering his college professor, who had his personal theory debunked properly and accurately by one of his students, who said “I want to thank you, dear boy. I have been WRONG these past fifteen years!” If only you could have done the same!
People/websites on THIS list will then be PUBLISHED as “HYPOCRITES – NUTS FOR SODA POP” – people unwilling to engage in a free democratic debate whilst they promulgate FALSEHOOD and DO DAMAGE to our society. Some will get SPECIAL TREATMENT for their sins.
Check out http://www.contrailscience.com for the true picture of contrails.
And MY BLOG for what I have to say about contrails and volcanoes.
I am NOT a spambot. Spambots and CIA agents are LOUSY MUSICIANS! I’m just a guy who KNOWS “chemtrailers” are completely WRONG about the science of contrails from FIRST PRINCIPLES.
Enter WIKIPEDIA (*!!!) in your search engine. It is the Encyclopedia of the World Wide Web. In its Search Box type in the words (one at a time) TROPOSPHERE, STRATOSPHERE, CONTRAIL, DEWPOINT, and GAS TURBINE. See for yourself that I have been telling you the TRUTH.
Or are Wiki and the WHOLE OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB composed of LIARS?
* It is often said that Wikipedia, being open source, is being rewritten by the FBI, CIA, and other government agencies. This is is easily disproved by the MANY REFERENCES given for each subject, which you will find at the end of every article. These (scientific papers) are real, conceived by separate groups of people over separate periods of time, often translated from foreign languages, and subject to peer review.
Disprove this lie yourself and GO AND LOOK!
The TITLE is an OUTRIGHT LIE
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation” ~ Herbert Spencer
Like that station and this video…
If finding material in a jar causes YOU to believe for a moment that AIRCRAFT are responsible, THIS is EXACTLY “contempt prior to investigation” and “in everlasting ignorance” you ARE likely to remain.
It is APPALLING that in a world where EIGHTY PER CENT are poor, and FORTY PER CENT are STARVING, that a wonderful world-wide communication network is being WASTED, even if for only a moment, on UTTER TRAILERPARK TRASH LIKE THIS.
A CENSUS should be taken of CT “believers”. They should be stripped of their keyboards, and sent off to farm sheep in the Falklands, and only allowed back when they’ve passed examinations in Science and the use of Logic.
“waste their time looking for a scientific explanation” – YEAH, SURE. Science is the study of WRONG information. Why didn’t I know that?
“people are inhaling this poison” – IN THIS VIDEO!
“Weather Channel says nothing” – NOR DOES IT TALK OF SPAGHETTI MONSTERS.
“satellite imagery is completely washed” – YEAH, YEAH. Teams of people are employed to do this – they have nothing better to do.
“Your “pilot” status” – RULED HIM OUT HERE. He actually KNEW something. The FIRST requirement for a “chemtrail expert” (YOU) is to know bugger-all.
“NOT contrails” – LIE. (Actually, it’s an IGNORANT ASSERTION!)
“ARE chemtrails” – DITTO, DITTO.
“Go to educate yourself” – YES, but at http://www.contrailscience.com
“I have paid attention to weather my entire life, studied it in college, and am a storm spotter” – You played outside, flicked over the pages of a text book at school, and bought yourself a pair of binoculars…..
“lizard boy” – Doesn’t give you the right to insult a professional person. Go to college and take an examination in the subject. Work hard and swear not to insult others from your ignorant point of view.
Supersaturated layers (which are just as invisible as the rest of the clear sky) can only form when the air is EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAN.
So it is MOST IRONIC that people can be seen and heard moaning in most CT videos when they ought to be thanking their lucky stars. It’s a tribute to the under-educated mind…
What you see above is a portion of a typical sun halo. It is produced by light refracting through a vast volume of microscopic prismatic crystals of ICE, the air through which these crystals are slowly falling is at temperatures which may descend to -80 degrees Celsius, so they may be deeply frozen. As these tiny crystals tumble they present certain CONSTANT aspects to any observer, so may exhibit a circular appearance to any individual observer’s cone of vision. Rather as in the case of a rainbow, each observer receives his or her own distinctive image, and his own personal stream of photons.
This process is beautifully explained here:
The point of the irony is that water vapor has to be present for ice crystals to form, and ANY nucleative process involving ANY material you’d care to name would have already taken place in the turbulent air of the troposphere beneath, and REMOVED the vapor.
THESE crystals are made from VERY PURE WATER. My theory is (for I haven’t researched it further) that subatomic particles from the Sun and the rest of the universe are their initial stimulus for nucleation. As they form, of course, they are DRYING the air around them.
So they indicate HOW PURE the air of our atmosphere is – as do DENSE CONTRAILS.
IS JAZZROC AN AGENT?
NO. Just a busy bee…
Still work in progress….
How’s YOUR paranoia?
Written by JazzRoc
November 2, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with 123carrie, 7bandzatatime, a3dking, aerosol, airport truck, Airshipal, AK47AR, aliasrc, altnews, aluminium, aluminum, annunaki2006, anthrax, approver, arthritis, asthma, auto-immune, awakekiwi, bacteria, barium, better logical explanation, blocker, BlueLandscape, bowser, breathing difficulties, broadcast, canadianufo, canUcWhateyeC, carnicom, CathyFromPensacola, chem trail, chemtrail, ChemtrailsFrance, christian2868, cnufosdotcom, college, common ingredients, contrail, contrailscience, CowboyBebop2012, danynatural, deactivator, death, dewpoint, DjSadhu, drewswebsite, dvdhitech, ehmick, elderly, EllaMacfrell, EpiphanyProductions, executive4444, falsehood, filaments, fume, fungus, gas turbine, givemeabreakgivemeab, googlepolice, greenmts, GRIDKEEPER, heavy haze, hospital surgery, household paint, HumildeHumano, hypocrite, ignorance, ignorant assertion, incinerated, infection, iristube, jamessanger, jdemeglio, jdmeglio, johnh23, Karrie, kissthisguy88, LeRebellareDaoud, liar, lines in the sky, lung disease, lupus, Lynnskywatch, mashj50, mattkazee, metallic salts, mipian, morgellons, mrjustin5, MuWizard, namastemedia, newton2013, nicscics, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, nozzle, nut, octomedia, oily clouds, oneforallallforone, orgonetv, ozobezleeb, paranoia, passenger plane, pathogen, persist, photochemical, piasillo, PlafGridz, PoiZinConTrol, politicalcorectness, pollen, propaganda, protective clothing, ptb, published, QuoVadius, RALPHLAURINO, RedTribune, rense, richard dawkins, RonBaggerman, rubyjackal, ruindweller, rushfan9thcmd, satellite imagery, saturated stratospheric layer, sciechimiche, scientific explanation, sickn7, sickness, silver iodide, skywatch, skywitness, spambot, spraying, stratosphere, svennsonsk, tcvm4141, thelegendaryweasel, tic-tac-toe, timebandit2000, titanium, title, troposphere, Truth, truthtrekker, ufogovernment, unnatural cloud, urban smog, VibesTube, vleeds, vrilian, WarriorMatrix, weak, webby material, WhereIsTruth, white splashes, whiteout, wikipedia, yesiamanalien, young, Zigga12345
ISSUE (1) – ISSUE (2) – JAZZROC – TEXT FROM “SECRET” WEBSITE – JBREEZES – John Aytche (reprise)
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
“Contrails were not an issue” – they NEVER WERE an issue. Your ignorance and your desire to propagate ignorance ARE the issue.
“Samples have been collected from rain and snow throughout America” – and will show samples of RAIN and SNOW.
“normal commercial craft a lot higher not leaving much of a contrail even while others leave the thick noduled classic chem trail” – is a TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF YOUR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE WEATHER. The layered nature of the stratosphere presents different humidities and headings in every layer. And so the contrail behaves differently in each layer.
“they have been analyzed” – so BADLY as to NOT BE IN ANY WAY SCIENTIFIC.
“people like you” – you mean EDUCATED people who understand SCIENCE?
“we already know” – YES, THE JU-JU MAN TOLD YOU. More likely you entered “chemtrails” into your search engine and reconfirmed your prejudices.
“Commercial aircraft fly at 30-35k feet, the chems usually sprayed at 12-15k feet” – I haven’t seen a SINGLE VIDEO depicting such a thing ANYWHERE ON THIS SITE. This ASSERTION you make is full of FAULTY assumptions and calculations, for civil aircraft have lanes and levels they must adhere to, which they receive from air traffic control.
The OFFICIAL FACTS are these:
Contrails can remain visible for very long periods of time with the lifetime a function of the temperature, humidity, winds, and aircraft exhaust characteristics.
Contrails can form many shapes as they are dispersed by horizontal and vertical wind shear.
Sunlight refracted or reflected from contrails can produce vibrant and eye-catching colors and patterns.
Observation and scientific analysis of contrails and their duration date back to at least 1953.
The National Airspace System of the United States is oriented in an east-west and north-south grid with aircraft flying at designated 2000 foot increments of elevation (1000 feet after the introduction of Reduced Vertical Separation Minima in 2002-2004).
Contrails formed by aircraft may appear to form a grid as the winds disperse the contrails.
More contrails are seen in recent years due to the growth in the civil aviation market.
“Smoke and Mirrors”
There are many ironies in this “chemtrail” issue. This one’s a beaut. It can be found (maybe!) here.
People with nothing better to do open their blogs, and to boost their self-importance, probably, gossip amongst each other and confabulate their “poison spray” stories as if totally unaware of the breathtaking social damage which may occur if other bad events concatenate. OK, maybe, in private emails, but obviously NOT OK as a web-wide transmission.
When brought up short by a question such as “Don’t you think that people that cause and assist powerfully emotive lies and false accusations to circulate within our society fit perfectly the description of fifth-column terrorists and may be subject to the attentions of the Patriot Act?”, such people consider they have been subject to some form of assault!
You know, “policemen are nasty people who assault criminals”! That’s me. I attack criminality. It’s the social duty of all of us, really – a part of growing up.
January 1, 2009 Bobbi Snow:
I live in Los Angeles. In March 2005 chemtrails began being sprayed over our neighborhoods, right after the heavy Winter/Spring rains stopped. All the plants on my deck were covered daily with an oily-sticky substance. I tried hosing it off, every evening, but eventually all the plants died, one by one. The water bowls we have out there for the squirrels & birds showed this same oily substance on chemtrail days. I had to change the bowls three times a day, when I was home. Lady Bugs and Honey bees were dropping dead all over the deck, on chemtrail days.
Seven months later I began to have severe digestive/stomach problems. I began feeling nauseated, and started losing weight. I’m down to seventy pounds now, and the specialists say they have no idea what’s wrong with me. I seem to have no cancer, at least none they can find… and on days when there are NO chemtrails in the skies, I eat normally; I just can’t gain any weight.
When I mentioned the coordination between the commencement of the chemtrails and my decline in good health a few months later, all the doctors acted like they thought I was CRAZY. (They’re all in their offices every day, and apparently never look out their windows and SEE these chemtrails!) But according to the head gastroenterologist at Cedars of Sinai, “business has been booming for the past couple of years!”
It doesn’t take a GENIUS to figure out that if the chemicals residue can kill plants and Lady Bugs and Honey Bees on my deck, it’s also getting into the water we drink, the soil in which our crops are grown, the food we eat, the air we breathe, the meats we buy…
I have written to the local meteorologists, UCLA, USC, the Los Angeles County Board of Health. I have never received a reply from any of them! But the one thing I have noticed is, during the past few months, the weather forecasters who are on early in the mornings refer to the up-coming chemtrails with the phrase, “Expect some high cirrus clouds during the day, but there should still be plenty of sunshine.” If they KNOW the chemtrails are going to be sprayed, then surely some of them have a idea as to their purpose, the chemicals in them, and which branch of our government is responsible for them.
Is this population control? Are the chemtrails making the pharmaceutical companies and physicians richer? And do SOME of the people have a pillthey are given that makes them immune to these adverse affects?
I’ve read about the analyses of some of the private testing that’s been made on the contents of these chemtrails. The chemicals discovered are KNOWN to cause digestive problems, allergies, skin rashes, breathing difficulties, and contain carcinogens. So WHY is our government allowing this to be done to the populations of so many different countries?
I would like to believe that eventually I will get better… but unless the chemtrails totally CEASE and never start up again, I think I will become just one more casualty in this War Against Humanity. I fear I will die in the not so distant future, never knowing why my tax dollars have been turned against honest, hard-working people who only want the best for themselves, their respective countries, and their future generations.
January 2, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Dear Bobbi, Thank you for writing – I am pulling my hair out with people who insist that either I am imagining it or I am misinformed, that they are“contrails” and no more. It is horrible, and I am in nowhere near the bad shape you are in due to this malfeasance – I have not gone to the lengths you have gone to get some answers, only to be met with either silence, or worse, that you are crazy.
Makes one want to tell the doctors who act as if you are crazy that their years of med school did not do much good, if you are so sick and they cannot figure it out.
I find it very interesting what you said about the morning news shows – I do not watch them, so have never heard the “forecast” you described above. That is downright creepy. The more I dig into this, the more disturbing it gets.
I agree with you – these are our tax dollars at work? Thanks a lot, folks.
I was with my husbands family yesterday for the traditional New Years Day meal, and I brought the subject up, as they had been over when i was feeling lousy, and the only person who was totally engrossed in the issue was my mother-in-law. She talked about the headaches she gets out of nowhere, but said she had never seen Chemtrails in their area. But then she answered herself, kind of chuckling, and said, “well, I never really look up into the sky that often.”
I have found that when people hear about it, after trying to come up with a reasonable explanation, they start gazing upwards much more often, and you find yourself with much agreement after a while.
However, that does not help the core problem – the folks in charge of this obvious mystery are not talking. What do we do?
I am going to write to the President-elect and ask about it, I will most likely get nowhere, but maybe something will happen. I did hear that when Bill Clinton was president, he started to address Chemtrails, then abruptly stopped. So……
If you go to the link I posted, Chemtrail Data, there is a lot of interesting information, and it seems to be a bit of a community – I think you should share your story with them. There is an interesting little contraption that some people invented that they say wards off the bad effects of the Chemtrails, but I just found it. Not committing quite yet.
I DO lean towards one of the reasons for the spraying is to make the pharmaceutical companies more money – and I do wonder if population control is a part of it. It is horrifying to me that we human beings are viewed as “business” when we are sick, and that the head gastroenterologist at Cedars actually said that “Business has been booming in the last couple of years”. Utterly reprehensible.
I wish I had some answers, but I, like you, only have questions. I am so glad you posted, and I am hoping you get better – this is one of the worst stories I have heard. I am so sorry, and if I ever stumble across something that can repel the effects, I will contact you. Right now, all there is is the crystal/copper wire contraption you can find on the link above. It is not expensive, if you can afford it, why not give it a shot?
Take care, hang in there. Maybe this will be stopped with the new administration, if enough people start demanding it. Best, Kelly
P.S. I have a pilates/bodyband video that I work out to, it is set in a gorgeous outside setting, and as I was following it one day, I noticed a chemtrail in the video! How is that for ironic?
January 12, 2009 James Stafford: Have you made any progress on this?
January 21, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo: I’m working on it, Hi-may. By the way, you are not one of the “contrail” people that bugged me. I have been hearing it for years.
May 1, 2009 jazzroc:
The planes you see making trails are the same ones you catch to go on holiday. Their jet engines burn kerosine to produce forward thrust, and leave in their wake carbon dioxide (the same as you exhale) and water (as you do too). This water turns to ice in a fraction of a second, and if the stratosphere (seven miles up) is dry, then the ice slowly sublimes to water vapor and appears to disappear.
If, on the other hand, the stratosphere is humid, then the ice is no longer able to sublime away, and remains, falling at less than a meter per second.
The average speed of the stratosphere over your head is sixty miles per hour, and if the ice were to continue to fall all the way down (which it never does because the contrail ice will inevitably fall into drier layers of the stratosphere and then sublime there), it would land two hundred miles away from you some three hours later.
This makes it very unlikely, does it not, that anything released by aircraft seven miles overhead had anything to do with your sickness…
Whatever illness you suffered could have been an infection breathed upon you by another person, or you could have eaten or drunk something toxic or infectious, or it could be a combination of pollen and exhaust fumes which made you ill.
Did this happen in December, when the cedar pollens are released? Somehow I bet it did, seeing as the word “cedar” crops up in your post.
June 5, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Hello jazzroc, and welcome! Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your comment. While I appreciate your thorough explanation of contrails, I am keenly aware of what makes up a contrail, and if you watch the sky long enough, you can clearly see the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail. The crisscross pattern that lingers in the sky for hours, for starters. Contrails dissipate quite quickly, where as chemtrails linger for hours, slowly spreading out until they manage to simulate some kind of odd cloud.
If regular airplanes were making those trails, there would be massive accidents in the sky – pilots are not allowed to fly willy-nilly across each others flight paths in such a fashion as the photo’s depict.
One day you will notice the difference. I, too, was completely skeptical when I first heard about this, then I started watching the sky.
The difference in contrails and chemtrails was so starkly different I was shocked that I had not noticed it before.
And a quick addendum – when Bill Clinton was President, this was an issue he was willing to talk about. This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is a fact. It just happens to be one that very few people talk about.
Thank you for visiting, different opinions are always welcome and encouraged as long as civility remains. Best, Kelly
June 5, 2009 jazzroc:
You say “I am keenly aware of what makes up a contrail”.
I beg to differ. You are NOT. My blog quite clearly demonstrates examples of contrails from the very brief to the very persistent. These were first recorded in 1921, and have been carefully quantified and written up in a stream of more than six hundred scientific papers since 1953 – all listed and mentioned in my blog. If you had read and understood them, you would NOT have written what you have just written.
“If you watch the sky long enough, you can clearly see the difference between a contrail and a chemtrail.”
You might see the difference between a brief and a persistent contrail, but there is NO way you can honestly point at a persistent trail and say “there is a chemtrail”. It is a cloud of ice crystals almost identical to a natural cirrus cloud, whether it is persistent or not.
“The crisscross pattern that lingers in the sky for hours, for starters.”
Is merely the result of crossing shuttle routes at an angle to each other; the SAME TWO routes, but different aircraft. They may happen, say, at hourly intervals. The typical average speed of the stratosphere in which they fly is around 60 mph. The consequence is what you see.
“Contrails dissipate quite quickly, whereas chemtrails linger for hours, slowly spreading out until they manage to simulate some kind of odd cloud.”
This mantra is constantly repeated by chemtrailers. If you read the Encyclopedia Britannica entry you will find it to be INCORRECT. It states quite clearly that contrails persist when there are humid conditions in the stratosphere.
“If regular airplanes were making those trails, there would be massive accidents in the sky – pilots are not allowed to fly willy-nilly across each others flight paths in such a fashion as the photos depict.”
Regular aircraft make these trails for 20% of the time on average. You are correct – “pilots are not allowed to fly willy-nilly across each other’s flight paths” – and they DON’T. They fly above or below each other by 2000 feet. At a distance of seven miles (their usual altitude) this 2000 feet is not easy to discriminate. That is why there is Air Traffic Control.
“One day you will notice the difference. I, too, was completely skeptical when I first heard about this, then I started watching the sky.”
You falsely assume I am not older, wiser, and more experienced than you are. This is typical behavior for CT “theorists” who have in the past ridiculed the Max Planck Institute and many other Nobel Laureates in their slanders.
“The difference in contrails and chemtrails was so starkly different I was shocked that I had not noticed it before.”
Unfortunate. You should (and one day, I hope, WILL) be shocked by the lengths your absolute ignorance of the world around you has led you to.
“When Bill Clinton was President, this was an issue he was willing to talk about.”
Well, ole’ Bill should have kept his flies zipped and boned up on physics first.
“This is not some crazy conspiracy theory, it is a fact. It just happens to be one that very few people talk about.”
It IS some crazy conspiracy theory. One day your shame will prevent you talking about it.
“Different opinions are always welcome and encouraged as long as civility remains.”
Believe it or not – I’m doing my best to be civil. The fairy story of “Chicken Little” springs to mind here. I always thought it had a lightweight moral point, but these days I’m not so sure.
How much REAL harm is being done by thousands of people, who through their own ignorance are spreading lies and slander through an information system? And doesn’t this come under the Patriot Act?
June 5, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Interesting, you are quite rabid on this subject – what is your issue, jazzroc? If you want to dismiss the Chemtrail people as crazies, why not just do so and get on with your life? You talk about the great harm being done to people over this Chemtrail issue – what harm is being done, exactly? Some people believe it, some do not. I have yet to hear of some Chemtrail maniac shooting innocent planes out of the sky, it is simply an issue of some people are certain they exist, others are certain they do not. Who is getting so badly “harmed”?
It must be frustrating for you that, as you quote above, from 1953 until now, you have six hundred scientific papers to quote from. Six hundred in fifty-six years? Really not much of a tome insofar as a span of over half a century.
Are you a pilot? My brother is a small aircraft pilot, and we have flown together many times, so I have a tiny bit of Air Traffic Control experience as a passenger next to the pilot.
You assume that I am not aware that you are older. I went to your myspace page, and could clearly see that you are older. However, I do not confuse older with wiser. Older often translates into calcified in ones belief system.
Putting Bill Clinton, one of our best Presidents, down because of personal indiscretions that have zero to do with how extremely smart he is, shows how immediately dismissive you are towards any possible credibility to this issue.
This tells me that your mind is a door that is firmly slammed shut, and there is no point in any further discourse.
I do hope some day you will wake up and realize how much of your precious life you have wasted calling other people ignorant, while you remained mired in your belief with cement shoes and ’scientific’ facts. We do not get told everything by our government, scientist, or military. Personal experience is all an individual has to go by.
Believe it or not, this is a civil response back – as civil as I can be when a total stranger comes on to my site, behaving like a condescending blowhard, and calling me ignorant, telling me I am harming others, and telling me I should be ashamed of myself. Move along, sir.
June 5, 2009 jazzroc:
“Interesting, you are quite rabid on this subject – what is your issue, jazzroc?”
Perhaps you are unaware of your hypocrisy here.
The ISSUE is that you believe (without REAL evidence – for there is none) that your own people are attempting to injure yourself and everyone else with “poison sprays”.
And then you state this as FACT, converting your belief into action.
THAT is RABID. And a form of terrorism, and within the aegis of the Patriot Act.
Me? I’m just carrying out my social responsibilities…
June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Good God, man, you really love pointing out how “unaware” and “ignorant” everybody else is. The rabid I referred to is that your blog on the subject literally goes on for miles, and you seem to seek out any and all who disagree with you. You did not seem to fully read and comprehend the first person who posted, because you mentioned that the word “cedar” was in my post, and immediately decided that the unwell feeling was due to cedar pollens being released in December. Wrong.
The woman who wrote the first comment had gone to Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles. And yet you have the nerve to condescend to me that I did not read and understand everything on your blog.
Your obsession with the Patriot Act is pretty funny – everything I post is in direct conflict with the Patriot Act – I am exercising my right to free speech and thought, without fear of being hauled away to Gitmo.
It’s called the First Amendment, pumpkin, and despite your attempts to steamroller over my right to free speech, wrapping yourself in some righteous cloak of “social responsibility”, you cannot stop me from writing about my experiences in the world I live in.
I am flattered that I have made the leap, in your fixed, narrow mind, from “ignorant” to “terrorist” in less than 24 hours.
I retract asking you to move along. Keep coming back, as with every comment you post, you emerge as a rigid, bullying, troglodyte. And Gosh Darn, I really need someone like you to “enlighten” me. Why, you should be on payroll somewhere for carrying out your “social responsibilities” with such zeal. You threw civility out the window when you came into my space and started hurling insults. Keep up the good work, you really have a way with people. Ta!
June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
No matter where you wander in your invective, the ISSUE STILL REMAINS that you believe (without REAL evidence – for there is none) that your own people are attempting to injure yourself and everyone else with “poison sprays”.
And then you state this as FACT, converting your belief into action, broadcasting this and conveying it to whoever has the misfortune to receive it.
These inimical actions CONFIRM you as an enemy of the United States and her people.
With your lies and false witness, you’s da enemy NOW…
How d’ya like those orange boiler suits! Ha! And those “showers”? Pffff – don’t look good to me!
June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Oh honey – You have shown yourself to be a certified loon. You seem incapable of refuting anything I point out, you, in the style of Rush Limbaugh, state what you believe to be yours, consequently the only, truth, and if anybody disagrees, you start screaming the exact same argument, with your liberal use of the caps button.
This is not a discussion, is is a diatribe. Yours. Any evidence I have you would debunk, no matter what the source. I have gone from trying to have a discussion with you, to getting irritated by you, to laughing at you, but now I kind of feel sorry for you. I feel bad for the fact that someone with a life experience that differs from yours causes in you such uncontrollable wrath and crumbling ability to interact. Try to take care of yourself. My guess is you suffer from high blood pressure and if you keep this up, you could very well stroke out. Try a little Yoga, sweetie. Or take a valium.
I am happy for you to put this exchange up on your “Issues” page. You and your little gang of sycophants can rip me to shreds on the safety of your blog. Don’t expect a visit from me, I have no need to defend myself against folks this extremely mono-focused and unreasonable.
You know, science is not rigid and cemented in facts once proven. It is a constantly evolving medium, and to hold onto it as tightly as you do is a recipe for being left behind. I am sure you remember how Galileo was persecuted to his last days for his forward thinking progress – he did not stay static within the safety of the status quo. It is a relief that you are a simple citizen with an opinion, just like myself. God forbid you were in a position of governmental power – it would be the Spanish Inquisition all over again.
June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
To anyone who is following this nonsense, my curiosity got the better of me and I hopped over to Mr. Jazzroc’s “Issues” page (and MAN does this guy have “issues”) – and I am honored to be in such interesting company!
It is made up of of many different people and their Chemtrail experiences, and jazzroc does not disappoint. He sticks to his guns, with some really fun and snappy retorts from him. It is too bad that he has such a short fuse and inability to address a single point from the opposition, as his cause suffers for it, but it makes for great entertainment, if one is so inclined.
June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
“Oh honey” May I call you “darling”? “you start screaming the exact same argument, with your liberal use of the caps button.” You mean, repeating what the issue is? You are bearing false witness against your neighbors – and you call it “free speech”! :)
The Bible, Exodus 20:2–17 Deuteronomy 5:6–21 Exodus 34:11–27: 16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
The Patriot Act is described as: a law defining “domestic terrorism” as acts committed in the United States “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws,” if the U.S. government determines that they “appear to be intended” to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” or “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” Such ambiguous language allows for a loose interpretation that might violate civil liberties and human rights. Yours.
“You know, science is not rigid and cemented in facts once proven. It is a constantly evolving medium, and to hold onto it as tightly as you do is a recipe for being left behind.”
Well, YOU haven’t paid any attention to it at all, and show no signs of doing so. May I quote you, darling? – “and ’scientific’ facts. We do not get told everything by our government, scientist, or military. Personal experience is all an individual has to go by.” Incorrect. Science is a way of improving upon “personal experience”. You should try it sometime. It can be perfectly accessible to you.
“it would be the Spanish Inquisition all over again.”
It’s YOUR government’s policy – not mine. I fear that a world under the Inquisition mightn’t be as bad as a world stacked full of ignorant liars with blogs on the Internet, raising everyone else’s suspicion of innocent, capable, and hard-working professional people, and meanwhile distracting everyone’s attention from discovering the true causes of respiratory ailments.
June 6, 2009 Tomas Hradcky:
Alas, one of my worst fears. A certain type of “Jazz/Rock” musician (with all due respect to the many great musicians I’ve worked with) who is one who will ultimately taser themselves thinking they are protecting all of us from the scourge of three chord power rock. Or in this case, oddly enough, chemtrails. JazzRoc, it might better serve your valuable time to lose yourself in an infinite II/V circle of fifths loop. It would certainly be safer and more peaceful for the rest of us. Breathe boy! Best,Tomas
June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Ahh, it was only a matter of time before my suspicions about you were confirmed – you are now quoting the Bible. A questionable source of solid information, that book. You can call me anything you want, angel. You already have, but thanks for asking at this late date. You know, I used to be insistent upon having the last word in every argument, until one day I woke up and realized how childish I felt. I am moving on, and I hope you do to, only because you have a family, and I am sure they would like some of your attention, attention you are squandering going round and round in circles with a total stranger. Try to show a little restraint in your obsessive behavior, as you may look up one day and notice that your family has left you to your righteous insanity via the computer keyboard. But it has been fun, darling. I have grown rather fond of your lunatic responses. But, it is a beautiful day outside, no Chemtrails, just one lone Contrail, so I am going for a hike.
But before I go, Jazz, I have one question. “It’s YOUR government’s policy – not mine.” Well, yes it is! So why in the world do you give a damn? Let the silly fools in the United States blog their opinions – enjoy looking down on us and laugh amongst yourself and your friends. You are taking your sense of self importance and “social responsibility” to a bit of an extreme, when you are not even in the same country. It’s a bit puzzling…….
Tomas – you kill me. I was going to suggest that Mr. Jazzroc go back to practicing his scales and working on his art, but you beat me to it.
June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
Haha. Tomas, I LIKE the occasional 3-chord power rock, but certainly not for any extended period! The same goes for the other idea (I think!)
Safer – no. More peaceful – no.
We’re a technologically-based civilisation now, and the most dangerous thing we can do is retreat from an understanding of the science that holds us up.
We are BIG – and you KNOW how hard we will fall – unless we can build ourselves a parachute.
“Chemtrails” don’t exist at all. They are a symptom of our failure to properly understand the world around us, and an evil that must be countered, before it is backed up and amplified by other world events, such as the economic consequences of declining fossil fuels, possible climate change, maybe a world recession (oh, we have that), and worsening instability in the Middle East (oh, we have that), and a growing list of similar chickens coming home to roost.
“Chemtrails? WHO ordered THEM?”
June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
Kelly, from the outset you haven’t taken REAL notice of what I am saying.
Search Google for “paper” “aviation” “saturated” “atmosphere” “contrails” “-chemtrails” “-aerosols” (yes – all at once!)
These are properly-written scientific papers which directly contradict your “hypothesis”.
You haven’t challenged me to produce evidence because you quite obviously are unwilling to risk changing your belief. This only goes to confirm what I have as civilly as possible indicated to you, which is that your blog and activities are harmful. You pretend that it’s only an itty-bitty thing, but you deceive yourself. This blog is not a US-only manifestation. It IS worldwide. You have no evidence (for there can be no evidence for a non-existent entity) and what you suggest flies in the face of established science – and is just – LIES.
As you are too cowardly to confront your own ignorance you resort to abuse, namely “quite rabid – calcified in ones belief system – immediately dismissive – your mind is a door that is firmly slammed shut – how much of your precious life you have wasted – mired in your belief with cement shoes and ’scientific’ facts – condescending blowhard – condescend to me – your attempts to steamroller over my right to free speech – wrapping yourself in some righteous cloak – your fixed, narrow mind – rigid, bullying, troglodyte – started hurling insults – certified loon – incapable of refuting – start screaming – uncontrollable wrath and crumbling ability – you suffer from high blood pressure – you could very well stroke out – your little gang of sycophants – extremely mono-focused and unreasonable – short fuse and inability to address a single point – your obsessive behavior – your lunatic responses”
Mirror, mirror, on the wall………..
June 6, 2009 Tomas Hradcky:
The only thing “REAL” here is that you, JazzRoc, are in a world of your own. What wonderful world it must be. At least for you. By the way, an original idea of your own would be nice once and a while. Cheers.
p.s. I await your own scientific studies and hard wrought evidence and thank God I never had to play a gig with you.
June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Okay Jazzy, Since you take zero responsibility for being the first in the comments section to start the name-calling, I will ignore your severe hypocrisy in your last post, and simply address your calling me a coward for not offering up any data, even though I had a link in my original post, a fact you have conveniently ignored.
June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
I will post for each. First, Rense:
‘Deep Sky’ source – is not a credible source, is it?
“substance that showed up on ATC radars as a ‘haze’” – as does a supersaturated contrail
“radar returns are the signature of the fine aluminum particles found in laboratory tests of contaminated rain taken in Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999″ – how do they know that? Did they take the samples from Ontario to Vancouver? Really! Are YOU THAT credulous?
“The lab analysis found reflective quartz particles in the chemtrail fallout – and levels of aluminum FIVE TIMES higher than Ontario’s maximum permissible health safety standards” – dried soil dust will do the same: CLAY is aluminum silicate.
DND eventually replied, “It’s not us.” – Because it wasn’t them.
‘Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming’ – requires 20 million tons of material per shot, 250,000 tanker flights, and money that has never been available (and more than the billion bucks mentioned!).
“a predicted doubling of heat-trapping C02 in the atmosphere over the next 40 years” – no prediction of CO2 heating has EVER borne fruit. It’s strange, because it does in lab conditions – just not out there in the world. There are still as yet unknown “sinks” for it.
“warned that the stratospheric spraying of sunlight-reflecting chemicals could ‘destroy the ozone layer’” – more true of the oxides of nitrogen and sulfur than anything else, because it is nearly impossible to get solid materials in large quantities into the lower polar thermospheres.
“spraying something that regularly clouds their screens” – as I said before – that’s what a heavy contrail can do.
“A scientist working at Wright-Pat recently told reporter” – is not a credible source, is it?
“under pressure according to Kucinich” – due to HIS pressure, according to Kuchinich. Check it out.
“The unusual white plumes are often contrasted by brief, pencil-thin contrails left by commercial jets flying above them” – it’s warmer the higher you go in the stratosphere, which is stable, and layered with layers of differing humidities. Learn your science.
According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contrails can only form at temperatures below minus 76 degrees, andhumidity levels of 70 percent or more. Even in ideal conditions, contrails rarely last more than 20 minutes – this is a plain lie. Check.
“artificial clouds and contrails can be manufactured under conditions of low humidity by dispensing particles from aircraft. The smaller the size of the nuclei introduced into the atmosphere, the greater the rate of artificial cloud formation”. – But it is also known that it can be done vastly more cheaply by salt spray from ocean-going ships. So why pick a dearer option?
Complete bullshit follows…
William Thomas quit discussing anything with me in a hurry. He and his back-off feature in my blog.
June 6, 2009 jazzroc:
NASA ON CONTRAILS
Contrails are all made of the same materials and are formed in the same way, but exist for different lengths of time. Because of the differences in contrail “life-spans”, contrails can be divided into three groups: short-lived, persistent (non-spreading), and persistent spreading.
Short-lived contrails look like short white lines following along behind the plane, disappearing almost as fast as the airplane goes across the sky,perhaps lasting only a few minutes or less. The air that the airplane is passing through is somewhat moist, and there is only a small amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. The ice particles that do form quickly return again to a vapor state.
Persistent (non-spreading) contrails look like long white lines that remain visible after the airplane has disappeared. This shows that the air where theairplane is flying is quite humid, and there is a large amount of water vapor available to form a contrail. Persistent contrails can be further divided into two classes: those that spread and those that don’t. Persistent contrails look like long, narrow white pencil-lines across the sky.
Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails.
Because contrails are formed at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will move away from the area where they originated. Often, when we look up into the sky, we will see old persistent contrails that formed far away but moved overhead because of the wind.
Contrails are “human-induced” clouds since they are formed by water vapor condensing and freezing on particles from airplane exhaust. Contrails are always made of ice particles, due to the very cold temperatures at high altitude. Other types of clouds can be formed by water vapor that condenses on particles which are present in the atmosphere due to many sources, such as from volcanoes or dust storms, not specifically from aircraft exhaust. Those clouds are sometimes made of water droplets, and sometimes ice crystals, depending on the temperature where they form.
Contrails only form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40 degrees C).
Other clouds can form at a range of altitudes, from very close to the ground, such as fog, to very high off the ground, such as cirrus clouds.
Contrails were first noticed during high-altitude flights in the 1920’s. However, interest in contrails really blossomed during WWII when bombers could be sighted from miles away. In fact, numerous WWII veteran accounts tell of problems to aviation due to massive contrail formations. Planes could not find their targets, and sometimes collided with each other. In 1953, a scientist named H. Appleman published a chart that can be used to determine when a jet airplane would or would not produce a contrail.
NOAA ON CONTRAILS
June 6, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo:
Funny, when I consulted my magic 8 ball, it predicted that you would respond in this exact fashion.
I am sure William Thomas quit discussing anything with you in a hurry. How can anyone discuss anything with you when all you do is discredit everyone except your own sources? You don’t discuss, you dismiss. At this point I am speaking from experience with you, and you have become a bore.
June 7, 2009 Kelly Mahan Jaramillo: Fully aware of what a contrail is, thank you. Again, fully aware of what a contrail is. Thank you. In case you did not quite understand, I understand what a contrail is. Thank you. Contrails are not the topic. Thank you.
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
That Rense stuff all falls down. The radar images are of heavy clouds, and there’s NO link to aluminum and silica on the opposite side of the continent – which is very likely to have been wind-blown soil. Have you lost all reason?
Sure, you “know about contrails”.
Then WHY are you claiming this: “Persistent spreading contrails look like long, broad, fuzzy white lines. This is the type most likely to affect climate because they cover a larger area and last longer than short-lived or persistent contrails. Because contrails are formed at high altitudes where the winds are usually very strong, they will move away from the area where they originated. Often, when we look up into the sky, we will see old persistent contrails that formed far away but moved overhead because of the wind.” to be “chemtrails”?
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
“On a busy day,” McCallum said, “with the right atmospheric conditions, these aircraft will form contrails that could accumulate and remain in the sky for hours. The Canadian forces and the Government of Canada have not been involved in activities such as you describe in your letter, nor would we allow any other party to conduct any form of aerial activity that could endanger the health of Canadian citizens.”
THAT is the sensible part of this.
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
“Very sinister looking tubes, but why are half of them facing the wrong way?
The plane is not for spraying the atmosphere, it’s for sampling the atmosphere. It’s a research aircraft, registration N701BN, operated by the department of energy’s national labs. It’s pretty much one of a kind, so it’s hardly likely to be responsible for all the persistent contrails we see every day. The research is mostly on pollutants in the atmosphere, particularly from coal and oil burning power plants. But they also investigate the properties of clouds, which includes contrails.”
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
“Your articles on chemtrails are pure fantasy. I worked for a gas turbine engine manufacturer for 10 years in engineering. The fuel purity requirements are extremely tight for jet fuel. No commercial airline would dream of sacrificing millions of dollars worth of engines to support some crazy government depop. plot. For every pound of fuel burned you get almost a pound of water vapor which at 30,000 feet and -60 F freezes to form, guess what, ice crystals – in cloud-like contrails. When there are on average 7,000 commercial aircraft in the air over the US every day that is a lot of water vapor. If they were trying to burn a heavy particle load in the fuel the engine fuel nozzles and hydromechanical fuel controls would plug up causing shutdowns and failures not good for the safety of passengers or the bottom line.
Follow the money man and do some homework!” Doug A
“most of the chemtrail spraying platforms are robotic craft under complete computer guidance.”
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
This a phoney Photoshopped forgery, typical of the site it’s in.
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
“Dr. Rosalie Bertell is a world famous radiation scientist who can be trusted. She says electromagnetic weapons have the ability to transmit effects such as earthquake induction across intercontinental distances to any selected target site on the globe with force levels equivalent to major nuclear explosions.”
HAARP has a gigawatt of power. To apply the force of Hiroshima’s SMALL nuclear bomb (10 Kiloton) to “earthquake induction” it would (if it were 100% efficient) have to work flat out for sixty-nine weeks!
THAT shows exactly how ridiculous her claims are.
In all civility, you are being mislead by fraudsters, charlatans, crooks, and people with Alzheimers, down a path of misery and disorder, due to your own ignorance.
Please do not lead others down this same path.
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
From William Thomas: “SmT gazed in disbelief at another schoolbook picture showing a helicopter seeding the ocean with iron particles. These desperate “IronX” experiments did indeed trigger plankton “blooms” that, in turn, transferred tons of atmospheric C02 underwater as those carbon-inhaling critters eventually died and sank to the seafloor.
But – oops! – his kid’s science book fails to mention that the resulting ocean blooms also sucked all available oxygen from the seawater, suffocating all marine life in massive, spreading “dead zones”. [Chemtrails Confirmed '04]“
So once more this pseudo-science “journalist” relies on “Chemtrails Confirmed” for his clincher. (That’s rather like asking a burglar to fix your door-lock!)
There are thousands of species of ocean phytoplankton. The majority of them photosynthesize airborne CO2 to sugars, liberating oxygen, exactly as green land plants do. Thus injecting an iron compound with a specific gravity similar to that of sea-water (so that it remains in the top 100 meters of solar-illuminated ocean) would help to oxygenate the planet – if that were ever to become necessary. Of course, one wouldn’t use helicopters, but it would a good use of ocean-going supertankers. A helicopter might be used for a small local test, because small sea organisms respond rapidly (within hours) to feeding.
There are also, however, ocean-going anaerobic phytoplanktons. They are blue or red in color, and are a small minority of the whole. They respond better to high sea temperatures, deplete oxygen (just as we and fungi do) and would suffocate oxygen breathing life wherever they were in the majority. Their numbers are kept low by the oxygen liberated by the more prolific denizens of the sunlit shallows.
Scientists know about all of these things, and would NOT go out there to create such apocryphal accidents “cooked up” by “Chemtrails Confirmed”.
Only ignorance leads you to believe such rubbish. It’s a bit like arguing that scientists invented fertilizers on land that killed the contents of a greenhouse with poisonous mushrooms. But that wouldn’t be tried would it – because gardeners everywhere would laugh them down.
Those experiments are no more “desperate” than fertilizing soil. I’m an organic permaculturalist by preference, but that wouldn’t stop me adding iron and other trace elements to my soil if I thought it needed it. The same goes for the mineral-deficient centres of all Earth’s oceans.
It’s merely commonsense, and SCIENCE.
June 7, 2009 jazzroc:
Tomas Hradcky: “By the way, an original idea of your own would be nice once and a while.”
Here’s a few: http://www.reverbnation.com/jazzroc – enjoy!
Hi kiwibro25! – “Jazzroc is a spook” – Yep. Secret as hell. Check my website here – the first song is for YOU
“trying to cover up the truth” – Oh yep. You found me out. On myspace.com/jazzroc, was it? The one with pictures of me and my family, my daughter’s wedding, my photography, my composed jazz and rock music, my transcribed and synthesized classical music, my blogs on contrails/volcanoes, “intelligent” design, tory canvassers, and religion?
“he’s probably working for the govt” – Damn. Where’s my money? (Don’t you know its very rude to talk past people?)
“chemtrails are very real & very dangerous” – Let’s see…
Morgellons can’t be coming out of the engines (2,000 degrees C), and barium/aluminum can’t be coming out of the engines
A single/shot would require 3.4 MILLION TONS, a silver single/shot works out at 8.5 MILLION DOLLARS. ? – ER, NO
“dont believe the misleading bullshit” – YET AGAIN, SCIENCE IS BULLSHIT
“this guy types” – THE TRUTH. AT LAST! (Another rude guy who talks past you!)
(TEXT FROM “SECRET” WEBSITE)
“I’m not convinced chemtrails are contrails. I suspect that people like JazzRoc are paid disinformation agents because of their methods and misleading tactics. I could be totally wrong and it would be wonderful if chemtrails didn’t exist, but from my personal experience and from hearing other people talk, makes me think otherwise. What do you think? Please post an intelligent comment about what you think of JazzRoc and others like him and not just an insult :)
I have received lots of messages about other debunkers on youtube. Many people suspect they are the SAME person using different profiles. Here is a list of profiles that people think JazzRoc also goes by:
If you suspect other profiles he is using please post it in the comments or message me.”
The COMMENTS section is interesting:
deepwatertree – almost forgot about a user name: coachgreywolf. So anyways, picture this…what if all these accounts are created and monitored by artificial intelligence programs that have been given the ability to converse like humans and respond to questions or statements? Why not…this would be the perfect place to test such systems…google IS big brother, ya know? Check out the following video on you tube, and see what you think…”Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time” – MUCH LOVE TO ALL MY EARTH PEOPLE FAMILY! – DEATH TO THE MACHINES THAT CONTROL US! Okay, here is my theory:
Jazzroc, EarlMcCrackin, MrPayt, and all of these other “users” are not actually human. Think about it…can there really be THAT many guys that get paid to sit at a desk all day and post disinfo comments on truth seekers pages? Some of these accounts have only been active for a few months, yet “they” have viewed thousands and thousands of videos…is it humanly possible to watch that many videos AND respond back and forth? Unless they sit there for 20 hours a day, I doubt it. (NO!)
Silentkill666 – lol I wish I got paid…
Apocalypticscreams – Well, here’s two more to go on your list: imi72 & blackcatcrying. Hi, I’m putting together a list of all accounts on YT that I suspect are agents and paid trolls. Is it ok if I use your list of Jazzrocs fake accounts?
awakekiwi – i sent this below to jazzroc: hey man, you say youve studied science yet you think that depleted uranium is harmless in the field. i guess that says it all, your an idiot or living in denial or your just paid to sound like an idiot, either way.. your your own worst enemy! sniggle.. :)
dbootsthediva – Another person that I believe to be a debunker Spook is SENTRYNOX. Jazzroc is an evil person for his persistent posts in helping the government and the media to continue to cover up these chemtrails and the harmful effects it has on the entire population of the Planet. Jazzroc is a prime example of a paid debunker, whose job is to go around and post on all the damning evidence of the YOUTUBE videos the entire world is posting in which to try and deter others from the truth. Here is a video link to one of the videos Jazzroc posted many replys of probably scripted lines the government hands him to type, just like they hand out what stories the media is to report on. Can’t post the link I think so the comment is on the user name of DARGONTeraAlpha Name of video is ChemTrails: What are they? /watch?v=5TKKtjxTO3g this is the last part of the lint after the /
mish6874 – On my vid chemtarils uk government admits deadly spraying, ‘TheFlange666‘ has been rather busy trying to tell people that chemtails are nothing more than car exaust and we are all using chemtails as a reason not to own up and take our responsibility for polluting the planet. Don’t know if it is jazzroc but a possible disinfo agent.
ozobezleeb – Silentkill666, maybe a new jazztwat.
greenmts – BLOCK & DELETE.
sirbadman – Hey guys, I got an email from jazzroc that was calling me a liar and slimeball disinformation artist or something similiar. It is probably because I posted elsewhere for users to have a look at this page. In the email he detailed information about himself and then asked me what I had done apart from “lie”. I have since blocked him from contacting me but I think there is something wrong with him asking me for information about myself – and using inflammatory writing to perhaps provoke me into revealing such information. Has anyone else had anything similar?
newton2013 – If he grew up around base – “army brat”…Then his information is from, the information circles that he would encounter in that environment. He does say..”A high achiever at school. I was a “forces brat”, so travelled around the UK and abroad” They have re-educated those in the field. He lives on the field, so what do you expect. I wonder, for instance, he thinks Depleted Uranium is a harmless substance that can be left on a battlefield without causing harm to future generations. He’s not necessarily paid to do what he’s doing, It may just be a function of what his being has been taught in that environment. His argument must be right after all, he’s all into guarding the most powerful country on the planet, and he grew up there- How could the information he has be wrong… eh? My Opinion. (Grrr – a big fat LIE!)
4absurdity – thanks for your message! yes it’s completely obvious that jazzrock is a fake. why should someone copy paste the same comment to about every chemtrail video? and why should he want to communicate with us, when he thinks that er are all nuts? so much effort to heal some paranoids from their point of view?! that he is using different accounts completes the picture ;)
givemeabreakgivemeab – Jazzroc will just waste your time and energy. I learned the hard way by engaging him in a discussion about a video I made. He trolls the web and posts the same “soda pop” crap to initiate never-ending arguments. He attacks anyone who suggests that chemtrails may not be simple contrails. His tactic is to bombard you with “scientific evidence”, he refers to his own website as proof and responds with a barrage of insults and bizarre accusations (such as “you are either uneducated or evil”) which derail any reasonable discussion. Classic misdirection. The only logical explanation for his behavior is he is paid to do this. Spread the word.
badInvention – Ive seen planes flying the same altitude, one leaving a small contrail,the the other a huge trail of “ice crystalls” wich turns into a cloud of haze. This can not make any sense. All planes fly a specific flight route, the same path, just at different heights (according to air traffic regulations). Why do we have chess boards strung across our skies? why do these planes circle my town? (I do not even live close to an airport, that they might have to circle) Not to mention the dangarous flight behavior of these chembirds. Why do my eyes burn and my chest hurt on a “contrail” hazed up day ? Why does flora at home suffer from something that looks like chemical burn marks? someone out there wants to make us very weak and sick.
Zigga12345 – Jazz Rock sucks cock, he chats the same crap over and over, i think he could be a piece of shit.
kissthisguy88 – Thanks for the message and creating the profile. Most people that have chemtrail videos don’t realize that they can silence debunkers like jazzroc. The best thing to do is block him and delete everything he has written. Don’t even brother to have an exchange with him. Believe me, block and delete will stop him cold in his tracks. AND other people new to chemtrails that might be watching for the first time don’t have to read his BS. Thanks to YouTube for giving video makers powerful tools like block and delete.
sirbadman – Aah so mister Jazzroc received some dirty money to set up his website and is using deceptive methods in youtube. Thanks heaps for your help in debunking the contrail con artist. So what is up with these chem trails then? And why are so many people convinced they are harmless?
Apocalypticscreams – Thanks for the heads-up, I had my suspicions about him but never realised he had multiple accounts. If that is the case he is 100% a paid disinfo agent. No one would spend so much time “debunking” chemtrails if they knew it to be a load of crap, they (the three lettered agencies) only roll out the COINTELPRO, disinfo monkeys when people are getting too close for comfort. I see this as an own goal by the trolls and spooks: the more they try debunking chemtrails, the more credibility and reason to carry on with raising awareness they give us. Well done Jazzroc, you shot yourself in the foot.
Blackheart77ce – Jazz is a shill. Everything Jazz says is refutable, but that’s a waste of time. He will get a new name and keep trolling. If you see him, point him out. The damage some people do to truth can only be minimized. Keep passing along the truth despite people like Jazz!
BaZooKa4314 – I had to comment because if you pay attention and keep an open mind you will notice all sorts of things that are going on in this world. Informing yourself and listening to what other people have to say can tell you a lot more about what IS going on that what you hear on the news. I am free to make my own opinions on matters the same as anybody else, I am free to state that opinion in any way abiding the law. I don’t have much to say about jazroc except that his opinions seem to be more for disproving someone elses opinions and there IS something to be said about that……
WhereIsTruth – how can you have any level of intelligence and not see what chemtrails are…once they are pointed out to you. i mean come on…there are shots with one plane spraying while another similar plane at the same basic altitude is leaving no contrail at all. this is the clearest EVIL act the EVILDOERS are doing.
drewswebsite – First, epoxynous showed up in my CHEMTRAILS video #1 comments section, going on about contrails and chemtrails being the same, etc.. I called him out as a either ignorant or on the job. Then this same attitude and mindset shows back up in the comments section only this time the screenname is “timmcal“. And then “jazzroc” Same exact MO. All three veritable ROCKET SCIENTISTS!! LOL More like the THREE STOOGES… only not funny…
diecrewdeluks – looks like we need to put jazzrock to the sword you fucking asshole haha him and dreamlandnightmare shoudl get married lmao
RonBaggerman – whatever he is, he’s someone without a life…..i think he’s all of the above. but for sure he’s dangerous in the sense that he surely confuses and intimidates some people. anyway the anti chemtrail movement is growing day by day here in holland and everywhere around the world. it’s all about consciousness,,,,,as yogi bear said: if you start to look, then it’s amazing what you can see. check my CT vids.
jefflettis – I think he is either a spook or a mind controlled goofball. He is also posting on Morgellens videos that mention a link to chemtrails. I go out and look up in the sky practically every day and see them spraying. I’ve called the EPA and got no response.
HumildeHumano – jazzroc is a debunker robot. Fuck debunkers ! Fuck the system ! Fuck chemtrailers ! Fuck New World Order ! Fuck New Age ! Free Human !
ozobezleeb – What ever this jazzprick say’s is pointless, Chemtrails are true, they are happening every day, and soon will be taken on by all as fact.
Skywitness – Unfortunately jazzroc is a spook who appears to have sold his soul to his NWO handlers. His purpose is to confuse, discourage, and to try and create doublemindedness within everyone who is searching for the truth concerning chemtrails. Video evidence for chemtrails, remains stronger than any of the disinfo words that come from jazzroc and the other spooks in his club.
Matteo42 – Jazzroc can lick my asshole.
JusticePistoff – I think that’s some badass fighter on jazzroc’s page. Can’t say I’ve seen that before. I guess being a spook does have its benefits.
Food shortage is being created by creating drought, killing bees not just with spray, but also by fooling with electromagnetics of the atmosphere, animals dying everywhere of foot-in-mouth, blue tongue, rift valley virus, a goat 2 days ago of anthrax, pigs in vietnam a few days ago from an unknown new respiratory illness, and then there’s the bird flu.“
The thing is, jbreezes, that these things have been on Earth for the best part of 4 BILLION YEARS.
Sometimes, methinks, it appears that the only NEW phenomena are the NWO and YOU. Now why don’t YOU BOTH “die everywhere of foot-in-mouth, blue tongue, rift valley virus“.
“foot-in-mouth” you CERTAINLY have…
Why, John, if you wish to debate with me, do you use an anonymous email address?
1.) Great photo. Where did you get it? It looks too good to be true. Maybe it has been PhotoShopped?
It was part of a set of forty pictures taken by a professional photographer.
2.) I did a search for the weblink/photo on Google, and there were no hits for the “jeffwell.jpg”. I even checked out Airliners.net and there was no photo there either!
It probably DID come from airliners.net. Try http://contrailscience.com
Uncinus writes: “On June 12 2005 from 14:59 to 15:06 Bejing time (~07:00 UTC) pilot and photographer Jeff Well took a series of 45 photos of an exceptionally colourful iridescent contrail produced by an A340-313X aircraft in 9600 m (31,500 feet) altitude, just 1200 m higher as his position on the same route over eastern China.”
3.) Your explination of “Burst Condensation” contardicts your assertions on how/when contrails are made coming out of the turbofan jet engine.
Yes. That’s because there are two entirely different sets of events taking place: the first is the condensation of steam into ice particles, the second the burst condensation of supercooled droplets of water over the point of minimum pressure (and maximum cooling) just ahead and above the maximum wing chord – on its topside. Learn to spell.
4.) The size progression of the supercooled water vapor: does it remain water vapor, or does it turn into ice? — you know, since it’s “supercooled”.
It isn’t vapor at all: it is a “Burst frozen” cloud of droplets of super-cooled water which are picking up more molecules of water out of the marginally-supersaturated air.
WIKI says: “Supercooling or Supercooled water is the process of lowering the temperature of a liquid below its freezing point, without it becoming a solid or a gas.
A liquid below its standard freezing point will crystallize in the presence of a seed crystal or nucleus around which a crystal structure can form. However, lacking any such nucleus, the liquid phase can be maintained all the way down to the temperature at which crystal homogeneous nucleation occurs. The homogeneous nucleation can occur above the glass transition where the system is an amorphous, that is, non-crystalline solid.
Water can freeze at 273.15 K (0 °C or 32 °F) but it can also be supercooled at standard pressure down to its crystal homogeneous nucleation at almost 231 K (−42 °C). If cooled at a rate on the order of 106 K/s, the crystal nucleation can be avoided and water becomes a glass. Its glass transition temperature is much colder and harder to determine, but studies estimate it at about 165 K (−108 °C). Glassy water can be heated up to approximately 150 K (−123 °C). In the range of temperatures between 231 K (−42 °C) and 150 K (−123 °C) experiments find only crystal ice.
Droplets of supercooled water often exist in stratiform and cumulus clouds. They form into ice when they are struck by the wings of passing airplanes and abruptly crystallize. (This causes problems with lift, so aircraft that are expected to fly in such conditions are equipped with a deicing system.) Freezing rain is also caused by supercooled droplets.”
5.) When they increase in size they run through a progression of light frequencies? How does size relate to light frequency?
They are very small in size, and as they increase in size they “match” the interference properties of various wavelengths of the sunlight passing through them. That’s my opinion.
6.) To interfere means the lack of synergy, thus the result is “refraction”.
You’re wrong here. There is nothing “frictional” about interference. The physics paper that makes this case quite completely argues for a refractive process, and even manages a credible simulation.
7.) Petroleum has the rainbow characteristic you mention — You know, mix gas (in this case, kerosene) with water and what do you see? A rainbow effect… Duh! And wouldn’t you know, jet fuel is petroleum based…
Then this physics paper would be wasted on YOU.
All the properties of super-saturated air indicate that it must be pure. The phenomenon, if you hadn’t noticed, starts at the point of maximum cooling, which is just forward of the maximum wing chord, on the top surface of the wing, in PURE (but supersaturated) AIR. Not a LIKELY point to start “spraying” is it, right under the passengers’s eyes! (But actually the droplet size is probably too fine to be visible over the wing.)
8.) Burst Condensation relates to marine life, as explained in many abstracts on the subject. Jazzroc, you are slowly coming unraveled from the onslaught of proof we “chemtrailers” have provided, and thus have shown that you are nothing mors than a bald-faced liar. And what is so great, is that you will delete this post, giving me the last word!
So I checked by typing “burst condensation” into Google… and this is what immediately rolled out:
Massive bursts in condensation nuclei (CN) concentration were recorded at a … In a previous paper the burst phenomenon was linked to the movement of the …
cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1879678 – Similar pages
by JL GRENFELL – 1999 – Cited by 24 – Related articles – All 8 versions
Key words: aerosol, asymptotic, burst, condensation, nucleation. 1. Introduction … and condensation to both be important during a nucleation burst. …
http://www.springerlink.com/index/W4862551P4134428.pdf – Similar pages
by BD Shaw – 2003 – Related articles – All 4 versions
For an underwater burst at moderate (or great) depth, essentially all of the … The descent of water and spray from the column and from condensation in the …
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/undrwtr.html – 12k – Cached – Similar pages
Top > Case Details > Burst of a phenolic resin reactor due to abnormal … Condensation became insufficient because the tubes of the condenser were blocked. …
shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CC1000101& – 29k – Cached – Similar pages
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint – View as HTML
CU’s section on Bose-Einstein Condensation can be found at: …. Why burst energy and how. much? Why is there a cold remnant. afterwards? …
phet.colorado.edu/admin/get-contribution-file.php?contribution_file_id=708 – Similar pages
“marine life, as explained in many abstracts on the subject”, eh?
As you can see, there’s nothing to do with live sea creatures, only something to do with the opposite of what you indicate. In other words, you are a liar, which is why you find yourself here…
re your second letter. It concerns material found at the site below:
which refers to this picture on airliners.net.
In the comments on this page Uncinus and I had this conversation:
on 29 Aug 2008 at 8:50 am jazzroc
“Very pretty. But what is it? It’s clearly not a regular exhaust contrail, as the trail seems to start actually ON the wing, and it has a weird rainbow effect you don’t find in exhaust contrails.”
Hi Uncinus. There are TWO elements to what you see. The first (starting at the wing) is the aerodynamic element, as the pressure drop above the wing initiates the precipitation of fine ice crystals into the air. The second is the exhaust water from the jets which is condensing directly into ice crystals. The aircraft is flying high in a partly super-satured stratospheric layer, and the picture wasn’t taken from sea level – because the sky is BLACK. (I can appreciate that a modicum of photographic contrast and colour saturation modification has taken place.)
“It’s actually an aerodynamic contrail. It’s formed by the reduction of pressure in the air as it moves over the wing. When the pressure of a gas falls, then its temperature also falls (the same principle as is used by your refrigerator). The reduced temperature cause small drops of water to condense, which then may freeze. The drops get larger as more water condenses on them. The different sized drops refract water by different amounts, which accounts for the “rainbow” effect.”
Well, I’ve covered that it’s TWO effects. I wish to argue strongly that your “growing water droplets” is way off. What were you thinking? You KNOW that the temperatures of the stratosphere don’t rise above freezing point until far above normal aircraft flight altitudes!
The effect (and its mostly visible on the aircraft exhaust ices due to their relative abundance here) is due to INTERFERENCE – not refraction.
Due to stratospheric super-saturation, the crystals are progressively growing in size as the agglomerate more ice from the “excess” water vapour.
As they progressively GROW in thickness (they’re flat hexagonal crystals), they also progressively INTERFERE with specific light frequencies. So you are “bound” to get a rainbow-like effect. Not only that, but subsets of these frequencies will “come around again”, so you’ll get two or three “rainbows”. But as they larger, the crystals get more “exotic” in shape, and degrade this initially “pure” physical phenomenon, until after a quarter of a mile the effect is gone – scattered away.
At high cruising speeds, the wave vortex of each wing isn’t as pronounced as it is at low speeds and higher angles of attack, but here you CAN see that the tip vortices are “coming inboard” as they follow the aircraft’s wave vortex.
on 29 Aug 2008 at 9:21 am Uncinus
The reason I was talking about growing water droplets was mostly to address the low-level aerodynamic contrails, such as those seen in the video. They can form where it is too warm for ice to form.
Regarding “what I was thinking”, my explanation is partially cribbed from the Gieren poster:
Which is actually from a paper on the sequence of photos from which this one was taken. In the poster they say: The ice crystal size distributions (solid curves) are generated from homogeneous freezing of liquid aerosol droplets (dashed). The smallest droplets freeze first, followed by freezing of larger droplets, until all available aerosol particles are depleted .… Mie theory was used to calculate optical properties from the size distributions,
assuming spherical ice particles. It then explains this exact color distribution, which matches his assumptions. “Refraction” was probably wrong, I’ve changed the text slightly to reflect “different optical properties”. The formation of aerodynamic contrails is a very different process to exhaust contrails, it’s not fully understood, but it’s not surpising that the resultant crystals can be very different.
As for where the photo was taken:
On June 12 2005 from 14:59 to 15:06 Bejing time (~07:00 UTC) pilot and photographer Jeff Well took a series of 45 photos of an exceptionally colourful iridescent contrail produced by an A340-313X aircraft in 9600 m (31,500 feet) altitude, just 1200 m higher as his position on the same route over eastern China.
I must admit though, I’m not exactly clear if liquid water can exist at that altitude and temperature, even for the fraction of a second he implies. Deposition (the opposite of sublimation) seems more in keeping with what I’ve read.
on 29 Aug 2008 at 9:51 am jazzroc
Haha, so I was right about the photo!
I read the pdf AFTER I’d posted, and with some trepidation, when I realized the solemnity of the source!
But I now suspect they also hadn’t properly considered the temperatures involved, and that also the solid ice deposition and accretion would produce by interference the same sequence (in effect) as their results demonstrated – including the scattering they mentioned.
If exhaust steam at 1100 deg C cools down a 1000 degrees to visibility, hence changing phase to liquid at 100 degrees taking out 540 Kcal/gram in a fraction of a second, I cannot see how it could waste much time at all making a second phase change to solid at 0 degrees taking out only 80 Kcal/gram and dropping a further 30 degrees.
The strange nature of the ice trail leading from the trailing edge of the wing hold’s one’s attention, doesn’t it? It is “backlit” by reflected sunlight off the top of the wing, as well as lit by sunlight from above.
Quite a show. As ever, your site is superb…
on 29 Aug 2008 at 11:24 am Uncinus
I think this paper explains the situation better. Note Figure 1 in this paper is a photo of the same plane taken at around the same time.
They estimate the temperature at 241K (-25F), which is rather different to the -40C they mention in the poster. At that temperature, water can exist as liquid supercooled droplets that only freeze when they get to a certain size.
It does seem to be all explained in the paper. A bit complicated though.
on 29 Aug 2008 at 4:10 pm jazzroc
You are right about it being “a bit complicated”, but I’m grateful for the complexity. Personally, to fully understand and master THAT would take me about a month of eight-hour days in a technical library. I shan’t be doing it, but thanks.
It’s interesting that this rare phenomenon will become less rare in the future, as more flights will take place along the Pacific Ring, where warmer and more humid conditions are to be found.
I like the way they considered the trail in depth and breadth, and made distinctions between particle sizes, and considered simplifications (!) to get their results. Also the discussion of the pre-conditioning of the aerosol particles by previous flights, and their relevance to GW and albedo modification.
They are right. You are right. A brilliant science paper of 54 pages. I’m off to eat some words…
Notice it was conducted without any rudeness, snide remarks, or incivility.
If you study the material available to you in the links mentioned above you will become fully acquainted with aerodynamic contrails. I also recommend the links below, which will acquaint you with research and conclusions about persistent trails leading to permanent cirrus cloud formation.
Meanwhile, your comment was deleted because of its irrelevance and incivility (as I warned I would do in my blog foreword).
Written by JazzRoc
November 1, 2008 at 1:00 am
Tagged with 4absurdity, aerosol, aircraft exhaust, aluminium, aluminum, analyzed, apocalypticscreams, arthritis, atmosphere, awakekiwi, badinvention, barium, bazooka4314, blackheart77ce, breathing difficulties, bullshit, carnicom, characteristic, chem trail, civil aviation market, color, commercial craft, composed jazz and rock music, contrails, dbootsthediva, deepwatertree, diecrewdeluks, disinformation agent, drewswebsite, educated, failure, faulty assumption, filaments, givemeabreakgivemeab, greenmts, growth, heavy haze, horizontal, humidity, HumildeHumano, ignorance, issue, jazzricisaspook, jeflettis, justicepistoff, kissthisguy88, lifetime, lines in the sky, lung disease, matteo42, metallic salts, mish6874, morgellons, national airspace system, newton2013, no more blue skies, not a normal cloud, oily clouds, ozobezleeb, pattern, ptb, rain, reduced vertical separation minima, reflected, refracted, rense, RonBaggerman, scientific, silentkill666, sirbadman, snow, spook, spraying, temperature, tic-tac-toe, transcribed and synthesized classical music, Truth, understand, united states, unnatural cloud, vertical, vibrant, visible, weather, webby material, WhereIsTruth, whiteout, wind shear, Zigga12345