JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘contrail


with 44 comments



Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page


Polar ice crystal samples

The link “Atmospheric Optics and more” will help anyone to understand the reasons underlying the many discrete halo features which are both probable and possible. It also gets a mention under “Ignorance” on my page here.


14th December ’11 – Free Fall and Terminal Velocity on this page
5th December ’11 – Ice Crystals and Halos on this page
18th January ’11 – 9-11 VORTEX in “Trails Seen from Space”
14th January ’11 – THE REAL REASON FOR  “Chemtrails” on this page.
18th December ’10 – CHAFF (& RADAR) in “Careful With That Cloud”
11th December ’10 – WAKES OF WAR in “WW2 CONTRAIL STORY”
02 August ’10 – OBZELITE in “Breathtaking quotes” in “Genuine Bull”
16th July ’10 – MORONS STUMBLE INTO OFFICE in “Driving Round Town”
10th July ’10 – JONES JOINS IN in “Jet Spray”
24th June ’10 – SNAKE OIL and more on my YT presence on this page
19th June ’10 – SUPERCOMPUTING THE CLIMATE in “Penrod”
13th June ’10 – CSI FLAKES CNUTS in “Contrails”
03rd June ’10 – FUN IN THE SUN in “Established”
19th May ’10 – MAKING THE 777 in “Me Driving Round Town”
23rd April ’10 – VOLCANIC ASS, ER, ASH in “Trails didn’t exist back then”
13th April ’10 – “TRUTHSEEKER” SITES BANNING HYPOCRISY on this page
09th April ’10 – OUTSIDE IN in “Not Coming”
07th April ’10 – THE STORY OF STUFF in “Stratosphere”
26th March ’10 – KSLA in “Jet Spray”
25th March ’10 – MY YOUTUBE PRESENCE on this page
4th March ’10 – MORE ABOUT VORTICES in “Trails Seen From Space”
23rd February ’10 – FALLACIES in “Established”
19th February ’10 – SONIC BOOM MEETS SUNDOG in “Stratosphere”
16th February ’10 – DISCOVERY? in “Another Page from YouTube”
11th February ’10 – 91177info in “Another Page from YouTube”
3rd February ’10 – CHEMTRAILS AND FALSIFICATION in “Careful With That Cloud”
2nd February ’10 – NOMEANSNO in “Not Coming”
10th January ’10 – STAR’s RESOURCES on this page
08th January ’10 – “Chemtrails” video in “Bamboozled”
03rd December ’09 – “JET STREAMS” in “JET SPRAY”
29th November ’09 – “EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?” on this page.
27th November ’09 – “YouTube 3” in YouTube SLUGS IT OUT in “YOGHURTS”
12th November ’09 – “YouTube 2” in “YOGURTS” and “PEAK OIL” on this page.
23rd October ’09 – “CHEMTRAILS” in “Careful With That Cloud”
20th October ’09 – “GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH” reworked in “GLOBAL DIMMING”
15th October ’09 – “REVEAL EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE” in “6 PORKIES”
13th October ’09 – “YouTube 1” IN “YOGURTS”
9th October ’09 – “HOW TO MAKE SNOW” on this page.
6th October ’09 – “DEFINITELY” in “D BOOTS THE DIVA”
4th October ’09 – “CREPUSCULAR SHADOWS” in “Circle of Confusion”
27th September ’09 – “BOENOID” in “BAMBOOZLED”
26th September ’09 – “CONTRAILS” on this page
22nd September ’09 – “GW ROOM 103” in “Global Dimming”
1st September ’09 – “RUSHFAN” in “ROBERT”

20th August ’09 – “AEROSOLS” IN “6 PORKIES” and “(THEY ARE) LEGION” in “JET SPRAY”
13th August ’09 – “A BLACK HOLE” in “BAMBOOZLED”
19th July ’09 – THE CASE AGAINST CHEMTRAILS and STARS15K’s REFERENCE LIST in “Careful With That Cloud”
12th July ’09 – MEAT in “LETTER”
20th June ’09 – Richard Dawkins’s book reviews in A SKEPTIC’S BOOKSHELF on this page (an article on Creationist Dirty Tricks to follow)
19th June ’09 – “MINNIS AT WORK” in
“Driving Around Town” and “STERN’S ‘DUMBEST CONSPIRACY EVER” in “SLEEPS”
9th June ’09 – “SOME REAL SCIENCE” in “PENROD”
6th June ’09 – “ISSUE (2)” in “ISSUE”
2nd June ’09 – “Genuine Professionals” in “Genuine Bull”
29th May ’09 – “Disproving AGW” IN “Global Dimming”
24th May ’09 – “The Skies over Britain” in “What’s It All About?”
22nd May ’09 – “WAKEUPCALLCHANNEL Control” in ““WWII Persistent Contrail Story”
21st May ’09 – “Friends” in ““Music from my Synth – Jazz/Rock”
20th May ’09 – “Big Gun FIRES” in “Global Dimming”
15th May ’09 – “A SKEPTIC’S BOOKSHELF” on this page…
10th May ’09 – “BREATHTAKING QUOTES” in
9th May ’09 – “AMAZING PLANE TRAILS” on this page…
8th May ’09 – “Watts up with THAT?” in
“Trails didn’t exist back then”
7th May ’09 – “Global Warming Room 102” in “Global Dimming”
1st May ’09 – “TRUTH ORIGINS” in “Trails didn’t exist back then”
30th April ’09 – The Theory of Everything in “Established”
30th April ’09 – David Cenciotti’s Weblog in “D Boots the Diva”
29th April ’09 – Contrail Article by Airliners.net in “Contrails”
28th April ’09 – Website “ChemCon Alert” arrives in “Circle of Confusion”
23rd April ’09 – Contrailscience Comedy Spot in “Contrails”
22nd April ’09 – Ian Plimer is convincing in “Global Dimming”
2nd April ’09 – “Andrew Johnson” (to be cont’d.) in “Another Waste of Time”
25th March ’09 – “Will Thomas” (NOT cont’d.) in “Trails didn’t exist back then…”

I think he DID believe it, but didn’t want his “punters” to do so. He CLOSED DOWN his comments section. I took a copy…

Personal Commuter?


This blog is a compendium of most of my activities at first on most of YouTube’s “chemtrail” video comments boxes during the latter half of 2007, continuing on into 2008, where I was banned from YouTube (following a comments campaign against all the sites promoting their fraudulent presentation of a Boeing 777LR prototype aircraft as a spraying aircraft). I then spent time at David Icke’s website forum, the Outlaw website forum, and “All Aircraft are Not Involved”. All of these promoted chemtrail speculation, without allowing contrary views.
As I write in December 2011 I am subscribed to “Opposing Digits”, “ConCen”, and “League of Reason” website forums, but have spent little time there. Forums which are open to debate don’t cover this topic. Forums which aren’t seem to be collapsing, or else have hardened their ranks against debunking – as if it were the greater sin…

The National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock, Hants
The National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock, Hants

This blog uses hypertext, so you can click on it and read the references revealed.

My interest arose from my perceiving that the MAIN ARGUMENT of ‘chemtrailers’  – “persistent contrails are ‘chemtrails’ because ordinary contrails fade away” – is FALSE.

I am a scientist and engineer, having begun my career way back in 1962 as a student apprentice aeroengineer working at the National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock.
Following an exposition on the nature of contrails, this blog is alphabetically-sorted under titles which are either the correspondent or the topic under consideration. It is often angry (a characteristic of chemtrailers, who believe they hold the moral high ground) but is worth persisting with, for it uncovers many fascinating aspects of this multiple paranoia.
In spite of what you may have heard:
Contrails are the only trails regularly produced by high-flying aircraft, and have been known to be persistent on occasion since 1922.
They are produced by either the freezing temperature acting on steam (which is the combustion product of the aircraft’s engines), or also the reduction in pressure of the air flowing over its wings bringing dissolved water vapor out of solution in the atmosphere.
There have been no cases of poisoning, no samples of fuel ever found to contain poison, no aircraft found ever to contain poison tanks, and no whistleblowers (out of hundreds of thousands of aircraft and airport workers).
The real reason for the increasing persistence of contrails is the increase in air travel, which has increased FIFTYfold since the mid-fifties.
In NO CASE have any of my many “chemtrail” correspondents EVER argued the SCIENCE of the matter.
Their normal response is to immediately label my argument (normally a scientific one) as “disinformation”, which leaves me rather baffled, and forces me to go on the offensive, and pick out the logical flaws (rich pickings) with which I am left. I am reminded of a quote from the late Andrew Lobacewski’s “Political Ponerology” which follows:


The psychological features of each such crisis are unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists at the beginning of all such “bad times” is an exacerbation of society’s hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective, and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale.”


I have (mostly) deferred to American English usage and spelling since that is the majority of origin. Text by anyone else is in italics. I have on occasion added comments (I’ve been learning too!) which I have prefixed with an asterisk*.
A word about people who have helped me directly and indirectly. First and foremost is Uncinus of contrailscience, who has helped me to confront the mysteries of WordPress, as well as providing me and everyone else with good advice and courtesy in both the physics of the atmosphere and the gentle art of reason.
And my thanks to Steve Andrews, the Bard of Ely, who put me on to this subject in the first place, argued furiously with me at first, became persuaded of my reasoning, and graciously became my champion. Steve has a heart of gold.
And a word about your comments. I’ll publish them when they genuinely advance everyone’s understanding. Hatemail, or uninformed dissension from anonymous people will be removed. Here we go…



They are a MYTH constructed for the gullible by the cynical.
Advertising revenue is available to the cynically-employed. All they have to do is stimulate turnover on their site, in the manner described in “How to start a Chemtrail Scare for Fun and Profit” at my page entitled “Here”.

A recent note from a friend clarifies this:


A tribute to the pioneering of Col Joe Kittinger. You can make the distinction between the above terms here:


This shows a quick way to do this. Of course, the weather outside is minus twenty degrees. You’ll notice that water in its liquid and vapor forms wastes no time turning into a fine white smoke reminiscent of – a contrail.

Contrails are formed at even colder temperatures in the stratosphere, where the air pressure is two-tenths of what it is at sea level. But they too are ICE.



This I have shamelessly lifted from “Contrail Education” at:
Chemtrailers will often tell you that “authorities” and “the powers that be” will never give you information about chemtrails. This is quite true, but for the same reason that it’s hard to get information about fairies. The authorities are, on the other hand, eager to give anyone who asks information about contrails…
Q: Where do contrails form?

A: Contrails are human-induced clouds that usually form at very high altitudes (usually above 8 km – about 26,000 ft) where the air is extremely cold (less than -40ºC). Because of this, contrails form not when an airplane is taking off or landing, but while it is at cruise altitude. (Exceptions occur in places like Alaska and Canada, where very cold air is sometimes found near the ground.) Thus, people who live under major air traffic routes, not people who live near major airports, are those who will see the most contrails. (However, some major airports are also under major air traffic routes, which can lead to confusion.) You can use an Appleman chart to predict contrail formation for your area. Of course, a contrail cannot form if no airplane passes through.
Q: Why are there more short-lived contrails than persistent contrails?
A: For a particular geographical location, it may seem that there are more of one type of contrail than another. Actually, the type and number seems to depend on the amount of moisture and temperature in the atmosphere where the plane is flying. If the area is fairly dry, then more short-lived contrails might be observed. If there is more moisture, such as along the east coast of the United States, there might be more persistent contrails observed. To look at observations from other areas, you might like to visit the GLOBE website and click on the Data Access button.
Q: What causes the swirling pattern in a contrail?
A: The swirling pattern in a contrail is caused by the vortices coming from the tip of the aircraft. A vortex is a swirling of air coming from underneath the tip of the plane and wrapping upward over the top of the wingtip. This is due to the difference in pressure caused by the curved shape of the wing. The process of having less pressure on the top of the wing and more pressure on the bottom of the wing provides “lift” for the aircraft.
Q: Why are we able to see contrails on some days but not on other days?
A: In order for the contrail to form, there must be enough moisture in the high levels of the atmosphere for the ice crystals to form around the airplane exhaust. If the upper atmosphere is very dry, contrails will not easily form, or will be of the short-lived type.
Q: Do contrails drastically affect weather patterns?
A: Originally scientists believed that the contrails behaved like cirrus clouds to actually make the climate warmer. However, there have been studies conducted that have scientists rethinking their earlier ideas about contrails. This is one of the major questions that has to be researched at NASA and one of the reasons we are putting so much emphasis on contrails. When air traffic over the US was halted after the 9-11 incident, scientists got a rare look at the skies with only a few military jets flying. They were able to analyze the effects of some of these contrails and realized that their earlier notions about contrails’ effects were not totally accurate.
Q: Has there ever been observation of rain from contrails?
A: Typically, rain clouds are low level clouds which are made up of water molecules. These water molecules then come together to form water drops (liquid) which eventually fall to the ground as rain drops. Since contrails are high level clouds, the moisture within them forms ice crystals which do not come together to form any form of precipitation (rain).
Q: Why are contrails white? Contrails are formed from the exhaust of an air plane. We usually think of exhaust as being black and dirty.
A: Almost all cloud droplets (and snowflakes) have a very small particle (aerosol) at their core. But the particle is MUCH smaller than the cloud/ice/snow particle. When light passes through the crystal, it is reflected or bent (refracted) by the cloud or ice particle, which makes it appear white to an observer. Therefore, what makes the contrail look white is the water (frozen into a crystal), rather than the exhaust particle. Note that sometimes the optical effects through these crystals can also produce colors, much like rainbows in water drops. You will only see these when the Sun-crystal-you geometry is aligned in certain ways.
Q: Why can we see a jet high in the sky, yet it is not making a contrail?
A: For a contrail to form there must be enough moisture in the air and the temperature must be cold enough to form ice crystals at the altitude at which the jet is flying. If the temperature is too warm or the air too dry, contrails will not form.
Q: There is a persistent contrail in the sky, and the middle portion of the contrail has disappeared. Is the disappearance caused by wind or air temperature?
A: For all or part of the contrail to disappear, there is a lack of moisture to maintain formation of the ice crystals. It may be possible for air currents to move drier air into the area of the contrail, which would cause that portion of the contrail to evaporate.
Q: Why are so many of the persistent contrails we see so narrow in width, almost a pencil line?
A: The type of contrail you are describing is a persistent contrail, and, in particular, one which is non-spreading. For a persistent contrail to spread, there must be enough extra moisture in the air for additional ice crystals to form. If there is a limited supply of moisture, a persistent contrail may form, but will not spread.
Q: In which layer of the atmosphere do we normally see contrails?
A: Contrails usually form in the upper portion of the troposphere and in the lower stratosphere where jet aircraft normally fly, generally between about 8 and 12 km altitude (~26,000 to 39,000 feet). They can also form closer to the ground when the air is very cold and has enough moisture.
Q: Is it possible to observe contrails as indicators of changing weather?
A: If a contrail is persistent or persistent spreading, then the upper atmosphere contains large amounts of moisture. If a contrail is short-lived, then the upper atmosphere is relatively dry. This was used by sailors and can be used today to somewhat predict the weather. Short-lived contrails may indicate fair weather, and persistent contrails may indicate an approaching change in the weather or precipitation. The weather signal is somewhat analogous to that of natural cirrus clouds.
Q: There were two planes in the sky. One was flying north/south and left a persistent contrail. The other plane was flying east/west and did not leave a contrail. Why did one plane leave a contrail, but the other did not?
A: The two planes were flying at different altitudes – air traffic control has rules for spacing flights in different directions – so that the north-south flight path contained more moisture or was at a lower temperature than the east-west flight-path. The amount of moisture in the stratosphere* can change considerably in a short vertical distance. It depends strongly on the origin of the particular air mass. There are also variations in the efficiency of aircraft engines, which can affect whether or not a particular plane will leave a contrail.

  • The stratosphere has different properties from the troposphere, which we are familiar with, because we live in it. The stratosphere is stable, and layered, and counterintuitively is COLDEST at its base – the tropopause. The layers of which it’s comprised vary in thickness from tens to thousands of feet. “Stratum” is the Latin for “layer”.


I’m happy to include here STARS15K’s reference list – all except my own site and some spoof sites. By leafing through this material and absorbing it, you could become sufficiently science-aware to be able to continue this blog yourself, for example. 🙂
http://profhorn.aos.wisc.edu/wxwise/AckermanKnox/chap15/contrail_applet.html (this site has a graph for you to set conditions and will fly a plane with the expected contrail formation at the top)
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/035.htm (this link has many chapters, be sure and drop the menu down to get the full report.)
http://www.dropletmeasurement.com/ (I just found this link on a chemtrail board. The poster claimed it showed chemspray planes. It doesn’t, it shows a company that does sampling and measurement IN SITU. I keep telling people that’s how a contrail would have to be tested, and this company can and does just that.)
http://www.astro.ku.dk/holger/IDA/notes.html (This site is older and some links might not work. It is a good representation that contrails are studied all over the world, though)
http://www.thebulletin.org/files/064002006_0.pdf A really well-done, balanced piece on geo-engineering. Not about chemtrails, but a good guide to use when considering that as a possible use/motive for chemtrail use.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13115866/Chemtrailscc-the-Not-So-Secret-Ingredient-022009 This is a pro-CT publication, but has a diagram of the chemical process of jet fuel through an engine and a statement that any metallic aerosol will remain suspended for days. These go against what I’ve been told by CT here. The conclusions reached, I do not agree with. Other research has shown that the barium in Stadis 450 after combustion is significantly small enough it might even NOT show on certain tests, being within the expected “norm” of background.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/rayshad.htm This is the entire site address, which is very cool. It also contains past galleries I have only begun to explore.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/contr1.htm This shows contrail shadows, aka ‘black beams’ or ‘black contrails’. There are two pages with explanations.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz215.htm This page shows contrail shadows, but most importantly, two jets flying at the same altitude with different contrails. The reason? Something stated often, difference in the jet engines. One is more efficient than the other. So it happens, but for a known reason.


What could they possibly have in common? (Except that they might share the same route.) Well it is this: in a saturated stratosphere, a five thousand kilometre flight of a long-range jumbo jet is able to release EIGHTY THOUSAND TONS of water ice into the air. This is the weight of a large ocean liner in water ice…
“No! Get away with you! This cannot be true!”, I hear you say. But it IS true.
From the paper “Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties”:
“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 Kg per meter.” That means a 5000 kilometer flight (THROUGH SATURATED AIR) would put down 80,000 tons of trail material… Whoa! Wait a minute! Isn’t a jumbo’s fuel load about 250 tons? So where does the rest come from? The answer is OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE! Read the paper for yourself.
“Look up” say chemtrailers, “they are spraying you!”
Well, they are NOT. The ice formed by combusting kerosine for the plane’s jet engines is SEEDING the deposition of further ice out of the saturated air. Furthermore, that ice never falls directly as rain. Instead it evaporates into lower tropospheric air, and might, a day or a week or a month later, take its part in the country’s rainfall.
Sadly, the best region for smooth and stable long-distance flight is this very cold and sensitive region of the tropopause and lower stratosphere, and its occasional huge reaction sends a visual message of change to those people who neither possess or seek understanding of the science underlying it (and consequently don’t have the right to pronounce upon it) – chemtrailers.
But that “message of change” is distorted beyond meaning. At present, scientists say, the effect upon the atmosphere of all this deposition is “within the noise”, meaning that no significant changes to the weather have taken place. Fifty years from now, if air transport continues to increase at today’s rate, then persistent contrails will significantly affect the weather.
Ah, but fifty years from now we will have run out of oil…


I am present at the YouTube channel “beachcomber2008“.

My main interest is in the development and promotion of a practical self-sufficiency in food and housing as a default state and natural right of existence.

…and contains within it such nuggets:


Ralph Nader has been about a bit….
Maybe his book is the other jaw of a pincer movement.

as it is a process of healing both for the planet and the human soul
Both deeply practical and analytical, permaculture is OUR ONLY REAL HOPE

These began in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947.
They were the result of REAL SCIENCE EXPERIMENTATION in the Cold War period immediately after the Second World War.
These secrets are now in the public domain.
Unfortunately, so is the “flying saucer” myth which emanated from the US gov’t’s PUBLIC FALSE EXPLANATION
Richard Muller explains all in this marvellous lecture.

“Emergence” is a property of Nature, which from the very simplest possible origin has developed an ever-increasing complexity.
At every point in time of this expansion and complexity increase, and triggered by the random event of the moment, Nature’s properties have exhibited, do exhibit, and will exhibit an increase in complexity by the addition of a new ecological form of existence – an additional plane of reality – an entirely new way of BEING..
The emergence of life from non-life is such a case, as is that of evolution and the emergence of plants and animals, the emergence of the human brain and language.
As Murray Gell-Mann states “You don’t need more stuff to get more stuff!”

The failure of our species to recognize this, along with its need to dominate and control itself, has caused us to commit our biggest error – RELIGION.
Only if, and not until, we to a man adopt a rational and natural approach to life, and forswear ALL religion as fiction, will we solve the Earth’s problems and travel to the stars.


“We have learned now that we cannot regard this planet as being fenced in and a secure abiding place for Man; we can never anticipate the unseen good or evil that may come upon us suddenly out of space.”

“Few people realise the immensity of vacancy in which the dust of the material universe swims.”

“By the toll of a billion deaths man has bought his birthright of the earth, and it is his against all comers.
For neither do men live nor die in vain.”

Using 38 species of salt-tolerant plants along 37,000 miles of desert coastland could save the planet for human beings.

What we have been saying will happen IS happening right now.
We’re past PEAK OIL, and nothing will ever be the same ever again.
Considering the next three decades, life decisions from now on will always have a “or death” element to them, and it will be an ever-increasing element. The sooner that you consider making such a (better-informed) life-decision, the less threatening will be your future.
Be sure to watch this video: “COLLAPSE”

At present Man is a careless parasite of the Earth. My ambition is to see Man face up to the task of becoming the gardener of the earth. There is no finer ambition for the first sapient ape in the Universe than to create “Eden”… and for the first time.

Check out my musical playlist, which is a sporadic journey backwards through time sampling the music I enjoyed.

Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant.
Control your passions lest they take vengeance on you.
Difficulties are things that show a person who he is.
Do not seek to bring things to pass in accordance with your wishes, but wish for them as they are, and you will find them.
First learn the meaning of what you say, and then speak.
First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.
Freedom is not procured by a full enjoyment of what is desired, but by controlling the desire.
A wise man does not grieve for things he hasn’t, but rejoices for those he has.
If evil is spoken of you and it’s true, correct yourself, if it’s a lie, laugh at it.
If one oversteps the bounds of moderation, the greatest pleasures cease to please.
If your brother wrongs you, remember not so much his wrongdoing, but more than ever that he is your brother.
If you seek truth you will not seek victory by dishonorable means, and if you find truth you will become invincible

About Me: I’m a very skeptical guy. To convince me you have to present me with incontrovertible evidence.
There are some obvious facts about life which appear to be insufficiently considered by everyone. Namely these:
i) People are in general too incompetent to be perfect bastards
ii) If you’re cold it’s better to put on a woolly than light a fire
iii) Your back garden can grow more food than you could believe, and
iv) You’re the first earth animal to have developed an intellectual capability, so respect nature, garden the earth and nurture all life.

In my opinion, if we hold the above in our forethought we stand every chance in building Eden.
We need to appreciate how much more powerful we all will be if we work WITH nature and not against it.
Religion is a great enemy of this approach (science – subjecting reality to analysis and devising strategies to improve upon it) and so I am a great enemy of it.


1. RATE it ONE STAR every time you visit.
2. FLAG comments which support the video with a RED THUMBSDOWN.
3. STATE clearly and simply in the COMMENTS exactly why you believe the video to be fraudulent or inciting hatred.
5. FLAG the video for incitement to hatred, and FLAG IT ONCE MORE for fraudulent claims if either or both is appropriate. STATE clearly and simply in the comments exactly why you believe the video to be fraudulent or inciting hatred.
6. WRITE to the channel explaining exactly why you have taken the actions you have.

The reason we have not been able to find any legitimate proof that chemtrails exist is because they simply do not exist. The term is an internet creation to make condensation trails aka contrails sound more sinister.
When you actually look at the facts you can see the argument in support of these chemtrails quickly reduces to nothing more than a bundle of pseudo-science, assumptions, misguided correlations and unqualified uneducated personal testimony.
I have yet to find for myself one argument for the existence of these chemtrails that does not skirt around the real results from real studies from real accredited sources. Instead, I have just found these arguments to resort to personal attacks and contradictory statements.
For example, how can one argue that the government is lying to us to cover this up and at the same time use government information taken out of context as the proof chemtrails exist? Logically, if this is the huge conspiracy, involving thousands of people, falsified studies and an extreme government cover up, wouldn’t it be the simplest thing for these conspirators to simply remove these links?
Of course, this is speculation on my part and should be taken as such. Though I have been a professional in this matter I don’t believe anyone should be convinced on my word alone just as I will never be convinced by your word alone.
What we do have, however, is science and legitimate information. Anyone can access these studies and weigh both sides of this argument and make an educated decision. For me the answer is simple; chemtrails do not exist and so this conspiracy does not exist.
Contrails DO exist. Everyday, the number of airplanes in our skies increases as does the number of contrails they leave behind.
Instead of trying to justify our paranoia with fictional conspiracies, we should be looking at what is actually going on in the world we have created for ourselves.
Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our earth is polluted, we don’t need to create something like “chemtrails” to prove this. Instead of creating “government conspiracy” in our minds we should acknowledge the real perpetrators – ourselves.
We drive the cars, we fly in the planes, and we ignore the effect each one of us has on the environment around us. No one wants to see the blood on one’s own hands… It is easier to blame some external enemy than to acknowledge one’s own contribution to an increasingly polluted planet.
We desperately need to stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for our own actions.
We need to ask ourselves the hard questions; “What actions or inactions am I taking that contribute to the problem and what am I doing to create a solution?”
The answer is yours, and yours alone, to reconcile with yourself.
“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” -Voltaire

Written by Manmanatee on August 4, 2009. (It took me almost a year to rediscover the originator. Ed – 25th July 2010.)




This is just the start of what I have discovered to be an over-ambitious project. I therefore welcome the assistance of ANYONE who has either read a book on this list for which there is an inadequate reference or description, which he or she can improve on, or knows of a book that should be on this list, and would kindly give me the info. I shall quote your entry. 🙂

The Millenium Project Bookshop – 96 books about Pseudoscience. (Courtesy of the Millennium Project.)

This is a collection of books related to the Pseudoscience category in The Millenium Project. All commissions from sales in the Health Fraud, Vaccination and Pseudoscience categories are donated to the Australian Council Against Health Fraud to help in the fight against quackery.


200% Of Nothing: An Eye-Opening Tour Through the Twists and Turns of Math Abuse and Innumeracy” by A. K. Dewdney.
One of the common threads through racism, medical quackery and pseudoscience is the abuse of statistics. Sometimes this is deliberate, sometimes it is just an indication of the ignorance of the speaker, but always it is a means of confusing or deceiving the listener. This guide to the absurdities of some mathematical claims helps to level the playing field.

The Age of Wonder : How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science” by Richard Holmes

Astrology : True or False? – A Scientific Evaluation” by Roger B. Culver and Philip A. Ianna
“Astrology: True or False?” offers a complete and extensive summary of available evidence on astrology’s basic definitions, concepts, and effectiveness. The authors’ research revealed thousands of predictions gone “bust” – from the start of World War III to claims about the existence of an “anti-Earth” orbiting on the other side of the sun. They studied the famous twenty-year cycle” of presidential death and disaster, the “moon cycles” of crime and murder in major cities, and the incidences of major personality traits in certain sun signs. Their conclusions, while disappointing to the determined believer in astrology, are nevertheless refreshingly rational.

Astrology : What’s Really in the Stars?” by J.V. Stewart
Rather than offering a blistering critique of astrology, Stewart reveals discrepancies within horoscopic astrology’s own framework to let the reader decide whether there is any merit to this ancient scheme of things.

Astrology Disproved” by Lawrence E. Jerome
Why do people believe in astrology? In these uncertain times many long for the comfort of having guidance in making decisions. They would like to believe in a destiny predetermined by astral forces beyond their control. However, we must all face the world, and we must realize that our futures lie in ourselves, and not in the stars.

Bad Astronomy : Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing ‘Hoax’” by Phil Plait.

Bad Medicine : Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Distance Healing to Vitamin O” by Christopher Wanjek.

Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre.

The Beginner’s Guide to Winning the Nobel Prize” by Peter Doherty.
Bizarre Beliefs” by Simon Hoggart and Mike Hutchinson.

The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design” by Richard Dawkins.
There’s a little story to tell about this link. As you might surmise, I have been acquiring these links by using a search engine, and normally taking the top item of the search return list as likely to provide the most succinct and accurate review – a BIG mistake when an arch-enemy of science such as Philip Johnson (a lawyer) has somehow subverted the search engine dynamics to put his “review” at the top of the returns – not just ONCE but FOUR times. The ENEMIES of science work deep into the long nights, using any and every means they can to diminish scientific progress and promote their fear-based myth culture. I know what I’m talking about here – Philip Johnson is a mightily-crafty individual who manages to conceal his LIES across hundreds of pages – if you take the trouble to analyse his weasel words you’ll eventually discover his lies and hypocrisy – his agenda. One cannot imagine ANY situation where the reverse (Dawkins “bumping” destructive “reviews” of Johnson’s books up Internet search engine lists) would EVER be true. What absolutely abysmal behaviour this is! So I now include this review instead:
Dawkins has never hidden his advocacy role in describing how evolution works and how poorly our culture understands what’s going on around us. More than simply anticipating obstructionists such as Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box, Dawkins aims his criticism at all who adhere to the Judeo-Christian assertion that humanity has some divine mandate to exercise “dominion over the earth”. Clearly, that belief will be the undoing of the species and perhaps life itself if it isn’t shed and a better understanding of the interaction of life attained. The best place to start attaining that understanding starts with this book. Buy it, loan it, give it to those who need to learn what life’s all about – our children. [Stephen A. Haines – Ottawa, Canada]
To Richard, my heartfelt apologies.
To You the reader, please let me know if you discover any other similar instances…

The Borderlands of Science : Where Sense Meets Nonsense” by Michael Shermer.

Bullshit and Philosophy” by Gary L. Hardcastle and George A. Reisch (Editors).

Bully for Brontosaurus : Reflections in Natural History” by Stephen Jay Gould.

Chemical Sensitivity : The Truth About Environmental Illness” by Stephen Barrett and Ronald E. Gots.
One of the unifying principles of ‘alternative medicine’ is the horror of chemicals. Not things, of course, like ricin and botulism toxin which are natural and therefore not chemicals, or cyanide which is not a chemical when it comes from apricot seeds. The only problem with the chemical-free vacuum of space is the radiation.

Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins.
‘A beautiful, barnstorming, thunderclap of a book’ – Mail on Sunday
‘A cracking good book on evolution’ – John Gribbin in the Times Educational Supplement
‘Mount Improbable … is Dawkins’s metaphor for natural selection: its peaks standing for evolution’s most complex achievements: the human brain, the squid’s eye, and the albatross’s aeronautical prowess … exhilarating – a perfect, elegant riposte to a great deal of fuzzy thinking about natural selection and evolution’ – Robin Mackie in the Observer
‘One of the most gifted storytellers of our generation … he is a missionary who writes like an angel. He is to Darwinism what Saint Paul is to Christianity’ – Mike Maran in Scotland on Sunday
‘The parables – rivetting biological narratives, enthralling as the Arabian Nights tales – continue to ring the changes. Yet the central message – that DNA transcends the significance of the organism – remains the same … organisms are merely vehicles for genes … This is vintage Dawkins’ – John Cornwell in the New Scientist
‘An elegant series of lectures on Darwinian selection … Dawkins continues a tradition of scientific writing from Galileo to Darwin’ – Ian Thomson in the Daily Telegraph
‘Dawkins has done more than anyone else now writing to make evolutionary biology comprehensible and acceptable’ – John Maynard Smith in the Sunday Times

Cosmos” by Carl Sagan.
The book of the television series.

Deception & Self-Deception : Investigating Psychics” by Richard Wiseman.

The Demon-Haunted World : Science As a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan.
Science is not test tubes, atom bombs and pollution, it is a way of thinking that separates superstition from knowledge. It is a way of deciding what is real and what is fantasy. Many of the sites listed in The Millenium Project are here because this distinction is not detected or recognised.

Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience” by Martin Gardner.

The Dose Makes the Poison : A Plain-Language Guide to Toxicology” by Alice Ottoboni.
A common tenet of both ‘alternative medicine’ and loony environmentalism is that you can’t have too much of a good thing or too little of a bad thing. Of course, if you believe in homeopathy you would believe in anything, but in real life it is possible to have harmless concentrations of dangerous things.

An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural” by James Randi.

The Extended Phenotype : The Long Reach of the Gene” by Richard Dawkins.
‘One feature of life in this world which, like sex, we have taken for granted and maybe should not, is that living matter comes in discrete packages called organisms. In particular, biologists interested in functional explanation usually assume that the appropriate unit for discussion is the individual organism. To us,’conflict’ usually means conflict between organisms, each one striving to maximize its own individual ‘fitness’. We recognize smaller units such as cells and genes, and larger units such as populations, societies and ecosystems, but there is no doubt that the individual body, as a discrete unit of action, exerts a powerful hold over the minds of zoologists, especially those interested in the adaptive significance of animal behaviour. One of my aims in this book is to break that hold. I want to switch emphasis from the individual body as focal unit of functional discussion. At the very least I want to make us aware of how much we take for granted when we look at life as a collection of discrete individual organisms.’

Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds” by Charles MacKay.
This book was first published in 1841 and told about panics and hysterias of the past. Updating the book to today would just require the addition of a chapter on the Internet stock craze, an update to the witchcraft chapter to include mention of recovered memory syndrome, satanic ritual abuse and alien abductions, and a new chapter about Y2K madness.

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” by Martin Gardner.
This is an extremely depressing and sad book, because it was written more than 50 years ago and it reads like it was written yesterday. Who would have thought that idiocies like scientology, chiropractic, homeopathy, perpetual motion machines, belief in flying saucers, and the nonsense about Atlantis and the pyramids would survive into the twenty-first century? The book is subtitled ‘A study in human gullibility’. Tragic.

Fear of Food : Environmentalist Scams, Media Mendacity, and the Law of Disparagement” by Andrea Arnold.
Half the people in the world go to sleep hungry and what food they can get is inadequate and poor, yet people keep telling us that our food is dangerous and we should not do things that could produce safe, nutritious food for people who need it.

The Flamingo’s Smile : Reflections in Natural History” by Stephen Jay Gould.

The Flight from Science and Reason” by Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt and Martin W. Lewis.

Flim Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions” by James Randi.
‘I am constantly amazed by the things that people will believe in. This book is a classic exposure of nonsense, much of which has somehow survived into the twenty-first century.’

Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries : Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology” by Kenneth L. Feder.

Full Facts Book of Cold Reading” by Ian Rowland.
This is the definitive book on cold reading. It explains everything there is to know about this limitless technique! How can you apparently tell complete strangers about names, dates and events that mean something to them? This book, the most authoritative ever written on cold reading, explains it all! Learn how to do the trick even better than John Edward does it.

Goddess Unmasked : The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality” by Philip G. Davis.

Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathon Swift.

Has Science Found God? The Latest Results in the Search for Purpose in the Universe” by Victor Stenger.

Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes” by Stephen Jay Gould.

Higher Superstition : The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science” by Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt.
There is a famous painting by Goya called ‘The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters’. It is what this site is about and what Gross and Levitt’s book is about. It has taken centuries to refine science as a means of discovering and knowing the truth, yet science, reason and rationality are under attack by second-rate minds who want to put us and reason back to sleep.

How Mumbo-jumbo Conquered the World” by Francis Wheen.

How Not to Test a Psychic: Ten Years of Remarkable Experiments With Renowned Clairvoyant Pavel Stepanek” by Martin Gardner.

How to Think about Weird Things : Critical Thinking for a New Age” by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn.

How We Believe : The Search for God in an Age of Science” by Michael Shermer.
Shermer makes the distinction between belief, non-belief and unbelief, and describes his own transition from one state to another. Religion and Science have different roles in society, and this book looks at the boundaries and overlaps which are legitimate for each.

Humbug!” by Jef and Theo Clark.

In Pursuit of Satan : The Police and the Occult” by Robert D. Hicks.
Influence” by Robert B. Cialdini.

Investigating the Unexplained” by Melvin Harris.

Leviathan” by Thomas Hobbes.

Making Monsters : False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria” by Richard Ofshe and Ethan Watters.

The Mask of Nostradamus : The Prophecies of the World’s Most Famous Seer” by James Randi.

Memory Distortion : How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past” by Daniel L. Schacter (Editor).
Much nonsense is talked about what goes on inside the mind and what it means to remember things and events. This book collects some essays from experts who can brush aside that nonsense and explain what it is about memories that we can trust and what we can’t.

The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould.
Gould has been criticised for being a bit cruel and nasty (and even a bit inaccurate) in his criticisms of people who didn’t know the things we know today, but it is a useful book to show how science can change as more is learned about something. There is no doubt that science is influenced by the culture of the time, but the difference between science and non-science or pseudoscience is that the real thing can break away from culture when the facts demand it.

A Modest Proposal and Other Satires” by Jonathan Swift.

The Myth of Repressed Memory : False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse” by Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham.
An entire industry has grown up around the absurd idea that children can be subjected to atrocities like sexual abuse and cannibalism and not remember any of this until some ‘therapist’ reconstructs the memories for them. This book exposes this nonsense for what it is – a vicious attack on children and families by people prepared to knowingly lie to support a crazy ideology.

National Science Education Standards
A landmark effort that involved thousands of teachers, scientists, science educators, and other experts across the country, these standards echo the principle that learning science is an inquiry-based process, that science in schools should reflect the intellectual traditions of contemporary science, and that all Americans have a role in improving science education. This document is invaluable to education policy-makers, school system administrators, teacher educators, individual teachers, and concerned parents.

The New Age : Notes of a Fringe-Watcher” by Martin Gardner.

Nibbling on Einstein’s Brain : The Good, the Bad and the Bogus in Science” by Diane Swanson.

Objections to Astrology” by Bart J. Bok and Lawrence E. Jerome.
A statement by 192 scientists, including 19 Nobel Prize winners, who call the “science” of astrology a deception based on “magic and superstition.”

On the Wild Side” by Martin Gardner.

The Panda’s Thumb : More Reflections in Natural History” by Stephen Jay Gould.

A Physicist’s Guide to Skepticism” by Milton A. Rothman.

Pseudodoxia Epidemica: Or, Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenentes, and CommonlyPresumed Truths” by Thomas Browne.

Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction” by Charles Wynn and Arthur Wiggins.
There is a difference between science and pseudoscience, between reality and fantasy. This book shows you how to tell the difference.

Remembering Satan” by Lawrence Wright.

River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life” by Richard Dawkins.

Science : Good, Bad and Bogus” by Martin Gardner.

Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?” by Paul Kurtz, Barry Karr and Ranjit Sandhu.
Science Versus Religion” by Tad S. Clements.

The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins.

Skeptics and True Believers” by Chet Raymo.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions” by Robert T. Carroll.
Featuring close to 400 definitions, arguments, and essays on topics ranging from acupuncture to zombies, The Skeptic’s Dictionary is a lively, commonsense trove of detailed information on all things supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. It covers such categories as alternative medicine; cryptozoology; extraterrestrials and UFOs; frauds and hoaxes; junk science; logic and perception; New Age energy; and the psychic. For the open-minded seeker, the soft or hardened skeptic, and the believing doubter, this book offers a remarkable range of information that puts to the test the best arguments of true believers.

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Paranormal” by Lynne Kelly.

Smoke and Mirrors: The Devastating Effect of False Sexual Abuse Claims” by Terence W. Campbell.

The Sorcerer of Kings: The Case of Daniel Dunglas Home and William Crookes” by Gordon Stein and James Randi.

The Story of Evolution” by Joseph McCabe
Published in 1911, free from Project Gutenberg.

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” by Stephen Jay Gould.

Superstition : Belief in the Age of Science” by Robert Park.

The Theory of Evolution” by John Maynard Smith.
Evolution is one of those fundamental theories in science, like relativity, heliocentricity, gravity, blood circulation, atomic structure and quantum mechanics of which it can realistically be said that the idea introduced a paradigm shift in scientific thinking. Modern science would be primitive and crippled without it. This book provides excellent ammunition for the fight against those who would replace evolution with superstition.

The Trouble with Science” by Robin Dunbar.
The title of this book might suggest that it is anti-science, but in fact the author posits that science is a natural part of human existence (and even that of some animals) because it is about how organisms explain and interact with the world around them. The author has produced a very good summary of the philosophical path through Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend, and there is commentary about the relationship between religion and science which mightn’t please Richard Dawkins but which provides a credible explanation for the ubiquity of religion across societies (and which allows for religion to be abandoned when better knowledge comes along).

The Truth about Uri Geller” by James Randi.

Unweaving the Rainbow : Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder” by Richard Dawkins.
Believers in superstition and magic often accuse scientists, atheists and other rational thinkers of denying or even destroying mystery and beauty. Dawkins points out in this book that there is so much wonder and excitement in truth and reality that it is unnecessary to make up explanations.

The Varieties of Scientific Experience : A Personal View of the Search for God” by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives” by Mark Pendergrast and Melody Gavigan.

Voodoo Science : The Road from Foolishness to Fraud” by Robert Park.
The scientific method is the best thing we have come up with to find out about how the universe works. This book is about the misuse of science and how it differs from science done badly. Both are bad, but at least bad science can be corrected. Mad science is more difficult to overcome.

Weird Water & Fuzzy Logic” by Martin Gardner.

Why People Believe Weird Things : Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time” by Michael Shermer.
I am continually amazed by the sorts of things that people can believe without any evidence to support the belief, and often in spite of comprehensive evidence against the belief. Faith is a wonderful thing, but it can’t make facts disappear.

Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene” by Niles Eldredge.

Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History” by Stephen Jay Gould.


Types of Contrails

with 5 comments



Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…


(TROPOSPHERIC)“ectoplasm and wave vortex”


This aircraft is on approach in humid stormy conditions. Its wheels are down and its flaps are set at fifteen degrees. A temporary “cloud” is visible over the flapped part of the wing indicating the strong pressure reduction caused by the extended flaps, and flowing back from the outermost flap edges is a pair of very strong vortices (“ectoplasm”!) thrown into sharp relief by the clouds of water droplets condensed by the severe reduction in air pressure at their centres. The vortices rise and fall with pressure fluctuations, generated in part by ambient conditions, and also changes in aircraft attitude. Some distance behind the aircraft its wave vortex is remarkably apparent. This is the “mixing engine” that causes contrails to fill supersaturated stratospheric layers.

Why are vortices so stable? Because they spin. Their rotational energy is high, and they can only be brought to a stop by viscous friction between them and the surrounding atmosphere.

The pillar of a tornado is a natural vortex, and is also typically so energetic that water vapor condenses into a “mist” (of water droplets) in the core of its vortex from what one might call the “centrifugal pressure drop” – but one shouldn’t – because the real reason for this condensation is the drop in temperature which occurs as a consequence of this drop in pressure.


OF PERSISTENT CONTRAILS (a.k.a. “chemtrails”)


The left-hand side of the picture was probably taken towards the end of August 1940, when the first high-altitude gun battles were being fought between the RAF and the Luftwaffe. The participants were Hawker Hurricanes and Me 109s, which were both fitted with superchargers which enabled them to manoever and fight at around 27,000 ft. The photo is taken over St. Paul’s Cathedral, London. Apologies for the poor state of the picture, but who knows how many times this picture has been copied…

There is a barrack-room lawyer who has claimed the above picture to be fake. If so, then so is this:


Seeing that I am still being spammed by this guy and others, I’m forced to point out the obvious…

These are NOT identical pictures, they ARE of St. Paul’s Cathedral, they are obviously fighter battles, and just as obviously NOT anti-aircraft fire, they AREN’T obscured by much bomb smoke because fighter battles tend to PRECEDE major bombing, as the bombers wouldn’t be able to survive fighter attacks. The defending fighters would have had to be “cleared” first, which is what happened.

As they AREN’T identical, (and yet one can see elements common to both) these pictures VALIDATE EACH OTHER. (I’m not sure that a NASA site would use “made up” material. Why would they need to, in this instance?) They are, of course, NOT the only pictures available for validation either…

The right-hand side of the first picture is a more contemporary copy of St. Paul’s for comparison.


And here is another picture of St. Paul’s, taken somewhat later in the war, where Allied bombers are circling to assemble prior to setting out to attack Germany. In this case one may discern further familiar contrail features such as ice agglomeration, falling, and shear. 



This was originally titled “Cessna Downwash” but a better name for it is “aircraft and its wave vortex climbing through clouds”. The powerful vortex generated by the pressure difference (inflight) between the topside and underside of aircraft wings is responsible for the lift which keeps the aircraft aloft and also the drag which demands the power input from its engines. The wave vortex of a jumbo jet has been known to cause light aircraft to crash five minutes AFTER the jumbo has passed. It causes “distrails” (negative contrails – ice crystal trail agglomeration and descent) and much furore in the “chemtrail community” where it is thought to be some new and misunderstood aspect of “spraying”. In reality it is the “mixing engine” which causes contrails to fill stratospheric layers with ice, and as a consequence, turn blue skies to white skies. (The”chemtrail” community immediately starts coughing!)

Let me quote you one of our “heroes” who calls himself skywitness because he believes himself to be a lone watcher of the skies on the side of the brave and true. (But on the other hand he blocked me immediately from his channel and then pursued me avidly through other channels’ comment boxes, claiming his contrail videos were irrefutable proof of “chemtrail spraying”). He asks:

“I would like to know if anyone has seen a rip in the clouds as it was taking place. Was it something that flew through the cloud, or did it just start to appear out of nowhere? I have seen more than a few of these type of rips or trails, but I have never seen how it takes place…”

All I’m asking is that anyone that knows him and reads this, could you get back to him and put him out of his misery? 


wave vortex 2

The USAF transport plane has just released its “decoy” flares into what would have been its invisible wave vortex. Chemtrailers in particular have to realise that this twin vortex extends backwards (and keeps rotating!) for at least fifty miles behind the airplane, and also, whether it is visible or not, it is always there.

These flares, by-the-way, are making the only definite “chemtrails” that can be proven to exist. Wherever this smoke falls, it will provide a few plants with a little extra fertilizer…

….Aaaaah. And of course I completely forgot these:



These have also been fervently denied by the relentlessly science-blind as “figments of a feverish imagination”.

Like this:

"figments" from WWII Flying Fortresses

"figments" from WWII Flying Fortresses

And this:

"Figments" of a C-130 Tanker

"Figments" of a C-130 Tanker

And this:

"Figments" of a Kear Cobra helicopter

"Figments" of a Kear Cobra helicopter

And this:

"Figments" of a Catalina

"Figments" of a Catalina


(Also known as a “Mach Cones”):



Mach Cone of today's B-17

Mach Cone of today's B-17

Wow! (Conspicuous consumption or what?)


Trails Seen from Space

with 5 comments



Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…



A monochrome view of the North Atlantic Ocean by AtlanticSat shows Greenland, Iceland, the British Isles, and part of Norway. Prominent in the photo is a north-south ridge of high pressure, with cold dry air to the west, and warmer wetter air to the east. Aircraft approaching or leaving this ridge have struck permanent contrail conditions on its west side. The trails are at even intervals which suggest there are only TWO great-circle routes involved (London-New York and London LAX) with regular flights from each. The stratosphere (where the trails are) is obviously moving north-to-south.
The trails peter out approaching or leaving the British Isles, where the wetter conditons don’t obtain (for a change).
Chemtrailers must ask themselves why the pilots’ aim was so poor…



Here we are centered roughly over Hamburg; Copenhagen is right center top and the Baltic Sea further to the right. We are looking at a “triangle” of air travel activity between Kiel (center top), Berlin (bottom right) and the Rhineland (bottom left).
You can see evidence that the stratosphere is sliding along at possibly 100kph from the northwest – maybe!



I originally thought these were local control surface vortices, but I have been better advised since, by Jay Reynolds. Thanks, Jay!


The Crow instability is a vortex pair instability, and typically goes through several stages:
– A pair of counter rotating vortices act upon each other to amplify small sinusoidal distortions in their vortex shapes (Normally created by some initial disturbance in the system).
– The waves develop into either symmetric or anti-symmetric modes, depending on the nature of the initial disturbance.
– These distortions grow, both through interaction from one vortex on another, and also ‘Self Induction’ of a vortex with itself. This leads to an exponential growth in the vortex wave amplitude.
– The vortex amplitudes reach a critical value and reconnect, forming a chain of vortex rings.

Initially the vortex pair falls rapidly downward. Perturbations of the vortices from the ambient atmosphere grow in a sinusoidal mutual inductance instability (the Crow instability). Eventually the vortices touch, reconnect and form vortex rings which oscillate, interact with themselves and the atmospheric turbulence and stratification, and finally dissolve. During their lifetime the rings continue to drop, giving rise to the periodic series of puffs often seen in contrail evolution.
These are spin-stabilized and follow the deflected air and take a while to spin to a stop. Ice is precipitated out of the -40 deg C water vapor in the vortex vacua. Altogether an intriguing visual phenomenon!
http://www.cerfacs.fr/cfd/wake_vortex_26.php is a useful reference…

And this low-quality video reveals…

And this high-quality video shows how far our understanding has progressed…

# A vortex (plural: vortices) is a spinning, often turbulent, flow of fluid.  Any spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow. …

Vortices display some special properties:
* The fluid pressure in a vortex is lowest in the center (where the speed is greatest) and rises progressively with distance from the center. This is in accordance with Bernoulli’s Principle. The core of a vortex in air is sometimes visible because of a plume of water vapor caused by condensation in the low pressure of the core. The spout of a tornado is a classic and frightening example of the visible core of a vortex. A dust devil is also the core of a vortex, made visible by the dust drawn upwards by the turbulent flow of air from ground level into the low pressure core.

* The core of every vortex can be considered to contain a vortex line, and every particle in the vortex can be considered to be circulating around the vortex line. Vortex lines can start and end at the boundary of the fluid or form closed loops. They cannot start or end in the fluid. (See Helmholtz’s theorems.) Vortices readily deflect and attach themselves to a solid surface. For example, a vortex usually forms ahead of the propeller disk or jet engine of a slow-moving airplane. One end of the vortex line is attached to the propeller disk or jet engine, but when the airplane is taxiing the other end of the vortex line readily attaches itself to the ground rather than end in midair. The vortex can suck water and small stones into the core and then into the propeller disk or jet engine.

* Two or more vortices that are approximately parallel and circulating in the same direction will merge to form a single vortex. The circulation of the merged vortex will equal the sum of the circulations of the constituent vortices. For example, a sheet of small vortices flows from the trailing edge of the wing or propeller of an airplane when the wing is developing lift or the propeller is developing thrust. In less than one wing chord downstream of the trailing edge of the wing these small vortices merge to form a single vortex. If viewed from the tail of the airplane, looking forward in the direction of flight, there is one wingtip vortex trailing from the left-hand wing and circulating clockwise, and another wingtip vortex trailing from the right-hand wing and circulating anti-clockwise. The result is a region of downwash behind the wing, between the pair of wingtip vortices. These two wingtip vortices do not merge because they are circulating in opposite directions.

* Vortices contain a lot of energy in the circular motion of the fluid. In an ideal fluid this energy can never be dissipated and the vortex would persist forever. However, real fluids exhibit viscosity and this dissipates energy very slowly from the core of the vortex. (See Rankine vortex). It is only through dissipation of a vortex due to viscosity that a vortex line can end in the fluid, rather than at the boundary of the fluid. For example, the wingtip vortices from an airplane dissipate slowly and linger in the atmosphere long after the airplane has passed. This is a hazard to other aircraft and is known as wake turbulence.

Cause and effects
A wing generates aerodynamic lift by creating a region of lower air pressure above it. Fluids are forced to flow from high to low pressure and the air below the wing tends to migrate toward the top of the wing via the wingtips. The air does not escape around the leading or trailing edge of the wing due to airspeed, but it can flow around the tip. Consequently, air flows from below the wing and out around the tip to the top of the wing in a circular fashion.  This leakage will raise the pressure on top of the wing and reduce the lift that the wing can generate. It also produces an emergent flow pattern with low pressure in the center surrounded by fast-moving air with curved streamlines.  Wingtip vortices only affect the portion of the wing closest to the tip. Thus, the longer the wing, the smaller the affected fraction of it will be. As well, the shorter the chord of the wing, the less opportunity air will have to form vortices. This means that for an aircraft to be most efficient, it should have a very high aspect ratio.  This is evident in the design of gliders.  It is also evident in long-range airliners, where fuel efficiency is of critical importance.  However, increasing the wingspan reduces the maneuverability of the aircraft, which is why combat and aerobatic planes usually feature short, stubby wings despite the efficiency losses.

Another method of reducing fuel consumption is the use of winglets, as seen on some modern airliners such as the Airbus A340. Winglets work by forcing the vortex to move to the very tip of the wing and allowing the entire span to produce lift, thereby effectively increasing the aspect ratio of the wing.  Winglets also change the pattern of vorticity in the core of the vortex pattern, spreading it out and reducing the kinetic energy in the circular air flow, which reduces the amount of fuel expended to perform work by the wing upon the spinning air. Winglets can yield worthwhile economy improvements on long-distance flights.

Visibility of vortices due to water condensation and freezing

The cores of the vortices are sometimes visible because water present in them condenses from gas (vapor) to liquid, and sometimes even freezes, forming ice particles.  The phase of water (i.e. whether it assumes the form of a solid, liquid, or gas) is determined by its temperature and pressure.  For example, in the case of liquid-gas transition, at each pressure there is a special “transition temperature” Tc such that if the sample temperature is even a little above Tc, the sample will be a gas, but if the sample temperature is even a little below Tc, the sample will be a liquid; see phase transition.

For example, at the standard atmospheric pressure, Tc is 100 °C = 212 °F.  The transition temperature Tc decreases with decreasing pressure (which explains why water boils at lower temperatures at higher altitudes and at higher temperatures in a pressure cooker; see here for more information).  In the case of water vapor in air, the Tc corresponding to the partial pressure of water vapor is called the dew point. (The solid-liquid transition also happens around a specific transition temperature called the melting point. For most substances, the melting point also decreases with decreasing pressure, although water ice in particular—in its Ih form, which is the most familiar one—is a prominent exception to this rule.)
Vortex cores are regions of low pressure. As a vortex core begins to form, the water in the air (in the region that is about to become the core) is in vapor phase, which means that the local temperature is above the local dew point. After the vortex core forms, the pressure inside it has decreased from the ambient value, and so the local dew point (Tc) has dropped from the ambient value. Thus, in and of itself, a drop in pressure would tend to keep water in vapor form: the initial dew point was already below the ambient air temperature, and the formation of the vortex has made the local dew point even lower.
However, as the vortex core forms, its pressure (and so its dew point) is not the only property that is dropping: the vortex-core temperature is dropping also, and in fact it can drop by much more than the dew point does, as we now explain.
To a first approximation, the formation of vortex cores is thermodynamically an adiabatic process, i.e. one with no exchange of heat. In such a process, the drop in pressure is accompanied by a drop in temperature, according to the equation

Here Ti and pi are the absolute temperature and pressure at the beginning of the process (here equal to the ambient air temperature and pressure), Tf and pf are the absolute temperature and pressure in the vortex core (which is the end result of the process), and the constant γ is about 7/5 = 1.4 for air.
Thus, even though the local dew point inside the vortex cores is even lower than in the ambient air, the water vapor may nevertheless condense—if the formation of the vortex brings the local temperature below the new local dew point. Let us verify that this can indeed happen under realistic conditions.  For a typical transport aircraft landing at an airport, these conditions are as follows: we may take Ti and pi to have values corresponding to the so-called standard conditions, i.e. pi = 1 atm = 1013.25 mb = 101\,325 Pa and Ti = 293.15 K (which is 20 °C = 68 °F).

We will take the relative humidity to be a comfortable 35% (dew point of 4.1 °C = 39.4 °F). This corresponds to a partial pressure of water vapor of 820 Pa = 8.2 mb.

We will assume that in a vortex core, the pressure (pf) drops to about 80% of the ambient pressure, i.e. to about 80 000 Pa.
Let us first determine the temperature in the vortex core. It is given by the equation above as

Next, we determine the dew point in the vortex core. The partial pressure of water in the vortex core drops in proportion to the drop in the total pressure (i.e. by the same percentage), to about 650 Pa = 6.5 mb. According to a dew point calculator at this site (alternatively one may use the Antoine equation to obtain an approximate value), that partial pressure results in the local dew point of about 0.86 °C; in other words, the new local dew point is about equal to the new local temperature.
Therefore, the case we have been considering is a marginal case; if the relative humidity of the ambient air were even a bit higher (with the total pressure and temperature remaining as above), then the local dew point inside the vortices would rise, while the local temperature would remain the same as what we have just found. Thus the local temperature would now be lower than the local dew point, and so the water vapor inside the vortices would indeed condense.
Under right conditions, the local temperature in vortex cores may drop below the local freezing point, in which case ice particles will form inside the vortex cores.
We have just seen that the water-vapor condensation mechanism in wingtip vortices is driven by local changes in air pressure and temperature. This is to be contrasted to what happens in another well-known case of water condensation related to airplanes: the contrails from airplane engine exhausts. In the case of contrails, the local air pressure and temperature do not change significantly; what matters instead is that the exhaust contains both water vapor (which increases the local water-vapor concentration and so its partial pressure, resulting in elevated dew point and freezing point) as well as aerosols (which provide nucleation centers for the condensation and freezing).
Condensation of water vapor in wing tip vortices is most common on aircraft flying at high angles of attack, such as fighter aircraft in high g maneuvers, or airliners taking off and landing on humid days.

A vortex can be seen in the spiraling motion of air or liquid around a center of rotation. Circular current of water of conflicting tides form vortex shapes.
Turbulent flow makes many vortices. A good example of a vortex is the atmospheric phenomenon of a whirlwind or a tornado or dust devil. This whirling air mass mostly takes the form of a helix, column, or spiral. Tornadoes develop from severe thunderstorms, usually spawned from squall lines and supercell thunderstorms, though they sometimes happen as a result of a hurricane.

In atmospheric physics, a mesovortex is on the scale of a few miles (smaller than a hurricane but larger than a tornado). On a much smaller scale, a vortex is usually formed as water goes down a drain, as in a sink or a toilet. This occurs in water as the revolving mass forms a whirlpool. This whirlpool is caused by water flowing out of a small opening in the bottom of a basin or reservoir. This swirling flow structure within a region of fluid flow opens downward from the water surface.


* In the hydrodynamic interpretation of the behavior of electromagnetic fields, the acceleration of electric fluid in a particular direction creates a positive vortex of magnetic fluid. This in turn creates around itself a corresponding negative vortex of electric fluid.
* Smoke ring : A ring of smoke which persists for a surprisingly long time, illustrating the slow rate at which viscosity dissipates the energy of a vortex.
* Lift-induced drag of a wing on an aircraft.

* The primary cause of drag in the sail of a sloop.
* Whirlpool: a swirling body of water produced by ocean tides or by a hole underneath the vortex where the water would drain out, such as a bathtub. A large, powerful whirlpool is known as a maelstrom. In popular imagination, but only rarely in reality, they can have the dangerous effect of destroying boats. Examples are Scylla and Charybdis of classical mythology in the Straits of Messina, Italy; the Naruto whirlpools of Nankaido, Japan; the Maelstrom, Lofoten, Norway.

* Tornado : a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. A less violent version of a tornado, over water, is called a waterspout.
* Hurricane : a much larger, swirling body of clouds produced by evaporating warm ocean water and influenced by the Earth’s rotation. Similar, but far greater, vortices are also seen on other planets, such as the permanent Great Red Spot on Jupiter and the intermittent Great Dark Spot on Neptune.

* Polar vortex : a persistent, large-scale cyclone centered near the Earth’s poles, in the middle and upper troposphere and the stratosphere.
* Sunspot : dark region on the Sun’s surface (photosphere) marked by a lower temperature than its surroundings, and intense magnetic activity.
* The accretion disk of a black hole or other massive gravitational source.
* Spiral galaxy : a type of galaxy in the Hubble sequence which is characterized by a thin, rotating disk. Earth’s galaxy, the Milky Way, is of this type.

# VORTEX – The Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment or VORTEX, field projects study tornadoes. VORTEX1 was the first time scientists completely researched the entire evolution of a tornado enabling a greater understanding of the processes involved with tornadogenesis. …



As explained previously, vortices that come into contact with each reconfigure each other, regenerating intermediate “rings”, and ALL vortices will “stick” to a plane surface – like the ground (tornado), or the face of a building (World Trade Center Tower 2).

The Boeing 767, weighing around 180,000 kilograms and traveling at 260 meters/second, was pulling up in about a 2G banking turn before it struck the tower, so the energy it was putting into its (invisible) WAVE VORTEX was twice the normal, it occurred to me, so might not there be EVIDENCE of its existence in the smoke and dust after the collision?

Evidence there is, in embarrassing plenty. Embarrassing for “no-planers”, anyway, if they were to be well-informed and curious enough to CONTINUE TO WATCH after the collision took place. An oxymoron, I think.

Check back to confirm this if you like…

So now “no-planers” would HAVE to claim that the video artists that “falsified” these images were experts in aerodynamics as well.

To which the answer is OCCAM…




In this case the fifth… is the trail left by the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) which is a normal (but small) gas turbine/electrical generator set. As with the main engines, it burns kerosine to form carbon dioxide and steam. As with the main engines, it leaves a trail. But where’s it coming from?


“the whole plane is spraying”


When stratospheric air is very clean and stable it may contain MORE water vapour than it does when it is described as having 100% Relative Humidity. The slightest disturbance to it will cause ice crystals to precipitate out of it. It cannot go into super-saturation if there are ANY nucleative materials of any sort in this air.
Here is just such a case, which occurs on occasion in the sub-tropical stratosphere. The trail forms by “burst condensation” into super-cooled droplets which are microscopic initially and can refract sunlight by interference. Over a small space of time these droplets grow progressively as water vapor deposits more supercooled water into them. As they progressively increase their size they run through a progression of light frequencies which they interfere with. This is NOT a refraction effect.

Chemtrailers claim the colors to be indicative of “foreign materials” which is quite the reverse of the truth; only pure water will do this, and only pure air will have become supersaturated in the first place.
The fact that in supersaturated conditions, large aircraft can place thousands of tons of ice into the stratosphere is covered by the paper “Contrails to Cirrus” mentioned in the INTRODUCTION page.



“Gaps” are claimed by chemtrailers as “evidence that planes are spraying”. Such gaps will of course appear in any persistent contrail where the stratospheric air RH falls below 100%. Generally, of course, the humidity tails off gradually, and the transition of trail-to-no-trail is quite indistinct.
In THIS case, the “transition” is a hard and sharp right angle. Too sharp, in fact, for a whirling twin-vortex contrail… Close inspection of the “sky” each side of the “gap” shows it to be comprised of a chemtrailer’s vertical “airbrush strokes”! Naughty!



Here we have an aircraft actually spraying something; it’s fuel. If some in-flight emergency occurs and the plane must make a quick landing, it must first lose weight, for it cannot land at its take-off weight. Some of its fuel must GO.

Chemtrailers are quick to claim this shot as “spraying evidence”.


6 Porkies

with 4 comments



Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…


“PORK PIE” = “LIE”  – Cockney rhyming slang. 



“Obviously your alleged credentials are fraud” – has your short-term memory passed away? ONE.

“A true person of Science would step forward and lay all questions to rest” – ditto, and I have. Check my comments here. Check http://www.contrailscience.com. Check http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc TWO.

“You do nothing” – I COULD start pasting again… THREE.

“It is safe to assume that people’s claims must have basis” – assuming is the only action you do. Why not educate yourself in science? FOUR.

“I’d like nothing more than for someone to prove nothing is going on” – FIVE.

“You are by far not only a fraud but a coward as well” – GIANT PORKY NUMBER SIX.


What a great porky this one is!

The non-scientific word-association goes aerosol – hair spray – sprayers (truly inspirational!)




But never a thought to CHECKING UP what the REAL MEANING (scientific meaning) of aerosol ACTUALLY IS:

Aerosol – from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aerosol – contamination in northeastern India and Bangladesh.
Technically, an aerosol is a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas. Examples are smoke, oceanic haze, air pollution, smog and CS gas. In general conversation, aerosol usually refers to an aerosol spray can or the output of such a can.
The word aerosol derives from the fact that matter “floating” in air is a suspension (a mixture in which solid or liquid or combined solid-liquid particles are suspended in a fluid). To differentiate suspensions from true solutions, the term sol evolved – originally meant to cover dispersions of tiny (sub-microscopic) particles in a liquid.
With studies of dispersions in air, the term aerosol evolved and now embraces both liquid droplets, solid particles, and combinations of these.

Workplace exposure
Concentrated aerosols from substances such as silica, asbestos, and diesel particulate matter are sometimes found in the workplace and have been shown to result in a number of diseases including silicosis and black lung. Respirators can protect workers from harmful aerosol exposure. In the United States the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health certifies respirators through the National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory to ensure that they protect workers and the public from harmful airborne contaminants.

Effect on climate
Aerosols over the Amazon each September for four burning seasons (2005 through 2008). The aerosol scale (yellow to dark reddish-brown) indicates the relative amount of particles that absorb sunlight. Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulfate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, exert a cooling influence on the climate which partly counteracts the warming induced by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. This effect is accounted for in many climate models. Recent research, as yet unconfirmed, suggests that aerosol diffusion of light may have increased the carbon sink in the earth’s ecosystem.

Recent studies of the Sahel drought and major increases since 1967 in rainfall over the Northern Territory, Kimberley, Pilbara and around the Nullarbor Plain have led some scientists to conclude that the aerosol haze over South and East Asia has been steadily shifting tropical rainfall in both hemispheres southward.

The latest studies of severe rainfall declines over southern Australia since 1997 have led climatologists there to consider the possibility that these Asian aerosols have shifted not only tropical but also mid-latitude systems southward.

Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the atmosphere are a form of pollution which can give rise to smog and act as a greenhouse gas. Their persistence in the atmosphere is affected by aerosol droplets of water.
In 1964 long chain fatty acids, either naturally produced from marine organisms dispersed into the atmosphere by wave action or man-made, were found to coat these droplets. In 2006 there was a study of the effect of the LCFA on the persistence of NOx, but the long term implications, although thought to be significant, have yet to be determined.

So AEROSOL means this:

Or this:
A REALTIME study of aerosol presence (made by satellite) all over the world may be obtained here, and here is a representative image, from which you can see the satellite passes 90 minutes apart.

There is a video made over a fortnight showing the main aerosol action occurs travelling westward on a line passing through BANGLADESH and the SAHARA DESERT. It is MAN-MADE – the consequence of many hundreds of millions of humans living close to the poverty line…  slash-and-burn, cooking fires, forest fires, vegetable farming decomposition, volcanoes…

No aircraft contrails are found anywhere NEAR this line…

So much for the “chemtrailers” and their “the NWO is poisoning the whole world” theory…



What is it?


It’s a mixture of invisible element and compound gases; nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour, argon, neon, and trace amounts of other inert gaseous elements. This mixture keeps us in a healthy condition, and imbalance in this mixture can poison and/or kill us. We would all prefer to be at Standard Temperature and Pressure, which is 20 deg C (70 deg F) and 1000 millibars (14.7 lb/in2).

Standard Temperature and Pressure occur at Sea Level, but the atmosphere may reach up to 200Km or more (the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION orbits at 400Km and you can bet there’s very little atmosphere, if any, at that height!) The following diagram is a graph of atmospheric pressure against height over sea level (altitude). The space station height is three graph-heights higher than the graph below.


There is an asymptotic fall-off of pressure with altitude which is easy to see. This, when combined with the concomitant drop in temperature lends weight to the understanding that the stratosphere cannot bear much loading of contrail ice before it saturates, and cannot absorb more.

The region just immediately higher than the tropopause (at approximately 26,000 feet to 39,000 feet) is the region where passenger aircraft fly, for reasons of safety and economy.

The pressure above the tropopause is one-fifth that at sea level, but at the high cruising speed of 550 miles per hour, there is sufficient dynamic lift for safe and stable flight.

This region is the CAUSE of the “chemtrail” controversy, for it is COLD, STABLE, and INCAPABLE of absorbing large amounts of combustion steam as water vapor. As a consequence this steam cools to microscopically-fine ice crystals, which form – TRAILS behind the aircraft.

And the following is a diagram of air dewpoint and temperature plotted against height above sea level (altitude).


If you look at the dewpoint line (on left) you can see it move continually leftward with increase in height above sea level. This powerfully indicates that with increasing height, the atmosphere is increasingly incapable of absorbing the exhaust water formed by burning kerosine in gas turbines.

Looking at the temperature (lapse rate) line on the right, you can see that it moves leftward with increase in height above sea level, until it reaches the tropopause, where it starts to edge to the right again. You can see that after the tropopause the atmosphere gets WARMER with increasing height. The concave shapes to both dewpoint and temperature here indicate some energy input – either solar ‘focusing’ from tropospheric clouds, or jet stream mixing energy – it is hard to guess.

Another couple of points. This chart was obviously made on a cold day; the sea level temperature is just sub-zero. However, two hundred metres higher, and the air temperature is five degrees higher. Bumps and dips in these two lines show where you may infer the presence of clouds.


There is much more to learn about our atmosphere than I have given here, but I can heartily recommend this link to the UK’s Met Office.

After that you can answer these questions (can’t you!).


As further confirmation I strongly recommend AtOptics


And a word to the “wise”. There is a lot of scuttlebutt going around which says “Global Warming is just a myth started by our duplicitous governments as a means of extracting additional taxes”. Well I remember a time when it was thought we were headed directly for a new ice age.

(This was just a journalistic ruse. The next Ice Age will occur approximately 16,000 years from the present.)

Since then, it is true that government funds are available for the investigation of GW to the detriment of other research, and that horrible thing “political correctness” has raised its ugly head above the horizon, but the facts are too numerous to mention that the climate is warming, but also that other facts remain unmentioned, which leaves a question of politics…


See “Global Warming is a Myth” under G in this blog.




One of the major purposes of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), as laid down in its Convention, is “To facilitate worldwide cooperation in the establishment of networks of stations for the making of meteorological observations as well as hydrological and other geophysical observations related to meteorology, and to promote the establishment and maintenance of centres charged with the provision of meteorological and related services”.

Accordingly, WMO Members operate, in a coordinated manner, complex networks in space, the atmosphere, on land and over oceans. In 2007, Members decided to work towards enhanced integration of both the WMO Global Observing System (GOS) and WMO co-sponsored observing systems such as the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), Global Terrestrial Observing System (GTOS) and Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). This concept is called the WMO Integrated Global Observing Systems (WIGOS).

  weather balloon

Currently, more than 10000 manned and automatic surface weather stations, 1000 upper-air stations, over 7000 ships, more than 100 moored and 1000 drifting buoys, hundreds of weather radars and over 3000 specially equipped commercial aircraft measure key parameters of the atmosphere, land and ocean surface every day. The space-based component of the WMO Observing System contains operational polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites and also R&D environmental satellites complementing ground-based global observations. These activities are coordinated within the Global Observing System (GOS) of the World Weather Watch (WWW) of WMO. Several WMO Programmes sponsor or participate in the operation of several global observing systems. Other global observing systems, e.g. the global hydrological networks (WHYCOS), function principally on a national or regional level.

Observation programmes such as the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) will continue to play a major role in improving the collection of required data for the development of climate forecasts and climate change detection. WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) provides data for scientific assessments and for early warnings of changes in the chemical composition and related physical characteristics of the atmosphere that may have adverse affects upon our environment. Through its Instruments and Methods of Observation Programme (IMOP), WMO ensures that meteorological instruments, including manual and automatic ground-based stations and space-based observing systems, are accurate and provide standardized data.

WMO monitoring and observing systems will be a core component of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), aimed at developing a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained Earth observation system of systems to understand and address global environmental and economic challenges.


This is, of course, a silly word coined by me to introduce these pictures of Earth’s atmosphere which have been taken by some of the NASA Space Shuttle astronauts from the International Space Station.

I find them most stimulating and interesting. We spend all our time with a “flat-earther” viewpoint, looking up at clouds and failing to see them for what they truly are.

Moment of Launch - "the twang's the thang!"

Moment of Launch - "the twang's the thang!"

Shuttle lift-off at Cape Kennedy

Shuttle lift-off at Cape Kennedy

Out on a limb...

Out on a limb...

A massive cumulo-nimbus from above...

A massive cumulo-nimbus from above...

A Saharan sandstorm leaves the West Coast of Africa

A Saharan sandstorm leaves the West Coast of Africa

Eddies form in Cirrus clouds passing over a Mediterranean isle

Eddies form in Cirrus clouds passing over a Mediterranean isle

A sunset from space...

A sunset from space...


leave a comment »



Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page… 



“those sky-grids” – you’re about to get the works on that from ME.

“scientific evidence proves that a great increase of planes cannot affect the upper stratosphere” – NO, IT DOESN’T AT ALL. Few aircraft fly in the UPPER stratosphere. They fly in the lower stratosphere, just above the tropopause. The stratosphere is easily affected by combustion exhaust water, because it is stable, and has only sublimation into water vapor, and the force of gravity upon the ice crystals, causing them to fall, as mechanisms for removal. Contrails spread in saturated or supersaturated conditions to cover the whole sky. What scientific evidence is this?


“you’re implying that air-layers combine suitably within an hour” – stratospheric layers don’t combine at all, but they may be filled with ice crystals as the planes’ wave vortices stir the layer contents.

“50’s, 60’s and 70’s disseminated all over Britain (millions of ppl affected)” – YOU’RE MISTAKEN AGAIN. Didn’t you know that WATER, KILLED BACTERIA, and a PHOSPHORESCENT DYE are HARMLESS? Please refer to me the records indicating that millions of people were affected. And, anyway, wasn’t this to do with finding out how to combat Russian germ warfare attack? Before you make free with the FALSEHOODS you should look up contrailscience.com and find out how your blathering stands up to reality. And for a further perspective on Man versus Nature you could look up my blog on:



I’ve debated the contrail vs. chemtrail theories with jazzroc for the past couple of months. I did present a well researched and thought out scientific argument to him. His response was to delete my comments from his weblog, and to block any comments I post.

That’s because:

a) you didn’t debate anything: you posted using an anonymous email address – once. That isn’t a debate. If you look in that inbox you’ll find letters from me still awaiting your response.

b) your research was poor and your science non-existent. There was nothing in your post which advanced anything. Except sophistry.

Contrails are known and measured as part of atmospheric science. It is “chemtrails” that is a theory.

What about the Bergeron-Findeisen theory? Can persistent contrails exist if the Bergeron-Findeisen theory were true?

If there ARE differing vapour pressure requirements for deposition of water onto either super-cooled droplets or ice crystals, then the Bergeron-Findeisen Theory is true, and the droplets will evaporate in favour of deposition onto the ice crystals. The evaporation will then raise the humidity, making it even more likely that the next aircraft will leave a permanent trail. Super-cooled droplets are produced aerodynamically over the wings in marginally-warmer conditions: the exhausts produce ice crystals at -40 or colder, which is the general rule over 30,000 feet.

But that makes no difference to the final outcome, which is that persistent contrails are clouds of ice crystals which cannot evaporate into the fully-saturated atmosphere which surrounds them.

Nor to the conclusions one can draw, which are:

a) that persistent trails are natural, and not the confirmation of “chemtrails”, and

b) all other “proofs” having been shown to be fraudulent, the case for “chemtrails” is non-existent.

Were you to study any physics at all, your “theory” would vanish, your “debate” disappear. 


“tell not contrails” – NO YOU CANNOT. See below.

“My entire life this never happened” – It was happening BEFORE YOU WERE BORN.

“I watch planes/real contrails, and they disappear, but these chemtrails DO Not” – Your assumption is INCORRECT. Contrails CAN and DO persist in HUMID stratospheric conditions.

“only spray where the population lives” – Above every town is a RISING PLUME of HEAT and HUMIDITY. Contrails MAY persist in these plumes. Also you may care to check out satellite pictures from space, which show quite clearly that the trails form within humid atmospheric conditions.

“How stupid do they think people are?” – How stupid do you wish to remain?

“back and forth over the towns” – These are SEPARATE planes, each either COMING or GOING. No videos have ever shown a “spraying” plane circling to respray a town, because these aircraft are civil flights from one major airport to another.

“Why?” – Your answer’s above…

“targeting these areas/get the full benefit of the poisons” – JUST BULLSHIT AND BLUSTER (LIES). Just dial up a satellite view and you will see contrails wherever the atmosphere is moist. That is, randomly over land AND ocean, wherever the conditions are HUMID.



It is YOU that has been handed a line – which you cannot handle.

Don’t send me any more “information”. I am a very fast reader and have read and seen everything you’ve seen.

You have a problem with reasoning. Any reasonable educated person would listen to Carnicom for about FIVE minutes, and then switch him off. The reason he would do that is that he breaks all the rules of journalism and science. Instead of supplying EVIDENCE and PROOF he makes further assertions, breaking the “legal” chain of evidence. If you cannot see that I am sorry for you, but I’m no longer prepared to help you.

What makes you think that airborne materials MUST have come from an airplane, for instance? Do you KNOW how far vapour trail materials DRIFT? I don’t even need a calculator to tell you – from an altitude of seven miles it’s going to be AT LEAST TWO HUNDRED MILES DOWNWIND.

What makes you think that as you read this, you are NOT ingesting pathogens and metals? I can tell you that, for sure, you ARE, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INGESTING THEM. YOU ALWAYS WILL.

Your body is a DYNAMIC device, evolved over 4 billion years to COPE with such stresses. It WILL eliminate those metals AND KILL those pathogens.


It’s just a question of degree…

You lack the scientific understanding to prevent you from freely believing the UNBELIEVABLE.


“Namely, they persist for hours (eventually turning into a haze that doesn’t go away”

They’re in the stratosphere. That is, above five miles UP, about a fifth of atmospheric pressure, as warm as -40 deg C, maybe as cold as -80 deg, which is colder than the surface of Mars.


Passing planes laying 100lb of ICE per mile will SOON saturate the stratospheric layer they are in. Once that happens, the ice of the trail CANNOT SUBLIME ANY MORE INTO WATER VAPOUR. It MUST remain. It WILL persist for hours. The only reason it doesn’t persist for EVER, is that it is HEAVY, and FALLING.

“water doesn’t act that way” -You are WRONG. Water in the stratosphere is ICE. Not ice like in your fridge, more like finely powdered GLASS. I’ve lived in Germany, and deep in the continental land mass the temperature can fall very low in winter. I have experienced -40 deg C, and let me tell you ICE ISN’T EVEN SLIPPERY AT -40 DEG C. It is HARD and it is DRY. Say you were in a balloon at 32,000 feet and an Airbus came just by you at 575mph.


You’d be amazed at its speed, and also its colossal WAVE VORTEX, as it whirled the two trails around itself in two columns fifty yards across. The trail would sting your face like wind-whipped sand on a beach. Of course, your face would fall off with the intense cold as well…

“they are sprayed from unmarked aircraft” – WRONG AGAIN. They are marked, but the markings become invisible from the ground due to a phenomenon called “blue light scattering”. Had the plane been painted BLACK, from the ground you would see NO PLANE AT ALL

“they stop and start in a manner not consistent with normal contrail formation” – WRONG AGAIN. They start and stop PERFECTLY consistent with normal contrail formation. The trails are created in saturated or supersaturated air. The “inconsistency” is firmly in your understanding of the nature of the stratosphere.

Your mistake lies in assuming that these AIRS are DISTINGUISHABLE: they are NOT. All types of air are TRANSPARENT, get it? INVISIBLE! Hence a plane flying through dry air leaves no trail. It hits a humid area: it leaves a trail. Stop, start, stop, start. This can happen for miles: stratospheric layers frequently form ripples as a consequence of atmospheric compressibility following on downwind from upward ground projections such as ridges and mountains…


“photographed as not even coming from the engines” – That’s right. Either a) You don’t understand that the time taken for the exhaust to cool down from +1100 degrees to -40 degrees manifests itself as a GAP, or b) the plane has hit SUPERSATURATED air, when the WHOLE AIRFRAME sets a trail and the tightest vortices (wingtips, control surface ends) will cause the MOST ICE to get dumped.

“I don’t remember them as a child or teen” – I DO. I was always keen on aircraft, making them from the age of 7. Why would you? You wouldn’t be LOOKING for them. In our lifetime we’ve seen a TREMENDOUS increase in low-cost air travel, and a VERY RECENT increase in cheap videocams, and reduction in educational standards…


“the media will not talk about the issue” – They only talk about things that increase their sales. They also have good scientific advice which deters them from printing unconsidered rubbish. Living on the Spanish Canary Islands, I don’t read the media much…

“and some other reasons” – You better tell me what they are, for so far you have NOTHING… 




Contrail, streamer of cloud sometimes observed behind an airplane flying in clear, cold, humid air. It forms upon condensation of the water vapour produced by the combustion of fuel in the airplane engines. When the ambient relative humidity is high, the resulting ice-crystal plume may last for several hours. The trail may be distorted by the winds, and sometimes it spreads outwards to form a layer of cirrus cloud.


Broken Contrails

from “Uncinus” of “Contrailscience”

Contrails are clouds made from water vapor that condenses then freezes behind a plane engine. Since the engines are on constantly, it seems a bit odd when you see contrails with gaps in them, or even contrails that stop and start. If the engine is pumping out a constant amount of water, then why is the trail not constant? This puzzle is sometimes seized on by people who think that persistent contrails are actually “chemtrails”, or some kind of deliberate spraying operation.

But it’s actually very simple. The amount of water in the exhaust is pretty constant, but the amount of moisture in the air is not. The humidity varies with altitude in the stratosphere, and a layer of low humidity can be sandwiched between two layers of high humidity. As a plane climbs or descends through this layer, then the trail will only form in the areas of high humidity, and so look like it was “switched off” in the area of low humidity.

You can get the same effect with temperature. A warm layer of air can actually lay on top of a colder layer in what is called an “inversion” (you’ll hear this on the weather sometimes, referred to as an “inversion layer”). When a plane flies through this inversion layer, the trail can be “broken”.

It’s not just climbing or descending flights either. The boundaries between these layers is not flat, and gravity waves or rising convection currents of air can create large volumes of air that differ in temperature and/or humidity from the neighboring air, and so can break (or make) the contrail when the plane flies through them.

Don’t take my word for it though. Do a Google search for “broken contrail” and you’ll find lots of examples, and similar explanations.

NOAA – “Occasionally a jet plane, especially if ascending or descending, will pass through a much drier or more moist layer of atmosphere which may result in a broken pattern to the contrail, with it appearing in segments rather than in one continuous plume.”

AirSpace Magazine – “If the contrail stops, then starts up again, creating a broken line, chances are the airplane flew through a dry patch.”

Doc Weather – “What is happening here is that warm air rising from the ground carries vast amounts of water vapor upwards into the highest levels of the atmosphere. This water vapor exists as massive, plumes of warm, moist air ascending to very high levels. When a rising plume reaches the upper atmosphere it condenses into high ice clouds known as cirrus or feather clouds. In the case of the jet contrail (condensation trail) in the first image, the condensing cloud formed where the aircraft passed through a rising plume of moist warm air. The air on either side of the plume was not sufficiently moist to support the formation of an enduring cloud. As a result the contrail only remained visible in the warm plume.”


Now study the pictures above. The one on the left was entitled “broken contrail”, the one on the right “broken chemtrail”. If you know anything about analyzing computer jpg files, you will discover the one on the right to be FAKED (even though a telephone wire appears to pass through the “gap” in the “trail”.

Interesting, isn’t it? The “broken contrail” is honest, the “broken chemtrail” fake… 


Sniker, you don’t know the WHY so don’t tell me the HOW.

It’s a case of RELATIVE humidity and DEW POINT. HOT WATER VAPOUR, which is what “steam” is, can only MAKE UP the air’s humidity to its 100% RH level as it cools down. Beyond that it MUST form droplets of water or crystals of ice, depending on the air temperature.

In either case (troposphere or stratosphere) if the air doesn’t get to its 100% RH the water will evaporate or sublime into water vapour over a short period. Stratospheric air is MORE LIKELY to be saturated or supersaturated BECAUSE it is LAMINAR, whereas the troposphere is TURBULENT, being the BOUNDARY LAYER. Hence you sometimes get PERSISTENT TRAILS in the stratosphere.

Jets DO leave WATER contrails down below in humid 95%+ conditions where they occur (tropics mostly) but they are more difficult to see, and CT guys aren’t videoing there. There is a YT CT vid which clearly shows the APU (auxiliary power unit – all passenger planes have them) laying a faint trail (in Canada!), before it makes its stupid claim.

Clifford Carnicom forswore Science with his website. From his “USAF lies to America”, to his analysis (from the ground!) of a “chemtrail”, his site is a FARRAGO OF DECEIT. If you had ever made a study of LOGIC or ANALYSIS, you’d KNOW.

“just swipe your finger on random sufaces and hold up to sun and see the metal particals!” – You live in an INDUSTRIALIZED SOCIETY. You should expect CRAP in your air. Learn to spell. 


Sorry to disappoint. Here goes:

“antagonistic to empire/super-state comprising pentagon/blah/nasa, why do you think population culling is off the table” – because while it may be possible to blow away a president, and even easy to blow away a nonentity, it becomes very much harder to blow away the vast majority. Wars are a mess, and the only quick and final war would be a nuclear spasm. Poisons and diseases are slow, and have poor coverage. Logistically they are impossible. Practically they don’t work because people can move! Angry people (the ones you’ve missed!) become ferocious opponents. Ask the Germans about the Poles. Talk to Americans about the Vietnamese. To Israeli Jews about Palestinians. The Kurds about Iraqis.


“why not read history as if you were not immune to it” – I have done. It’s the only way to develop an immunity.

“you are a pawn” – I may have been a pawn, but no longer. If necessary I shall simply sail away. If anyone interferes with me I shall interfere with them.

“the industrial age drawing to a close” – Give me strength! There is more industry now than there has ever been. Knowledge hasn’t drawn to a close. Ability hasn’t drawn to a close. Necessity is the mother of invention. Take a look at the Afghans. The Pacific Ring…   …China…


“new game in the offing” – Yeah, yeah. Robots blah blah. There’s a great lawnmower and a great vacuum cleaner. Get out the Gray Goo, let’s off the peeps. You haven’t a clue.

“much fewer pawns” – stop reading science fiction and take a look outside. Out, not up! Sorry about the missing caps.


Written by JazzRoc

November 14, 2008 at 1:00 am

Posted in Aviation, chemtrails, contrails, science, Truth

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


with one comment



Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…




Contrails or vapor trails are condensation trails and artificial cirrus clouds made by the exhaust of aircraft engines or wingtip vortices which precipitate a stream of tiny ice crystals in moist, frigid upper air. Being composed of water, the visible white streams are not, in and of themselves, air pollution. However, contrails generated by engine exhaust are inevitably linked with typical fuel combustion pollutants. Contrails might also be considered visual pollution.

* 1 Condensation from engine exhaust
* 2 Condensation from wing-tip pressure
* 3 Contrails and climate
3.1 September 11, 2001 climate impact study
* 4 See also
* 5 Related matters
* 6 References
* 7 External links

How a Turbo Fan Jet Engine Works

The main products of hydrocarbon fuel combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor.

At high altitudes this water vapor emerges into a cold environment, and the local increase in water vapor can push the water content of the air past saturation point. The vapor then condenses into tiny water droplets and/or desublimates into ice. These millions of tiny water droplets and/or ice crystals form the contrails. The energy drop (and therefore, time and distance) the vapor needs to condense accounts for the contrail forming some way behind the aircraft’s engines. The majority of the cloud content comes from water trapped in the surrounding air.  At high altitudes, supercooled water vapor requires a trigger to encourage desublimation. The exhaust particles in the aircraft’s exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to rapidly turn to ice crystals. Exhaust contrails usually occur at above 26,000 feet. where the temperature is below -40°C (-40°F).

Condensation from wing-tip pressure

Main article: wingtip vortices


The wings of an airplane cause a drop in air pressure in the vicinity of the wing. This brings with it a drop in temperature, which can cause water to condense out of the air and form a contrail but only at higher altitudes. At lower altitudes, this phenomenon is also known as “ectoplasm.” Ectoplasm is more commonly seen during high energy maneuvers like those of a fighter jet, or on jet liners during takeoff and landing, at areas of very low pressure, including over the wings, and often around turbo-fan intakes on takeoff.

Contrails and climate


Contrails, by affecting cloud formation, can act as a radiative forcing. Studies have found that contrails trap outgoing longwave radiation emitted by the Earth and atmosphere (positive radiative forcing) at a greater rate than they reflect incoming solar radiation (negative radiative forcing).

Therefore, the overall effect of contrails is warming. However, the effect varies daily and annually, and overall the size of the forcing is not well known: globally (for 1992 air traffic conditions), values range from 3.5 mW/m² to 17 mW/m². Other studies have determined that night flights are most responsible for the warming effect: while accounting for only 25% of daily air traffic, they contribute 60 to 80% of contrail radiative forcing.

Similarly, winter flights account for only 22% of annual air traffic, but contribute half of the annual mean radiative forcing.

September 11, 2001 climate impact study


It had been hypothesized that in regions such as the United States with heavy air traffic, contrails affected the weather, reducing solar heating during the day and radiation of heat during the night by increasing the albedo. The suspension of air travel for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided an opportunity to test this hypothesis. Measurements did show that without contrails the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before; however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.


See also

* Aviation and climate change
* Cirrus cloud
* Global dimming
* Ship tracks
* List of environment topics
* Chemtrail conspiracy theory

Related matters

* Aurora aircraft are hypothesized high-technology Black project aircraft which leave “donuts-on-a-rope” contrails.

(But “donuts-on-a-rope” contrails are known to be an occasional consequence of the normal wave vortex of normal aircraft. The two vortices which comprise the wave vortex of an aircraft occasionally grow to interfere with each other, and generate coupled vortices at right angles to the original pair. These look like “smoke rings”, or “donuts”. See “The Crow Instability” in “Trails from Space”: https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/03-trails-seen-from-space/ )


1. NASA, Contrail Education FAQ
2. Ponater et al., GRL, 32 (10): L10706 2005
3. Stuber, Nicola; Piers Forster, Gaby Rädel, Keith Shine (June 15, 2006). “The importance of the diurnal and annual cycle of air traffic for contrail radiative forcing”. Nature 441: 864-867. DOI:10.1038/nature04877.
4. Travis et al., J. Climate, 17, 1123-1134, 2004
5. Kalkstein and Balling Jr., Climate Research, 26, 1-4, 2004

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

* Contrails.nl: Pictures of Contrails and Aviation Cirrus (-Smog), from 1995 on.
* Abstract of article in Nature announcing research results of contrail temperature change study
* Clouds Caused By Aircraft Exhaust May Warm The U.S. Climate
* Contrails over the USA
* Effects of contrails on ground astronomy
* Contrail simulator (Java applet) — interactively shows how temperature and humidity of the surrounding air affect contrail formation and characteristics
* Contrails: What’s Left Behind Is Bad News, article by Nick Onkow from March 4, 2006
* Night flights give bigger boost to global warming


An Article by Airliners.net

Contrails: What’s Left Behind Is Bad News
By Nick Onkow

Nick Onkow offers an informative and illuminating exposé on the detrimental effects of contrails to our environment. Contained herein is an undeniably important article not just because of its content, but because it breaches a topic so commonly overlooked, and so consistently regarded as harmless.

“Our ideals, laws and customs should be based on the proposition that each generation, in turn, becomes the custodian rather than the absolute owner of our resources and each generation has the obligation to pass this inheritance on to the future.”


There is some irony in that statement which defends the argument that it is the obligation of the living population of Earth to leave an environment in the best condition it can for the succeeding generation. Why the irony? It was said by world famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, the first pilot to cross the Atlantic Ocean alone. He was concerned about the way the environment was beginning to be affected by humans on an increasingly larger scale and at the time, his aerial view of land development was rare.

Today the aviation industry is larger than many people would have ever imagined it would be and it is only going to grow more as the population of Earth climbs past six billion and national economies grow with it. The nature of commercial aviation includes some detrimental results to the environment. Fuel is burned and the exhaust fills the atmosphere, but cars, trains, and ships do the same. Jet aircraft, however, have a unique form of harming the environment that is associated exclusively with them: contrails. They are the long, thin clouds that are blasted out of the exhaust nozzle of jet engines at high altitudes. Some days they fade away within a few minutes and they pose no threat. It is the days that perfect conditions exist when they do their damage, drifting and expanding to several thousand square miles and blanketing the lowest atmosphere of Earth through the night, unnaturally trapping heat. Some argue that contrails have no effect on the environment but evidence indicates this opinion is not valid. Several solutions to the problem exist. Jets could fly at different altitudes, or engine standards could be raised so that insurance rates are less for those that are friendlier to the environment. Knowledge from the military stealth aircraft program could be incorporated into civilian aviation to avoid contrails, or contrail forecasts could be incorporated into flight planning process so that contrail-prone routes and altitudes are avoided. Contrary to some opinions, contrails have indeed helped raise the temperature of North America and the entire planet since the start of the jet age and continue to do so, making a long-term plan to reduce them a plan that needs to be initiated.


Photo © Josef P. Willems

Contrails are essentially clouds and are the same effect as seeing one’s breath on a cold, damp day. The narrow bands of ice crystals gradually expand into a cirrus-type high-altitude cloud if conditions are just right. Just how often are the conditions conducive to their formation? “At flight altitudes, conditions that support contrail-generated cirrus exist 10% – 20% of the time in clear air and within standing cirrus”. Although this is a small percentage, the diverse weather of North America coupled with the staggering number of commercial flights in the air results in at least some part of the United States being good contrail weather on any given day. Worldwide, contrails are estimated to cover 0.1% of the Earth’s surface area and that number is forecast to rise to 0.5% by 2050.

There is some debate over just how effective this cirrus cloud coverage is at raising the average temperature of the land it covers. A NASA study conducted in the USA between 1975 and 1994 found the average temperature to have increased by 1°F . Though a single degree may seem trivial, the incredibly large scale that it applies to makes it significant since just 9°F separates our current average temperature from the last Ice Age. In one study conducted by meteorologist Keith P. Shine, data from satellites was used to prove that only one percent of the increase in clouds throughout the world has been from aircraft. There are also inherent flaws in some of the research performed by NASA. One problem is the difficulty that scientists have distinguishing a suspected contrail cloud from a natural cirrus cloud in satellite images. Skeptics of the theory that contrails do not have an impact on weather argued this theory with some success until a significant event occurred in North America, the main testing grounds of contrail research.

Contrails or Cirrus Clouds? - Newfoundland, 7 May 1999

Contrails or Cirrus Clouds? - Newfoundland, 7 May 1999

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was the aforementioned event, and it was likely to have excited meteorological researchers involved in contrail impact studies. The national airspace was shut down for three days, something that had not yet occurred since the jet age began in the 1960s and is not likely to occur ever again. Scientists took advantage of this unique three day period in history that lacked contrails. What they learned was shocking and is enough evidence to effectively silence any counterargument to their case. One measure of climate is the average daily temperature range (DTR). For thirty years this had been recorded and extra cirrus clouds in the atmosphere would reduce this range by trapping heat. “September 11 – 14, 2001 had the biggest diurnal temperature range of any three-day period in the past 30 years,” said Andrew M. Carleton. Not in three decades had there been such a large temperature spread between the daytime highs and the nighttime lows. Furthermore, the increase in DTR during those three days was more than double the national average for regions of the United States where contrail coverage was previously known to be most abundant, such as the midwest, northeast, and northwest regions. The specific increase in the range was 2°F, which in three days was twice the amount the average temperature had increased over a thirty years time period. This is evidence that contrails do alter the climate of the land they drift above.

Northeastern U.S., 11 Feb. 1999

Northeastern U.S., 11 Feb. 1999

There are several methods that can be explored that will help reduce the role that contrails play in global warming. The easiest way to avoid this global warming through contrail cirrus clouds is to have jets fly at different altitudes. Flying higher than the typical 30,000 to 40,000 feet would usually stop contrails from forming, as would flying lower. Each of these options is, unfortunately, made unrealistic by consequences associated with them. Besides performance limitations of the aircraft above the normal cruising altitudes, airplanes begin flying in the lowest layer of ozone that is found in the tropopause (the dividing line between the lowest two layers of the atmosphere). As for flying lower, the decrease in altitude results in denser air and higher air resistance. This increases fuel burn, which increases the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, negating any benefits from eliminating contrails.

Ruling out drastic changes in altitude, another option might be to increase the emission standards of jet engines and with that only insure airplanes with the newer, cleaner engines. Tests were performed with a NASA jet aircraft examining the effect of sulfur levels in jet fuel exhaust. During the airborne test one engine was run on normal jet fuel and the other engine was run on fuel that emitted exhaust with a lower sulfur content. The high sulfur engine, representing most jet engines on modern commercial aircraft, produced a contrail that lasted through a larger range of temperatures and formed faster out of the engine. The low sulfur engine did the opposite. “Aircraft generate an invisible aerosol trail which enhances the background level of condensation nuclei, in particular regions with dense air traffic at northern latitudes and near the tropopause”. These condensation nuclei are the tiny particles that give water vapor the ability to condense to liquid droplets. The International Civil Aviation Organization is in favor of making polluting, obsolete aircraft uninsurable. While this option would not completely eliminate contrails, it would narrow the window of conditions needed to form them, making them less common.

Photo © Josef P. Willems

Photo © Josef P. Willems

A third solution to avoiding the large-scale creation of contrails is just that – avoidance. Partly through military research, new methods of forecasting the formation of contrails have been learned. This was a result of stealth aircraft that are not detectable by radar but are easily spotted from the ground if a contrail is following it. A program was initiated by the Air Force Weather Agency with the goal of improved contrail prediction techniques by closely examining the weather that was conducive to their formation. The program, run in 2000, used radiosondes (weather balloons) to measure water vapor content and temperature at different altitudes compared to actual observations of aircraft in the area. The end result was a success: “The statistical model produced a correct diagnosis of contrail occurrence or nonoccurrence for 85% of the observations”. Statistical contrail forecasting, then, is the easiest way for this problem to start being dealt with. Returning to the fact that only 10% to 20% of the country’s airspace is conducive to forming contrails at any given time, that leaves at least eighty percent available for use, and that is not even accounting for the third dimension of altitude which could be used in avoidance.

One way to do this would be to equip each aircraft with a device that detects the conditions that were confirmed in the Air Force study as being conducive to contrail formation3. The Federal Aviation Administration or Environmental Protection Agency could monitor these from the ground to see when an aircraft is flying in one of these areas. Incentives to use other airspace or altitudes could be put in place to reduce the number of jets flying there, such as reduced taxes on fuel or airport fees, or an extra tax or fine on aircraft that fly through the airspace that will leave a cirrus cloud drifting behind.

The North Sea, 15 May 1998

The North Sea, 15 May 1998

Unfortunately, aviation will always have some detrimental impact on the environment. What is most important, then, is reducing those impacts to the extent practicable. Through studies it has become apparent that contrails expanding into cirrus clouds do have some impact on the weather and the environment. Global warming is already a concern, and although the extent to which contrails are contributing to global warming is debatable, it cannot be argued that they have no effect. Using weather forecasting to predict areas where cirrus clouds will form from contrails should eventually be used in combination with devices on aircraft and cleaner engines with lower emissions (especially of contents such as sulfuric acid) to actively reduce the negative effects of contrails. As the aviation industry grows, limiting its negative impact on the environment will be a difficult challenge, and reducing the amount of heating that has already taken place as a result of high-flying aircraft will be an even greater challenge.

Photo © Jeffwell

Photo © Jeffwell

1. Carleton, Andrew M. “Climatology: Contrails Reduce Daily Temperature Range.” Nature. 8 August 2002.
2. Graham-Rowe, Duncan. “High Flyers are Scourge of the Skies.” New Scientist. 19 October 2002, Vol. 176, Issue 2365.
3. Jackson, Artie. “Statistical Contrail Forecasting.” Journal of Applied Meteorology. February 2001, Vol. 40, Issue 2.
4. Minnis, Patrick. “Contrail Frequency over the United States from Surface Observations.” Atmospheric Sciences Research. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA. 12 August 2002.
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Operational Significant Event Imagery Image of the Day, February 11 1999.
6. Schumann, U. “In Situ Observations of Particles in Jet Aircraft Exhausts and Contrails for Different Sulfur-Containing Fuels.” Journal of Geographical Research. 1996, Vol. 101, Issue D3.
7. Watson, Traci. “Plane Trails in Sky Turn Up the Heat Below, Study Suggests.” USA Today. 29 April 2004.

Written by Nick Onkow. Nick Onkow is a pilot, a flight instructor, and a photographer, whose photographs can be found here at airliners.net. Based on the amount of study invested in this topic, we consider him an expert on contrails and their environmental effects.


IsuA380B777 2006-03-10 – Dear Nick. An excellent and well researched article. Regards

N62NA 2006-03-12 – Very well put together. I hope other a.netters will take the time to read through your excellent article.

AFEaviator 2006-03-14 – Very interesting article! I know you article is directed specifically at contrails, but you mention the wide temperature variance during the no fly days post 9/11. I am curious if the margin was less or more in large commercial traffic cities. There has been some very interesting studies about large cities producing their own weather effects and I am curious how this no-fly time period may have affected them.

KLM685 2006-03-18 – Congratulations for this piece of excellent work! I used to have geography classes with this teacher from Alaska. She always condemned everything she considered as pollution…that means everything. So one day she talked about how contrails damaged the atmosphere, etc… Thanks to this article I’m now able to put the puzzle together. Amazing research. Well done! Alonsou

Xjramper 2006-03-26 – Very interesting read. There are two things I would like to argue. One was weather. That information seems to be lacking, to prove that the drastic change in the temperatures were not caused by a massive frontal system. The other thing that I see is that it was a 3 day observation. What this is telling me is that the earth reversed 40+ years (14,600+ days) of jet pollution and showed that great of a climatic change in 3 days. Seems a little unrealistic to me. zach

Goboeing 2006-03-26 – The jet pollution from the preceding 40 years of flying did not disappear. What did disappear for three days were the jets that produced the contrails that form cirrus clouds. The cirrus clouds expand, drift, and trap heat at night. That results in less cooling. During the three days, there were no contrails over the U.S. and therefore no jet-made cirrus clouds to trap the heat. Nick

Xjramper 2006-03-27 – First, I did not say they disappeared. Secondly, I would like to see numbers that were recorded during this time. Is there a link that these are available? Because I randomly looked at 5 cities around the country and noticed little to no difference to the change in temperature. Thanks…zach

Goboeing 2006-03-27 – The fourth source at the bottom of the article has the numbers I think you are looking for. It is fairly lengthy but they are in there. Picking five cities at random does not give an accurate idea of a change in the usual daily temperature range (DTR). You’d have to compare the min and max temperatures in 24 hour periods and frontal systems and local weather can affect that. Nick

Tornado82 2006-04-06 – Sorry Nick, nice editorial opinion article but scientific evidence isn’t gathered in 3 days of records to research something as long-term as climatologic facts. Your sampling is simply way too small, and is heavily affected by the unrelated climatology of that three-day span. This is why most of us in the meteorological community never embraced the “findings” of the September 11th tragedy timeframe as anything but a loose hypothesis.

Just prior to 9/11 was one of the first pattern-shifting frontal passages of the transition season for that fall. Meteorological/climatological fall begins Sept 1, regardless of the equinox. The atmosphere was relatively dry across much of the nation, with crystal-clear skies (even before the tragedy occurred) thanks to the strong high pressure over that period, and still the relatively high Mid-September sun angle. The day time temperatures soared with a well mixed, dry atmosphere across much of the country, especially the Northeastern quadrant where contrails would typically be most prevalent, and where the most observing stations are. A nearly 1030 mb high pressure is quite strong for that time of year, and was anchored over our country bringing a shot of polar air with it. Of course, as will almost always happen in one of these types of atmospheres, decoupling occurred at night. No more mixing is occuring in the atmosphere, the wind becomes very calm, and cold air quickly sinks to the surface with no vertical motion (mixing) to support it. This happens nearly every time you get one of these types of atmospheric setups, it is just that people looked at it with more interest due to the lack of contrails. Additionally, with the upper-level atmospheric setup over much of that time, contrails would not have been very prevalent anyways.

The larger-than-usual diurnal range was caused simply by a very well mixed atmosphere in the daytime, with a very decoupled atmosphere at night, and the magnification of this type of atmospheric setup occuring over a large portion of the nation at the time. Adding to the huge diurnal range is that this occurred when the SST’s and Great Lakes, and any other water-body surface temperatures are near their annual peaks, eliminating any “sea breeze” or “lake breeze” effect to moderate the temperatures. Based on the surface dew points, sky conditions, and decoupling leading to lack of nighttime winds in the time period studied, the low temperatures are right where they should have been. You would have needed much more time to sample effect, or a very sophisticated computer modelling system to replicate the event. So far, neither has happened, and I pray to God that there is no more chance of another catastrophe closing our nation’s airspace in a similar manner.

Bwood 2006-04-17 I find this article hard to believe. The idea that the clouds that form from contrails are trapping in heat to me sounds ridiculous. Now before you attack me I know that clouds do trap heat and can keep temperatures higher at night but the clouds we are talking about are at 30000-50000ft. They are so thin you can see through them. For the heat to be trapped at ground level they would have to be lower and only a few hundred to thousand feet off the surface. Also over half the world’s entire atmosphere is between ground level and 8000 feet. If these contrails were lower then maybe but not at thirty to forty thousand feet. I know that the ozone is high up in the upper atmosphere as well but this is a layer of gas that is supposed to block in radiation from the sun. Clouds do not have the same affect. The sun’s radiation goes through clouds and that is why you can get sunburned on a cloudy day. The radiation also can bounce back up through the clouds to the ozone layer. The radiation is what harms us and the atmosphere. It is not that heat itself bounces back from the ozone layer it is the sun’s radiation that bounces back that heats up our atmosphere. Tell me how warm it is on a winter’s night when it is totally clear and 10 degrees below zero then tell me how extra warm it feels when there are some cirrus clouds at 50000ft and it is supposed to be ten degress below zero. It will feel exactly the same. I think the real danger comes from the jet exhaust itself and not water vapor 6-9 miles off the ground. I also feel that there are far greater polluters in this world. Read March 06’s National Geographic that came out on coal plants. There is where we are going to kill our planet. That and cars. Coal plants are the real danger. Jets burn jet A which is basically kerosene or a slightly modified diesel fuel. This has its advantages since it produces only hydrocarbons as pollutants and emits no sulfur or nitrogen pollutants like cars or power plants, however it does produce carbon dioxide. That is a study that should be done. What are the affects of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere? I think that the study (or I should say so-called study) done for the three days after 9/11 is not anything that you can come to a conclusion from. It is only three days of data and you can not call something like that a fact after only three days of data. There are too many factors that can cause interference with this so called tested and true study. You would need years of data in different conditions and weather to figure out if this was true. I really cannot accept the idea that contrails that are just water vapor are covering the sky, blocking in the heat from the ground and warming our planet by several degress. If that was the case then everyday that we have clouds the temperature of the earth should rise and cause global warming. People have to remember that there is more than one factor that goes into our climate and weather patterns. I agree that airplanes are pollutors and that something should be done about it. However aviation right now does not have the technology to make “hybrid or alternative fuel planes.” Ethanol is being tested for smaller piston engines but is only in the earliest experimental stages. You are not going to see an Airbus A380 running on corn or hydrogen anytime soon. I think that more research should be done to try and eventually turn planes away from petroleum and to another clean source but it is decades away. We should try to focus our “energy” on making cars and powerplants (by far the greatest polluters on our planet) carbon dioxide-free within the next ten to twenty years. It is possible but the red tape and political issues are enormous. We all need to write our congressmen and women along with the president to get more funding and support for zero emission power plants and cars. Which by the way as of right now we know how to make coal plants and cars zero emisson but no one is doing it on the large scale. Let’s focus our interests on the big and correctable polluters first and then expand out from there.

Mdgg2009 2006-06-23 Chemtrails, not contrails. 😦

Apart from the grisly flatus of that final comment, my reasoning agrees with Tornado82. There were other reasons for the figures for that 3-day period which make more sense to me. The conclusions of the article are not correct.

However I heartily recommend Airliners.net as a high-quality source of pictures, news, and comment…


on 25 Jun 2008 Post 126 the Gregger

so basicly what this website is telling me is that everything i see in the sky is normal. tick tack toe grid patterns are normal and when the sky is covered from horizon to horizon with “Jet crap” i should just go outside and do some strenuous activities, breath deep and don’t worry?

Hanfbauer bei der Ernte

I’m sorry Shill. i don’t buy it. Where are the bees?


why is there more statick electricity in the air (more now than i have ever noticed)? I know what HAARP is.


i know what a cloud is.


and i know what a shill is!


…….over a thousand tornadoes this year in the midwest. A “freek” electrical storm in June in california.!


Can’t wait for that sack of cement to come flying through my roof on the fourth of july when they’re trying to make a “Nice day” for us to view the fireworks.


Oh hey and make sure you catch the olympics in china this year. Should be nice out. They’ve forcasted no rain for the duration of the games. Sweet! Hard hat and suntan lotion.! ……..as for the “suckerfish” on the tail of that plane? well i hate to say it but my little HP foto devise is a piece of poo. i’m in the market for a faster camera with a fat zoom so I can get those fotos my debunker friends need to see. ……time to go out and play. I see a little square of blue sky left out there. better go get in it before it becomes a concloud. breath deep SR#$%^.


From Uncinus of contrailscience.com as of 24.04.09, an early photo of WW2 trails...

From Uncinus of contrailscience.com as of 24.04.09, an early photo of WW2 trails…


High Clouds (Family A): Cirrus (Ci) • Cirrus uncinus • Cirrus Kelvin-Helmholtz colombia • Cirrostratus (Cs) • Cirrocumulus (Cc) • Pileus • Contrail
Middle Clouds (Family B): Altostratus (As) • Altostratus undulatus • Altocumulus (Ac) • Altocumulus undulatus • Altocumulus mackerel sky • Altocumulus castellanus • Altocumulus lenticularis
Low Clouds (Family C): Stratus (St) • Nimbostratus (Ns) • Cumulus humilis (Cu) • Cumulus mediocris (Cu) • Stratocumulus (Sc)
Vertical Clouds (Family D): Cumulonimbus (Cb) • Cumulonimbus incus • Cumulonimbus calvus • Cumulonimbus with mammatus • Cumulus congestus • Cumulus castellanus • Pyrocumulus • Pyrocumulonimbus

cumulus congestus

cumulus congestus


Statement 1 – “contrails form at a wing-span distance from bottom of plane”. – UNTRUE. The formation distance behind the plane depends on its VELOCITY, AND THE TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF THE AMBIENT AIR. Your statement is a rough approximation only.

Statement 2 – “sudden short gaps in the trails” – ARE CAUSED BY PLANES FLYING THROUGH “WAVES” OF MORE HUMID AIR, rather like dolphins swimming through waves in the sea.

Statement 3 – “same time try to explain their day-long endurance/spreading claiming the higher levels have uniform saturation. – FALSE. THEY SPREAD IN SATURATED AIR. AT WHATEVER HEIGHT.


Statement 5 – “Spiderwebs” LIE

Statement 6 – “Anthrax” LIE


A brief history of “Chemtrails”


“Chemtrails” are supposedly long lasting contrails that are being deliberately created by the government for some sinister purpose. In reality, these contrails just look like normal contrails. It’s a fringe conspiracy theory that spread over the internet, mutating as it goes for survivability. But where did it begin? What is the origin of the word “chemtrail”, and who started this particular conspiracy theory?

Google Groups archives internet news-groups back to 1981, but the earliest mention of chemtrails was from May 8th, 1999: on alt.fan.art-bell: “this cartilage gel that Art’s plugging could be used for the joint ache that chemtrail victims complained about last night… say… wait a minute…maybe chemtrails were deployed to boost cartilage gel sales…! Here we have mention of chemtrail victims, and “joint ache” as a symptom.*


* “Joint ache” is a symptom of both diabetes and arthritis, which are known to be consequential to being over-weight. The western diet is the most likely causative agent in these cases.

In may of 1999, we have this: CHEMTRAILS OVER AMERICA Issue #2 April 7-16, 1999: “dear friends and concerned sky-watchers”, a March 17, 1999 radio interview going out to 15 million listeners – again referencing the Art Bell show. So it seems that radio show was perhaps the start of the phenomena. The “Chemtrails over America” bulletin apparently had issue #1 on march 9, 1999. That also seems to be about the time people started taking photos of normal contrails.

Judging by the earliest postings, it seems like hypochondria plays a large part. People start to connect the contrails with illness, and suspect they must contain some kind of poison.

Looking at the previous year (1998) on usenet, there is NO mention of chemtrails. The word “contrail” crops up 324 times, mostly in reference to meteors and rockets. There are a few references to the affect of contrails on climate change. But NOTHING about deliberate contrail creation, or anything like “chemtrails”.


The web site chemtrailcentral.com was registered on May 6th, 2000, about a year after the “chemtrail” idea was created. The earliest archived page from there indicates a lot of local media involvement, and their archive indicates nothing before 4/24/2000, which said: “Monday a KHOU crew met with Chemtrail Tracking USA Club co-founders Lorie [Kramer] and Dona of Houston and member Rhonda from Ft. Worth, as well as other local members of the Yahoo! based club for the taping of a story on Chemtrails and public concern over their purpose and health impact. Reporter Ron Travino and cameraman Nathan visited for several hours at the house of Lorie, taping, talking, asking questions, and viewing photos and videos.”

On chemtrailcentral, there’s actually a thread about the history of chemtrails. There, people give their recollections of how it all started. Most date it to late 1998 or 1999. A few people report earlier contrails (1989, 1991), and then surmise it must have stated earlier.

A post there by 3T3L1 quotes chemtrail debunker Jay Reynolds on the derivation of the word “chemtrails”. Posted on August 26, 2001 at 09:06:54 AM by Jay Reynolds was a statement by Val Valerian (pseudonym for Former USAF captain [John] Grace) in April 1999. “Grace/Valerian recognized that the power of suggestion worked against his claim and proposed coining a new term more suggestive of his claim.” That does not sound unreasonable, since the earliest reference to the word is April 1999. This page claims to be reporting from March 29th 1999, but could have been written after the fact, based on photos taken that day. It’s archived back to October 1999.

The original pages from Val Valerian/Valdemar Valerain/O.H. Krill/John Grace, can be found on archive.org. The earliest real mention of spraying on his pages dates back to emails on 13 Jan 1998. “John Grace is a UFO conspiracy theorist who published several books on shadow governments and suchlike. He also faked documents to support arguments in his books.”



This is an interesting interlude involving this “mention” of “chemtrails” in an episode of CSI.

I’m no fan of this series: I don’t believe the “science”, I don’t believe the timing, I don’t believe the “visualizations”, I don’t believe the camp crappiness of the script and the COLOR is an abuse to vision. It has the values of Star Trek Series 1.  Ug.

The HYPOCRISY mounted by the “brothers” is intense, approaches saturation, then exceeds it into supersaturation. I bet you thought it was only water that did that, but the bruvs don’t know about water – so they’re alone.

Someone who talks about chemtrails IS an “anti-american” & a “domestic terrorist” This had already become part of my thinking. It was EASY. I used LOGIC.
1. CNUTS offer NO sensible evidence that chemtrails exist. They are therefore slandering hard-working innocent people from airport aprons to executive boardrooms.
2. They use FEAR to condition people against the scientific truth of the matter in favor of lies which further their aims. TERRORISTS use fear to attain their objectives, too.
“Whether” – neither
“one day” – never
“ignore truth” – & b a CNUT
“u’re a disgrace” – to the Cosmos I apologize – 4 u
“to stupid” – 2 spell correctly?
“corruption” – “Power” started that 11000BC
“a great threat” – U aren’t 4 U know zip
“your caliber” – 50 cal long range sniper
“lies” – as in LIBRARY
“same ppl” – Yes. Ppl generally
“Your agenda” – I’m sorry – science is the reverse of what u suggest
“Gotta love manipulation” – Spk 4 urself
“understand(ing) is challenging” – How would U know?
@WellSightedGentleman – S.A.G. ops?
Ah – The “American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting held in San Diego February 18-22, and “a group of protestors” & “Could it be that one of these groups is being deceived?”
APOPHENIA was defined by Klaus Conrad in 1958 as the “unmotivated seeing of connections accompanied by a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness.”
The “group of protestors” must have been looking for the hospital…
Make shit up about a noisy ignorant rabble, won’t you?
CNUT wastrel..

@beachcomber2008 pop psychology is a real hallmark of the so-called enlightenment of your generation, isnt it?

beachcomber writes on YouTube from his fake chemtrail plane ufo fireball orb…  lol

@TrutherD1 “beachcomber writes on YouTube from his fake chemtrail plane ufo fireball orb… lol”
Yes, I do. Read it, watch it. Follow its links… 🙂
UFOs and fireballs I don’t deal with, except that I found “Piece for a Jigsaw” by Leonard G. Cramp to be (and remain) utterly fascinating
If by “fireballs” you mean STABLE PLASMA SPHERES or “ball lightning” then I AM very interested in that
My 2pworth, UFOs appear to be trans-substantial to me, and their physics unknown!
“PROTT” is an old SF story

@beachcomber2008 Ball lightning’s cool but I mean fireball meteor-UFOs, yes I agree made of energy or something… but seemingly intelligent. Check this out full screen and watch 9 of them fall


We should stop fighting and wake up… Thx for refs. @WSG I was only half-joking, I know you’re a skeptic of this stuff, so sorry to challenge your beliefs 😛

@TrutherD1 Oh dear, you made me waste some time
The first (“don’t tell me it’s an aircraft!”) – it’s an aircraft
The second (“note how the orb moves to tail”) – the “orb” is a HIGHLIGHT, and moving down the axis of polished cylinders and cones is EXACTLY what highlights do
ORBS, in these FAILED scenarios, are ALWAYS out-of-focus highlights
My physics teacher wife rates these as “U”
This failure is the stock-in-trade of 2nd Technician Rimmer of Red Dwarf
You know, the HOLOGRAM who killed the crew

@TrutherD1 @TrutherD1 oh rofl his response says it all. hahaha

remember the 5th of November

Hi guys. Hi beachcomber. *glare* 😛 As you were. In-sky’d job.

having watched this we can now see clearly how poor old beachcomer2008 who suffers life altering apophenia is easliy triggered amd ‘programmed’ by the MSM to respond as he does. I believe he actually feels CSI is right on the money here, like so many television addicts he doesn’t have a clue about what’s going on outside, he gets his frivolous opinions from subversive programs such as this. We simply ‘protest’ Geoenigeering & are not terrorists. Giveup TV beachcomer2008 save us your delusion.

@WellSightedGentleman I could not have said this better myself. Please, do not let these TROLLS get the better of you. You are a strong being with so much knowledge. The TROLLS only try to bring you down… I say NAY NAY….. damn them – and please continue telling them off. BRAVO for you… Tell the trolls to read the document I posted -The Regulation of Geoengineering, UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee-Chances are no one will,  far too brain dead from fluoride poisoning.

Hi, usual suspects, talking dirty again
By “dirty”, I mean without a clue as to the science & logic of what you’re talking about, telling lies about people you don’t know, who possess boots you aren’t worthy to lick. THAT sort of “dirty”
The GAP that you see before a trail begins tells you there are NO metals present, for if there were, they’d SHOW in that gap
AFTER the turbine, where you INSIST there is a spray nozzle, the space is? fully occupied by a THRUST REVERSAL SYSTEM
Engines CAN’T SPRAY!

@beachcomber2008 those who have studied enough of the nature of the dispersed particles, and literature, know that to ‘spray’ again, like the term ‘chemtrail’ is also only a common vernacula term that refers directly to the C.E ‘scattered’ particulates that are left in the emission trails(chemtrails) that persist enough to modify the atmospheric environs. Semantics are not enough of a divisive point to turn any who protest the S.A.G in the sky.
So do you like to lick the boots of elitists?

@WellSightedGentleman Aerosols are as old as the Earth
Recent studies show that 86% of airborne aerosols are natural
The remaining man-made ones are made by the power industry, manufacturing industry, travel (mostly road!) and farming
I AM an elitist in your terms
ANYONE who has passed his exams and is properly knowledgeable IS elite
That is what the word “elite” MEANS
I point that out to as a guide to a better way of life than the one you presently follow
So lick my, er, SANDALS, ignorant fuck!

@beachcomber2008 anyone who passes their exams, rofl, you really are ignorant.
so who do i lie about to whom thou are so worthy as to not lick their shoes, as you do?
Who are these ‘graduates’, that you think compose the elite in your small little world that i allegedly lie about?
Calling everyone CNUTS who do not accept your rubbish excuse for sound information sources, says everything about the caliber and quality of your education and frankly you fail. It speaks for itself. u disappointment

@WellSightedGentleman Not as disappointing as you, I think, who have no legitimate excuse for your behavior, calling science “rubbish” and believing that EDUCATED people are PROGRAMMED people
Your sorry campaign is a REACTIONARY effort against established science, and has NOTHING to replace it with except your own sorry ass
It only exists as a vehicle for your self-promotion
Your “newspeak” is something George Orwell never envisaged and would be horrified by
WSG = Mr. Magoo and as blind as a bat

@beachcomber2008 legitimate excuse, well we cant count on you to protect the marginalised innocent victems of the SAG can we?
you defend elitists who sponsor the S.A.G
But i support the position of holding those who scatter pollutants on purpose, 2 be held accountable now and into the future for what they’re doing. No regulation of climate engineering, an all out Bann is required, this is good enough “excuse” for publishing video evidence of what the british royal society says must be disclosed

so what
are people breathing? it can’t be too harmful, right?

youtube CSI Reptilians

Denying science is like self-denial
It’s a science-based world, unstably perched upon half-gone oil, where the oil is used to produce our food, not just get us about, and the world itself is hotting up
As the oil goes west, Africans will have the pleasure of watching us begin to look like they do, we’ll shrink in size and develop stick limbs and pot bellies, while the East will be entirely unaffected, and look on with horror
Science is the knowledge of the natural world
Reject it – and die

looking at the ratings, 72 thumbs ups, 2 thumbs down, those two would be beachcomer2008 and his sockpuppet which he uses to support his deluded paranoid notions.

waky waky, sheeples

Darn … if only one of this professor’s ‘conspiracy theories’ listed had been “propaganda placed in the mass media and television programs to control citizens thinking”, people may have clued in – well at least for a few minutes before the McDonald’s ads made them hungry.
however, there is always the rare chance that some people in media want to at least interject certain ideas into the mainstream. So they put them into shows but they labelled as wacky – but still, they are then planted into the public where they may cause more discussion.

@zetetic0void It’s just a dumb script where some scriptwriter (who wanted to get paid) managed to squeeze the topic in for a few seconds
A small opportunity to kick someone who cannot strike back – a popular sport
The fact that in this case it was someone WORTH kicking is completely accidental
If you believe otherwise, well, you WOULD, wouldn’t you?
You already believe a “military”-like campaign to control the weather is under way
All you needed was jet contrails and a stubborn denial of science

Amazing work, keep exposing more of this type of placement!

Wow those writers for that show are aware of the truth and evil

ohlol, soo hence being pro-american, means to accept things like chemtrails, tsunami bombs, and water flouridation. More than enough tests, conclusivly proving the S.A.G material is in our environment in abundance now, have been compiled, that talking point, like aluminium in drinking water, is moot. As for setting off explosives to cause tsunamis probably, its not an idea i have espouse. GreaT example of contempory newspeak.

There is an alternative to either “newspeak” or your SLUSHTHINK
If there were just an inkling of science in your bones you would KNOW that what you espouse reduces to nothing more than a bundle of pseudo-science, assumptions, misguided correlations and unqualified and uneducated personal testimony
Furthermore, they too frequently reduce to LIES and OUTRIGHT FRAUD. Shall I reel off three of them right now?
Some of you are ignorant, some malevolent, but ALL are despicable

Trying to control the sheeple again lol Hey x always marks the spot got loads of them 🙂

I almost flipped when I saw this. I liked CSI NY but I don’t think I will be watching it.

‘Head games’ at its most pernicious ! Great catch…TV sucks. 5’s

Yes, watch out for this propaganda and also watch out for Alex Jones. Anyone who tells you that it’s not at least partly a sunblock program is misleading you. People like AJ have an ideology that doesn’t allow for certain possibilities like global warming. AJ will do so much to discredit those who are interested in the truth with his endless speculation stated as fact.

@PURVASHADASTAR Andrew Johnson or Alex Jones? Both, actually
Believe it or not, scientists are ALSO interested in TRUTH
They don’t BELIEVE in science because it is a system of non-belief
A “LEAP” of faith is SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED in science
Modern Science is MATHEMATICALLY based, generates HARD numbers, makes TRUE predictions, and is INFINITELY closer to reality than your endless & pseudoscientific speculation, also stated as fact
You are EXACTLY what you accuse others of being
Apophenia again.

@beachcomber2008 seeing as that you, are accusing everyone else of apophenia, it seems clear to us that it is in fact you who have that dreaded diseased condition. again, we are nothing but peaceful protestors of excessive pollution, we get used to disturbed accusatory character attacks such as you do..
realise you are really quite ethically corrupt
so how many people now have you accused of your own illness you poor sod?
we know
scientism is your religion,
when will you wakeup to that fact?

Not ODD, but a VICTIM
A victim of APOPHENIA, an obsessive disorder where the victim preserves an antisocial midset by IGNORING the reasons which don’t agree with his mindset
It sounds innocuous, but leads to behavior which damages all that person’s social relationships and may go on to damage others.
“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” – Voltaire
It is absurd to assign meaning to Xing trails when 87,000 flights cross US skies EVERY DAY

@beachcomber2008 you propogate the same deluded alarmism as those who have produced this program. You lie about persistent contrails from the fifties and you know i know it! your wordpress dosuments are propogandist folly
You think you’re some kind of genius, what, as climate engineer?
or will you lie about that too?
One lie begets another and you’re not capable of telling the truth.
you’re a charlatan.

@WellSightedGentleman No, spit it out, get to the point….:)
Personally I DETEST CSI. I have just stopped the audio so as not to hear it
I think it’s vile and glib and I detest the altered color values too
The program is as natural as its color is. A grisly reverie of the American Dream with a set of values taken straight out of the first series of Star Trek
I think anyone who follows it to be defective in their scientific understanding, or just plain defective
What do YOU think?

Love it! propaganda on HIGH! he actually used “anti-American” and all those valid concerns in the same sentence. …This dude has no scruples to take part in this show with issues painted in such a way, none of these actors do in my opinion. Sold!


Persistent contrails are typically made of THIRTY-FIVE POUNDS OF ICE CRYSTALS PER YARD OF FORWARD FLIGHT, seeded? with microimpurities so dilute that if these crystals were melted they would easily pass a test for fresh water
That is what is found when scientists survey them. These surveys have been repeated EVERY DECADE since the fifties
Authorities will ALWAYS DENY doing something they haven’t actually done
Apophenics cannot handle this. Are YOU one?

What is the soundtrack??

Well caught…  Definitely something going on here…
The actors should be ashamed of themselves..   But they wont…

WOW! Water Flouridation: Is used in most U.S. Cities and that is an Indisputable fact. U.S. Patents can confirm that chemtrails have been used since Vietnam, hell, there’s even? a documentary on the affects of this method of cloud seeding. Tsunami Bombs? Haven’t heard that one. I doubt it exists. This is clearly “Propaganda Placement,” which is also documented. The fact that people call this conspiracy, is merely because they are ignorant. Not stupid, just ignorant.

@Pepsifx357 People who KNOW ANYTHING about fluoridation can SPELL the word
Patents confirm nothing
There’s a patent for a hotel on the Moon – why don’t you visit it?
Scotty can beam you there…
The collapse triggering energy to start a tsunami requires access to a position of maximum strain energy five to ten miles down? through solid rock
Scotty can place you there too…
Now, BACK TO REALITY – why don’t you WIKI “apophenia” and check out whether you’re not just ignorant, but mentally ill?

@beachcomber2008 Alright then,? all Tsunami crap that doesn’t exist aside, you tell me why over the past 20 years, airplanes have gone from short 1/4 mile long contrails, to long plumes that create clouds? Or why water FLUORIDATION is on a list on T.V. like it is some conspiracy theory?

@Pepsifx357 Since they started making large pressure cabins for airplanes, air travel has increased FIFTYFOLD, OR 5,000 %
As a child I saw persistent trails in the midfifties
Now there are FIFTY times more of them
As they all tend to fly through the same patch of air, releasing water, then they are also making the sky locally WETTER
Those plumes ARE clouds
But WETNESS is what the trails respond to, and are made of
At 35,000 feet & -40 degrees all “wetness” is ICE or VAPOR

@beachcomber2008 you deny the fact of aerosol pollution, advertant or not. the trails filmed throughout the internet are not occuring above 30,000 ft, rather they’re being emitted at the same height if not lower than general cloud height which is what?

@WellSightedGentleman Let’s assume your eyes ARE good, for a moment
How good is your sense of perspective?
You know that parallel lines converge to a single vanishing point?
You know that a 7 miles high trail CROSSES? THE HORIZON when it is TWO HUNDRED MILES AWAY?
You know trails GROW, SPREAD, and FALL two miles vertically downward before they evaporate beneath the tropopause?
You know that when they do so they are around FOUR MILES UP?
Aerosols in Earth’s air comprise 86% natural, 14% anthropic


Watch and pause on that time. Then tell me if you actually believe that 5 or more “passenger planes” all flew out that way only to turn back after realizing they had forgot to bring In-flight snacks, or if there may be something else going on.

Thank you Very well put together and pointing out a very disturbing fact about the media downmplaying our reality of CHEMTRAILS and that their are in the action to “condition” the public’s perception of this reality
great clip

The oil spill, created for many reasons. One in particular mentioned that I happen to agree with is that it not only controls the food supply but it also allows chemtrails to be sprayed without protests. The entire southeast will have to be evacuated within the next 3 to 6 months to the disaster relocation centers in Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri New York and Pennsylvania…  The influx of detainees will further strain the resources of the states and

“then those nice young men in their nice white suits came to take you away…
Away to the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time..”
It was in the UK hit records once
You can’t catch ME out

@beachcomber2008 haha, I remember that song – we had this record of weird songs as a kid – Shaving Cream, Transfusion, The Streak..etc

@beachcomber2008 and you think there aint slush between your ears?
you’re a joke.
chemtrails conspiracy is aa overt media subterfuge program to sheild stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Beachcopmer2008 like to think he drive the talking points, but he doesnt live under geoengineered skies. That why he has NEVER been able to demonstrate anything- to refute visual emperical evidence.

@WellSightedGentleman, must be a good vid if beachcomber2008 showed up! i wonder who faithinscience is now? ask beachcomber2008 for me why i see CONtrails daily now when i can see the blue skies when five years ago i would have to wait a week or 2 to see a “persistant contrail”! p.s. if he tells u something about increased jet travel just google: shrinking airlines to find the truth! BOOM BANG BOOM, eyes to the ground cause the show’s in the skies, right beachcomber?

@ar5281ar Haha. I just Googled “growing airlines” and what did I find? LOL
If you insist on disregarding true data, such as the easily-obtainable year-on-year air passenger travel statistics, and published science papers on the progressional development of aircraft contrails into cirrus clouds, then so be it, there’s nothing that can be done for you
It is YOU who is using FEAR as a way of suppressing reason, not I
It is YOU that holds to a belief which has no evidence to support it

@beachcomber2008 sounds like you’re getting hysterical, again. Please see a doctor.

@beachcomber2008 the great chemtrail debunker that is inspired by a failed magician that admits everything he has done in his life is to decieve people: James Randi! BOOOOM BANG BOOM, eyes to the ground because the real trick is in the sky isn’t it? what’s funny is all people have to do is observe daily to see the truth & your irelevant words. p.s. try some polarized sunglasses, they are a must!

@ar5281ar Way to quotemine. Be honest about the purpose of that quote. Randi says it to state the obvious – in other words the things magicians do on stage are illusions. Your framing of the quote shows dishonesty.

Sit down & be a good American. Drink your daily fluoride, Breath in your daily barium/aluminum fortified with morgellons fibers. remember fiber is good for You.
And make sure You are getting the recommended daily allowance of TV bullshit like CSI,  It keeps You in the matrix. Dont ever think out of the box that would be “Anti-American”. & lastly do the obama pledge & be a servant slave, It’s what You need to be a good American.

Well done – and I couldn’t agree with you more! Turn of the brainwashing machine aka television. I have posted a video response, and for those that still think chemtrails don’t exist, perhaps the document in this video will help them decide. It’s titled “The Regulation of Geoengineering”. The summary on page 3 admits outright that they have been spraying us, although on a small scale. My question is what do they call a large scale. They are looking at UN to monitor this project globally.

I donno what CSI is and I dont give a damn about that filthy TV all together, they make me sick to look at their ugly faces but the CSI eats shi*!
the bastards days are numbered.
all of them, from their bosses the dirty cheap pirates turn 2 bank robbers, down to their boot licking lowlife vultures… all of them,
the new world disorder bastards are going to be in bottom of hell soon.

Good job…
Perhaps someday we may actually reach through the fog that has been placed around many…  and have them actually see the reality that we live in…  not the false one that has been created to control us..
Then again…  perhaps…  we are the few…  that will forever see…  while the rest remain blind.
All we can do is try…  Thanks for making this…  Keep up the good fight!

you are being sprayed with massive amounts of fascist poison
they are spraying AGAIN today massively…just look up!
you are being sprayed with massive amounts of fascist poison

Damn those anti-florid terrorist! Everyone knows the US government cares about our teeth.

This is happening world wide by these sick cowards.
We need to find and prosecute these criminals.

Chemtrails are serious anti-life assaults on everything they infiltrate — which is US and our FOOD CHAIN. Chemtrails are making organic gardening/farming impossible… and setting the stage for ONLY GMO FOOD (corporate-controlled and sold… and NON-seeding for the future; you HAVE to BUY from them) This is as serious as it gets people.
Thank you for posting this CSI clip – what a crock.

google – “Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts”

@UncleHempy Exactly!

“owning the weather in 2025” — google search for air force 2025

LOL… water flouridation is not a conspiracy theory, it’s completely admitted! Great job on this one, keep fightin the good fight.

@Sinpup79 Yeah, but your “Anti-American” and probably also an “Anti-Semite” if you don’t like the fact that this shit is put in your water supply… It is a drug, and it is put in your water supply, and you are Anti-American because you know this and don’t like it. It’s almost demoralizing to realize that they put this shit out there because the figure most of these monkeys walking around with fluoridated nervous systems don’t really even give a shit. Hilarious.

@wenaolong I am by no means anti-american, I am anti NWO, and that is not even to say that I don’t believe we should have a new world order, it is only to say that the NWO is being run by the same people who ran the old one… and where I live there is not flouride in my water supply. Neways, thanks for judging me based a short statment of fact that you tend to agree with…. weirdo 😛

@Sinpup79 As to the NWO position, I hold an identical one as far as that goes. It isn’t the newness that’s the problem, it’s the oldness of the “new” world order that is the problem. As to the fluoride, it’s in most places, especially MAJOR CITIES, where its effects are most important for control/disease infliction purposes. I didn’t judge you, the statements I made referred to a general condition of persons at this time, not directed at you. I’m weirder than you can imagine, in a good way.
Good luck, by the way. Make good choices and get good results, whatever those may be for you. I know I am doing so and will continue to. In your situation, whatever it may be, don’t waste your time fighting unwinnable wars, and you’ll be fine. In my case, I’ve already won, since I don’t unduly fear death, and I lust after joy. When you are motivated by fear, you’ve lost. Only when you are motivated by joy, is there anything worth winning. Peace in.

US Patent # 5,003,186 should convince all but those who choose to “see no evil” that chemtrails are a real phenomenon.

@whole2th Score one for U.S. Patents! They’ve been using chemtrails since Vietnam.

@whole2th Hughes Aircraft Patent # 5,003,186. Weather modification, chemtrails. Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming. A method is described for reducing atmospheric or global warming resulting from the presence of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

@Spright0 20080270152 Patent Trolling Application – by Halliburton
Yes – this Application, by a Halliburton Patent Attorney, seeks a Patent for “Patent Acquisition and Assertion by a (Non-Inventor) First Party Against a Second Party”.
So troll away
You’re on borrowed time

@beachcomber2008 how dare you call me names old man

@Spright0 Are you a CNUT? All you need do is learn to understand what science is. Then there’s NO possibility of your remaining a CNUT
I mean, it’s a bit CNUTTY to believe you can spray biological material through a high-pressure flame at 2,400 degrees F and expect it to survive
They don’t believe this in hospitals
And metals in flames MAKE COLORS – is the Firework Industry wrong?
And billions of tons of these metals have been “sprayed”
But they’re NEVER found in air samplers?
“CNUTS” rings true

@beachcomber2008 this isn’t going no where have you missed one of your tv shows today? why you picking an argument with everyone all souls have their own beliefs you aint nobody to tell us what to believe in i say fuck it we all are breathing it in watch the animatrix old one and you’ll see chemtrails in there you a pro american thats your belief i dont care i don’t know you but when the time comes you’ll regret everything right now your living you life as lie gizzer

@Spright0 U izz de lie gizzer, & I argue with CNUTTINESS. I wouldn’t piss on a CNUT if his pants were on fire, and as they always lie, their pants are always burnin’, burnin’
Beliefs are held without evidence. That’s what a belief is – something which requires no evidence to support it
I hold to NO belief – only to facts with supporting evidence
Slandering ANYONE without any supporting evidence is a moral and an ethical crime, and also a criminal offence
Stupidity and idleness are NO defense

@beachcomber2008 slandering who?
is your apophenia playing up again?
you may need to see a doctor.

@WellSightedGentleman I see your astroturf account has temporarily depleted itself
Slandering me and other hard-working people
I hope by “tsu specialist” you meant oriental antiques or breeding dogs
because your “aluminum particulates are biological” smear becomes more plausible
Where are these particulates emitted from?
Why aren’t they visible in the trail gap?
How does the finely-divided biological material survive the 2,400 deg F flame?
If you cannot show HOW they are delivered
Do they EXIST?

@beachcomber2008 you’re the fool whose stating that biological agents are being dispersed – though there are patents to freeze dry biological agents into nano particles – this is not what im stating.  you smear yourself saying so, ive stated over and again that theyre scattering what they say they are, alumina Al2So3.
A TSU specialist works in an operating theater, we eliminate biological agents, creating an aseptic environment.
Along your track of thought seems you deny agent orange chemtrails also.
heh aluminium isnt a biological agent, just like you’re not a scientist. But i dont really need to point this out, its obvious
But then you are speaking for your very nieve view of established science, really you’re a fail,  just look at the above statement you’ve made, and you want to be perceived as credible?
the idea they’ve never found air sample is contrary to the truth, just like your silly assumptions that aluminium particulates are biological.
i was a tsu specialist.
@Spright0 nah they got a new dingbat on his account, or that ‘old codger’ is just having a meltdown.
probably the later, except that he’s adopting all of faithinsciences abusive tendancies and aggresive attitude. Seen it all before, these guys from ‘contrailscience’ have no argument whatsoever, though they continue to try shamelessly in the face of sound argument they cannot rebuke, good luck to them. I feel sorry for anyone who is uncritically sucked into their illusion.

@WellSightedGentleman copy that

Remember, CSI is only a fictitious show dealing with make believe crimes and make believe characters designed to disinform, distract , and steal our time away from discussing important matters such as why we are being bombarded everyday with chemical aerosol spraying and why do our governments allow poisons to be dumped in our drinking water?
As for fluoride being mentioned on the list of conspiracies, yes fluoride is a poison. Yeah lets put it in our drinking water eh? What a great idea and it must be good for your teeth too eh? Yeah it must be but who made that discovery, are you sure its good for you? Someone must have won a Nobel Prize for making this discovery? Where are the clinical studies and papers supporting this claim? The answer is…nowhere. A lot of countries have woken up to this blatant lie.
Are we really that stupid to keep falling for such blatant propaganda? Well, not all of us. I love the way they described how idiotic it is to mistake contrails for chemtrails when (because there is such a major and obvious difference between the two) it is technically impossible to get them confused! STEVEDIGIBOYtv may be spot on. Its bound to scare the crap out of any credible person daring to mention this controversial man made phenomenon and the stupidity of it.
I cant believe how desperate the authorities must be about keeping this criminal activity quiet! To use hollywood stooges (actors) to suck us into no longer believing what our own eyes see in the sky reeks of desperation. drmatt357 you would be surprised what goes on behind your back and the audacity of what our governments get up to.

I don’t know if I believe the chemtrail thing. Why can’t someone just capture some of this “trail” and analyze the contents. That would be easy and put an end to the discussion. I can’t believe that they’re crop dusting us without anyone checking these clouds. George Lopez can’t bang some broad without the entire world finding out but they can dust entire cities? I’m suspicious!

@drmatt357 it has been analyzed by news channel 4 look up chemtrails in the news. it contains aluminum, barium, arsenic and other chemicals.

@drmatt357 the elite want people to be distracted with unimportant issues like George Lopez banging some ho so they don’t focus on important issues that matter….Keep us focusing focusing on these dumb fucking celebrities instead of really serious issues.

@drmatt357 Hello friend the government calls it GEOENGINEERING, they admit it now. So there is no reason to believe anything. Go to COuncil on Foreign Relations website and search: GEOENGINEERING and watch the entire conference on it. Just because it’s not on cnn or fox doesn’t mean it’s real. WAKE UP your reality has been distorted by the controlled media.

@drmatt357 Yes, chemtrails have been declassified and confirmed. Everyone said ppl that believed in chemtrails were CRAZY, LOONS, and PARANOID NUTS! They’ve been chemically analyzed, and it’s true, chemtrails have been real this whole time. For all those YEAR AND YEARS everyone called those that knew the truth crazy and now EVEN THE GOVERNMENT THEMSELVES have admitted to spraying barium, titanium, aluminum, and tons of other crap into the air out the back of jets in the name “secret climatology”

@drmatt357 News 4 in Los Angeles did a story about chemtrails in San Bernadino County and they interviewd goverment officials who claimed that the strange substance was actually pollen. The investigator sent the sample to a lab and they discovered among other chemicals Barium. Even more damning to the goverment officials that claimed it was pollen was the fact that no organic material was found by the lab. There were dozens if not more witnesses to this.

@drmatt357 “Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality” – Michael Ellner

It’s been done many times the info is out there, just look!
1st water vapor melts as the jet fly’s over I’m sure you’ve seen it.
Chemtrails do not melt and have been recorded over a 100 miles? long I’m sure you’ve seen that too.
There is a difference Oh and I see a video link to right of screen I’m sure you see that as well.
Wake up ! how long can this ignorance continue on so many levels

@readmuch How did I miss you?
“1st water vapor melts” STEAM IS “water vapor”. When it exhausts it cools from 1100 to -40 deg C and FREEZES to very fine ice crystals and microspherules of water
If the air has a high and competing water vapor pressure then CRYSTALS they will remain at such a temperature – or in your pseudoscience gibberish
“Chemtrails do not melt”
“Wake up ! how long can this ignorance continue on so many levels”
I agree, but for different reasons
Our search techniques differ, too

I don’t know probably when they were passing out BRAINS you chose EGO. I’ve watched this crap going on for over 10 years and listened to rhetoric such as yours as well. Your words mean nothing when common sense is all it takes to know the subject matter at hand. There is plenty of proof to show that your explaination is full of holes so don’t waste my time with your BS. Massage your intelligence with those who are not aware, there are plenty to choose from.

@readmuch Sadly for you, the “rhetoric” is SCIENCE

Same to you, for ignoring the SCIENCE that prove’s the falsehoods of your beliefs.
A cup 1/2 full seems to be a better way to look at things for me as I discover so many lies perpetuated and propagadized through avenues of deciet, so many believe in as it is I have no interest in educating anyone when multitudes of info is available to us all.
Taking advantage is a choice – or not!

@readmuch You guys exhibit the very behavior you accuse others of, and give yourselves a name the exact opposite of what you are
Also you can’t spell, and write with single figure ages and IQs
You in particular DON’T read much, which is why you call yourself READMUCH
Telling lies comes easy to you too, which probably explains why you cannot spot them either as you “seek” the “truth”
“All that glisters is not gold” Have fun with the iron pyrites, it’s for you
proves, propagandized, deceit – 😦

Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of them all.
You love to point the finger LOL what a waist of my time you are!
Good God 🙂 look at the time you have spent with so many others throwing out slanderous comments. WOW, how sad.
This started from your attack, prostituting your ideals of BS looking for attention suffering from mad blindness/reason, I’m sorry but you must be very lonely.
I’ve read plenty you clearly have not.
Be sure and proof read my spelling LOL

@readmuch NO
YOU started the attack
An attack on TRUTH
An attack on professional people in a professional industry
An attack designed to boost your self-image and self-esteem
An attack you believe to be without risk to yourself
How hypocritical
LIFE is a zero-sum game
When you take away HONESTY
Then a DISHONEST life will be your reward
and a death with DISHONOR will be its close

@beachcomber2008 yeah right, a ‘secret’ professional industry that maintains gagg orders to protect the public from the obvious public health risk aerosol dispersal imposes.
So you are resorting to threatening people now, how ‘professional’
Arguing with you is a condescension on our part.
You wants some truth dewd:
You’ll be licking the filthy feet of plutocrats for the rest of you existence.
threatening people, how civil, perhaps you hook up the trailer and hit the road pal.
abuse deserve ban

@WellSightedGentleman I need do nothing – it is your own behavior which threatens you
Life is important to each of us, for we only get one shot at it
Ignorance of what you do will NOT serve as a defense, and
responsibility for what you do, you will be unable to evade
You have NEVER stated HOW alumina gets “sprayed” by engines
because you DON’T KNOW. Nor does anyone! How is it done?
Tell this gas turbine expert how it’s done, bozo
“Somehow” doesn’t cut it
Nor does changing the subject to ORANGE

@beachcomber2008 so im lying about the gas turbine industrialists am i?
As is MSM reports, publications from the UK House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee – the royal society declares disclosure!
Scroll down and see i already stated that particulates, dry, need not be sprayed, rather scattered. The ‘somehow’ is fairly straight forward with a little know-how. As an engineer, i thought you’d have a greater insight into the possibilities of inovation, but clearly you only echo mainstream

@WellSightedGentleman Of course, I see it now, SCATTERED, not SPRAYED
then like Kevin,”it only proves you to be a little ODD”
Do you suppose that fanjets look that way because they’ve a
little team of Irish navvies shovelling nano-aluminum out of the back?
They must be shovelling out all the time – it could be that when they get tired
THAT’s when you get a gap in the trail
Scatter, eh, and that scattering creates the persistent trails, does it?

@beachcomber2008 well if you had’nt spent all your time on the ytube trying to attack individuals for sharing this information but had read only ONE of the published documents that details the activities of the S.A.G ops you may not look so ignorant now. Of course you are not a conspiracy theorist, but you allegations are misplaced, why terrorise us – we only inform.
You are not very creative for an engineer, but i? guess most of you are just glorified maintanece men, only the few actually invent

your delusional everything you say is directed right back at you the true hipocrite, it’s laughable so blow it out your ass moron.
It’s amazing that only those you believe to be professional are! LOL stop it quit waisting my time your almost freaky.
I never welcomed your OPINION and never asked for it, so GO AWAY – LOL
Thank you 4 your example of lunacy and how much more I will reject democratic ideology of shove it down your throat. F O

@readmuch I am here to say that this grim TV series is accidentally CORRECT when it says you are “conspiracy theorists”
But that is to give you all FAR too much credit
Your “strategy” is to pitch an argument with a slight technical advance on what you believe the public thinks, and then call ANY expert you confront an agent of the conspiracy itself
I get it, we ALL understand it
In fact you will adopt ANY action which produces “greater results”, won’t you?
And THAT behavior of yours PWNS you

@beachcomber2008 all the information reiterated thoughout these videos is published through the MSM and official publications from those seeking to regulate and control the current S.A.G operations, not a ramshakled one off websites that invent their own apologetics for the immense atmospheric destruction created by the aviation industry. You can publish anything on wordpress, doesnt make it established, just as anyone can create an anonymous website and propogate anything they like

“You can publish anything on WP”
Yes, indeed. And for NOTHING, to boot
“immense atmospheric destruction created by the aviation industry” is an assertion which isn’t borne out by ANY EVIDENCE, fortunately for the rest of us
I invite any1 curious to use the relevant search words and ADVANCED SEARCH & “-chemtrail -spray -aerosol -nwo -conspiracy” to filter out CNUT crap and leave you with meaningful & serious science research info
IF I were just a normal guy I’d use WP.. 🙂

@beachcomber2008 …as you claim to be an expert in jet engines, perhaps you can be useful and share with us the nature of the jet fuel Stadis 450, maybe you could explain why it isnt sold anywhere else than in the US? maybe discuss the ‘trade-secret’ compounds within it?
Yes people need to become aware of the terrible pollution that the aviation idustry is creating, that industry is one of the most unregulated in the world.
Airlines, unlike us ‘normal’ folk dont pay tax on the fuel they use

Stadis 450?
If you weren’t a moron you’d see that Stadis stands for
STAtic DIScharge” and is a clever way of rendering the fuel electrically-conductive and therefore unable to develop high voltages and sparking across pump nozzles on hot dry airport aprons
Unfortunately for you (again!) it’s a SAFETY FEATURE obviously used by the elite to make sure they don’t die, and really useful to Americans, especially in the desert belts of the US
Incidentally useful to the rest of us

@beachcomber2008 so you dont know what they put in it then…
some expert

@WellSightedGentleman Whatever the organic compound is, it has the ability to conduct electrons down its length. Colloidal graphite would work, for instance. As it has to pass through the engine it should combust to GAS and not to SOLIDS. It’s not important to me, 4 it is a TRACE compound used in small quantities, Redex is similar in gasoline. I’m no expert on that either. 🙂
I believe we’re ALL sufficiently expert to know that “Stadis” is a timewaster for you
so find something else, Eccles

Wow! It is incredible to see people of your caliber take advantage of the freedoms of speech to perpetuate lies created by the same people who created the word conspiracy theorist in the 1st place. Your agenda can only be to keep others as ignorant as possible to be sure and walk your walk. (Hitler comes to mind but only from the official story you bank your life on and that’s another issue.) Gotta love manipulation and you ware it well. To understand that, is very challenging
This video must have extreme truth to it for you to want to gain so much attention on it with so many others. I suppose they could take it down which I have seen them do many X’s with other videos but from a different view it would be better to allow this BS to go on in hopes it is not given a chance for others to know of the corruption going on right over our heads. Most are to ignorant to want to know, those of us whom have come out of the box are a great threat to the establishment.
Whether you’re a part of the problem of officialdom through Illuminate or secrete societies to better their interests, I don’t really give a damn. I would only hope that one day you might pay a heavy price for helping to ruin the lives of millions and mother nature/earth herself.
If you want to ignore the truth as the writers of this program have while bringing the issue to the forefront. Then you are a disgrace to all of humanity.
I will not believe you are to stupid to know.

@drmatt357 They have, of course
Several times since the 1950s
jazzroc.wordpress.com “A SINGLE LONG-RANGE FLIGHT AND AN OCEAN LINER!” links to a paper where ground- and satellite-based LIDAR was used to provide physical and chemical analysis of specific identified PERSISTENT trails left by commercial passenger aviation schedule flights. It found the trails to comprise THIRTY-FIVE POUNDS OF ICE CRYSTALS PER YARD OF FORWARD FLIGHT, seeded with microimpurities so dilute as to pass for fresh water

@drmatt357 there have been people who have had its contents analyzed. i have a video of a local news channel who reports their findings on it. ima post it when i find it

@drmatt357 Scientists did, back in ’53
& then again & again up to the present
After they did this they ALWAYS wrote a paper about it too
The thing is, CNUTS cannot find these papers because they DO NOT WISH to find them, & LACK THE WIT to find them
Scientists, being normal, don’t
SO you use ADVANCED SEARCH and the EXCLUDE words facility, into which you stuff all those “chemtrailer” DIRTY words
And Robert is your father’s brother

Black is white, up is down, now wash your prozac down with your beer and vote for your favorite idol.

As well as branding the term chemtrails (not geoengineering) in this episode for average peeps think of the fear it puts in professionals thinking of going public or even discussing it. That may be the ultimate purpose,

@STEVEDIGIBOYtv Whenever you look for confirmation of a theory that you hold yet ignore, or fail to find, DISCONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE, then you proceed down a path of foolishness and pseudoscience. NO professional thinker, be he an architect, engineer, biologist, chemist, physicist or mathematician would EVER make such a serious mistake. It’s a scientific world we live in, and its collapse beneath the crushing weight of scientific ignorance and antiscience which you profess would certainly kill you

More propaganda…  we know the truth ass holes.

G’day from Melbourne Australia. The media are doing the same downunder.. every reality show you see or advertising that has sky in the background is mostly full of chemclouds but they never mention them. Even our radio stations bring out the spin doctors when concerned citizens ring them reporting horizon to horizon chemtrails. Good luck to you all trying to alert media or authorities!

If this isn’t the most obvious brainwashing, …. wow hahahah maybe some sheeple will look into it… nahh.

Great video and nice exsample how they programe people

Thanks for posting this vid. Wow, first time that I’ve heard the word Chemtrail on TV and main stream too.

Glad I do not have cable, glad you made this great clip!

Wow, and they even got some Apple product placement in with the iTampon, I mean iPad…. today Van was HAMMERED with chemy’s… it would have been an AWESOME day had it not been dumped on …sigh

OMG – yeah you fully right !!!


with 2 comments

Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…


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

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.

Inductive Fallacies

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.

Causal Fallacies

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.

Category Errors

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.

Non Sequitur

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.

•Ad Hominem
•Appeal to Authority
•Appeal to History
•Appeal to Popularity
•Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
•Correlation not Causation
•Restricting the Options
•Slippery Slope
•Straw Man
•Tu Quoque
•Weak Analogy

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):

Biased Sample
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.

Insufficient 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.

Unrepresentative Data
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
“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
“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
“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.”

Weak Analogy
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.

Slippery Slope
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.




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.


“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.



“S-I-C-K ! !”  “D-U-D-E ! !” 🙂





“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!



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 https://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…


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 )

I am looking forward to seeing this documentary and informing other people about it as well. I think it’s fantastic! Well done to the makers. 🙂

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
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

Comment removed

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
Your ignorance…


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
whistle, whistle

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.

@EnergySupply2008 Hey, that’s good.
Did you find any tubing?

I am not in the market for tungsten tubing right now. When I need some I will look up suppliers.

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.

Chemtard.. I like that. Its new… Its fresh.

@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?
Divine intervention?

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

“Tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines”
Obviously they would install nozzles that can withstand the temperature.

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

@beachcomber2008 If you talk out of your ass too much, you make start to shit out of your mouth!

@stephenbowman311 Hey, I like your thought process (tourrettish, like mine)
Is it like your spelling?

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”
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?

Excellent trailer…subbed!

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

Posted in atmosphere, Aviation, contrails, science, Truth, Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,