JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘direction


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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


with 3 comments



Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…
This is not my Introduction Page. If you want my “STOP PRESS” and access to ALL updated features of this site you should SAVE my Introduction Page to your Favorites.


“Every page to discredit the obvious” – Have you noticed that SCIENCE is the study of the “obvious”?
After all, the Sun OBVIOUSLY goes round the Earth, doesn’t it? No? Why not? Because scientists say it doesn’t. You believe them? Why?
You obviously don’t believe scientists who say that persistent contrails are natural – here.


“I wouldn’t trust contrailscience as I don’t know source of webpage” – Hypocrite. You seem to trust anyone else… (unless they are a scientist.)
“Even if the trails were contrails” – THEY ARE.
“passenger planes wouldn’t fly so close together and crisscross each other” – They may LOOK CLOSE from SEVEN MILES AWAY, but THEY ARE NOT. If you look at the tens of thousands of daily US flights, they cross hundreds of thousands of times.
“These are not passenger planes” – THEY ARE. ALL the planes in CLOSE-UP on these videos have been.
“massive amount of anti-conspiracy theory commentry that’s been posted in the last few months” – DOING MY BEST…
“they have people” – THEY DON’T HAVE ME – myspace.com/jazzroc
“trying to re-assure the public” – UNDOING THE WORK OF LIARS.
“It’s their new propaganda trick” – I know WHO I am and WHAT YOU ARE (SEE ABOVE).
“Planes flying all directions no apparent reason” – close to an airport, or at a beacon intersection…
“We know where airports are & where commuter jets are headed” – AND the prevailing stratospheric wind direction?
“JETS DON’T TURN AT 30,000 FT/already ON COURSE” – THEY DO at beacons, THEY DO in holding patterns. They are routed down “corridors” and must turn when they enter or leave them.
“Dude, we’re watching them” – But NOT UNDERSTANDING THEM.
“BS you are spewing worth it?” – Once again, established well-known sixty-years-old ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE is described as BULLSHIT by an ignorant fool.
Yogurt and berries
“no, you’re wrong” – oh, YEAH. 😀
“round all the chemtrail videos” – I WISH. 😦
“don’t want us to believe we are being poisoned THAT BAD?” – NO. I HATE PEOPLE MAKING A LIVING BY LIES. Belief in such LIES makes you WEAK, and susceptible to ANY REAL DANGER.  😦
“Good Samaritan?” – Compared with YOGHURTS who’ve never read a Physics textbook in their lifetime, YES!  🙂


Now you’ve got to the end of my blog, and especially if you haven’t read through it from the beginning (sort of proving you ARE a yogurt), then perhaps it’s time for you to begin at the beginning – at the INTRODUCTION.

There you will find my STOP PRESS which points you to each new article as it arrives in my blog.

Aircraft take-off from Tenerife Sur in Kalima - photo by JazzRoc

YouTube 1

A moment in time…

I can’t find the post I had in my comments box this AM but i will reply to the ridiculous nonsense right here. I’m not “picking on” children. I’m replying to disrespectful brats.
I paid VERY good money for my education and when ANYONE questions what I know to be fact, they are going to get an earful (an eyeful in this case).
“Chemtrails” are nonsense and 12 year old brats are NOT going to get away with calling me “dumb” when they are, in fact, ignorant.
Just like you.

CHEMSPRAY ALERT.  Massive white spray over Pennsylvania!  Check out this video to prove it!

Chemtards do exist, Just type in “apophenia” into google.
Also look up “delusional paranoia”.
You can see that clouds can be formed by planes.  Clouds are made of water, Contrails are made of water.  There is NO DIFFERENCE in content or physics between a cloud and a contrail because as is KNOWN TO SCIENCE, a CONTRAIL IS A CLOUD BY DEFINITION.
Who is stupid now? You!
Right, so a rocket is going to be fired into the high upper atmosphere over 70,000ft and as the lead scientists says, “It’s never been done before”.
That single small rocket doing an unprecedented scientific test, that’s what all these thousands of aircraft trails are every day are they?
Rockets as part of the Care program?  The B17 bomberfleets that caused complete clouding over Europe in the 1940s, They are rockets from CARE ?
You tards can’t reason!
Chemtrails do exist. Just type it in google. Also look up. You can see that the clouds are formed by planes. I’m not kidding!

It’s fact that pilots and scientists do know “chemtrails” exist.
A rocket experiment set to launch Tuesday aims to create artificial clouds at the outermost layers of Earth’s atmosphere.
The project, called the Charged Aerosol Release Experiment (CARE), plans to trigger cloud formation around the rocket’s exhaust particles. The clouds are intended to simulate naturally-occurring phenomena called noctilucent clouds, which are the highest clouds in the atmosphere. Who’s stupid now?
That’s ridiculous! Want to hear something even more outrageous?  Its not us!
And morons who believe that persistent contrails are “chemtrails” claim that they contain poisons with the intent to reduce the world’s population.. ie.. murder.  They claim they are spreading dangerous viruses and diseases like “morgellons” and other ridiculous rubbish.
So you saying you believe that what are in fact water ice contrails are, contrary to all evidence, dangerous “chemtrails” means you are accusing the airline pilots that leave the trails of attempted murder.
Then if you don’t think you know more than pilots and scientists then you are stupid for saying you think chemtrails exist.
Pilots and atmospheric scientists know as a fact there is no such thing as “chemtrails”.  What you are seeing is persistent contrails.. Water ice, ie, fine snow!  The only “chemical” is WATER…
By saying you believe they are chemtrails therefore means you disagree with scientists who know it is water ice crystals.

I want to know the numbers of people who died due to contrail activity…. besides chemtrails are last years news, its chemwakes we have to worry about.

I know. I really do believe in chemtrails. I finally opened my mind and most of all, my EYES.
Chemtrails do exist. Google them.
 Perhaps you kids can run along and talk about kittens on a kiddies forum and leave discussion of atmospheric science to adults.

If you want to understand what you see in the sky, ask your mummies to drive you to the nearest airport and actually talk about contrails to real airline pilots and airline meteorology staff who understand these things, not hicks from rural backwaters who haven’t a clue about the atmosphere.

Morons who accuse pilots of murder are the ones who should be kicked off youtube.

Who are you to talk HenryLoaf? You are to busy talking stupid and mean to kids to talk about the video. Why are you here on this video when you ignore it? Let me know when you grow a brain.

If you are going to try to accuse people of attempted murder than you need evidence to back it up.  You have zero evidence!  You are young and stupid.

I want to know the numbers of people who died due to contrail activity…  besides chemtrails are last years news, it’s chemwakes we have to worry about.

But if FightForYourRights gets kicked off YouTube he will only come back as somebody else. I think he was two new people here on this vid this week. I wonder why he doesn’t tell the person who made this video that they are wrong.

I think they are right.

That could be true but i think youtube can kick them off for good if they are breaking rules.

I’ll tell you what is breaking the rules.  You stupid children defaming innocent airline pilots flying normal airliners saying they are trying to kill with “chemtrails”.  Because you are young and ignorant you have no idea of the physics of what you are seeing in the sky.
Did you know water vapour is invisible?
Did you know clear blue sky can contain more water than cloudy sky. Do you know why the sky is blue?
Do you know what snow is and why it doesn’t instantly disappear?
Contrails = fine snow. What would you know you kid?  You think you know more than all the world’s airline pilots and atmospheric scientists do you?
Because you you are 13 that means you understand atmospheric physics better than professors with multiple degrees that have been studying science for decades?  Is that what you are suggesting?
Why don’t you get a university education in science?  Then you might have a clue what you see in the sky.
Neither Bailey or me said anything about knowing more than pilots and scientists. Stop telling us what we think.
What kind of eduation do you have? If you have all of the degrees you say we should get then you are really old. Maybe that is it. You are old and senile.
Wow, i discovered that clouds are made of water, even though chemtards say that clouds made of water must instantly disappear.
When I learned that contrails are made of water and so can’t possibly stay in the sky, I learned that by the same reasoning clouds that are made of water can’t stay in the sky either.
If contrails can’t stay in the sky, clouds can’t stay in the sky.
How do clouds just get bigger forming over mountains?  Someone sprays them!  Logical isn’t it!
Ok fine I admit it.  Chemtrails are real.  I finally opened my damn eyes and saw what I thought was a contrail, turn into a cloud. It was a chemtrail.

Then later I noticed the entire sky was a hazy white within a half hour.  Chemtrails are real.
I don’t need to know all of that stuff to know a chemtrail when I see it. Do you know every single thing about what makes a car go?  Or do you just drive it?  Nobody is an expert at everything.
Do you know enough about the sun from just looking at it to know what it is?  No.
You need an understanding of science to realise it is many hundreds of times larger than any planet in our solar system and it powered by hydrogen fusion reactions.
“Just looking up” will not tell you morons anything!  Certainly you know nothing of contrails, you retards.
Some of us ARE experts in huge numbers of subjects, unlike chemtards.

HenryLeaf, the only thing you are an expert at is making people laugh.

There is nothing funnier than a moron scared of water like you guys.

You guys are SO ignorant of Atmospheric science you have no idea how funny you are, and how sad.
However I take back what I said before about vaccines.  Please don’t take any vaccines, not one.  Next please jump on a plane, ignore the persistent contrail, it will probably form on the flight, and go visit equatorial Africa and tropical Asia.  Walk in mud, pet animals you find.  greet people…

Awl, go create another retarded user id.

No, why don’t you go chat to fellow retards like your good buddy dbootsthediva?

You guys all do the same hoamskule lernin program?

I am thrilled that you got the vaccine! Too bad it isn’t the same shot that is to be given to dummies.  Still, there might be something in what you got that isn’t so nice. Just in case that is a fact, what kind of funeral flowers do you want? I know, pansies stapled to a photograph of CHEMTRAILS…

That sounds wonderful, the picture I’d like is this one of the British Airways Concorde. Taken from this footage.:

no wait, the trail from this Hercules at ground level

No , wait, the trail from this jetbelt:

Or perhaps these trails that can’t have existed because “spraying” didn’t happen till 1996.


The debate continues…

One side has already slipped in the habit of conforming to its belief set, with non-qualified pseudoscientists having already hammered in a “chain of evidense” which possesses not the slightest integrity, and is always based on untruthful assertions.  Probing this “chain” causes a change of subject. One can unpick every single statement individually, yet it makes not the slightest difference to the belief system of the average chemtard, er, moron, er, “chemtrailer”.

I will COLOR CODE their statements

PURPLE  means “barking mad”.

BLUE  means “science-based”.

GREEN  means “true, putatively, but not in general practice”, in spite of what the CTer insists.

ORANGE  means “inaccurate”.

RED  means “in flagrant contradiction with established science”.


So here’s a little video just for Rosalind Peterson.  You know Rosalind Peterson, the lady who you so revere for her years and years of research. The research that was so thorough she said planes don’t fly loops.  That is a fact she said that but you censor comments that prove how stupid and ignorant Peterson actually is.  Here is the explanation you both are so ignorant about!

The pathetic Darrin McBreen deletes comments that prove his ignorance is total.  He makes factually incorrect comments that displays ignorance of even basic atmospheric science.


American says: Hey Darrin you said “The time expected for contrail dissipation is relatively short, 2 minutes or less. This assumes the contrail is composed essentially of water vapor, per the classic definition”.  Seriously kid, you have had this video up for over a year and you still know FUCK-ALL about the atmosphere?  Water vapour is an INVISIBLE GAS.  You can’t see an INVISIBLE GAS because, gee, DUH Darrin, it’s invisible!  It’s water ICE CRYSTALS, like SNOW that lasts for DAYS, not 2 minutes.


That was a great vid, I wish my friends would wake up.  Thanx.  Stand Waiting…


We can probably engineer Earth’s climate to cool the planet, scientists say, but are we willing to live with the downsides?  Those could include creating more droughts, more ozone holes and, oh yeah, a thin cloud layer that obscures blue skies and gives astronomers fits.  Google search “Willing to give up blue skies for climate fix?” for MSNBC report.  NOAA lists more than fifty current and ongoing weather modification programs being implemented across the United States on a yearly basis. In addition to the programs listed by NOAA, there are private, university, military, and ongoing government sponsored atmospheric testing and heating programs underway in Alaska and across the United States.


Fantastic. The number of those programs that result in long white trails in the sky?  ZERO.  None of those programs have anything to do with persistent spreading contrails.  Do you see “chemtrails” in this 1959 footage?


ppl open ur eyes ffs! they are fucking you from behind!


Hey!  Beachcomber, trails are pure for the average acid popper.  But the molecular structure of these vapors need testing at various levels of dispersment.  The evolution of the consentrations within the trails could maintain integrity throughout their life cycle.  Vlad (The impaler) aka: Dracula, was a very real individual in Romania.  So can we assume there may be some sort of truth behind chemtrails?
Hey!  MediaRival, Well said.



The time expected for contrail dissipation is relatively short, 2 minutes or less.  This assumes the contrail is composed essentially of water vapor, per the classic definition (condensed trail).


Lab results from ground samples taken from 2 parties (Sacramento and Oregon) after flyovers from unmarked aircraft reveal biowarfare bacterias named in over 160 Pentagon patents referencing biowarfare applications, toxic molds, ethylene dibromide (a pesticide banned by the EPA which damages lungs/heart/liver/kidneys).


“Wearing down the immune system”.  At 7:20.  I wonder if this could make a relatively harmless virus, fatal. (H1N1).


One can only wish.  Trails are pure, purer than tapwater.  Every “minerals in water” incident has been botched as with KSLA.  Petersen’s work on groundwater solutes completely ignores the effect of drought on concentration.  In other words this whole subject runs on pseudoscience which takes its script from a fairground hawker.  It RELIES on and FOSTERS ignorance, but WITHERS before facts like Dracula before garlic.  Hence some facts.  It’s worth watching this creepiness wither…


“Contrails composed of water vapor routinely dissipate, as the physics and chemistry demonstrate. As a separate and distinct set of events, clouds may form if temperature, relative humidity, and aerosol conditions are favorable to their development.”  If “contrails” by appearance transform into “clouds”, it can be concluded that the material of composition is not water vapor.


Well said.


Youre looking at TWO atmospheres when you think you’re looking at ONE.  The first is the one you know.  It’s called the troposphere, it’s cyclonic and anti-cyclonic, precipitates rain, snow and ice crystals, unstable, permeated by rising convective columns (cumulus clouds, etc) and becomes progressively colder and more rarefied to five miles high, where it has one fifth of its sea level pressure and can be as cold as -80C.  At this height it is called the tropopause.
You can see this boundary when you watch a cumulonimbus cloud: the TOP of its ANVIL gives you the level of the tropopause. The reason WHY the upward-pouring cumulus slams to a stop at the tropopause is the exact reason why regular long-distance planes fly higher than this, and why also chemtrailers come to their wrong conclusions. The tropopause is a point of change to a completely new set of conditions.
Instead of being warmed from beneath by IR radiation reflected by the land, the thin atmospheric molecules obtain their heating by UV radiation from the sun, and are consequently hotter with increasing height.
This completely stabilizes the air.   Cumuliform activity cannot and does not occur.   Water is held either as suspended ice crystals (cirrus) in the air, or as water vapor dissolved in the air.
This second atmosphere is called the stratosphere, stratum being the Latin for layer.   This smooth stable set of layers float like independent ribbons around a maypole Earth.
Interlayer friction is low, so they can have independent headings and speeds.  The quickest ribbons are known as jet streams.  Wise pilots tend to maximise their interaction by selecting a particularly suitable layer for obtaining the best overland speed and for conserving fuel.
These layers rarely intermix, and thus have their humidity determined by their origin. When I say humid I mean the air of that layer has a certain amount of pure water vapor molecules (H2O) limited only by availability and temperature.  But the most interesting point is that they are ALL invisible.
A box of thin air with water vapor in it is hardly more visible than a vacuum.
If a passenger plane just doing its normal stuff hits an invisible layer in the stratosphere which is supersaturated (an event which occurs for 17% of the time) then the water vapor in the layer that touches the trail will precipitate upon it immediately. The weight of the trail can grow by 10,000 times.  The trail can deepen to a mile and widen to more than five miles. The trail ice falls out of the layer it was formed in. Most evaporates, but some ice will remain as a cirrus cloud.  It wont be like a cirrus cloud, it will BE a cirrus cloud.
The manner of its formation (10,000:1 dilution by PURE water vapor) guarantees that ALL trails you see are purer than your tap water.
It’s atmospheric physics at work.  Go to a technical library and use it to get yourself a real education.


I see your entire YouTube account is dedicated to debunking Chemtrails. I guess we can count on you responding to every comment for the next few weeks. Your argument will be the same one every time – a futile attempt to explain away this phenomenon as an Orwellian cloud of water vapor.   Ignorance is Strength, right?  Did you have links to the WWII footage ready?  And don’t forget to tell us how educated you are while ignoring the qualifications of our researchers. Here we go again.


Are you going to just look the other way and ignore this issue?  If you deny chemicals are being sprayed in our skies, you have yet to open your eyes, and that is ok.  Many will not be able to wake.  For those who are awake and fed up with the way humanity and the planet are being treated, know difficult work lies ahead.  Brothers and sisters of love and light are providing all the support currently possible.  They can not just come save us.  We would learn nothing.  Will we save ourselves this time?


i have a hunch that since they are also spraying aluminum on us in chemtrails, that it limits our ability to quantum communicate, and or reach a higher consciousness.. watch stars and stones lecture by dan winter.. some incredible stuff there..


soon the planet will not be able to support life systems. plants. animals. humans. chemtrails destroy rivers. lakes. ecosystems. water drinking wells.   Chemtrails are very real and they are destroying humankind. the chemicals they use destroy human DNA..  the planet will be fully destroyed.


“CHEMTRAILS”.  Persistent LIES of chemically-infused butt spray dispersals from typically uninformed brains to be found all over YouTube.  Standing out from normal conversation, chemtrailers words spread to form a thick blanket of bullshit, held together by straws until they reach the ground, fouling everything with a pungent stink of lies and pathogenic innuendo.  The cure is to found in any science library – “Atmospheric Science”.  Knowledge and understanding will always beat ignorance and fear.


Knowledge and understanding will always beat ignorance and fear.  I can easily throw that sentence right back at you.  The NOAA currently list over 60 weather mod programs most of which release CHEMICALS in our atmosphere.  There are alarming spikes of aluminum and barium in our drinking water suppliesThe topic of Chemtrails has been discussed on History Channel, BBC, NOVA, NBC and ABC News so don’t try to make it sound like internet only subject matter.


Thanks for posting the video,to get that message out there world wide.


UFO 1:54


NASA announced they found Planet X in 1983 then said it was a mistake.  They LIED!  This is what theyre hiding with the chemtrails sprayed everyday globally. Its the reason for the increase in quakes and volcanoes and for the doomsday seed vault.  It is also the warning for the war of Armageddon which will see America destroyed by Russia, China and the SCO on the day of the next us/israeli false flag to invade Iran.
News here: (3w) . scribd . com/doc/16612974/War-News




If you watch the 80’s tv series automan you will find that there are no chemtrails in the sky in any of automan’s episodes, just how i remember the skies back then as well.


we are and have been being sprayed heavily in santa rosa california.  its so heavy and continous all day.  its sucks so bad.  i tried to get away from a huge one but they start at the coast and spray inland overhead also. it blows east.  these turn into chemclouds. they sky is litterally filled with these clouds.  its so blatant sometimes but no one cares or notices.  they all think your crazy.

The real reason for chemtrails is google is using it to take photos of the entire globe using radar look up google maps every shot has chemtrails in it.


I think the trails have been around for far longer than anyone cares to admit.  We have heard of the star-jelly at Oakland but that stuff was sprayed in the sky from trails.   Hundreds of years ago.  Cliff Carnicom has filmed orbs which match Ezekiel’s descriptions of wheels within wheels and the pillars of fire in the Bible.  The Nazca indians carved lines in the desert that look the same as our skies

Then tell us that doesn’t look the same as what we see in the skies.


When do you think chemtrails started?  I dont think ive seen a real cloud as long as ive been alive.


i have watched this for years where i shoot baskets on an outdoor court, no ryhme or reason to patterns, obviously this is a plot to sicken us. end of story.



Alo ha, Complain to the FAA every time you see these – 1-888-697-7813.  Watch my videos to see what is in chemtrails.


The sky will be clear i.e the sky is blue and the sun is shining.  Planes come and leave long lines of vapor in the sky.  They cross the lines making X’s or grid patterns.  After and hour or two of this spraying the blue sky is gone and your looking at a nasty white haze/overcast.  Case is closed.  This is not natural.  It is strategic and very effective at blocking out the blue sky and sun.  Watch it happen in your own town with your own eyes.  Love and Light to all whom are concerned.


To all of you who say this is normal… how do you explain this… Contrails dissapper quickly, and these chemtrails stay around for long periods of time. Please explain this to me…


Omg you are all retards.  Chem trails do NOT exist.  It’s water vapor that can come from two places on an aircraft.
1. The upper surface of the wings when high lift is being produced.  Due to the low pressure above the wing the air cannot hold onto its water content.
2. Water is a product of combustion and as it’s at 36,000ft its -56 degrees.  As soon as the exhaust of the jet hits the air the water in the gas freezes into ice.


Wow. I guess we’ll pass on this information to all the scientific researchers who are concerned about this phenomenon.  Rosalind Peterson recently presented scientific findings to the UN.  I guess the researchers are going to be a bit embarrassed when they learn it’s been only water vapor all this time.  Perhaps you’d like to accompany them the next time they are invited to the United Nations.  Did you hear that everyone?  Harmless water vapor.  Go back to your TVs.  Your government is taking care of U.


You clearly have no understanding of aircraft or their propulsion systems. 


Do you honestly think these researchers overlooked the physics of contrails?  You might want to do some research before calling people retards.  Why are there clouds in our skies on days meteorological conditions do not normally support their formation?  Contrails composed of water vapor routinely dissipate.  If contrails transform into clouds it can be concluded that the material of composition is not water vapor.


Do we honestly think they overlooked the physics of contrails?  YES.  Some MORON says “someone has to explain to me the X patterns and loops” and Rosalind herself says planes only fly in straight lines.  She is obviously a retard if she has no idea about holding patterns and VOR beacon navigation as does the other moron talking with her so YES, they OBVIOUSLY have overlooked physics if they have no clue even about basic aviation procedures.


It’s all bullshit sorry but they are civil aircraft and they don’t give off worse chemicals than your car.


My car doesn’t burn 1,000 gallons per hour. 


Your car doesn’t take 300 people 1000 miles.


I never said it did.  You are the one that said an airliner doesn’t give off worse chemicals than my car.  But clearly it does.


One should ask, why are there clouds in our skies on these days if meteorological conditions do not normally support their formation?  One reasonable explanation is that there are aircraft leaving chemical trails.  Photographic evidence shows cloud formations progressing in direct correlation with aircraft activity, ground sample photographs show materials that have originated from the sky during chemtrail activity, and aircraft telephotos of spray configurations have been captured.

Youtube 3

This one’s dated November 27, 2009, slightly different formatting rules:

PURPLE  means “barking mad”.

BLUE  means “science-based”.

GREEN  means “true, putatively, but not in general practice”, in spite of what the CTer insists.

ORANGE  means “determined and malevolent ad hominem attack”.

RED  means “in flagrant contradiction with established science”.

Is this your full time job? It seems like you have lots of time on your hands. You have left the majority of comments on most every YouTube video about Chemtrails. Your comments are crude and insulting. The people are waking up. You are losing the InfoWar. Fact: The NOAA list over 60 weather mod programs most of which release Chemicals in our atmosphere. Stop making fun of your fellow American brothers & sisters and join us in the fight for truth and Justice. You are on the wrong side of history.

Seems a bit pot/kettle to me when you talk of sock puppets, considering your channel. Who else are you? YT banned my JR channel BECAUSE of my activity right here.

THIS video is an utter FRAUD and LIE. This 1969 film shows you why:


Not exactly, you see, I haven’t changed any ID since I first enrolled here. Neither do I feel the need to sell myself or shill my wares here. I am the watcher to the north.. perhaps the video here just offends your delicate sensibilities and as such causes you angst. If so so be it. If you arent getting paid for your activity here you should be. Apply ad NOAA for a job responding to high school teachers who send in questions regarding air quality.

You cannot be a high school teacher. Can’t you see a certain similarity between the 1969 film and the above? Namely the ballast barrels. There’s a good likelihood that they are the SAME ones. The lying crew who made this video are the same crowd that made the “Germany admits chemtrails” deliberate mistranslation of a weather forecasting dispute. In fact ALL they do is lie. High school teachers should have the IQ to spot such lies. You haven’t. Now I see the further effects of 1970s dumbing down.

 No, stupid symbol. I breathe clean air, drink clean water and eat clean food. You ARE going to be in trouble if you troll around YT calling every well-informed and intelligent person a disinfo spook. You will die before me and I shall be laughing at you as I sip my beer in my seaside plaza on my subtropical island. I’ll still be laughing when it’s my turn…

Or not. It’s likely your island will be inundated by the coming flood. Hope you know how to tread water for a loooooooong time..

@gogmagog666. You appear not to know the type of island I live on. It’s volcanic, with steep sides. Although I live only 600 yds from the shore my home is 150 feet above sea level. You’d better pray the volcano doesn’t erupt instead. Nice.

Well Jazzroc/beachcomber or whatever yer sock puppet name is now since Youtube banned your other User ID. 150 foot above sea level won’t keep you from having to tread water. The shift will likely cause that eruption you are talking about, and since you are halfway around the world from here I have no worries that that eruption will be my problem. More likely it will be yours though. Lets see, lava or tidal wave? hmmm nice choice you’ve made for yourself.

@gogmagog666. As you sit like a shitfly in the comments section of one of YT’s worst videos. This will tell you all, bozo.
Old volcanoes never die, they just crack and ooze a little.

Speak for yourself, it appears we are all bozos on this bus..as for the old volcanoes comment, tell it to mount St. Helens. It all depends on how active the fault is. Those that stand quiet for a long time are apt to erupt catastrophically. Plate techtonics aside, if you live on the side of a volcano there is a chance that you will have to run for your life someday, and if the lava flow hits the ocean you will wind up boiled like a lobster if you don’t happen to have a boat to get away on.

Hi there disinfo spook, you change your name on these things once in a while, but you still post the same shit. day in and day out. People are catching on that something is causing the air water and soil to become increasingly toxic all over the planet. Hope you enjoy eating and breathing all of the toxic crap that is being dumped on you as well as the rest of us.. You will eventually die of it too.

No, stupid symbol. I breathe clean air, drink clean water and eat clean food. You ARE going to be in trouble if you troll around YT calling every well-informed and intelligent person a disinfo spook. You will die before me and I shall be laughing at you as I sip my beer in my seaside plaza on my subtropical island. I’ll still be laughing when it’s my turn…

Sorry to hear that you too are under attack. North America has been hit with this heavily over the last 10 years or more. This is a part of a depopulation agenda. Not only are the chemicals they drop on us toxic, we need the sunlight to produce enough vitamin D to keep our immune systems functional. If you can afford it supplement with Vitamin D3 1000 IU per day during low light periods. This will help boost your immune system and keep you from getting sick.

Thank you!

I get what you are saying about it being hard to predict weather patterns and I use to live on the ocean so sailing is something I have done before. But I can’t buy the whole ice crystal thing because we would be in a constant state of overcast and rain from all the plane traffic if that were the case. I’m not saying it doesn’t occur I just don’t buy that as an explanation for lingering and I grew up near 4 airports and never use to see chemtrails as a kid just contrails.

That’s to be expected. It took me a long time to understand the 10,000:1 weather-to-plane ice ratio. There is very much more WATER than you think up there at any time. On a HOT DRY DAY the blue sky around you to the horizon contains three thousand tons of it. When the stratosphere is saturated (happens 17% of the time) the locked-up water vapor needs just the slightest stimulus to be released – as in a Wilson Cloud Chamber. This is provided by a passing plane EVERY time without exception.

There needn’t be a CONSTANT state of overcast & rain. In fact, the weather isn’t like that. Just as often as not, the stratospheric layer BELOW the forming trail may be DRY. When the ice falls into that layer it will evaporate. Or if it survives all the way down to the tropopause, it may still evaporate into warmer drier air anyway. Any or all of these things can happen…

One thing is FOR SURE. Planes flying CONTINUOUSLY through a single layer will RAISE its humidity to SATURATION eventually. Thereafter all planes flying through that layer will create a PERSISTENT trail. There is FIFTY TIMES as much air traffic as there was FIFTY YEARS ago. Might not THAT account for “chemtrails” (and of course DEBUNK them)?

I don’t think that debunks them but it does add some interesting questions and throw a lot of variables into the whole equation but assuming what you say is true why don’t you see planes at altitude go from wide trails to quickly disappearing thin trails and back? and the air traffic where I grew up was by 2 master jet bases a major international airport and an air force base there was a LOT of traffic there 30 years ago and I never saw chemtrails back then.

“why don’t you see planes at altitude go from wide trails to quickly disappearing thin trails and back?” You do. Chemtrailers call that “Chemtrails ON – Chemtrails OFF”. “I never saw chemtrails back then”. But they were there. In a generally much less crowded sky.

From an “ex-chemtrailer” (removed)… Ask him for yourself.


please send me a link that shows the planes forced down in India and Nigeria was a hoax I can’t seem to find anything on that.

Who Is Sorcha Faal? Now that’s a GOOD question. “What does she do?” EXACTLY.

Watched the video you suggested. that may explain thing in a crowded area but I live in the country we have a small airport. I noticed over 45 CHEMTRAILS there were 8 flights that day so 16 possible this is not an area that is in the flight path of other airports. these trails were in a grid pattern with very good spacing they later filled in and became overcast then later it rained there was no weather fronts to explain this sudden change in the weather either.

You noticed white trails in the sky. Not Chemtrails but persistent contrails. How do you know you are not near the path of overflights? You probably have a VOR beacon in your vicinity. Trails form a pattern with good spacing because the atmosphere has wind that causes the contrails to drift relative to the aircrafts’ original track over the ground. Look at a timelapse of airliners flying along a fixed route relative to the ground. The trails drift into even parallel lines and grids due to wind.


that can explain the spacing in one direction but not the grid that would take two winds blowing at the same speed 90 degrees from each other and the trails were of the same size not a thin dense one progressing to wider dissipated or clouds. I’ll check about the beacon.

No. All it takes is planes flying shuttle routes at right angles to each other, and the overland heading of the stratosphere to NOT be aligned to either route. Then you will ALWAYS get a grid pattern. You’re in the process of a conceptualization FAIL. Improve…

You noticed 45 persistent contrails between five and seven above you in the STRATOSPHERE. This can move at a fair lick (up to 150 mph) which means that trails laid an hour or two previously could have been 150-300 miles away. Any airports within that radius? Also that much falling ice WOULD probably have an effect on the weather. The ice falling through the troposphere would increase potential rainfall below. That ice would beat your tap water for freshness ‘cos its made from pure water vapor.

just one small next one about 180 miles but in the same direction of trail movement the grid was moving parallel to one set and the whole pattern was moving then turning to clouds and I have seen multiple planes flying grids also so that doesn’t fit in to Henryleaf’s explanation of wind causing the spacing over a single well used flight path although that does make perfect sense and does explain some but not all.

The whole manner in which planes fly (and ships sail) is not well understood by the layman. The vehicle sets a course different from its true direction of movement because it’s flying through a MOVING atmosphere or sailing through a MOVING sea. Winds relative to the general movement of the stratosphere DO take place aloft – eg,, downward-moving winds occur which are caused just by the fall of so many tons of trail ice crystals. Being WEATHER, every case will be unique. It’s tough, generalizing..

and you seem to be talking the same bullshit as beachcomber explain the grid patterns that they have been flying and both of you could not be more wrong about contrails not dissipating because of temp besides I live near an airport and constantly see planes at the same or higher altitudes with contrails that dissipate while cemtrails remain and how about the two planes that were forced down in india and nigeria that were ukrainian planes manned with US air force crew and made to spray chemicals.

“explain the grid patterns that they have been flying”.

“both of you could not be more wrong about contrails not dissipating because of temp”. HUMIDITY.
“see contrails that dissipate while cemtrails remain”. Trails that EVAPORATE and some that ACCRETE ice and grow in size.
“two planes that were forced down” Were stories discovered to be false. Like everything you say. Wanateachyourselfsomescience?

beachcomber 2008 all i can hear from you is mumble mumble mumble you really need to pull you pants down when you are taking out your ass so people can understand you.

Don’t engage with debunkers they are skilled, resist and refuse, this is not normal it is happening all over the world using your money without your knowledge or consent. YOUR MONEY without YOUR CONSENT. Ignore, delete and block debunkers. Heads will roll soon. Believe and stay strong.

NASA announced they found Planet X in 1983 then said it was a mistake. They LIED! This is what theyre hiding with the chemtrails sprayed every day globally. Its the reason for the increase in quakes and volcanoes and for the doomsday seed vault. It is also the warning for the war of Armageddon which will see America destroyed by Russia, China and the SCO on the day of the next us/israeli false flag to invade Iran. News here:

Title correction; Chemtards from the inside.

Actually scientists have done so many times since Appleman’s first research in 1953. There are a couple of LIDAR-based satellites quite capable of analyzing the air at any altitude. There are THOUSANDS of filtering air samplers running 24/7 in cities across the western world NONE OF WHICH have detected anything unusual. Chemtrailere are still in the 19th century and KNOW NOTHING AT ALL about the 21st.

only Zionists agitators will deny that chemtrails are “normal”. The same guys will say that 9/11 was NOT an inside job. They will say your a conspiracy nuts and insult you. Zionists are false Jews freaks of the NWO. The synagogue of Satan.

Has anyone flown up to these “chemtrails” and taken samples. Studied it perhaps?

For info on moon and sun haloes link to atoptics.co.uk. These have been observed for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

“Chemtrails defuse suns UV light” – CTs don’t exist. The stratosphere absorbs the Sun’s UV. “honey bees unable to find hive? – NO. They have 5 different ways to find it. “something to do with colony collapse syndrome?” – NO. They all leave. “What happens if all bees die?” – Deep shit pollination-wise. Have they died? “Chemtrails in short bursts” – Your fifth change of subject. “rainbow effect around the sun – ring around the moon” – High altitude ice crystals. Normal.

Chemtrails defuse the suns ultra violet light. Could that have something to do with the planets honey bees not being able to get back to the hive.
Bees see UV light and navigate by the sun. If the sun was undefined in a UV haze, could that have something to do with “colony collapse syndrome” where a bee colony disappears or fails to come home? What happens to us if all the bees die?

Say whatever you like about me, It doesn’t bother me and I don’t take it personally. You’re just doing your jobs. I just thought that I should mention that I have been observing Chemtrails in short bursts instead of miles long trails. The overcast they produce spreads quickly like it’s in a concentrated form. Also there is a permanent haze in our upper atmosphere that can appear as a rainbow effect around the sun and a brown haze ring around the moon. The sun’s ultra violet light is defused.

You are so full of shit AND stupid. Watch the contrail instantly dissipate in this video, and the breath on a “cold” day. wow, it doesn’t blow away. it instantly dissipates right? And the contrail doesn’t drift all the way to the horizon, it instantly disappears… just like your intellect did years ago.

So as Beachcomber correctly states, there is a slight difference between your idea of a cold day, and the typical conditions at airline cruise altitudes. But to know that would actually require some education on your part which sadly is unlikely to ever happen.


Pat Condell has part of what I believe well-nailed here:

The rest is to do with living a self-sufficient life, generated in harmony with the planet and its other occupants.


Janaia Donaldson (the female presenter) needs to stop interrupting while the person shes interviewing is talking. Although she is obviously very educated on the subject i find her comments rather repetative and pointless. PLEASE JANAIA LET YOUR GUEST TALK AND STOP TALKING YOURSELF. At the end of every sentence saying “wow” “uhuh” “oh my goodness” etc… it becomes rather annoying and actually distracts me from what experts are saying and the points they are raising.

Thanks for your input, Peak. I’m working to do that.

I am sorry for being rude, what your doing is absolutely fantastic and to be completely honest i had a moment of fustration! I’ve watched all your video’s and i only wish more people would know about peak oil, i was actually wondering if you had any advice for warning my friends about this? they just wont listen.

Not rude, honest. I appreciate that. My growing edge. Peak, your frustration is understandable. You’re 21, and I’d expect your peers don’t want to hear it. Consider: the mainstream media barely notices Peak Oil. Why? One reason: it doesn’t benefit those in power, the money masters. Another: humanity has never before had an extravagant bonanza of millions of years of energy, and all it has enabled. Thus, we’ve never had to powerdown at a global scale. Off the charts, and easier to just deny.
I like these videos and they make a lot of sense – then I tell my family/friends about peak oil and they laugh at me like I’m a kook – and I look at the number of views here on youtube and I realize they are only a relatively few people even thinking about this stuff – it’s very confusing.
You’re not alone! It’s always challenging to be ahead of the pack. The mainstream media has done a fine job of suppressing this information… because knowledge of peak oil (and other resources) spells the end of the perpetual-growth economy… which is happening even now. Perhaps share “The End of Suburbia” film with your friends. Or our DVD with Richard Heinberg on “Peak Everything” and discuss it (peakmoment-dot-tv). For many people, denial is the first response. The implications are scary!
I got the same reaction too. It’s like John says in the video, everyone is running round in their little world of infinite growth and prosperity. It’s not you thats crazy – it’s them. Don’t worry about it, most people find it hard to think because they are used to being told by the media what the world is like. It’s tough to deal with the fact that it’s all make believe, and that the reality of it means that THEY have to do something. Easier just to leave it to the Government…

Yes, and America’s huge oil and coal deposits placed it at the top of the world pyramid during and following World War II. Wealth and power seems to go along with those natural resources, which is why the torch of power is moving towards the Middle east and China. The American Empire is fully in decline. (Check out PM 72 about the film “What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire.”)

Another comment sorry…. With the resources we do have… like people…. you should invest in your education and find that the choices of presidents we have had over the last 20 yrs have not been that good… I find it funny but the one thing people are not tackling is education…. not reform but make the common us citizen competitive in today’s market… unlike 30 or 40 years ago where you could not finish H.S. and start work and make 15-30 bucks an hour…. no more. That is the educated man.
We need to scrap the “class mentality” in America concerning higher education. In a localized economy we’ll be valuing all of our citizens’ gifts and skills. One example is the horrible way we treat our farmers – they are belittled and mocked and yet our very survival depends upon them. I doubt that the US will be able to keep pouring money into universities and colleges, while our students incur huge amounts of personal debt. There must be a better way.


And if you liked that, this may work for you. It certainly did for me.