JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘nitrogen

6 Porkies

with 4 comments

PAGE CONTENTS

6 PORKIES – AEROSOLS – THE ATMOSPHERE – THE WMO – ATMOSNAPS

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

 

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

porkpie

6 PORKIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

AEROSOLS

What a great porky this one is!

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

aerosol-can-2

TO THIS:

YouTube_-_Documentary_Validates_Chemtrails_and_Weather_Warfare-20090725-091314

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So AEROSOL means this:

aerosol_clouds
Or this:
aerosol-692
A REALTIME study of aerosol presence (made by satellite) all over the world may be obtained here, and here is a representative image, from which you can see the satellite passes 90 minutes apart.
aersl_omi_2009

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

No aircraft contrails are found anywhere NEAR this line…

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

rd-table

THE ATMOSPHERE

What is it?

atmosphereearth

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

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

pressure_altitude.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

humidity.jpg

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

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

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

top_of_atmosphere

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

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

atm-qs.jpg

As further confirmation I strongly recommend AtOptics

atopticsatm.

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

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

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

greenhouse_effect

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

https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/19-global-dimming/

gw

THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

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

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

  weather balloon

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

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

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

ATMOSNAPS

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

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

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

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

Shuttle lift-off at Cape Kennedy

Shuttle lift-off at Cape Kennedy

Out on a limb...

Out on a limb...

A massive cumulo-nimbus from above...

A massive cumulo-nimbus from above...

A Saharan sandstorm leaves the West Coast of Africa

A Saharan sandstorm leaves the West Coast of Africa

Eddies form in Cirrus clouds passing over a Mediterranean isle

Eddies form in Cirrus clouds passing over a Mediterranean isle

A sunset from space...

A sunset from space...

Established

with 2 comments

FALLACIES – ESTABLISHED – EURODELE – EVER – EVERYTHING – EVIL – EXHAUST – EXPONENTIAL TIMES – EXTREME – FIRST CONTRAIL PHOTO – FORTRESSES – FRACTALS IN NATURE – FROZEMAN – FUN IN THE SUN
Don’t forget my other pages, links and comments are one click away at the top right of the page…

FALLACIES

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
•Circularity
•Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
•Correlation not Causation
•Inconsistency
•Generalisation
•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”?

Circularity
“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.”

Inconsistency
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.

Generalisation
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.

Resources:
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.

References
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.
Links
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

ESTABLISHED

am-i-blocked

I can’t reply on drewswebsite because he has BLOCKED me.  He’s the seventieth site to do this so far.

There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses a “VAPOR TRAIL”, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidities are frequently only hundreds of feet thick and ARE CONSTANTLY VARIABLE in speed, direction, temperature and humidity. Aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are nowadays 1000ft above or below each other.

So you’ll see SOME planes laying vapor trails while others don’t – it depends WHICH transparent stratospheric layer a particular plane is flying through.

Jet exhausts are NITROGEN, STEAM, and CARBON DIOXIDE at 2000 deg C (with traces of NOX and SOX). This cools RAPIDLY in an ambient stratospheric air temp of between -40 and -80 deg C to a FINE “WHITE SMOKE” OF ICE CRYSTALS in N2 and CO2.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SUPERSATURATED (more than 100% humid), the ice crystals accrete more ice, get heavier, and fall faster.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is SATURATED (exactly 100% humid), the ice crystals REMAIN, but SLOWLY DIFFUSE TO FILL the stratolayer. The powerful WAVE VORTEX generated by the aircraft wing continues for tens of minutes after the aircraft has passed by, slowing to a stop very slowly.

If the stratospheric layer it is in is BELOW SATURATED (less than 100% humid), the ice crystals will slowly SUBLIME back into vapor AND THE TRAIL WILL DISAPPEAR.

The layers themselves aren’t perfectly flat – they roughly conform to the ground profile AND any rising CUMULUS clouds. So even if the plane flies straight and level, it may be the layer it is in slopes gently down or up, and THE CONTRAIL EITHER APPEARS OR DISAPPEARS as it enters a NEW stratospheric layer with a DIFFERENT HUMIDITY. You have to remember these layers, though different, are ALWAYS themselves transparent.

So you can’t SEE them. You can only see which layer is really humid by a plane throwing a vapour trail in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. It is NOT POSSIBLE TO PREDICT FROM TABLES STRATOSPHERIC LAYER TEMPERATURES FROM GROUND LEVEL TEMPERATURES.

The stratospheric layers vary in thickness, more densely packed close to the TROPOPAUSE, thinning out to nothing much above twelve miles up. It’s very smooth and calm up there – the layers slide over each other WITHOUT MIXING. Layers with HIGH GROUND SPEEDS are called JET STREAMS.

If there are MORE vapor trails in the sky than there used to be, then the answer is that there is MORE AVIATION TRAFFIC and MORE WATER IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

At this point someone will interject “Your Theory…” and I want to plainly cut this short.

THIS IS ESTABLISHED ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS and NOT MY THEORY.

If you wanted to PASS ANY EXAMINATION IN THIS FIELD then you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE THE TRUTH.

EURODELE

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…

EVER

horse-feathers

Look, Ever, I am a normal guy looking at PURE BUNK: this last statement of yours. The proof that this last statement of yours is HORSE FEATHERS can be found by any sensible person merely by going to their LIBRARY, and READING any book they like which covers ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS. Now you wouldn’t object to that, would you?

“I’m one of the many victims” – of an industrial economy.

“They are spraying” – IT IS MAKING AUTO FUMES, PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG, AND INDUSTRIAL POLLUTANTS.

“I will not go out to see them because my asthma is terrible” – ASTHMA IS CAUSED BY THE ABOVE AND ALSO BY POLLEN.

“Whatever these things are” – I thought you KNEW

“they are indeed making people sick” – People have been made ill by industry for 150 years in your country.

“The quality of the air is so poor in the Bronx and lately it is worst than ever” – Your country is producing effluents at an ever-increasing rate

“I wonder why” – NO YOU DON’T. You have already come to a WRONG CONCLUSION.

“Debunkers/ experts/ authorities on/ chemtrails/80-90%/ real info/hidden propaganda” – Why did you write this and why the quotes? What hidden propaganda? There’s NOTHING hidden here – check my channel – I’m a MUSICIAN here.

“If you are a Musician, why do you get so defensive about this topic? I see that you spent a lot of time proving your point, great.” – I am defending (quite literally) – nothing. I am ATTACKING false and dangerous beliefs.
The Bard of Ely (with whom I have worked) enjoined me to support his “chemtrail” blog. When I read it I was astonished – I’d never met such rubbish in my life. I knew FROM EXPERIENCE (I’m an ex-aeronautical engineer) that the whole idea was wrong for a HOST of reasons. I thought that a small campaign of scientific advice would clear it up – more fool me! There have been 60 Google pages listing my attempts.

My main concern is with HEALING. If one suffers from the delusion that aircraft are deliberately spraying you with substances to make you ill, and you ARE living in polluted air, then any illness you get merely serves to CONFIRM your delusion. If, however, I manage to convince a person such as YOU, suffering from such a delusion, that after all, aircraft are NOT spraying you, you may PERMIT yourself recovery from what was a temporary state of illness. You also have a choice: to MOVE to cleaner air, or to AGITATE to remove the sources of pollution.

agit

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.

obama

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…

EVERYTHING

New Developments of the Theory of Everything

2950673908_430413742f

(Nothing whatsoever to do with “chemtrails”, but I don’t care!)

theory-of-everything-2

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:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=409

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3314456/Surfer-dude-stuns-physicists-with-theory-of-everything.html

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/articles/kaku.asp

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077361/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Everything-Origin-Fate-Universe/dp/1893224546

071115_e8

EVIL

hear-no-evil

“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.

technical-aspects

“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.

evil-calls-1l

EXHAUST

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.

EXPONENTIAL TIMES

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?

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.

Extreme?

THIS IS EXTREME!

“S-I-C-K ! !”  “D-U-D-E ! !” 🙂

FIRST CONTRAIL (PHOTO)

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m18/JazzRoc/Contrails/stpauls.jpg

FORTRESSES

ff

“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!

b-17_flying_fortress

FRACTALS IN NATURE

Fractal calculations have an ever-expanding relevance to the task of understanding Nature with the tools of Science.

FROZEMAN

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…

FUN IN THE SUN

It is only very rarely that I return to Blighty. I do it when I feel strong enough within myself to withstand a WEEK (well, three weeks max) of its brute power and brazen importunity.

I had a truly wonderful time whizzing through London on an Oystercard to yak with old buggers my age about software, businesses, engineering, aircraft, steam trains, (nothing about cars – hardly), beer, booze, and women. (All the women we know, by the way, talk about us, so it’s only fair to even up the ante. If they let us.)

Anyway, that aside I was aghast that once again British weather was making with the knee-freezing combination of 18 deg C and 85% humidity as I departed, mercifully freeing myself from being charged 30 pee to pee.

Back to a balmy 32 degrees, I discovered THIS idiocy had, as they say, GONE VIRAL. So – possible fun!

NOTE: Comments text arrives higgledy-piggledy according to the vagaries of YouTube, so sometimes you have to fish around to find the connections. This amuses me considerably…

beachcomber2008
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 )

MissyM005
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. 🙂


beachcomber2008
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

MissyM005
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.


beachcomber2008
@MissyM005 If you KNEW scientific method, missymoo, then all you have to do is
SHOW THE EVIDENCE
There’s absolutely NO POINT in telling others not to believe what I say
It is THE EVIDENCE that counts
and those white lines in the sky ARE evidence – evidence of CONTRAILS
It IS the TRUTH that aluminum and barium are in SOIL
and TRUE that soil dust puts aluminum & barium in RAINWATER
And also TRUE that that I’m a PENSIONER
You can call me the PAT CONDELL of chemtards
Who are YOU, MISSYMOO?

MissyM005
Comment removed


beachcomber2008
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…

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
Despite ALL the crap you wrote in this post, THE EPA CERTIFIED LAB SAID 0.5 MICROGRAM PER LITER IN RAIN WATER IS NORMAL. 3450 IS 6900 TIMES NORMAL YOU CEREBRAL MIDGET.


beachcomber2008
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

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
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


beachcomber2008
@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
STRANGE

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
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.


beachcomber2008
@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

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
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.


beachcomber2008
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”

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
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.


beachcomber2008
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

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
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.


beachcomber2008
@EnergySupply2008 Hey, that’s good.
Did you find any tubing?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
I am not in the market for tungsten tubing right now. When I need some I will look up suppliers.


beachcomber2008
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

stephenbowman311
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.


beachcomber2008
@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……

stephenbowman311
@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.

beachcomber2008
@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?

erniepond
@stephenbowman311
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?


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
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.


erniepond
@EnergySupply2008
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!


EnergySupply2008
@erniepond1
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.


beachcomber2008
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

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
“Tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines”
Obviously they would install nozzles that can withstand the temperature.


beachcomber2008
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

stephenbowman311
@beachcomber2008 If you talk out of your ass too much, you make start to shit out of your mouth!


beachcomber2008
@stephenbowman311 Hey, I like your thought process (tourrettish, like mine)
Is it like your spelling?

EnergySupply2008
@beachcomber2008
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.


beachcomber2008
mikemb123: “condensation does not require aerosols”
NO. It ALWAYS REQUIRES AN AEROSOL
AEROSOLS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS PRESENT
When they are NOT present to allow condensation, the saturated vapor becomes SUPERSATURATED
Why are the dunces in the classroom shouting from the teacher’s desk?

visry
Excellent trailer…subbed!


erniepond
@visry
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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Robert

leave a comment »

PAGE CONTENTS 

ROBERT – ROCKETAGENCY – RUSHFAN’S MASSIVE FRAUD – SAME POSTS – SCALAR (“WEAPONS”) – SCALE – SCATTERING

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

ROBERT 

toronto

lol, well you’re nuts but at least you concede that there’s something up there that shouldn’t be. we get lots of these over Toronto as well. 100+ chemicals including berium…very poisonous. ,,.also weather maniuplation.”
“you concede” – WATER. Not exactly harmful.
“shouldn’t be” – SHOULD BE, if you wish to travel.
“we get lots as well” – You have a LARGE AIRPORT.
“100+ chemicals” – have been picked up at GROUND LEVEL. The WORLD is a DUSTY place, and you have COUNTLESS MILLIONS of BACTERIA ALL OVER YOU.
“berium” – BARIUM – “very poisonous” – so is CALCIUM (OXIDE) if you swallow it. Yet your BONES and TEETH are made of it.
“weather manipulation” – The induction of rainfall needs SILVER iodide crystals. The STATES have FLOGGED their FAMILY SILVER.
Weather has NEVER been manipulated.
And so your reply becomes MEANINGLESS DRIVEL. 

ROCKETAGENCY 

rocket-trail

Actually, I believe your data. It contained a few missing pieces of info I had been hoping someone could articulate for a while now.
The most profound fallacies I’ve noticed are that:
1) If you can see a trail, it MUST be dangerous.
2) If you can’t see a trail, no danger exists.
Ha. Not so very funny.
I hope you read up more on DILUTION FACTORS. In general, apart from molecules of  plutonium or other radioactive element isotopes, EVERYTHING ELSE sprayed from a height of seven miles would land the day after tomorrow, at least two hundred miles away, and DILUTED BEYOND ANY DANGER – unless you believe in that branch of alternative medicine, er, whatsitsname… homeopathic…
And I hope you watched George Carlin too…
I agree with him: you’re all pussies that have NO IDEA of the dangers that existed all around you throughout existence – before you were born – creeping up on you as you’re standing outside (looking up!) – and raining down on the pussies that will still be in existence after you’re dead.
You don’t want to be a pussy? Then LEARN about Evolution, LEARN about your body’s biochemistry, Learn about pathogens and poisons, LEARN about the atmosphere, LEARN about the REAL dangers of EM radiation from CELLPHONES and city centres, LEARN about the Federal Reserve Bank, LEARN how to be self-sufficient, LEARN how to build an autonomous house, LEARN about PERMACULTURE and Ecology.
Don’t waste your time with Chemtrailer-trash bunkum… 

RUSHFAN’S MASSIVE FRAUD

Myself
Look up the Boeing 777 Long Range prototype in Airliners dot net. You’ll find this picture without the photoshopping.
The barrels are for varying the plane’s centre of gravity – a nifty thing to do when you’re prototype-testing.
Sciechimiche are a crowd of fraudsters and YOU are the dupe.
“Chemtrails” are a form of mind-terrorism practised by people who don’t understand anything to do with science and engineering.
The damage they do is worse than Chicken Little.
You are a throwback.

Rushfan
There are plenty of US patents related to many of the topics brought to light by those you call ‘fraudsters’. I have spent many hours reviewing numerous aerosol methods and devices.
One thing that is fact, is the baldfaced lies our government will tell the public to justify any agenda. So given that lies can come from both sides, truth usually falls somewhere in the middle and usually in plain sight. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
After absolutely stumping my Earth Science professor one day a few years ago (who happens to be a career military weatherman), I’ll keep on watching.
What’s most interesting is why anyone would bother wasting time on people who are supposedly discussing something that is not accurate. One would think there are better things to do with your time than spending it following such dialogue.

Myself
There are plenty of patents about everything.
I am an anarchist with a natural distaste of governments.
“Truth” only falls at the centre by default in such debates – and, as such, ISN’T truth.
There’s no harm in “keeping on watching” only if you keep your scientific understanding up to snuff.
You have failed to do so – and so you do harm. Without sufficient understanding you will fail to interpret events accurately, and then proceed inexorably to jump to wrong conclusions.
Reminding harmful members of our society of the harm they are committing seems quite a reasonable thing to do to me. It’s not the only thing I do with my time.

Rushfan
To an extent, you seem to have some sense of concern. Since we as a public have been lied to on numerous occasions, putting faith into the corrupt is not always wise. Those entrusted to keep the faith are many times part of the problem.
In an ideal scenario, one would prefer to be able to not have to be concerned. Does one sit back and do nothing or do something? Regardless of 100% accuracy or ability to provide certain proof, the act of, in and of itself, generating any awareness at all is to everyone’s benefit.
I know that when presented with conditions he could not explain, my “career military weatherman” professor was stumped and would not comment further. One problem with “Science” is that some in Science are just as corrupt. Controversy is just as plentiful and placing faith is getting more and more difficult. I would surely hope that nothing is going on to our atmosphere and that there would be nothing to be concerned about.
One thing is also certain, all actions are not being conducted for your and my best interests. To think that whatever is going on is on the up and up all the time is not a good approach…

Myself
The same could be said of you, re concern. You may be not completely cynical yourself.
The “visual evidence” you so much believe in has led you astray.
Were it not for science would you KNOW that the Sun does NOT go round the Earth? Be honest – you wouldn’t. You would INTERPRET what you see as the Sun (a SMALLER body) passing over the sky to set on the opposite compass axis.
In a similar manner you INTERPRET the occasional trail which expands HUGELY as a HUMAN act, when it is in fact a NATURAL occurrence.
When passing through cold (-40) humid (more than100% saturated) stratospheric air (a completely different STABLE and LAYERED section of Earth’s atmosphere) the trail ice can SEED the NUCLEATION of the excess water in the layer by a factor of up to TEN THOUSAND TIMES.
It is therefore not impossible for a trans-continental jumbo flight to create a trail containing EIGHTY THOUSAND TONS of ICE.
You will appreciate that this trail WILL cover the sky with a stripe of suspended ice crystals which may be up to 10 kilometres wide by 2 kilometres deep. With stratospheric interlayer SHEAR this may get WIDER STILL.
There are hundreds of atmospheric research papers to choose from, but I’ll quote you only one:
http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/journals/atlas_JAMC2006.pdf
READ IT. This research was done using the finest minds and scientific techniques.
With this fact NOTHING REMAINS OF YOUR THEORY. Without the visual misperception you have made, you are left merely with hatred of the extant power structure – which is my position also.
If you go down the route that such reports are mere constructs of the PTB, then you have to assume that ALL information has been back-edited, and that would have to include ALL relevant books in ALL libraries (and the ones on my shelf).
Sorry, me laddie, but that won’t wash…
Seeing as we SHARE a dislike of “authority” (I have been an anarchist since before you were born) I will now tell you that MISINFORMATION (which is what you seem to wish to disseminate) is NO SERVICE AT ALL to the rest of us. We’re trying to WIN a battle that you’re trying to LOSE.
Far from myself being a “USEFUL IDIOT”, it is YOURSELF that is a USELESS one…

Rushfan
Once again, your insight is appreciated and respected, yet even with accurate statistics detailing various formations, it does not deny, or cause doubt toward the fact that geoengineering has been considered, may have been implemented and may even be in some form of advanced stages.
Knowing the weather modification efforts during the Vietnam War and our own use of chemicals, and the simple fact of the now documented untruth regarding the Tonkin incident, there is little to no reason to believe, with even the smallest of faith, what we are told.
The presentation of any statistics is by no means any type of answer that would confirm that no such thing is or has been happening. Should you ever be able to provide enough information that there would indeed be no reason or any effort whatsoever for any weather modification, this would be more constructive.
As I watch this and other areas, one thing remains constant, the ability to try and mislead the public for a greater agenda. I would much rather be wrong about an issue than be asleep to it.

Myself
once again, your insight is appreciated and respected, yet even with accurate statistics detailing various formations, it does not deny, or cause doubt toward the fact that geoengineering has been considered” – You, I, and most everyone else has considered it. Yet few of us are sufficiently mathematically-inclined and equipped with hard facts about the Earth to do this. Those that do know that the Earth’s a large place and Man’s technological activities aren’t detectable within its atmosphere.
may have been implemented and ” – Well, no, that isn’t true for the above reasons.
may even be in some form of advanced stages.” – Well, no, that isn’t true for the above reasons.
Knowing the weather modification efforts during the Vietnam War and our own use of chemicals, and the simple fact of the now documented untruth regarding the Tonkin incident, there is little to no reason to believe, with even the smallest of faith, what we are told.” – Even while agreeing with you that these events did take place, that doesn’t allow me to suppose that things aren’t different today. They are different today.
Many intervening events have taken place and everyone these days is web-aware. There was no web then.
The presentation of any statistics is by no means any type of answer that would confirm that no such thing is or has been happening.” – That would be true if it were true. However I didn’t present you with “statistics”. I presented you with EVIDENCE proving the NON-EXISTENCE of CHEMTRAILS.
Should you ever be able to provide enough information that there would indeed be no reason or any effort whatsoever for any weather modification, this would be more constructive.” – I provided EVIDENCE. You misinterpretation of that is your problem.
There ARE two worthwhile areas of geo-engineering, one involving salt-spray trimarans and the other fertilising the mid-ocean sea surfaces.
As I watch this and other areas, one thing remains constant, the ability to try and mislead the public for a greater agenda.” – It’s a pity you seem to want to join in with this. If they can do it, you can do it, is that it?
I would much rather be wrong about an issue than be asleep to it.” – Then you are apparently in your ideal state.

Rushfan
Once again, I would have enjoyed something that would remove any doubt about such possibilities. Nothing mentioned lays any basis for having any belief that such operations are not going on or have been going on. There is no basis to have faith in those that would or would not even be involved.It would be interesting as to why you can claim that such things are not possible unless you knew for certain that every possible source was in fact not doing these things. While your information base may be great, I fail to see anything that would cause support.
On another note, what is your take on the article published in the Open Chemical and Physics Journal of April 2009 regarding dust samples. I would surely like to see that their findings are inaccurate but no-one has countered with any significant results to the contrary
.

Myself
The trails witnessed which persist when a jet plane flies through a supersaturated stratosphere ( 17% of Earth’s stratosphere is in this condition) are composed of ICE – as I have already told you.
There are 87,000 daily overflights of the US. Only the variability of the persistent jet streams determines where supersaturated conditions exist in the seven stratospheric circulatory cell systems which the Earth possesses.
You might suppose that nearly a million tons of aviation kerosine combusted to add just over a million tons of water vapor/ice might alter the stratosphere significantly locally, but measurements have shown less than a percentage change whenever they have been measured. This may cause hazy conditions – but they are local and temporary. And HARMLESS. Persistent trail ice is PURER THAN TAPWATER!
Metals and other materials cannot be passed through jet engines without being visible in the trail gap.They AREN’T, so aircraft jet engines are NOT the route by which you can claim “spraying” to be taking place.
If you knew ANY science, you would know that passing finely-divided metals through a flame is a means of determining which element they are – for each element has a different flame color. It’s known as “Flame Testing”. Every colored firework you have ever seen should remind you of this. BARIUM is used to color fireworks GREEN.
Metals which undergo VIOLENT HIGH SPEED COLLISION reach PLASMATIC temperatures. They FLASH!
If you collide iron and aluminum at high speeds (half a million tons falling from a thousand feet) the violence vaporizes some the metal into a hot spray of microspherules – just like thermite combustion.
All the materials necessary were there in the WTC – iron from the structure, aluminum from the plane, sulfur from the gypsum wall-boarding.
I draw your attention to this vid of a Phantom colliding with a very solid concrete block. You’ll see the plasmatic flash, and the fine dust (microspherical) which flies out radially from the point of contact. This dust (made from a dural/titanium airframe and two engines with very large, hard, heat-resistent alloy-steel shafts about ten feet long!) won’t contain much sulfur, but that’s the only difference.

Now get off your ass and stop buying things so easily. Science is a process which checks itself all the time, and if a dozen scientists say one thing, with a single dissenter, then the chances REALLY ARE that the twelve are correct, and the dissenter isn’t. If you want to be sure, then LEARN SOME SCIENCE.
The beauty of everything I’m telling you is that if you CHECK FOR YOURSELF in a book in some library I have never seen, or in a paper available on the internet via your own search process, you CAN quite independently confirm what I write here.
The fact that the US is run by a criminal syndicate in no way alters the physics of gas turbines in the atmosphere or high-energy collisions.
Get logical.

Well, he stopped responding. He answered none of my questions, followed none of my links.

These guys are so paranoid and deluded that they avoid Science in their desperate attempts to remain “uncontaminated” by the “powers-that-be”.

YouTube is supremely unconcerned with matters of truth, and many of the people I know who, like me, find this delusional and divisive behavior to be appalling, have been banned from it when they overstep the mark (by posting too often, or by being complained of to YT). It also puts a 500-character limit on comments and has some ingenious software which prevents anyone from posting links, which makes it very difficult to challenge these deceitful videos, while making it very easy to produce them.

RECENT YOUTUBE COMMENTS ON

“CHEMTRAILS FROM THE INSIDE”

doobeedoo22
The interior photos show a pre-production aircraft, fitted with instrumentation for use during a flight testing programme.  The liquid containers that you see, fixed to the floor in the cabin, can be filled with water to simulate the weight of seats, passengers, cargo and luggage.  New aircraft must be tested at their all-up weight, but you don’t undertake trials of a new design with hundreds of people on board!   No chemtrails here.   Fnord.
 
kashpd
Fnord… And “Hail Eris !”

dustinwrye
That does not say Hazard Inside.  It says HAZMAT.   It means hazardous materials.  So you are partially right.   Inside the striped tape is a sign in sheet used to show who checked on or secured the material last.
Standard government stuff here.  It could be anything.  You are only speculating on the “spraying”, you can’t really tell what it is saying.
Same with the “Lock Care”.  If it had anything to do with safety it would be in the same place on every barrel.  The government standardizes everything.
 
eyeOOsee
Dustin I cannot believe what you wrote!  I have been photographing these goddamned billows of crap being srayed over my town for 10 fucking years and you want to argue over hazmat vs hazard!!??  Are you insane!!??  Look at the skies for god sake.  This is world wide.  Not EVERYTHING is necessarily going to be the way you expect it to be when we have all seen more than one type of plane spraying.  It is not JUST THE US GOVERNMENT here!  Watch “Aerosol Crimes” on google video.  What is really important?
 
dustinwrye
Fine, don’t believe what I wrote.  I said it was HAZMAT, that’s the same as Hazard in a way.  Don’t be stupid, the government is not “spraying” you with anything. Don’t believe everything you see on YouTube.  And if they are, it isn’t working.  I still know they are corrupt and after nothing but power.  Life expectancy is going up, so it must not be that bad for ya.  If it is something that kills certain people…  fine, the world population is getting out of hand.  Just hope I’m not the target.

 
eyeOOsee
Dustin, re-read what I wrote.  These have been falling on the ground x10yrs, I have been photographing longer than I have had a computer.  Life expectancy is goin down..how many 90 yr. olds do you know?  When I was in MY 20’s every family had 3 to 4.  Seriously take a look at “Aerosol Crimes” on google video by Clifford Carnicom.  It’s about 1hr.45min.  Great documentary, and a decade of material, incl. updates.  And “you” “are” the target. We all breathe the same air.  Have you seen what’s in these?
 
dustinwrye
Making it to 90 years old has never been the norm….NEVER.  The life expectancy is in the 60s, it continues to go up too.  As for families having less kids now, well I see that you are 50 some years old.  Some would say part of the baby boomer generation.  Yes, parents had more kids back then.  People built their lives around hard work and producing goods.  No longer is that the case, we are a consuming nation now, more kids are not needed to help around the house anymore.

eyeOOsee
Dustin, check your mail for response.

farmersc3500
The orginal photo dated May 25, 2005 can be found by googling airliners Boeing 777-240/LR william appleton
Go to the first hit on google, it should be from airliners net and you can click and expand or save image as.  And see every thing you see on this video close up. Including the sign, barrels windows and computers.  You can also click on the “cn 3378/504” so you can find 80 more photos of the same airplane including photos of both the inside and outside for ID purposes.  Case Closed.

laurasmales
I’ve just looked it up on google, saved the image and the writing doesn’t seem to be on there anymore?

farmersc350
Laurasmales, you are correct, the original photo dated May 25, 2005 does not have the writing “Sprayer” “Hazard inside” and “Lock care” on it.  Which just goes to show that the video maker (tankerenemy) photoshopped the picture in order to deceive people into believing in chemtrails.  It is obvious that the maker of this video is knowingly and willing putting out disinformation in order to promote chemtrail beliefs.  For a video of the same plane including the tanks, pilots and engineers just google 777-200LR Worldliner videos.  Go to the first hit play the video “777-200LR prepares for first flight”.  In short, people like tankerenemy could not promote his false chemtrail beliefs without misinformation/disinformation. His photo shopped picture is a fine example of how far he will go to mislead people.

laurasmales
If it is photoshopped then they aren’t helping to spread the word about chemtrails, instead they’re inviting criticism.

Now that’s interesting. Although it’s obviously a fraud, this only “invites criticism”!

iggy6
It doesn’t matter how much proof you show, there are govt. employees whose job it is to seek out all of these videos and articles and use any tactic to discredit the facts.  Contrails form at 29,000 feet, yet in desert areas aerosols have been sprayed at less than 10,000 feet and lingered for hours. No matter what you say they will deny.  So that is why I find it funny.  They get all bent when someone uses their same tactics back at them.

KamarHarris
Ya because google can be trusted if the government was corrupt in that way.

rodman332
Chemtrails are fucking real!

farmersc3500
Rodman, even tankerenemy knows this is not at “chemplane”, if he really thought it was a “chemplane” then he would not have photoshop the photos in this video.  To see the orginal photo that predates tankerenemys photoshop version just google airliners Boeing 777-240/LR william appleton.  Note the original photo does not have the words “sprayer” “hazard inside” “lock care” because that was added by tankerenemy after he copied the photo off airliners net.  What is real is that IS a photo of the ballast tanks that are used to change the CG (weight and balance) in the certification test for the Boeing 777-240LR serial number 33781/504. And that same airplane is now used in passenger service for PIA.   Also what is real, is tankerenemy is knowingly and willingly putting out disinformation in the form of this photoshopped photo.

glennwa11
Farmersc, that is the typical chemtrail activist tactic.  Deceive and lie.  Anything for ratings and views.

westwatford
Yeah, they were connected up through tubes which must spray out the back.  What ever it is, the goverment are doing something.

unusmultorumm
They are connected with tubes so they can flow the water from the back to the front of the aircraft.  They do this to determine the center of gravity limitations of this aircraft.

1enzeder
Could be part of the global eugenics program, or maybe its just liquid plant fertilizer the CIA are spraying on their opium crops.

a123a456a123a456a
Shut up you poisoned troll, the water and air is contaminating and mutating people into troll-like creatures , many people all over the country have gotten their hepa filtration systems tested, that’s how we know, and as for the military planes i have seen them with telescopes aliminum barrium trails, again buy an IQ air health pro, and forget about these military scumbags trying to kill you, at least while in your home.

GLOBALRAPTUREdotcom
My good friend Dr. Bender said another possibility is that after 2012 we will go through the galactic plane as it is called in science and our magnetic field will be affected.  Chemtrails can be filling us with a false metallic base so when there is less of a magnetic field they can throw on Haarp or something of the like and keep us under control, we know now that you can control a person by remote radio waves this is one possibility you can by a heavy metal detox to take once a month.
Holyshit can’t understand a word he said but i get it….
Chemtrails are a weather manipulation operation by the NEW WORLD ORDER using regular military people to carry out chemical spraying on civilian populations using low range bioweapons, also as a means to move moisture collect it and redistribute it as a weapon in other remote areas.  They tell the soldiers they are helping thwart global warming.   Soldiers do not question orders and this is a major flaw in military people, besides their willingness to receive bioweapons and they are told they are vac.

icke11234
Chemtrails – genocide!   Join petition on an investigation of chemtrails: thepetitionsite.com/7/investigate-persistent-contrails-aka-chemtrails

dimviesel
The chemicals (metals) in chemtrails work together with the haarp, once these chemicals are ingested for years it is much easier to control people’s thoughts, courage, fight or flight response and proper judgement.  Just look at how crazy ppl are acting these days?  There have always been lunatics in public but the types of acts of todays looney tunes are unprecidented and unusual.

carlosmante
Filios Puttana.

yohrdzayr
Simply scary!  Thanks for posting.

URAterrorist
Chemtrails Are: Persistent lines of chemical-infused aerosol spray dispersals from typically unmarked planes which are now seen in the sky all over the world. Unlike normal jet contrails formed from water vapor, chemtrails spread to form a thick blanket of cloud cover, held together by polymer fibers until they reach the ground, contaminating crops, water supplies and humans with radioactive soft metals and dessicated red blood cells which contain active human pathogens.

Ah. So “URAterrorist” is a sock-puppet of SERIOUS BULL, as the above is a word-for-word cut-and-paste of his!

KarakulBrigand
Chemtrails don’t exist? Watch this vid.  Experimental Biological Chemical Spraying(chemtrails?)

RyanKearns1985
Does anyone know how a cloud works?  It is condensed moisture.  As a jet flies, it produces exhaust.  Very hot exhaust.  This hot exhaust condenses as it is cooled by the upper atmosphere, creating a sort of artificial cloud.  If you believe in this chemtrail story, then you are a grade “A” follower, and an idiot.

TouchedProductions
Sorry to say it, but it’s public knowledge now.  It has nothing to do with conspiracies.  It’s weather modification, and it’s funded by the US State.  Please, before you start flaming me, at least google it.  I wish I was wrong.

iggy6
It is more than weather mod.  AbouttheSky.Com. Plus, read CFR’s own documents… cryptogon.com/?p=7709
Explain the nanotech biologicals containing dessicated blood cells, 24 viruses, anthrax, and many other nasties. Is that for the weather too?

TouchedProductions
I only preach what is proven, mate.   No offense, but unless I can prove it, I’m not going to push it.

CrudeDude
Chemtrailers are just stupid, delusional, paranoid cretins.  Sad.

URAterrorist
What is unbelievably dumb, is someone who thinks contrails and chemtrails are the same thing.
 Yes any idiot knows that contrails form at high altitudes and low temperatures.  Chemtrails however, form at ANY altitude and at ANY temperature.  There are 4 seasons where I live.  Chemtrails form in ALL of them.  I’ve only been watching this anomaly for 10 years now.  If they don’t spray all night, my morning BLUE sky turns completely WHITE EVERY afternoon.  This may be your memory of normal, but not mine!

He doesn’t know the stratosphere exists.

RyanKearns1985
The weather is usually “controlled” by salts, not chemical aerosols, as far as I know.  Anyone else know?

PParranoidd
The thing you’re talking about is called cloud seeding.

BlueSkiesWhiteLies
After many years of fighting the Global, Chemtrail Operation, I have found only ONE WEAPON that is effective against them. That is an Orgonite CloudBuster. This simple yet powerful device, breaks up and repels Chemtrails and it restores and maintains natural cloud and blue sky. You can learn to make one on U Tube but I bought mine ready made.  I have 12 work’n hard.  Now my neighborhood sky stays BLUE while surrounding areas stay WHITE! Buy Yours@CTbustersdotcom and SEE The Change In Your World!

I wouldn’t call the above a white lie…

iggy6
Please read cryptogonDOTcom/?p=7709
From the CFR’s own documents…
“1. Add more small reflecting particles in the upper part of the atmosphere
2. Add more clouds in the lower part of the atmosphere
3. Place various kinds of reflecting objects in space either near the earth or at a stable location between the earth and the sun.
4. Change large portions of the planets land cover from things that are dark such as trees to things that are light such as open snowcover or grasses.”
So KILL TREES?

CrudeDude
Chemtrailers are just stupid, delusional, paranoid cretins.  Sad.

gulesh01
Ok I need to mention something…  I saw this on another video and someone responded saying: What we are looking at is the inside of a training aircraft.  Before pilots start flying human beings they train in plains that are filled with liquid, weight, and shift measurments so every movement of the pilot is categorized and graded for his piloting course.  The weight barrels and over abundance of electrical equipment stocked head to toe in there are there for pilot training. I dont know whats true…

gliderwickid
Those tanks are used in test aircraft for centre of gravity adjustments.   Test pilots need to fly the aircraft on the extremes of what’s possible so as to keep “normal” pilots within the safety limit.  And rather than to risk people or have to carry around with lead bricks they use these large water tanks and shift the water around through the piping to shift the centre of gravity for testing.  The electronics are to record flight parameters.

RyanKearns1985
You’re a bad ass.  Finally a voice of reason.  I thought for sure the illuminati, the reptilian overlords, morgellons or Orgonite was responsible.  About three weeks ago I stumbled upon chemtrails and I haven’t stopped researching yet.  I just keep getting deeper and deeper into paranoid, delusional, craziness.

gulesh01
Now wait up a sec….  Like what the other guy says even if this video is nonsense it doesn’t rule anything out…  btw I have been researching morgellons for about a year.  I first discovered it and spent 2 weeks straight looking into it.  In that time I’ve read every single website that aims to disprove and discredit the “condition” as well as all the sites that try to prove it.  After weeks of first studying it I have no choice but to conclude for now that this disease is real…

gulesh01
Check the CDC site bro they been studying Morgellons for 3 years and they STILL haven’t said a word about their findings.  I must ask… It takes 3+years for them to tell us that these fibers are hair’s/fuz? See for yourself – they have NO suggestion – stumped.   The biggest website dedicated to disproving morg (odd?) is a site called Morgellons Watch ran by 2-3 people who create/debate evidence.  Ever since CDC started they disabled their comments section as it was always filled with angry morg sufferers.

Revolt300
Don’t listen to explanations from anyone.   trails should not be in the sky.   thats it.   this video means nothing.   what we see in the sky DOES mean something.  demand answers and documentation.

gliderwickid
I’m not saying that there is nothing.  I’m just answering gulesh question.  Why should nobody listen to a correct answer?  You yourself are demanding answers but you’re not listening to them.  Bit weird don’t you think?

CrudeDude
Orgonite counters the harmful effects of chemtrails. Simply place a small piece of orgonite between the layers of the foil in your hat.

CrudeDude
Revolt300 said “don’t listen to explanations from anyone…”  Especially if they are coherent, logical statements made by professional people who are more intelligent, and know more about the subject than you.  Only listen to statements made by people who are just as delusional as you are.

oltomee
If you listen to some corrupted scientist (more intelligent than you, know more about the subject etc but he’s a corrupted nwo agent) who is covering the spraying operation you’d feel more informed?  Sometimes you have to think by yourself.   There are weird white planes that spray something on us all around the world.  You don’t have to work at the Nasa to see that lol. Do we have to wait the day they spray blue or red shit to say “it is not normal”?

CrudeDude
oltomee, you poor delusional paranoid cretin, Chemtrails? You gotta be kidding! ROFLMAO at you clowns.

haycarambaaaisback
A- U r just plain stupid.  B- U r one of them.

CrudeDude
haycarambaaaisback said ” A- U r just plain stupid.  B- U r one of them.”
Yep.  You got me.  I’m “one of them”.  I’m one of the many intellegent people out here laughing at your ridiculous “chemtrail” videos.  And as far as “stupid” is concerned, I’d say that people who think airplanes are spraying chemicals on them to depopulate the earth are the truly stupid.  That’d include you, Sparkie.

xxxxxDIABLOxxx
if you can prove it right.. go on.   if you have proof it’s not true.. good.   if none of the above.. shut the fuck up and go fuck your mother until she’s dead.  if she’s dead, go dig her up and stick your tongue on her motherfuckin pussy.  you don’t know the truth, and you don’t know otherwise.  don’t play smart dick. hehehe…

gliderwickid
Now calm down.  I’m not some agent or scientist.  I’m training to become a commercial pilot which gives me a reasonable understanding about what happens with planes and contrails.  IF chemtrails were to be real i definitely don’t want anything to do with them.  But atm I am just not convinced by the evidence you guys are providing.  But i’ll check up there if i get a job 😉

julyboy66
allright

Ng7solja
the government can do what they want to human beings and do not have to tell us as long as what they’re doin is classified as testing.

SpriteCCA
So, Middle-eastern musicians are behind ChemTrails?   Whatszup with that?   Geeze…  Peace, Sprite.

Revolt300
pay no attention to these videos.  they spray our skies around the world.   no permission and without mentioning it.  the sky is fine the way it is.  nothing more is needed to be said.   especially in the states.   is america not a democracy?

TheMorpheusbrasil
USA is now a Fascist Dictatorship.  Don’t you know?  Educate yourself man!  George Bush ends the Democracy all around the world man.  Go research, Television is the main tool to make people fool, in order to implement the World Slavery!

TheJimbob111
We are a Constitutional Republic last time I checked, though it would not appear to be in todays events.

WTU208
see the first line written into the Stone Henge sized Georgia Guidestones…..and then tell me these are not real…
 
speeder757
I know why don’t the anti-chemtrailists hire a fucking big hot air balloon and go up into these clouds and breathe as deep as they could, just to prove us wrong.

MrSuntour
speeder757, better yet, chemtrailers should hire someone to go up and do some testing on these persistent contrails that they claim are “chemtrails”.   Chemtrailers make the claims, they’re the ones who have to “prove” that there’s a “clandestine spraying operation”.

speeder757
Give me proof they aren’t chemtrails, it’s just words so far no proof from contrailist either, trust me I don’t make decisions without the facts.  convince me I`ll be the first to agree they are contrails but no one so far has, you’d be the first.

MrSuntour
I think you’re having a problem grasping the simple logic of our situation.  It’s impossible to prove something does not exist, it’s nonsense to even suggest it.  Therefore, the onus is on the Chemtrail believers to prove that Chemtrails DO exist.
Fact – Contrails exist and act the same way they have acted for more than 50 years, youtube search “newsreel battle of the bulge” for tons of persisting and grid contrails from the 1940’s.
Now prove that persistent contrails today are different.
“Newsreel: Battle of the Bulge” at 6:08 to be exact, tons of persisting and crossing contrails from 1945.

speeder757
I would know the difference if I see vapours from the engines and I could live with that it is contrails.  No one should take the word of something unless they research it and all possible avenues are exhausted untill you can come to a competent decision on your own, even then question yourself if it’s correct information you’re getting.  Now if I see spray nozzles there would be no question as to chemtrails, thats why observing with a telescope might be the only way.

MrSabre11
i’ve seen these news reels but i’ve also seen a discovery channel documentry on chemical warfare and saw shots of planes dumping clouds of chemicals and testing the results on animals.. this was during the 30’s – 50’s…   Also weather mods need to be taken into consideration thats also been a viable technology since the 30’s…  In the UK we flooded a town testing it way back then…

chibet
What’s a Chemtrail? Seems Interesting.

peterson553
Has anyone else noticed a ceasing of chemtrails in their area? Out here in LA, on the westside, there have been no chemtrails for over two weeks.  They went from very heavy application for a long time, then nothing…

banana268
In Vancouver BC they have been getting progressively worse.  I have never seen them so bad.  I see them every day.

Firegiant3
Man just watching these movies and reading your comments causes the loss of brain cells how could any of you survive this long in life with the IQ of a Fern?

LOL ! 🙂

CrudeDude
Your comment is an insult to ferns worldwide.  Even a plant has more inherent intelligence than the average chemtard.

elucidative
You got to be a complete retard if you can’t see these “contrails” don’t fade away into the humidity because they are aerosols and make false cirrus clouds and fog the ground with chemicals.  Like they don’t spray people, tell that to the agent orange victims.

Firegiant3
WOW, you are far off there…  my father was in an Agent orange area and VA taking care of our troops…   now they admitted what they did.  It’s way different in a war zone.  It doesn’t make what they did right, but they owned up to it…  our govt’s not perfect and in many cases yes, screwed up, but it’s not dropping chem on us in everyday situations.  Go see a shrink and get fixed.  If not, then move out of this country if you don’t trust them…  get your head whacked off in Iraq, or somewhere similar, and realize what you had.

11seretter11
i would say the same to u, realise what u have, for soon it will all be gone and something new will come, and the time for us is coming fast, it all has begun for u, so sticking around in the US for the next years is maybe not the best place to be.
-Obama – building a civilian army
-Fluoridation of ur drinking water (to slow u all down)
-house market crashed
-dollar will collapse soon
-us/canada/mexico become one (=EU)
-FEMA camps
u don’t think there are chemtrails in the rest of the world?

BingoTheClowno666
huh? is this a language?

pffbh
eugenics is alive and well . They love soft kill weapons that can’t be traced and make you sick so they can sell you medicine to cover the symptoms and you end up in debt and they take it all in the end when you die…  I love the flag wavers like firegiant…  took many years for the govt to admit to wrongdoing over agent orange.  learn some more history.  Forced sterilizations were performed on american women from 1909 till 1945 for women thought to be unfit mothers.

pffbh
Syphilis was given to blacks as an experiment.  aids is man-made.  azt was given to aids victims and it sped up the process of dying. where the hell did morgellons come from?  The victims think it’s chemtrails.  What about the bees dying en masse? No bees, no food.  GMO foods affect the dna in your gut.  It’s frickin’ endless and the fda does nothing!  go have some aspartame…  enjoy!  It’s all coming to a head.  I’m a vet by the way 74-78…  Now our troops are exposed to depleted Uranium.  look it up…

pffbh
yes, flag wavers, we mean nothing.  we are cannon fodder for the big boys playing war games.  Its all about the money.  Always has been…  here’s a heads-up for all who are reading my rant. The dollar will tank between nov 5th and march of 2010 according to predictive linguistics which has a 75% accuracy rating.  Better have a 6 month supply of food, at least.  get a couple 50lb bags of rice and beans.  better own silver or gold depending on what you can afford. Hyperinflation is coming soon.  good luck!

Firegiant3
see his profile for my rebuttal.

beachcomber2008
This is the Boeing 777 LR prototype.  Look it up in airliners. net.  The notice has been photoshopped in.  THIS IS AN IN-YOUR-FACE LIE.

DYONESLEMOSRAMOS
jihad now, jihad now, jihad now.

speeder757
Ive seen those newsreels too.  Yes they are compelling, but newsreels can be doctored.  Hell, I’ve seen a truck turn into a robot in a movie.  That looked real.

GregOrca
You guys – if you had ever bothered to do legitimate research you would know these are normal ballast tanks for simulating the weight of passengers in new aircraft prototypes.  All prototype passenger airliners use them.  You can plainly see them on film of the very first 747 in 1969 long before 1996!
Not a shitty doctored photo stolen off the net with “sprayer”‘ and “Hazard” added using photoshop, but the real thing.
at 6:41


at 1:05


Also watch this video at 5:51 mins in

Such old films show how farcical the claims of Chemtards are, and show their almost total ignorance of even the most basic aspects of aviation and science and meteorology.

Stev888
The favourite concept of the Chemtard is the “persistent contrail” normally prefixed somewhere with the thought-stopping “scientifically proven.”

GregOrca
No, the favourite concept of the chemtard is “just look up at the sky”, the same mindless principle that made people think the sun revolved around the earth for millenia.  Chemtards don’t understand science.  They don’t understand anything much which is why they believe in the hoax and have no idea what their eyes are seeing.

sodasoap
I’m a pilot and this are not contrail, it’s more than vapour than simple minds may think.  Not normal for sure.

stopthechem
i know they are not normal.. because i cough up blood and have difficulty breathing about 3 hours after they pass by … sick bastards.

AntiLieGuy
The chemtrails are hide our 10th planet Nibiru. This is also the reason the govt is now classifying all asteroid events.  this is the warning for the war of armageddon which will see Russia, China and the SCO destroy America on 10-10-09.
News here: (3w) . docstoc . com/docs/6519605/WarNews
btw – gregorca is a paid govt liar. dont argue with the liars.

Said with such conviction too.  But the date has passed!  Are we at war?

CrudeDude
AntiLieGuy—1st degree Chemtard.

sleathx
I agree with you, he is a liar.  I don’t know about government liar, but he certainly could be a disinformant. Not agreeing with chemtrails, but his arguments against chemtrails are “chemtards are wrong, chemtards are stupid, chemtards don’t know science.”  That’s not an argument, nor is it a debatable fact, it is a series of opinions.  People tend to take opinions as facts – so he is a decent liar.  But not good enough.

tAcco9911
You cannot go into a debate with chemtards, because there is no foundation for debate.  You won’t debate with someone who tells you earth is a disk and not a globe.  So it is perfectly reasonable to say (and, therefore, not discuss with them) “chemtards are wrong, chemtards are stupid, chemtards don’t know science.”  It may be an opinion, but it’s a well-founded one.

vaccineshurtbabies
“chemtards” = chemtrail deniers
There is an obvious difference between chemtrails and contrails.  Contrails fade, chemtrails spread out into smoke-like formations and often create chembows.  Contrails don’t.

tAcco9911
Ah, vaccineshurtbabies…  interesting.  Please explain why that makes you sure that longer lasting and smoke-like formations that last behind an airplane are chemtrails and not contrails! 
The only thing that is obvious is that there is different behavior in contrails.  Or what about clouds?  They look also like smoke, can last very long and influence the weather and there are may different types of them. Uh, I am scared of them!
😀

tAcco9911
You know that the atmosphere is not a monolithic formation?  It has different layers, with different conditions, airplanes are flying at different altitudes, there are so much variables that can influence the “behavior” of a cloud or contrail and if you consider them, the different behavior of contrails from time to time can be explained by more rational means than a conspiracy theory about governments polluting or sky on purpose!

tAcco9911
Sorry, but that’s the problem with chemtards: their minds seem to be so simplistic that they cannot imagine that the world is far more complex than their minds and everything that looks strange must be made up by an evil world conspiracy.  I do not want to insult anyone, but please, if you do not have the brains, shut the f*!? up and deal with and talk about topics that you understand…

poopindaturd
and how is this going to hide a planet… seriously…

CrudeDude
Correct Title; “CHEMTARDS FROM THE INSIDE”

TheFireShow
Looks like you guys are being exposed, hey DUDE? You can try to deceive all the morons you like, but some of us know too much. Perhaps name-calling makes you out to be highly intelligent, and beyond the ENLIGHTED ONE.  However, try as you may, you will only persuade the weak minded clones.  We who track air pressure, humidity, moisture, and temps know the games that the world militaries, and new world order governments play.  PERHAPS YOU WORK FOR THEM.

sodasoap
You are right I cough blood as well!
 
aces9876
more people need to become aware of chemtrails, its so obvious.

mypigmisery
There is no money for we need, oh money is so tight, gotta stop this funding, gotta take more funds for humanitarian good.  No funds going here, less going there.  But I’ll be damned they got LOTSA LOTSA money for this poison!  Can U imagine the money we could have for the good of others – instead of using it on this?

aroneous
HAHAHA Where are the thousands of pilots, crews, air traffic controllers, airport employees, chemical producers, loaders, plane owners, repairmen, and hundreds of other jobs?  Basically at least a million people worldwide would have to be in on this with none of them breaking silence for it to be true.  Yes there are chemicals that come out of the back of airplanes, from fuel combustion.  Contrails appear differently in the sky depending on the atmosphere.  Sorry to ruin your little fantasy story.

vaccineshurtbabies
“Where are the thousands of pilots, crews…”
Interesting point.  The fact remains that chemtrails are real.  I have seen quite a few myself and they’re obviously not contrails.

WOW. Another telling point slides right off the tinfoil hat.

voidows
Thanks for sharing.  Altho we never know that this plane was never used for spraying on people. We now have some good proof they try to hide it.  Why else would they rebuild an commercial plane that is far more expensive than an industrial plane. With no windows on the side for example.  Thanks for sharing.

I recognize the style here.  This point I have seen made in the original Italian.  Voidows is an originator of this fraud.

gliderwickid
It was never used for spraying people.  It’s a test aircraft.  Those tanks are ballast tanks used for Centre of Gravity shifting so different loads can be simulated without putting people at risk.  Do some research before you blindly believe every Youtube video.

voidows
Talk about brainwash.  Of course they use it for lots of different stuff.  But thinking it’s only for the GOOD of mankind is really believing everything so-called officials say and not searching any further than that.  I did a lot of research already and am still busy with it.  Ignoring and saying it’s not true ain’t research dude.

gliderwickid
Dude…  the picture of the inside of the aircraft is taken from Airliners.net.  It’s a prototype Boeing 777-200LR.  This actual picture is from test aircraft WD001.  The 2 signs were photoshopped in.  Says something about the trustworthiness of your fellow researchers.

voidows
OMG I know that.  I know they r used for more stuff.  And i know there r people that make scams.  But just because they give you a reason why they use it.  Doesn’t mean the other reasons r impossible or faulty.  There’s more than enough proof around.  It’s not just this movie.  This movie proves it can be done and it is done.  What is this with you people?
 100 people talk about some unknown.  And 1 person says it’s not true and you all believe that single person.  What a brainwash.
Show me the official site then were these pictures were taken from and edited by an editor.  
Since you know for sure what you say you must have proof to back it up.  Or did YOU only watch youtube movies and listen to your teachers at school.  And watch wikipedia?  Show me the pictures without the altering of it.  Because i have screened these pictures after you told me.  And i can’t see any abnormality in it.  It is all seamlessy fitting together. Pls give link because i don’t believe you.

A fine bluff!
 
tAcco9911
“you must have proof to back it up”  Where are your proofs?  “Because i have screened these pictures after you told me.  And i can’t see any abnormality in it.”  And you are an expert in image manipulation?  The one who is believing the wrong people, is you!  You listen to people who have no real evidence, just weird speculation.  They accuse people of polluting our sky without either evidence or proof.  The defendant is considered innocent until proven otherwise…   And you have no proof!
 
gliderwickid
I most certainly have proof.  The original was taken by William Appleton.  Go to airliners.net.  Search for William Appleton in the top righthand corner of the screen.  And then it’s picture 8 on the first page of results.  You’ll have to do it this way because you can’t post links in youtube comments, unfortunately.

voidows
LoL..  Just stay in your BOX of thinking mate.  It doesn’t matter.  Even when i bring a shipload of proof you still won’t believe it.  And yes i have a master in digital editing for your information.  Why do you answer a question with an question?  I ask for the real pictures and proof of your words you said. And you ask me that question again?

tAcco9911
I do not ask about proofs for pictures.  I asked for proofs for chemtrails!  These pictures and fabricated videos do not prove anything.  It is OK to question things, but it is not OK to neglect the obvious answers and create a world conspiracy from the most illogical and unlikely explanations.  This is … sorry, I cannot find another word for it… silly.  You are the one in the BOX, because you only think about chemtrails as being real!”  “Even when i bring a shipload of proof you still won’t believe it.  “OK, bring a shipload of valid unquestionable proofs that are scientifically grounded or based on eye-witnesses (and just seeing a plane creating a contrail is not evidence for chemtrails).  Explain how the logistics for chemtrails work, explain the motivation for “spraying” and explain the physics and chemistry.  The question here is not about faked images, so maybe you are discussing the wrong subject regarding your profession.

voidows
thanks gliderwick i will look into it.   Tacco you simply keep saying the same stuff as i asked you.  This is my last entry since we won’t come to an agreement like this and it only gets worse.  I believe something and you believe something.  Let’s respect each other’s choices okay.   Thanks for responding Tacco and Glider.  Without debate we will never get smarter.  Thanks a lot.

So tacco i was right the picture is not altered in any way.  I looked at the picture what spiderwick told. It’s precisely the same one.  Do you see any bees for example around the last years.  They pollinate the plants.  If this stops the plants will go extinct.  That’s a link to the chemtrails. And Germany has openly admitted that they were testing chemicals to alter the weather for war practice. There is much more to see and read then only a few youtube movies. And pls open your mind tacco.

Voidows slid smoothly out of that one with a successful misdirection.

gliderwickid
Germany has openly admitted to using Chaff.  The translation from German to English is misleading.  There is no mention whatsoever about chemtrails in that one.  I must admit that there is something happening with the bees.  But that can have many other reasons than chemtrails alone.  These chemtrail movies are not good research material.  There are people out there deliberately altering pictures and videos to prove their point.  And i must add that the picture was altered.  The black writing above and below the piece of paper on the wall was added.  Where he claims it says Sprayer and Hazard inside.  And the label on one of the tanks which he highlighted says Load Bank in the original picture.

wayneob1
Google this: Leaked DEFRA Papers from the U.K. Confirm Chemtrails Usage Real!

Tressco
…misleading title…  …defend your credibility…  Interesting info, though!

oasisthunder
And to think, you American fluoride-drinking people are so dumbed-down already that INSTEAD of complaining & doing something about this chemtrail spraying that occurs all over the USA…  you simply watch baseball and do absolutely NOTHING!   WAKE UP PEOPLE!  Cut the crapola on irrelevant stupidity and do something, ANYTHING to stop this!  That goes for you goofy Canucks 2.

tgambill
Nazi Germany used fluoride in the camps to make prisoners docile. Yes my fellow Americans are heading for a major wake up call that will dwarf 911, since the government planned 911 anyway.

gulesh01
Christ Mr Canada you really need to tighten your weed control laws.  Keep your nutter ass on the toilet.  I seen this before.  What you are looking at is the inside of a training aircraft.  Before pilots start flying humans they train in craft that are filled with liquid, weight, and shift measurments so every movement of the pilot is categorized and graded for his piloting course.

WellSightedGentleman
you’re right!  its all about weed control laws!   believe it or not!

Telepcanin
Why do they do that, do they spray some viruses or what?

diffusedlight
It’s the tin foil hat brigade!  This is a plane used for testing WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION ON A PASSENGER JET.  They pump water around the tanks to simulate different passenger seating plans to make sure the plane is safe to fly.  It’s funny how desperate illiterate hippies have to believe in something “bigger” than them (like an evil government conspiracy at every turn) -when 99.99999% of people already know where the photos and videos they stole ORIGINALLY came from.  It’s the tin foil hat brigade!

pajas2222
LOL, just lol!

doobedoo22
When an a/c is new, you need to test its performance with a weight equivalent to a full passenger load.  So they mount small tanks in place of each seat, and pump them full of water – which stays on board for the whole flight.  What we’re shown here is a prototype or pre-production a/c.  If you wanted to transport or spray chemicals, you’d use fewer, larger tanks – more efficient, obviously.

aheartattack1
Wow, the follies of developing a program such as photoshop…  damn you GATES!!!
p.s. i mean the placards not the tanks.

chrispyt77
the tanks are for testing of weight distribution. this dodgy photoshop job is excellent disinfo.   it proves nothing, just that some people like stirring up trouble and creating easily debunked disinfo.  but this dodgy little picture doesn’t change the fact that contrails used to dissipate, and now they create banks of wispy white ‘clouds’.  hold onto your intellect, let go of your conditioned simplistic ideas about big issues in the world.  Something is amiss in the sky.

bikersrule07
I’m sorry but this could be any old cargo plane…   how come these people who are supposed to have taken these pics, never ever get the tail number?  Hmm, or they never ever show more photos of the plane, this is bull shit.

durizap
Just stay in your conformity zone of ignorance, and stay cheerfull…  Or wake up to reality!
 
bikersrule07
Why?  Who is to say you’re right?  Who says you’re wrong and I’m right or vice versa?  What you said to me durizap, the same goes for you.

durizap
Difference is, that I do not say this is truth or BS.  I put a neutral stand until I know much more.  You said he was wrong, I said you should wake up and get out of your conformity zone (in a sarcastic way tho).  I say this, to make you consider the possibilities, not just to blindly believe videos like this.  Sorry if I offended you, I only tried to provoke you a tiny bit to make you think for yourself.

bikersrule07
okay.. how am i ignorant? how am i being comfortable?… why? because i don’t fall for what you may believe? in or what somone else believes in, there is no logic there.. you don’t even know me to judge me like that.. i don’t think you even know what i believe in.

VelosoFernando
Spraying Day in Portugal – Tuesday 25th August 2009 – Lots of grids in the Sky.

lukeslandspeeder
ya so much the sky has faded and isn’t blue anymore.  it’s a white faded pale blue haze everyday now.  1970″s-1980″s people know how different it is now including the summer evenings, the winds don’t blow anymore, the sun is different color also.  then compared to now now is terrible.  summer evening in 1989 were WOW.  they felt so good outside.  gone now.

TheMorpheusbrasil
Yes, I make your words as mine, here in BRAZIL we suffered huge attacks since may, now we have 4 days without chemtrails, but the skies ARE WHITE NOW, with strong sun we can see perfectly the light white fog all the day, and at morning’s dawn the skies, once black-to-blue, are now WHITE TO LIGHT-BLUE-GRAY!  OMG!  (just send my report from Brazil to world)

bulltexan1
Trymetylaluminum-radar jamming medium see ::: qc0TWVtozio&feature=related  Also can (in theory) used to curb “global warming” by dispersing in UPPER ionisphere, to reflect sunlight…  away from mother earth…

gliderwickid
And Jet aircraft are supposed to put these particles into the ionosphere?  Do you even know how high the Ionosphere is?  You need a space shuttle to get there!  You guys absolutely don’t know what you’re talking about.

Breakhoven
muther fuckers!
 
rocnsoc2007
New World Order?

moirbindy
Oh?  BS that’s kegs of Beer not chemicals lmao!
 
Adideva01
Today on my way to work there were 10ths of these ******* chemtrails all over the sky.  And by the way these types of demoniac events are taking place in other countries…  As mentioned in the Vedas in the current Kali-yuga goverment/rulers are demons disguised…  “Oh Supreme Personality of Godhead; Please destroy all demoniac forces of the Earth.”  Planet Earth needs new Mngmt.  Era of Enlightenment coming…

dconrad000
Go to my channel and see a recent, extremely hard hitting interview on the absolute fraud and danger of vaccines — and about a simple tool to viralize the truth about vaccines. The more people that know the truth, the harder it will be to force these vaccines on those of us that would rather put our trust in God, eating right, our own immune systems, natural remedies, faith & prayer — rather than on Big Pharma and their veritable witches brews.

beachcomber2008
I see this concatenation of lies is still up and carrying out its socially-malicious slanders.  What a vile and ignorant world we find ourselves in.

OK Rushfan, counter these statements, ignoring the fact that you unashamedly persist in publishing this FAKE.  All aircraft trails are definitely contrails.  Burning kerosine makes an equal amount of water.  The plane is in the stratosphere which is stable and clear.  The stratosphere can hold in supersaturation (when very clean) an excess of water as vapor.  This excess can boost the density of the trail by up to 10,000 times.  So 10,000 times as much ICE as the engines make by burning kerosine may be visible to you.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY CONTRAILS.

All aircraft trails are definitely not “chemtrails”.  The gap between engine and trail evidences the invisible exhaust vapors and gases.  Metals don’t make invisible vapors – in fact they’re used in fireworks PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY MAKE BRIGHT COLORED FLAMES.  So there are no metals in the exhaust.  So there is NEITHER aluminum NOR barium present in the TRAIL.  ALL organic materials burn in a jet flame at 2000 degrees to produce that GAP, for carbon dioxide (invisible) and steam (invisible) is what they will make.  No metals.  No organics.  Just fuel and air.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY NOT “CHEMTRAILS”.

edgeguy99
What?  Since when can water vapor from a few jets make a cloudy day?  Since when Einstein?  Let me answer for my ignorant friend.  Since never!  You need to change your misinformation strategy because it’s already painfully clear that someone is spraying stuff into our skies.  Might I suggest saying the stuff is harmless and running with that BS line?  Then, when we are all sick, you can come up with another excuse like “a Virus, not our fault”.
 
beachcomber2008
Since whenever a powered aeroplane flies through ANY stratospheric layer which is SUPERSATURATED, which will happen for 17 flights in every 100 on average.  This has been known ever since the 1000-bomber raids over Germany in 1943.  100s of research papers on this have been written since.  The fact that you have never bothered to RESEARCH THE SCIENCE makes you a jackass, doesn’t it?  Persisting in your lies without bothering to check what I say will make you worse than just a slanderous liar.

edgeguy99
“Since whenever a powered aeroplane flies through ANY stratospheric layer which is SUPERSATURATED, which will happen for 17 flights in every 100 on average.”  And then disappear a mile or two behind the jet.  Not turn into clouds!  And I never slandered anyone.  We all see chemtrails in the sky.  What is your game here?  There is no question that jets are spraying stuff in the air.  What science am I supposed to research?  What lies am I telling?  Look up!  There it is!  Research done!

beachcomber2008
“No-brainers” are for people without brains.  Are you one of those?  Aircraft ice trails PERSIST as a physical consequence of atmospheric humidity.  Do you understand what “persist” means?  What it DOESN’T MEAN is “fade away”!  The world is more complex than you think.  People work harder than you appear to believe.  Calling my resume of known and established atmospheric science “misinformation strategy” IS slanderous.  I have PM’d you.  Read my letter through.

edgeguy99
“Aircraft ice trails PERSIST as a physical consequence of atmospheric humidity.  Do you understand what “persist” means? What it DOESN’T MEAN is “fade away”!  It doesn’t make clouds that block out the sun.  It doesn’t make an overcast day.  We already know about contrails and because of this controversy, we know a lot about contrails.  We are talking about chemtrails or the intentional spraying of a substance in the atmosphere by jet planes.  There is nothing slanderous about anything I said.

beachcomber2008
“We are talking about chemtrails or the intentional spraying of a substance in the atmosphere by jet planes.”  And I have just given you a logical and conclusive proof that your statements are lies, baseless, and without foundation.  Your failure to refute these statements has already demonstrated to everyone that you are indeed a slanderous liar.

edgeguy99
Again with the “slander”.  You’re in a cult.  It sounds like your from the LRH cult but you could be from another.  No matter, your choice of language gives you away.  There are 3 of you here that use the same exact language.  It’s the problem with cults.  After you’re broken down and they rebuild you – it’s always from the same book.  That makes you easy to spot.  Which group do you guys belong to?  Nothing personal, we all breathe the same air.  Are you aware that your life was stolen from you?

beachcomber2008
So you DUCK acknowledging the FRAUD of this video and you DODGE acknowledging the LOGIC of why trails are definitely contrails and why they are definitely NOT “chemtrails”, and wish to change the subject, PROVING beyond all doubt that you ARE indeed a slanderous liar.
You will not conduct an honest debate, will you?  You prefer further slander and ad hominems.  Another irresponsible liar OWNED…  The difference between us is that I am calling you what you obviously are, by your own actions.

edgeguy99
You really like to point the finger.  I lost count of all the crimes you accused me of.  Chemtrails are real and their purpose is a secret.  Call me whatever makes you happy.  Very odd chemical and biological matter are in some chemtrails.  They have found traces of radioactive material and aluminum powder.  And I already told you guys to stop using the word “slander” because It’s a tell that your a cult member and robotically you still use the word.  Your so programmed.  They stole your life.

beachcomber2008
“point finger”- that’s YOU.  Hypocrite.  “lost count” – learn to count.  “Chemtrail real” – No. Your delusion is.  “Call me” – CHEMTARD.  “in some CTs” – Contrails have been tested. ICE.  “traces of r’active mat’l and alum’m” – The US is radioactive. Aluminum is in SOIL.  “stop using slander” – I’ll USE it while you DO it.  “They stole your life” – I’m an atheist and anarchist.  NO bugger owns me. I live in the sun close to family and friends.  You steal TRUTH, even from yourself.  There’ll be consequences.

edgeguy99
Someone is spraying chemicals into our atmosphere and doing so on a global level!  If you want to express your anger, do so at the people poisoning us.  I know from your own choice of words that you’re a NWO cult member.  You’re a Luciferian.  Your statement “I live in the sun” is code for basking in the light of Lucifer (the illuminated one).  This global chemtrail phenomenon is the work of Satanic cults working together to bring about “the New World Order”.  You’re an NWO cult worker ant.

TheAmericanThinkers
Hey edge guy.  i found evidence of Morgellons in the spray that lands on us Chemtrail believers, Checkout my video.  I bet you get it all over you too.

edgeguy99
That’s sperm and you know it.  Don’t belittle a serious subject with your homosexual nonsense.  Grow up already.  You’re too old for this.

TheAmericanThinkers
Hey, these tanks in planes must be a new thing right, because these trails are new and the tanks shouldn’t appear in old films like this which actually explain what they are:

edgeguy99
con·spir·a·cy  /k’n’sp’r’si/ [kuhn-spir-uh-see] noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
These people use the same language.  Accused of “Slander” from two different people who take the same position!  They’re reading from a book.  You people are so transparent.  You must be really low level cult members and youtube doesn’t even deserve a real handler.  But your making our case for us!  Are you two part of a conspiracy?

tastycrows
I am from the government, I come to “debunk” all “myths” about “chemtrails” because it matters to us.  People are finding out about our conspiracy!  They can’t know or the chems won’t work and we won’t be able to control your minds!  With alien technology kept secret in Area 51.

beachcomber2008
You are ignorant and from the Moon.  The Boeing 777 LR Prototype shown in the video has barrels of water in it to shift its centre of gravity in order to determine the flight envelope within which it may be flown.  Someone has photoshopped this picture from Airliners. net to put a “hazmat inside” notice on the cabin wall.  This is a conscious fraud and an absolute lie.   Everything each of you has written has been a lie, a falsehood, a SLANDER.  Everything I’ve written is true.  Too afraid to check?

edgeguy99
We are being chemtrailed by a cartel of satanic cults that have been behind the scene for centuries.  Modern science enables the NWO to affect mankind on a global scale.  They have no qualms about sacrificing us to their “enlightened one” and believe that they will be reincarnated back to their blood lines, preserving their fortunes and power.  So if they die with us, so be it.  Their minds are twisted by an indoctrination process that starts at infancy.  They are highly motivated robots.

beachcomber2008
“spraying chemicals on a global level” – not visible in satellite pics.
“people poisoning” – Your lies are POISON.
“your a NWO cult” – You’re an OWNED cunt.
“Your Luciferian” – You’re a slanderer – once more.
“Your statement “I live in the sun” – Is the TRUTH, for I live in the Canary Isles.  Today it has been HOT AND SUNNY.
All aircraft trails are DEFINITELY CONTRAILS and DEFINITELY NOT CONTRAILS
THIS VIDEO IS A PHOTOSHOPPED FRAUD, defended by a liar who is unable to counter my arguments, which are:
All aircraft trails are definitely contrails.  And this is why.  Burning kerosine makes an equal amount of water.  All long-distance planes cruise in the stratosphere which is stable and clear most all the time – except when it holds sometimes holds visible ice crystals in cirrus clouds.   The stratosphere can hold in supersaturation (only when very clean!) an excess of water as vapor.  This excess can boost the density of the trail by up to 10,000 times.  So 10,000 times as much ICE as the engines make by burning kerosine may be visible to you.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY CONTRAILS.

All aircraft trails are definitely not “chemtrails”.  The gap between engine and trail evidences the invisible exhaust vapors and gases emitted by the engines.  Metals don’t make invisible vapors – in fact they’re used in fireworks PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY MAKE BRIGHT COLORED FLAMES.  So there are no metals of any kind in the exhaust.  So there is NEITHER aluminum NOR barium present in ANY TRAIL, because trails ALWAYS begin with a GAP.   ANY organic material WILL burn in a jet flame at 2000 degrees to produce that GAP, for carbon dioxide (invisible) and steam (invisible) is what they MUST make.  No metals.  No organics.  Just spent fuel and air.  So all aircraft trails are DEFINITELY NOT “CHEMTRAILS”.
 
edgeguy99
Just like car exhaust on a cold day, steam dissipates.  If you see lingering smoke your engine has a problem.  Contrails are similar in that they dissipate.  If it lingers and spreads out then it’s not a contrail.  Jets are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere across the planet and your funny little explanations sound like a used car salesman explaining that the smoke coming out of the exhaust is just steam and not a blown head gasket.  But the truth is in the lingering smoke, not your bull.

TheAmericanThinkers
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.

edgeguy99
Watch them bury my post.

beachcomber2008
“Watch them bury” – You bury mine.
There’s just one of me…:)
“Just like car exhaust on a cold day” – MINUS FORTY is colder than “a cold day”. At the N and S Pole such exhausts PERSIST.
“If you see lingering smoke” – from seven miles beneath you cannot say that.
“If it lingers”? – Hundreds of science papers say ICE.
“Jets are spraying” – You are LYING.
“not your bull” – Thousands of scientists know better than you.  They also know how to use libraries, and debate properly.  They also don’t slander innocent people.

 

SAME POSTS 

youtube

“i have seen these same posts of yours on other chemtrail videos” – but obviously not responded to them.
“Frankly, I have my doubts about chemtrails myself” – because if you had, they’d be MORE than DOUBTS.
“How do you respond to Dr. Deagle’s Video response above?” – I didn’t like “sheeple” or “chemtrails” and a tripod would be NO HELP on a boat anyway. The aircraft above were either breaking from the troposphere into the stratosphere or hitting a humid stratospheric layer.
“There are also videos and still pictures of “chemtrails” that go in circles and is not an airshow” – an “airport holding pattern” or a military “keep station” are normal phenomena.
“Have you seen those?” – Yes. I was an air force brat and then an aeronautical engineer in past lives.
“I understand the onion theory” – NO YOU DON’T. It isn’t a THEORY, it is KNOWN ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS.
“Do some fuels pollute more than others or is it only the onion theory that makes or breaks contrails?” – What MAKES a CONTRAIL is JET EXHAUST (STEAM and NITROGEN and CARBON DIOXIDE) AT 2000 deg C meeting COLD HUMID AIR at -40 to -80 deg C. The STEAM FREEZES TO A FINE “SMOKE” OF ICE CRYSTALS. HUMIDITY LEVELS determine whether or not those crystals SUBLIME back into water vapour, which is INVISIBLE. In SUPERSATURATED AIR the crystals ACCRETE MORE ICE AND GAIN WEIGHT AND FALL FASTER. In perfectly saturated air the crystals REMAIN AND SPREAD LIKE DIFFUSING SMOKE. In less-than-saturated air the crystals SLOWLY SUBLIME AND DISAPPEAR – to water vapor..
In VERY DRY AIR a trail may not become visible at all. 

SCALAR (“WEAPONS”)

tesla-1

“scalar weapons” – Hmm. Wiki pulls up nothing on that. Do you have a good ref?
* Since then I’ve discovered that “scalar weapons” are based on “imaginary number” field calculations deriving from Nicola Tesla’s work. He theorized that through them it was possible to capture FREE ENERGY. Have you seen any such energy in the past 100 years? Nor have I.
Now “imaginary number” calculation have been used in Quantum Theory to make some very successful predictions about the physical properties of particles. However, they have never been extended into the “real” non-quantum world with any success. If they were usable as weapons, they would have been used by now. Have they? – NO..
“other electromagnetic technologies” – “Electromagnetic” isn’t a buzzword. The light you see by IS EM radiation – we all live in a BATH of it, and WITHOUT IT we would DIE. The ONLY dangers from it are from focussed HIGH ENERGY beams – LIKE LASERS OR MICROWAVES. Unless you like getting sunburned on the beach and wish to risk contracting skin cancer.
“plasmatizing the atmosphere” – Now you’re talking HAARP. This can “warm up” a line-of-sight area in the IONOSPHERE some hundreds of square kilometres in area. The energy density is in the order of THREE MICROWATTS per square centimetre, which is LESS THAN A TEN-THOUSANDTH of the energy of SUNLIGHT. It may be able to EXCITE the ionosphere, but that would be because THERE’S VERY LITTLE MATERIAL IN THE IONOSPHERE – IT’S ALMOST OUTER SPACE. It could NEVER successfully warm up my cup of cold tea.

haarp

1) It’s line-of-sight (but cannot move!) which makes it a crummy weapon.
2) It is incapable of carrying out war policies – the worst it can do is damage radio communication.
3) It is energy-INEFFICIENT, demanding VAST energy input for a small output.
4) There are AT LEAST THREE OTHERS. The European one is TEN TIMES LARGER.
5) These places are RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENTS, and WILL get military funding on the off-chance that there’s some tactical information to be gained from knowledge of the ionosphere.

THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS SCALAR WEAPONS.

SCALE

atmosphereearth

A SENSE OF SCALE?
A typical passenger transport plane (medium haul) burns 7 tons of fuel and unloads 7 tons of ice and 4 tons of gaseous oxides (mostly carbon dioxide) into the tropopause, which is the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere.
The troposphere contains about 80% of the atmosphere and is the part of the atmosphere in which we live, and make weather observations. In this layer, average temperatures DECREASE WITH HEIGHT. This is known as adiabatic cooling, i.e. a change in temperature caused by a decrease in pressure. Even so, it is still more prone to vertical mixing by convective and turbulent transfer, than other parts of the atmosphere. These vertical motions and the abundance of water vapor make it the home of all important weather phenomena.
The troposphere’s thermal profile is largely the result of the heating of the Earth’s surface by incoming solar radiation. Heat is then transferred up through the troposphere by a combination of convective and turbulent transfer. This is in direct contrast with the stratosphere, where warming is the result of the direct absorption of solar radiation and INCREASES WITH HEIGHT. The stratosphere is STABLE, and doesn’t support convection at all.
The troposphere is around 16 km high at the equator, with the temperature at the tropopause around –80 °C. At the poles, the troposphere reaches a height of around 8 km, with the temperature of the tropopause around –40 °C in summer and –60 °C in winter.
The weight of the atmosphere is 5.25 petatonnes. The ANNUAL FUEL BURNT is 300 M tons.
One can see that, as a proportion of the weight of the atmosphere, the burnt fuel comprises FIVE MILLIONTHS OF A PER CENT.
It would take TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS at today’s rate of air travel, (and believe me THAT CANNOT happen – fossil fuel will be gone in twenty years!) to HALF-FILL our atmosphere with contrail gases (and that of course ignores the fact that physical and living processes would be doing that job anyway).

boklores

The Earth would easily absorb them in that time…   it’s BIG…

SCATTERING

“Jazzroc IS a spook its obvious” – look up my spooky music on my channel here.
“why hasnt any1 seen these chemtrails 5+ years ago” – they were 1st seen 88 years ago – I’ve seen them for 50 years. I called them contrails…because they ARE contrails…
“why are the planes unmarked” – the phenomenon is called “blue light scattering”. Read a PHYSICS book.

craft-trail

“why do they form overcast clouds” – because they ARE clouds – of ICE crystals – just as are Cirrus clouds.
“why is there proof that these trails contain heavy metals, anthrax, zinc & other nasties” – THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL. I’ve been looking…
“the mainstream media won’t” – they don’t concern themselves with fools.

media