JazzRoc versus “Chemtrails”

Contrail Facts and “Chemtrail” Fictions

Posts Tagged ‘soda pop


with 9 comments



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


(from Wikipedia)

Name, Symbol, Number: barium, Ba, 56
Chemical series: alkaline earth metals
Group, Period, Block: 2, 6, s
Appearance: silvery white


Standard atomic weight 137.327(7) ug·mol-1
Electron configuration [Xe] 6s2
Electrons per shell 2, 8, 18, 18, 8, 2


Physical properties

Phase: solid
Density 3.51 g/cm3
Liquid density at m.p.: 3.338 g/cm3
Melting point: 1000K (727°C, 1341°F)
Boiling point: 2170K (1897°C, 3447°F)
Heat of fusion: 7.12 kJ/mol-1
Heat of vaporization: 140.3 kJ/mol
Heat capacity: (25°C) 28.07 J/mol/K
Oxidation states: 2 (strongly basic oxide)
Magnetic ordering: paramagnetic
Electrical resistivity: (20°C) 332 nO/m
Thermal conductivity: (300K) 18.4 W/m/K
Thermal expansion (25°C) 20.6 µm/m/K
Mohs hardness: 1.25
CAS registry number: 7440-39-3


Barium is a chemical element, it has the symbol Ba, and atomic number 56. Barium is a soft silvery metallic alkaline earth metal and is never found in nature in its pure form due to its reactivity with air. Its oxide is historically known as baryta but it reacts with water and carbon dioxide and is not found as a mineral. The most common naturally occurring minerals are the very insoluble barium sulfate, BaSO4 (barite), and barium carbonate, BaCO3 (witherite). Benitoite is a rare gem containing barium.
It is a metallic element that is chemically similar to calcium but more reactive. This metal oxidizes very easily when exposed to air and is highly reactive with water or alcohol, producing hydrogen gas. Burning in air or oxygen produces not just barium oxide (BaO) but also the peroxide. Simple compounds of this heavy element are notable for their high specific gravity. This is true of the most common barium-bearing mineral, its sulfate barite BaSO4, also called ‘heavy spar’ due to the high density (4.5 g/cm³).
It has some medical and many industrial uses:
* Barium compounds, and especially barite (BaSO4), are extremely important to the petroleum industry. Barite is used in drilling mud, a weighting agent in drilling new oil wells.
* Barium sulfate is used as a radiocontrast agent for X-ray imaging of the digestive system (“barium meals” and “barium enemas”).
* Barium carbonate is a useful rat poison and can also be used in making bricks. Unlike the sulfate, the carbonate dissolves in stomach acid, allowing it to be poisonous.
* An alloy with nickel is used in spark plug wire.
* Barium oxide is used in a coating for the electrodes of fluorescent lamps, which facilitates the release of electrons.
* The metal is a “getter” in vacuum tubes, to remove the last traces of oxygen.
* Barium carbonate is used in glassmaking. Being a heavy element, barium increases the refractive index and luster of the glass.
* Barite is used extensively in rubber production.
* Barium nitrate and chlorate give green colors in fireworks.
* Impure barium sulfide phosphoresces after exposure to the light.
* Lithopone, a pigment that contains barium sulfate and zinc sulfide, is a permanent white that has good covering power, and does not darken in when exposed to sulfides.
* Barium peroxide can be used as a catalyst to start an aluminothermic reaction when welding rail tracks together. It can also be used in green tracer ammunition.
* Barium titanate was proposed in 2007[1] to be used in next generation battery technology for electric cars.
* Barium Fluoride is used in infrared applications.
* Barium is a key element in YBCO superconductors.



Barium (Greek barys, meaning “heavy”) was first identified in 1774 by Carl Scheele and extracted in 1808 by Sir Humphry Davy in England. The oxide was at first called barote, by Guyton de Morveau, which was changed by Antoine Lavoisier to baryta, from which “barium” was derived to describe the metal.



Because barium quickly becomes oxidized in air, it is difficult to obtain this metal in its pure form. It is primarily found in and extracted from the mineral barite which is crystallized barium sulfate. Barium is commercially produced through the electrolysis of molten barium chloride (BaCl2)


The most important compounds are barium peroxide, barium chloride, sulfate, carbonate, nitrate, and chlorate.

Naturally occurring barium is a mix of seven stable isotopes. There are twenty-two isotopes known, but most of these are highly radioactive and have half-lives in the several millisecond to several minute range. The only notable exceptions are 133Ba which has a half-life of 10.51 years, and 137Ba (2.55 minutes).


All water or acid soluble barium compounds are extremely poisonous. At low doses, barium acts as a muscle stimulant, while higher doses affect the nervous system, causing cardiac irregularities, tremors, weakness, anxiety, dyspnea and paralysis. This may be due to its ability to block potassium ion channels which are critical to the proper function of the nervous system.
Barium sulfate can be taken orally because it is highly insoluble in water, and is eliminated completely from the digestive tract. Unlike other heavy metals, barium does not bioaccumulate. However, inhaled dust containing barium compounds can accumulate in the lungs, causing a benign condition called baritosis.
Oxidation occurs very easily and, to remain pure, barium should be kept under a petroleum-based fluid (such as kerosene) or other suitable oxygen-free liquids that exclude air.
Barium acetate could lead to death in high doses. Marie Robards poisoned her father with the substance in Texas in 1993. She was tried and convicted in 1996.







Jet engines MAKE soda pop. Decane is the chemical name for aviation kerosine, or JP-8*. The combustion formula goes:
2*C10H22 + 31*O2 -> 20*CO2 + 11*H2O, or

And as MOST OF US know:


*JP-8 is modern aviation kerosine. It is safer, with a higher flashpoint that the JP-4 it has superseded. It has anti-corrosion and anti-gelling additives, but does NOT contain Ethylene Dibromide (which was once used to dissolve the lead oxide produced by tetra-ethyl lead anti-knock gasoline).

There could be THREE OR MORE transparent layers of air of DIFFERENT HUMIDITIES, only ONE of which condenses (at -40 deg) an ICE CRYSTAL TRAIL, within the short-haul civil aircraft band between 30 and 35 thousand feet. Layer thicknesses of differing humidity are frequently only hundreds of feet thick, and aircraft are spaced ten miles apart on the same level for a particular route, and conflicting routes are typically 2000ft above or below each other.

So you’ll see SOME planes laying ice crystal trails while others don’t – it depends which transparent stratospheric layer the plane is flying through. These 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 an ice crystal trail either appears or disappears. 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 “vapor trail” in it. Typically stratospheric layers begin ABOVE the TROPOPAUSE, which is where our ground level weather STOPS. The 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 (although it may have a high speed with respect to the ground).

Unlike what it is DOWN HERE. This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public. Had you all been properly taught about the weather as schoolchildren, this would be a NON-TOPIC.

Respiratory ailments may well be on the increase, but so is the planting of unusual crops which emit unusual pollens, auto fumes are still on the increase, and urban photochemical smogs are also on the increase. It is known (by some) that the COMBINATION of pollens, auto fumes, and urban smog can cause severe auto-immune failure, asthma, and death in the young, weak, or elderly.


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. It isn’t very wise to look upwards and blame “soda pop” for combinatory effects which are happening down here, solely because you can’t understand how the atmosphere works. It certainly doesn’t help you to find a REAL solution to the REAL problem.

Video posts like this are WRONG, and risk scenarios as HARMFUL as a TSUNAMI.

Would YOU call a tsunami EVIL? No you wouldn’t, because a tsunami lacks INTENT.

Would I call this video post EVIL?



with 2 comments

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


Making an argument

Although often we make arguments to try to learn about and understand the world around us, sometimes we hope to persuade others of our ideas and convince them to try or believe them, just as they might want to do likewise with us.  To achieve this we might use a good measure of rhetoric, knowingly or otherwise.  The term itself dates back to Plato, who used it to differentiate philosophy from the kind of speech and writing that politicians and others used to persuade or influence opinion.  Probably the most famous study of rhetoric was by Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, and over the years philosophers have investigated it to try to discover the answer to questions like: What is the best (or most effective) way to persuade people of something?  Is the most convincing argument also the best choice to make?  Is there any link between the two?  What are the ethical implications of rhetoric?  Although we might take a dim view of some of the attempts by contemporary politicians to talk their way out of difficult situations with verbal manouevrings that stretch the meaning of words beyond recognition, hoping we’ll forget what the original question was, nevertheless there are times when we need to make a decision and get others to agree with it.  Since we don’t always have the luxury of sitting down to discuss matters, we might have to be less than philosophical in our arguments to get what we want.  This use of rhetoric comes with the instructional manual for any relationship and is par for the course in discussions of the relative merits of sporting teams.
In a philosophical context, then, we need to bear in mind that arguments may be flawed and that rhetorical excesses can be used to make us overlook that fact.  When trying to understand, strengthen or critique an idea, we can use a knowledge of common errors – deliberate or not – found in reasoning.  We call these fallacies: arguments that come up frequently that go wrong in specific ways and are typically used to mislead someone into accepting a false conclusion (although sometimes they are just honest mistakes).  Although fallacies were studied in the past and since, as was said previously, there has been something of a revival in recent times and today people speak of critical thinking, whereby we approach arguments and thinking in general in a critical fashion (hence the name), looking to evaluate steps in reasoning and test conclusions for ourselves.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are common errors of reasoning.  If an argument commits a logical fallacy, then the reasons that it offers don’t prove the argument’s conclusion.  (Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the conclusion is false, just that these particular reasons don’t show that it’s true.) There are literally dozens of logical fallacies (and dozens of fallacy web-sites out there that explain them).

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three or more options.

From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false.

Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn.

Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition.

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force.

Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy.

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences.

Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true.

Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person:
(1) the person’s character is attacked.
(2) the person’s circumstances are noted.
(3) the person does not practise what is preached.

Appeal to Authority:
(1) the authority is not an expert in the field.
(2) experts in the field disagree.
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious.

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named.

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion.

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization:  the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population.

Unrepresentative Sample:  the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole.

False Analogy:  the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar.

Slothful Induction:  the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.

Fallacy of Exclusion:  evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration.

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Accident:  a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception.

Converse Accident :  an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply.

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc:  because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.

Joint effect:  one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause.

Insignificant:  one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect.

Wrong Direction:  the direction between cause and effect is reversed.

Complex Cause:  the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect.

Missing the Point

Begging the Question:  the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises.

Irrelevant Conclusion:  an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion.

Straw Man:  the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Amphiboly:  the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations.

Accent:  the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says.

Category Errors

Composition:  because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property.

Division:  because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property.

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A.

Denying the Antecedent:  any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B.

Inconsistency:  asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true.

Stolen Concept:  using a concept while attacking a concept on which it logically depends.

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

You need to be able to recognise each of these fallacies, and also to explain what is wrong with arguments that commit them.  Once you’ve learned what the fallacies are, pay attention and see if you can spot any of them being committed on TV, the radio, or in the press.  it’s fascinating to see how the conspiracy-theorist’s minds work.  They seem to be especially fond of (all of them, really):

Biased Sample
Perhaps the most basic error in the use of empirical data is simply “misrepresenting” it.  This can occur in a number of ways.  One possibility is simply deliberate distortion, claiming that a data set proves something when it doesn’t.  If people have an agenda, and set out to prove it, they may reach for the first bit of evidence they can find that even seems to fit their position.  Closer examination may show that the evidence isn’t quite as supportive as was first claimed.  Alternatively, someone confronted with potentially problematic evidence for their position may misrepresent it to make the problem go away.  A similar error can be committed accidentally.  Sometimes when people look at a data-set they see what they want or expect to see, rather than what is actually there.  The effect of our presuppositions on our interpretation of evidence should not be underestimated.  It can lead to conclusions being drawn which simply aren’t supported by the evidence.  A further way in which data may be misrepresented is if it is presented selectively.  A varied data set can be described focusing in on certain sections of it.  The data set as a whole is thus misrepresented; it is effectively replaced by a new set comprising of unrepresentative data.

Insufficient Data
A common problem with evidence sampling is drawing conclusions from “insufficient data”.  This is related to the generalisation fallacy.  To prove a theory, it is not enough to observe a couple of instances that seem to support it.  If we want to know what percentage of the population take holidays abroad, we can’t find out by asking five people, calculating the percentage, and applying the result to the population as a whole.  We need more data.  This raises the question: how much data is enough?  At what point does a data-set become sufficiently large to draw conclusions from it?  Of course, having enough data is not a black-or-white affair; there is no magic number of observations which, when reached, means that any conclusion drawn is adequately supported.  Rather, sufficiency of data is a matter of degree; the more evidence the better.  The amount of confidence that we can have in an inference grows gradually as more evidence is brought in to support it.

Unrepresentative Data
Simply having enough data is not enough to guarantee that a conclusion drawn is warranted; it is also important that the data is drawn from a variety of sources and obtained under a variety of different conditions.  A survey of voting intentions conducted outside the local Conservative Club is not going to provide an accurate guide to who is going to win the next general election.  A disproportionate number of people in the vicinity will be Conservative voters, and so the results of the survey will be skewed in favour of the Tory party.  The sample is not representative.  A survey to find out what proportion of the population own mobile phones would be similarly (though less obviously) flawed if it were conducted near a Sixth-Form College.  The sample of the population would be skewed towards teenagers, who are more likely than average to own mobile phones, distorting the figures.  Collecting data from a variety of sources is one thing; collecting it under a variety of conditions is another.  A survey of what type of vehicles use local roads conducted at a variety of locations, but always at the same time of day, would not yield representative data.  Conducting it during rush-hour would mean that commuter-traffic would be over-represented in the results; conducting it in the evenings might mean that public transport would under-represented in the results.  Differences in what types of drivers drive at what times would need to be factored in when designing the experiment.  The quality of a data-set is thus not just a matter of how much data it contains, but also of how representative that data is likely to be.  To minimise the problem of “unrepresentative data”, evidence must be collected from as wide a range of sources as possible, and under as varied conditions as possible.

Appeal to Force
(Argumentum Ad Baculum or the “Might-Makes-Right” Fallacy): This argument uses force, the threat of force, or some other unpleasant backlash to make the audience accept a conclusion.  It commonly appears as a last resort when evidence or rational arguments fail to convince a reader.  If the debate is about whether or not 2+2=4, an opponent’s argument that he will smash your nose in if you don’t agree with his claim doesn’t change the truth of an issue.  Logically, this consideration has nothing to do with the points under consideration.  The fallacy is not limited to threats of violence, however.  The fallacy includes threats of any unpleasant backlash–financial, professional, and so on.  Example: “Superintendent, you should cut the school budget by $16,000.  I need not remind you that past school boards have fired superintendents who cannot keep down costs.”  While intimidation may force the superintendent to conform, it does not convince him that the choice to cut the budget was the most beneficial for the school or community.  Lobbyists use this method when they remind legislators that they represent so many thousand votes in the legislators’ constituencies and threaten to throw the politician out of office if he doesn’t vote the way they want.  Teachers use this method if they state that students should hold the same political or philosophical position as the teachers, or risk failing the class.  Note that it is isn’t a logical fallacy, however, to assert that students must fulfill certain requirements in the course or risk failing the class!

Appeal to Popularity
The “appeal to popularity fallacy” is the fallacy of arguing that because lots of people believe something it must be true.  Popular opinion is not always a good guide to truth; even ideas that are widely accepted can be false.  An example is: “Pretty much everyone believes in some kind of higher power, be it God or something else.  Therefore atheism is false.”

Two million people watching does not mean a video is true.  Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true; consequently, just because a lot of people do not believe or understand something, does not make it false.
Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.  Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.” – Associated Press, Sept 3rd, 2009.
The appeal to popularity is almost automatically controversial at times, as sometimes the right move is unclear or sophisticated.  Robert Gates is choosing to go against the grain because he feels he is justified by a greater cause than appeasing popular opinion.
Be also careful of an Appeal to Unpopularity.  A lot of pseudoscience claims they are being persecuted by the mainstream, and there is thus a conspiracy to keep their knowledge hidden.  The number one way to avoid both of these appeals is to stick to the data and ignore the marketing.  I’ll give you a hint: real science does not depend on flashy graphics or bold typeface every other word, just to get your attention because the truth can speak for itself.  Go against the flow…
Science is all about defeating the Appeal to Popularity.  The idea is that people are inherently flawed and easily fooled.  The best way to know something is to try your damnedest to prove it wrong.  If you actually prove something right, make sure you send it to numerous other scientists and see if they can prove you wrong.  It’s humbling and time consuming, but it is the reason your monitor is beaming photons into your optical lobe right now.  Science struggles with acceptance because the populace usually despises its cruel, sometimes boring conclusions.  No gods on Olympus?  Fooey!  No psychic healing?  Frogswallop!  Besides, I don’t want to be a loner with obscure views, so I’m going to go with the flow… and if I’m wrong, then everyone’s wrong, so who cares?
Think of Mob Rule.  Imagine you are a black man in the 1700’s and some racist white folk are about to lynch you for the crime of being born.  Almost everywhere you turn, you find nothing but racism.  You know it’s absurd, all the claims they make about you, since you know yourself better than their superficial judgments.  You have facts, and evidence; they have hate, and ignorance.  Now do you care?  Sometimes it’s dangerous to go against the flow, there are bullies at every stage in life.  The cruelty of others is endless, and thus the will to fit in is powerful.  It is hard to resist the “Appeal to Popularity”.  The key is to always question the facts, to buy based on reality not perception.  Are you sick and your friend is suggesting some sort of weird “new age” treat­ment?  Ask an expert, read some journals, examine some tests.
The Appeal to Popularity is usually a self-fulfilling prophecy.  It usually starts off as a perception with a low sample size, and grows larger not because it is efficient at what it claims, but is effective at marketing itself, since it is essentially a feed­back loop of ever increasing loudness.  Your turn… Can you think of a moment where you, or someone you know of, fell for the “Appeal to Popularity”?

“Circular” arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove.  If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.  The problem with arguments of this kind is that they don’t get you anywhere.  If you already believe the reasons offered to persuade you that the conclusion is true, then you already believe that the conclusion is true, so there’s no need to try to convince you.  If, on the other hand, you don’t already believe that the conclusion is true, then you won’t believe the reasons given in support of it, so won’t be convinced by the argument.  In either case, you’re left believing exactly what you believed before.  The argument has accomplished nothing.  An example is: “You can trust me; I wouldn’t lie to you.”

Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions
“Necessary conditions” are conditions which must be fulfilled in order for an event to come about.  It is impossible for an event to occur unless the necessary conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a necessary condition of you passing your A-level Critical Thinking is that you enrol on the course.  Without doing so, there’s no way that you can get the qualification.  “Sufficient conditions” are conditions which, if fulfilled, guarantee that an event will come to pass.  It is impossible for an event not to occur if the sufficient conditions for it are fulfilled.  For example, a sufficient condition of you passing an exam is that you get enough marks.  If you do that, there’s no way that you can fail.  Some arguments confuse necessary and sufficient conditions.  Such arguments fail to prove their conclusions.  An example is: “People who don’t practise regularly always fail music exams.  I’ve practised regularly though, so I’ll be all right.”  Not having practised regularly may be a sufficient condition for failing a music exam, but it isn’t necessary.  People who have practised regularly may fail anyway, due to nerves, perhaps, or simply a lack of talent.

Correlation not Causation
The “correlation not causation” fallacy is committed when one reasons that just because two things are found together (i.e. are correlated), there must be a direct causal connection between them.  Often arguments of this kind seem compelling, but it’s important to consider other possible explanations before concluding that one thing must have caused the other.  An example is: “Since you started seeing that girl your grades have gone down.  She’s obviously been distracting you from your work, so you mustn’t see her anymore.”

An argument is “inconsistent” if makes two or more contradictory claims.  If an argument is inconsistent, then we don’t have to accept its conclusion.  This is because if claims are contradictory, then at least one of them must be false.  An argument that rests on contradictory claims must therefore rest on at least one false claim, and arguments that rest on false claims prove nothing.  In an argument that makes contradictory claims, whichever of those claims turns out to be false the arguer won’t have proved their conclusion.  This means that it is reasonable to dismiss an inconsistent argument even without finding out which of its contradictory claims is false.  Examples are: “Murder is the worst crime that there is.  Life is precious; no human being should take it away.  That’s why it’s important that we go to any length necessary to deter would-be killers, including arming the police to the teeth and retaining the death penalty.”  This argument both affirms that no human being should take the life of another, and that we should retain the death penalty.  Until this inconsistency is ironed out of the argument, it won’t be compelling. Also: “We don’t tell the government what to do, so they shouldn’t tell us what to do!” These were the words of an angry smoker interviewed on the BBC News following the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England.  Her claim that she doesn’t tell the government what to do is instantly refuted as she proceeds to do just that.

Arguments often use specific cases to support general conclusions.  For example, we might do a quick survey of Premiership footballers, note that each of the examples we’ve considered is vain and ego-centric, and conclude that they all are.  (Or we might offer one example of an argument that moves from the specific to the general as evidence that others do the same.)  We need to be careful with such arguments.  In order for a set of evidence to support a general conclusion, the evidence must meet certain conditions.  For example, it must be drawn from a sufficient number of cases, and the specific cases must be representative.  The more limited or unrepresentative the evidence sample, the less convincing the argument will be.  Arguments that base conclusions on insufficient evidence commit the “generalisation fallacy”.  Examples are: “Smoking isn’t bad for you; my grandad smoked thirty a day for his whole life and lived to be 92.” and “Estate agents are well dodgy. When we moved house… [insert horror story about an estate agent inventing fake offers to push up the sale price].”

Restricting the Options
We are sometimes faced with a number of possible views or courses of action.  By a process of elimination, we may be able to eliminate these options one-by-one until only one is left.  We are then forced to accept the only remaining option.  Arguments that do this, but fail to consider all of the possible options, excluding some at the outset, commit the “restricting the options” fallacy.  An example is: “Many gifted children from working class backgrounds are let down by the education system in this country.  Parents have a choice between paying sky-high fees to send their children to private schools, and the more affordable option of sending their children to inferior state schools.  Parents who can’t afford to pay private school fees are left with state schools as the only option.  This means that children with great potential are left languishing in comprehensives“.  Quite apart from any problems with the blanket dismissal of all comprehensives as inferior, this argument fails to take into account all of the options available to parents.  For the brightest students, scholarships are available to make private school more affordable, so there is a third option not considered above: applying for scholarships to private schools.  Unless this option can be eliminated, e.g. by arguing that there are too few scholarships for all gifted children to benefit from them, along with other options such as homeschooling, the conclusion that children with great potential have no alternative but to go to comprehensives is unproven.

Ad Hominem
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.  Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “Don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”.  Any attack on irrelevant biographical details of the arguer rather than on his argument counts as an ad hominem, however: e.g. “that article must be rubbish as it wasn’t published in a peer-reveiwed journal”; “his claim must be false as he has no relevant expertise”; “he says that we should get more exercise but he could stand to lose a few pounds himself”.

Tu Quoque
“Tu quoque” is Latin for “you too”.  The tu quoque fallacy involves using other people’s faults as an excuse for one’s own, reasoning that because someone or everyone else does something, it’s okay for us to do it.  This, of course, doesn’t follow.  Sometimes other people have shortcomings, and we ought to do better than them.  We can be blamed for emulating other people’s faults.

Straw Man
“Straw man” arguments are arguments that misrepresent a position in order to refute it. Unfortunately, adopting this strategy means that only the misrepresentation of the position is refuted; the real position is left untouched by the argument.  An example is: “Christianity teaches that as long as you say ‘Sorry’ afterwards, it doesn’t matter what you do.  Even the worst moral crimes can be quickly and easily erased by simply uttering a word.  This is absurd.  Even if a sinner does apologise for what they’ve done, the effects of their sin are often here to stay.  For example, if someone repents of infanticide, that doesn’t bring the infant back to life.  Christians are clearly out of touch with reality.”  This argument distorts Christianity in a couple of ways.  First, it caricatures repentance as simply saying the word ‘Sorry’.  Second, it implies that Christianity teaches that all of the negative effects of sin are erased when one confesses, which it doesn’t.  Having distorted Christianity, the argument then correctly points out that the distortion is ludicrous, and quite reasonably rejects it as “out of touch with reality”.   The argument, however, completely fails to engage with what the Church actually teaches, and so its conclusion has nothing to do with real Christianity.

Appeal to Authority
An “appeal to an authority” is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true.  In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to make a mistake.  The mere fact that someone says that something is true therefore doesn’t prove that it is true.  The worst kinds of appeal to authority, however, are those where the alleged authority isn’t an authority on the subject matter in question.  People speaking outside of their area of expertise certainly aren’t to be trusted on matters of any importance without further investigation.

Appeal to History
There are two types of “appeal to history”.  The first is committed by arguments that use past cases as a guide to the future.  This is the predictive appeal to history fallacy.  Just because something has been the case to date, doesn’t mean that it will continue to be the case.  This is not to say that we can’t use the past as a guide to the future, merely that predictions of the future based on the past need to be treated with caution.  The second type of appeal to history is committed when it is argued that because something has been done a particular way in the past, it ought to be done that way in the future.  This is the normative appeal to history fallacy, the appeal to tradition.  The way that things have always been done is not necessarily the best way to do them.  It may be that circumstances have changed, and that what used to be best practice is no longer.  Alternatively, it may be that people have been consistently getting it wrong in the past.  In either case, using history as a model for future would be a mistake.  An example is: at the start of the 2006 Premiership season, some might have argued, “Under Jose Mourinho, Chelsea have been unstoppable in the Premiership; the other teams might as well give up on the league now and concentrate on the Cup competitions.”

Weak Analogy
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison between two cases.  They examine a known case, and extend their findings there to an unknown case.  Thus we might reason that because we find it difficult to forgive a girlfriend or boyfriend who cheated on us (a known case), it must be extremely difficult for someone to forgive a spouse who has had an affair (an unknown case).  This kind of argument relies on the cases compared being similar.   The argument is only as strong as that comparison.  If the two cases are dissimilar in important respects, then the argument commits the “weak analogy” fallacy.

Slippery Slope
Sometimes one event can set of a chain of consequences; one thing leads to another, as the saying goes.  The “slippery slope” fallacy is committed by arguments that reason that because the last link in the chain is undesirable, the first link is equally undesirable.  This type of argument is not always fallacious.  If the first event will necessarily lead to the undesirable chain of consequences, then there is nothing wrong with inferring that we ought to steer clear of it.  However, if it is possible to have the first event without the rest, then the slippery slope fallacy is committed.  An example is: “If one uses sound judgement, then it can occasionally be safe to exceed the speed limit.  However, we must clamp down on speeding, because when people break the law it becomes a habit, and escalates out of control.  The more one breaks the law, the less respect one has for it.  If one day you break the speed limit, then the next you’ll go a little faster again, and pretty soon you’ll be driving recklessly, endangering the lives of other road-users.  For this reason, we should take a zero-tolerance approach to speeding, and stop people before they reach dangerous levels.”

Appeal to Ridicule
The “appeal to ridicule” is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.”  This line of “reasoning” has the following form:  X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).  Therefore claim C is false.  This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false.  This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”  It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non-fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim.  One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”).  In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim.  For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist.  However, this is absurd.  Think about this: white males are a minority in the world.  Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists.  Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”  Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.  Some examples of “appeal to ridicule” are: “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition fees, but that is just laughable.” and “Support the ERA?  Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks!  Hah! Hah!” and “Those wacky conservatives!  They think a strong military is the key to peace!”

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc”, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.”  It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation.  It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.  “Post hoc” is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality.  The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.  Most familiarly, many cases of superstitious religious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.

Alias: Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc.  Translation: “After this, therefore because of this”, Latin.  Type: Non Causa Pro Causa Forms.  Event C happened immediately prior to event E.  Therefore, C caused E.  Events of type C happen immediately prior to events of type E.  Therefore, events of type C cause events of type E.
Example:  “The only policy that effectively reduces public shootings is right-to-carry laws. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime.  In the 31 states that have passed right-to-carry laws since the mid-1980s, the number of multiple-victim public shootings and other violent crimes has dropped dramatically.  Murders fell by 7.65%, rapes by 5.2%, aggravated assaults by 7%, and robberies by 3%. … Evidence shows that even state and local handgun control laws work.  For example, in 1974 Massachusetts passed the Bartley-Fox Law, which requires a special license to carry a handgun outside the home or business.  The law is supported by a mandatory prison sentence. Studies by Glenn Pierce and William Bowers of Northeastern University documented that after the law was passed handgun homicides in Massachusetts fell 50% and the number of armed robberies dropped 35%”.
Source: “The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership”, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 33, No. 11, June 2000. Source: “Fact Card”, Handgun Control, Inc.

Analysis of the Examples

Counter-Example:  Roosters crow just before the sun rises.  Therefore, roosters crowing cause the sun to rise.

Exposition:  The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its “effect”.  Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition.  Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

Exposure:  Post Hoc also manifests itself as a bias towards jumping to conclusions based upon coincidences.  Superstition and magical thinking include Post Hoc thinking; for instance, when a sick person is treated by a witch doctor, or a faith healer, and becomes better afterward, superstitious people conclude that the spell or prayer was effective.  Since most illnesses will go away on their own eventually, any treatment will seem effective by Post Hoc thinking.  This is why it is so important to test proposed remedies carefully, rather than jumping to conclusions based upon anecdotal evidence.

Analysis of Examples:
These two examples show how the same fallacy is often exploited by opposite sides in a debate, in this case, the gun control debate.  There are clear claims of causal relationships in these arguments.  In the anti-gun control example, it is claimed that so-called “right-to-carry” laws “effectively reduce” public shootings and violent crime.  This claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates since the mid-1980s in states that have passed such laws.  In the pro-gun control example, it is claimed that state and local gun control laws “work”, presumably meaning that the laws play a causal role in lowering handgun crime.  Again, the claim is supported by statistics on falling crime rates in one state. However, the evidence in neither case is sufficient to support the causal conclusion.
For instance, violent crime in general fell in the United States in the period from the mid-1980s to the present, and – for all that we can tell from the anti-gun control argument – it may have fallen at the same or higher rates in states that did not pass “right-to-carry” laws.  Since the argument does not supply us with figures for the states without such laws, we cannot do the comparison.
Similarly, the pro-gun control argument does not make it clear when Massachusett’s drop in crime occurred, except that it was “after” – “post hoc” – the handgun control law was passed.  Also, comparative evidence of crime rates over the same period in states that did not pass such a law is missing.  The very fact that comparative information is not supplied in each argument is suspicious, since it suggests that it would have weakened the case.
Another point raised by these examples is the use of misleadingly precise numbers, specifically, “7.65%” and “5.2%” in the anti-gun control example.  Especially in social science studies, percentage precision to the second decimal place is meaningless, since it is well within the margin of error on such measurements.  It is a typical tactic of pseudo-scientific argumentation to use overly-precise numbers in an attempt to impress and intimidate the audience.  A real scientist would not use such bogus numbers, which casts doubt upon the status of the source in the example.  The pro-gun control argument, to its credit, does not commit this fallacy.  This suggests, though it doesn’t nail down, an appeal to misleading authority in the anti-gun control one.

Sibling Fallacy:  Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Source:  T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 131-132.

Julian Baggini, “Post Hoc Fallacies”, Bad Moves.
Robert Todd Carroll, “Post Hoc Fallacy”, Skeptic’s Dictionary.

Moving the goalpost
“Moving the goalpost”, also known as “raising the bar”, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.  In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.  This attempts to leave the impression that an argument had a fair hearing while actually reaching a preordained conclusion.  Moving the goalpost can also take the form of reverse feature creep, in which features are eliminated from a product, and the goal of the project is redefined in such a way as to exclude the eliminated features.  An example is: Bella Donna claims that Sybil Antwhisper, her room-mate, is not sharing the housework equitably.  Sybil tells Bella to go away and itemize and record who does what household tasks.  If Bella can show that she does more housework than Sybil, then Sybil will mend her ways.  A week passes and Bella shows Sybil clear evidence that Sybil does not “pull her weight” around the house.  Sybil (the advocate) responds: “That’s all very well, but I have more work and study commitments than you do – you should do more housework than me… it’s the total work of all kinds that matters, not just housework.”  In this example the implied agreement between Bella and Sybil at the outset was that the amount of housework done by both parties should be about the same.  When Sybil was confronted by the evidence however, she quickly and unilaterally “changed the terms of the debate”.  She did this because the evidence was against her version of events and she was about to lose the argument on the issue as originally defined.  By “moving the goalposts”, Sybil is seeking to change the terms of the dispute to avoid a defeat on the original issue in contention.  The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.  Accusations of this form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.  For example, killing all the fleas on a cat is very easy without the usually unstated condition that the cat remain alive and in good health.

Non sequitur in normal speech
The term “non sequitur” is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were.  An example might be: “If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.”  However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people.  This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.  Other examples include: “If you buy this car, your family will be safer.”  (While some cars are safer than others, it is possible to decrease instead of increase your family’s overall safety.) and “If you do not buy this type of pet food, you are neglecting your dog.” (Premise and conclusion are once again unrelated; this is also an example of an appeal to emotion.) and “I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining.”  (The conclusion is a non-sequitur because the sun can shine while it is raining.)

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
The “fallacy of the undistributed middle” is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism is not distributed.  It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.  More specifically it is also a form of non sequitur.  It takes the following form: All Zs are Bs.  Y is a B.  Therefore, Y is a Z.  It may or may not be the case that “all Zs are Bs,” but in either case it is irrelevant to the conclusion.  What is relevant to the conclusion is whether it is true that “all Bs are Zs,” which is ignored in the argument.  Note that if the terms were swapped around in either the conclusion or the first co-premise or if the first premise was rewritten to “All Zs can only be Bs” then it would no longer be a fallacy, although it could still be unsound.  This also holds for the following two logical fallacies which are similar in nature to the fallacy of the undistributed middle and also non sequiturs.  An example can be given as follows:  Men are human.  Mary is human.  Therefore, Mary is a man.

Affirming the Consequent
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur: If A is true, then B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is true.  Even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises.  This sort of non sequitur is also called “affirming the consequent”.  An example of affirming the consequent would be: If I am a human (A) then I am a mammal. (B)  I am a mammal. (B)  Therefore, I am a human. (A)  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises: I could be another type of mammal without also being a human.  The truth of the conclusion is independent of the truth of its premises – it is a ‘non sequitur’.  Affirming the consequent is essentially the same as the fallacy of the undistributed middle, but using propositions rather than set membership.

Denying the Antecedent
Denying the antecedent, another common non sequitur. is this: If A is true, then B is true.  A is false.  Therefore B is false.  While the conclusion can indeed be false, this cannot be linked to the premise since the statement is a non sequitur.  This is called denying the antecedent.  An example of denying the antecedent would be:  If I am in Tokyo, I am in Japan.  I am not in Tokyo.  Therefore, I am not in Japan.  Whether or not the speaker is in Japan cannot be derived from the premise.  He could either be outside Japan or anywhere in Japan except Tokyo.

Affirming a Disjunct
Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: A is true or B is true.  B is true.  Therefore, A is not true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both true.  This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.  An example of affirming a disjunct would be: I am at home or I am in the city.  I am at home.  Therefore, I am not in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could have her home in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Denying a conjunct
Denying a conjunct is a fallacy when in the following form: It is not the case that both A is true and B is true.  B is not true.  Therefore, A is true.  The conclusion does not follow from the premises as it could be the case that A and B are both false.  An example of denying a conjunct would be:  It is not the case that both I am at home and I am in the city.  I am not at home.  Therefore, I am in the city.  While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premises.  For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could neither be at home nor in the city, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false.  This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

Logically Fallacious Fallacies

by James W. Benham and Thomas J. Marlowe

Ad hominem arguments are the tools of scoundrels and blackguards.  Therefore, they are invalid.
If you had any consideration for my feelings, you wouldn’t argue from an appeal to pity.
What would your mother say if you argued from an appeal to sentiment?
I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity.
If you argue from an appeal to force, I’ll have to beat you up.
You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity.
Everyone knows that an argument from appeal to popular opinion is invalid.
Circular reasoning means assuming what you’re trying to prove.  This form of argument is invalid becuase it’s circular.
As Aristotle said, arguments from an appeal to authority are invalid.
Post hoc ergo proptor hoc arguments often precede false conclusions.  Hence, this type of argument is invalid.
Using the Argumentum ad Consequentiam makes for unpleasant discussions.  Hence, it must be a logical fallacy.
The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. The argumentum ad nauseum is invalid. If three repetitions of this principle haven’t convinced you, I’ll just have to say it again: the argumentun ad nauseum is invalid.
Ancient wisdom teaches that the argumentum ad antiquitatem is invalid.
An argument is emotional and no substitute for reasoned discussion.  But proof by equivocation is a kind of argument.  Thus, a proof by equivocation is no substitute for a valid proof.
If we accept slippery slope arguments, we may have to accept other forms of weak arguments.  Eventually, we won’t be able to reason at all.  Hence, we must reject slippery slope arguments as invalid.
A real logician would never make an argument based on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.  If anyone who claims to be logical and makes arguments based on this fallacy, you may rest assured that s/he is not a real logician.
An argument based on a logical fallacy often leads to a false conclusion.  Affirming the consequent often leads to a false conclusion.  Therefore, affirming the consequent is a fallacy.
The fallacy of the undistributed middle is often used by politicians, and they often try to mislead people, so undistributed middles are obviously misleading.
Reasoning by analogy is like giving a starving man a cookbook.
Non sequitur is a Latin term, so that’s a fallacy too.
And I bet the gambler’s fallacy is also invalid – I seem to be on a roll!

In a way, it makes me sad — because some of these folks are clearly intelligent and well-spoken… but haven’t been armed with even a basic grounding in scientific method or the traps of various logical fallacies.  It says quite a lot about our educational system.

Barker, Stephen F.  The Elements of Logic. Fifth Edition.  McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Cedarblom, Jerry, and Paulsen, David W.  Critical Reasoning.  Third Edition.  Wadsworth, 1991.
Copi, Irving M., and Cohen, Carl.  Introduction to Logic.  Eighth Edition.  Macmillan, 1990.
Rand, Ayn Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.  Second Edition. Penguin, 1990.
Brian Yoder’s Fallacy Zoo
Charles Ess, Informal Fallacies
Fallacies: The Dark Side of Debate
The Galilean Library Guide to Fallacies
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacy entry
Logical Fallacies .Info
Michael LaBossiere’s Fallacies Introduction
Philosophy.Lander.Edu, Introduction to Logic, Informal Fallacies
Stephen’s Guide to the Logical Fallacies
Wheeler’s Logical Fallacies Handlist



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Eurodele, at least you are TRYING to ask questions, but:

“why many jets, laying persistent contrails, would converge in time and space 100 miles from any large airport” – Easy. The speed of stratospheric layers over your head can reach 100mph. If contrails are persistent, then they could have been laid just an hour previously “over” an airport. Next time you see this phenomenon, time the movement of trails from horizon to horizon, and estimate the speed of the stratosphere

“strangely concentrated and patterned jet trails through or over which other jets can pass with normal contrail dissipation” – From FIVE miles beneath, you CANNOT TELL between “through” and “over”. This makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE if one (invisible!) layer is HUMID, and the layer above or below it (also invisible!) is DRY. Contrailscience cannot be held responsible for your failure to INTERPOLATE information…



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

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


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

“Whatever these things are” – I thought you KNEW

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

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

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

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

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

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


There is a third and most important point, that almost NO-ONE has any confidence in our system. This is because PAST APATHY has allowed the wrong people in. The ONLY WAY to get the government you want is to BE the government you want. Frank Zappa was right: you MUST stand for office.


The very best outcome of this “chemtrail” movement would be a NEW PARTY – neither Republican nor Democrat – which would seek to redress ALL the terrible imbalances to Nature that we have created, whilst preventing both a cultural CRASH, and a Global Warming CRISIS.

But you’ll never do it without a full understanding of SCIENCE…


New Developments of the Theory of Everything


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


Startling progress has been made towards a final physical theory of Everything (sometimes called TOE) which unifies and brings into comparison the disparate Theories of Relativity and Quantum Fields.

If true, the gaps in our knowledge will be displayed. That which we don’t know that we don’t know – we will know!

And here are more references for you to follow up:











“serve to cause confusion to the issue” – That seems to be YOUR role here as it is QUITE OBVIOUS that what comes out of a gas turbine IS what makes SODA-POP.

“attempt to make rational people who are making observations and discussing their experiences appear to be conspiracy nuts and/or uneducated” – ANY “rational” person would know to read up on technical aspects BEFORE “making observations and discussing their experiences” especially if they felt they were uninformed.


“You are using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection (example “This rising panic ensues from an under-educated public”) as the basis of your argument” – the public IS under-educated. YOU are under-educated. YOU are KNOWINGLY using faulty logic and classic emotion based redirection when confronted with my challenge that you ARE under-educated (see the subject of EVIL below).

“These are exactly the tactics that are used to manipulate rather than uncover the truth” – for you this statement ISN’T a discovery!

“You should know that your posts are smacking of someone with an agenda” – and yours positively REEKS of one.

“government plant” – AHA! We’re sophisticated these days at http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc – hope you like the blog, piccies and music.

“No one mentioned anything about what the trails were” – DISINGENUOUS hypocrite! I quote – “Obvious trails, definitely converging” – “latest plane curving at same angle” – “they just keep coming” – “it’s pretty obvious” – “that’s the one” – “somebodies doing something” – “really strange spiralling effect” – “they’re just non-stop”. My, my, how “INNOCENT” you really are….

“YOU were the one to put forward a theory for what they are” – It is THE EXPLANATION made from an understanding of atmospheric physics. It isn’t a “theory”. It is established atmospheric science. Your “chemtrails” are a theory.

“YOU said the video post is “wrong” which makes no sense – my video was only making an observation that something is going on” – OF COURSE it is wrong. If I hadn’t typed in “CHEMTRAILS” I wouldn’t have pulled you up. That very WORD is a LIE with no basis.

“In additional YOU brought up the subject of evil, no one else here did” – IT IS EVIL TO KNOWINGLY MISDIRECT AND TERRORIZE OTHERS.



The stratosphere temperature at the tropopause NEVER RISES ABOVE -40 deg C.

In A FRACTION OF A SECOND the exhaust, a mixture of NITROGEN, STEAM, AND CARBON DIOXIDE cools down from 2000 deg C to -40 deg to form a WHITE SMOKE OF FINE ICE CRYSTALS in a column of N2 and CO2 gases.

In HIGH HUMIDITIES that trail will PERSIST and even GROW. In LOW HUMIDITIES the ICE will SUBLIME to invisible WATER VAPOR.


There is no-one alive that can possibly be sufficiently clued-up on this. Whether you’re a specialist or a generalist makes no difference – from now on some aspect of our developing world is going to take you completely by surprise.

There is no doubt that one day soon an off-the-shelf computer will possess a greater processing power than the Human Brain.

But in the interim we will all have created (and endured) a startingly-exponential rate of change which could easily be totally out of our control. In the generation after the next we might well have produced a computer powerful enough to help us regain control of our civilization, but in the meantime – we’ll just have to rough it.


Extreme? I find myself arguing with people who know the extremes of NOTHING. They’re hardly capable of anything. They know the extents of their boundaries, and kinda suppose that the rest of the world goes on just a bit longer…

Chemtrailers are like people who are hammering their hands with hammers and complaining about the pain. They know no extremes other than their own extremities.



“S-I-C-K ! !”  “D-U-D-E ! !” 🙂





“other planes left Con trails that vanished” – then the trails were left in a DRY layer.

“other planes did not have trail” – they ALWAYS leave a trail in the stratosphere, but it may be VERY SHORT.

“at various heights” – ABOVE FIVE MILES?

“other trails lingered, spread” – then the trails were left in a SATURATED layer.

“are these trails Chem or Con trails” – CONTRAILS.

“I don’t know, I’m not a bird or a scientist” – I DO know. I AM a scientist.

“length/linger/sheet/layer/haze/slide/spray pattern/within 5-10 minutes/suspicious” – just coincident with a WET layer of the stratosphere.

“not natural/condensation trails” – you’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“know that planes dump fuel/not sure they dump it this low” – a plane that dumps fuel is doing it in order to survive an immediate landing. Being mobile it normally goes out to sea to do it, and will be LOW DOWN. Your chances of seeing THAT are RARE indeed.

“don’t know if it is fuel or something else/fuel = chemical” – EVERYTHING is a chemical, unless it is an ELEMENT. You’re not a bird or a scientist, remember?

“This is not the first time” – that aircraft have left persistent contrails in saturated air? Flying Fortresses in 1943 certainly did!



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


first of all, the theme by thomas tallis is very good and the pictures too, i am from germany, so my english is a little bit poor.

it seems to me that you have a good knowledge about atmospheric procedures, so i want to ask you a question.

i have watched “chemtrails” for over 2 years now, and i am still not clear, if it’s chemical spraying or normal contrails.

i understand the “layers of differing humidities” principle, that can explain some “chemtrails”. so that i see here a “chemtrail” and there a normal contrail. ok but i have filmed airplanes that have no contrail at all, and beginning to spray, and make an longstanding contrail and then stop it, to make no contrail again.

the confusing thing here is for me is that this airplane made a wingwidth stripe almost direct behind the plane. so you dont’ see two or four stripes, or how much engines it had, you see only a thick stripe all over the wingspan and it stays for hours and diffuses to thick cloud, and before it had no contrail and after that, and it sprayed at the end some little short trails, as if it stop the spraying, and there nor come a little bit of it. you can literaly see how it sprays. and in the spray direct behind the plane there were colours in the trail, because of the angle to the sun.

what do you think of that, how is it possible, if an airplane had two or four engines that it can make such a trail, and then the trail stays for “ever”? thanks for your time, and sorry for my english. i am waiting for your answer.

Hi FROZEMAN – I appreciate your English, and how hard it is to write in a different language… I’m glad you liked my music video. It makes the hard work (and a lot of musical pleasure) even more worthwhile.

The plane was NOT “spraying”. “Chemtrails” don’t exist. It is ONLY contrails that exist. The phenomenon you describe is the trail of ice crystals left by an ordinary passenger jet flying through a supersaturated stratosphere. *The separate engine trails become “bound up” in the wave vortex of each wing – these may be more than fifty metres across.

Read my blog at https://jazzroc.wordpress.com, especially SCIENCE ON TRAILS. It is towards the end of the alphabetically-sorted compendium.

There, a scientist describes carefully how and why the whole body of an airplane generates a trail in a supersaturated stratosphere.

“Saturation” is a term used to describe how the air is “full” to its limit with water vapor. Ice cannot sublime into the air, and so cannot “disappear”. Trails laid in such conditions persist indefinitely.

“Supersaturation” occurs in calm clean “laminar” conditions, where the air becomes “over its limit” with water vapor, and just needs the slightest disturbance to precipitate out its overload of ice. Trails laid in such conditions get LARGER and HEAVIER and FALL….

The ICE crystals in the trail generated by the wings and body are microscopic in size and can REFRACT and DISPERSE light by INTERFERENCE, which accounts for the colors one can sometimes see.

Ordinary cirrus clouds also produce (on occasion) such coloured effects. They are called PEARLESCENT CIRRUS. There is another name for them – NACREOUS CLOUDS.

There used to be stories of a pot of gold to be found at the foot of every rainbow. Now science shows that everyone sees a different rainbow, and there is NO WAY you can approach its foot – ever.

“Chemtrails” are like this; a myth which, like a rainbow, disappears as soon as science looks at it. Let it go…


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

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

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

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

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

Missymoo, have you just removed a concealed compliment to me, because your PROGRAMMING just kicked in?
Tch. Tch. Naughty, naughty…
wise pensioner who knows name calling is unbecoming” just made me blush from head to foot, and now we’re BOTH blushing
Too embarassing… LOL )

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

Another irritating thing…
Chemtards are woolly-headed, I know, and cannot describe anything because even if their eyes are good, their brain doesn’t work
So let me tell you EXACTLY what CHAFF really is
It is ANY electrical conductor of an exactly specified LENGTH
In large amounts they REFLECT electromagnetic radiation (RADAR) with a wavelength of EXACTLY the same length
This was called WINDOW and used by the Allies in WW2 to confuse German radar air defences and prevent huge bomber losses
Then it was aluminum-coated paper, now it is zinc-plated glass fibres – which I think isn’t so nice and biodegradable
But in neither case is it harmful or poisonous – the fibre length is in the range 15-45 millimetres depending on the radar frequencies used by the enemy, and cannot be ingested by living beings
The amounts involved in a chaff release are in pounds – small beer
ANYONE using CHAFF as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”
Just as ANYONE using CHEMTRAILS as a scare tactic is a “terrorist”

The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
Once the water vapor becomes RAIN, then that rain will fall into a rain gauge so that some poor ignorant girl can become the victim of another slimy and vicious “chemtrail” video
Contrails are the IQ test that “chemtrailers” FAIL

beachcomber seems like a bit of a shill but not for the big pharma as expected I think for a much different organisation perhaps one they would tell u doesn’t exist. Iluminating ppl with the BS. Don’t let his desperate negative explanations get 2 you. You know the truth when it is presented, don’t let him second guess your well versed inner knowing of Truth. The trick of giving you the truth shrouded amongst lies esp regarding aluminium and barium – truth but lies moulded to deceive you.

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

Comment removed

Quoting myself: “Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor”
And as a consequence you will find in your rain gauge ALUMINUM and BARIUM – courtesy of your local farmer
Then, if you are ignorant, you may appear on a “chemtrail” video
In the old days we had Jacques Tati, Benny Hill, Monty Python, Bill Hicks
Now “chemtrails” – a whole world of a comedy of errors

Aluminum is the MOST PLENTIFUL metal in the Earth’s crust
Not far down the list is BARIUM
You find BOTH in SOIL – CLAY is aluminum silicate
Exposed soil becomes dried and makes DUST which becomes easily WINDBORNE
The common (and mistaken) agricultural practice of PLOWING
GUARANTEES windborne dust, therefore windborne aluminum and barium
Windborne dust will SEED the condensation of water vapor
ALL plants are “aluminum resistant” because they EVOLVED in aluminum-rich conditions
Your ignorance…


Energydrain, I WAS impressed by your little search, and must confess I KNOW the way it could be done
Forming large amounts of tungsten is very nearly impossible
Forming NIMONIC (nickel/molybdenum steel alloy) is a little easier
EVERY PART of the exhaust turbine section of a gas turbine is air-cooled from the rear face of the alloy sheet material they’re made of
Your “tube” would have to be streamlined concentric pipes of nimonic alloy
They would HAVE to be BROKEN for EVERY refit
whistle, whistle

The liar bastard in you said that jet fuel burns at 2400 degrees Celsius. The maximum temperature for (JET A-1) fuel is 980 Celsius.
The following have melting points higher than that: Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Cobalt, Titanium, Chromium, Iridium, Molybdenum, Tungsten, Carbon

@EnergySupply2008 Hey, kiddo, I’ve just been back to the FAST exhibition at Farnborough where they have a cutaway Rolls-Royce Conway engine with the combustion temperature labelled at 2,400 degrees Centigrade
Why don’t you go there and tell them (the designers and manufacturers) that they are wrong?
And I know for a fact that the delivery requirements for the Welsbach materials in Teller’s paper were 80,000 feet. It kinda stood out, you know
Melting point isn’t a good indicator. Softening point IS

And while you’re watching the documentary, you will see that the WHOLE of the work force, and the technical staff, live and work right round the plane
The wings are glued together, so there is NO WAY of picking them apart to RETROFIT “stuff”
This means EVERY ONE OF THEM, including the lady with the glue gun, would have to know the “chemtrail” equipment installed
EVERY FITTER in EVERY WORK BAY ALL OVER THE WORLD would have to know about Energydrain’s “tungsten pipes”
Yet no whistleblowers

There are whistle blowers, you just have to look for them. Two aircraft mechanics found that tubing was leading to the lighting protection rods on the wings and they had been hollowed out. When his supervisor spotted him looking too closely, he was suspended for two weeks. They threaten whistle blowers with losing their jobs and blacklisting them.

@EnergySupply2008 There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found
Ignorant people everywhere like conspiratorial conversations and activities because it makes them feel important
Intelligent people everywhere are NOT impressed by threats or blackmail or blacklists
If there WAS any truth in any part of this it would have been gone already
So HOW DO YOU get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
In WHAT FORM is the barium/aluminum distributed?
Stop changing the subject & answer my questions

You wrote: “There’s nothing you find that I haven’t already found”
YOU are delusional. I found rain water tests, patents, geo engineers talking about spraying 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum per year and so much more that cannot be covered adequately with this 500 character limit shitty interface. I already told you, the patent calls for 32800 feet and they could spray lower if they wanted to really blast us with aluminum particles in our lungs.

It has always puzzled me…
Why do chemtards believe “chemtrails” are used to fight Global Warming, when they are known to be Global Warming DENIERS?
Why do they believe EVERYONE but them corrupt?
In my experience, clever people who study hard and pass exams in engineering do so because THEY LOVE THE SUBJECT
All my classmates did. They also loved cars, beer, music and the opposite sex
Entering some corrupt organization is the LAST thing they would do
You should watch “The Making of the 777”

This will solve your puzzlement. 2900 flights per day needed to deliver 44 BILLION 92 MILLION pounds of aluminum PER YEAR to the atmosphere. RAIN RAIN RAIN water tests showing up to 6900 times more aluminum than normal. Class is over.

Energydrain: “chemtrail patent 5,003,186 issued to HUGHES AIRCRAFT, which talks about adding the aluminum to the fuel
was formulated by someone who WASN’T a gas turbine engineer
There are patents for a hotel on the Moon – so it must exist
Why don’t you go there?
Scotty can beam you up
You will find thousands of morons already there

Energydrain: “Tungsten melts at 3400 degrees Celsius. Care to try again you shit for brains?”
I’m terribly sorry. You ARE correct about its melting point
To confirm, could you check the price and availability of tungsten tubing?
When that’s done, we could consider you to have won the argument
Where can you get it, and how much it costs, price and availability
Shouldn’t take a moment
Just get back to me

The current price for tungsten is $297 per metric ton (2204.6 US pounds) Only 13.5 cents per pound. It is used in incandescent light bulbs, cathode-ray tubes such as TV and computer monitors, vacuum tube filaments, heating elements, and rocket engine nozzles. 2009 production was 53 tons.

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

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

Aerosols are always present in the atmosphere, otherwise there wouldn’t be any clouds at all
Aerosols are generated by the oceans, forests, tundra, and volcanoes (85%) – and the industrial and farming activities of Man (15%)
Aerosols have existed in Earth’s air for FOUR POINT FIVE BILLION YEARS
That’s a little ahead of Edward Teller and chemtards
Why aren’t we BURIED in them?
WATER transports them down to land and sea
Even when extinction-event asteroids fell, the aerosol effects were GONE in 10 years

Shit. I had to rewrite it so many times because youtube blocks me every time I write something because I talk shit to all you shills. BTW. They don’t use commercial airliners. But seriously… all spelling aside, Shit will leave your mouth. Nasty.

@stephenbowman311 Yes, YT has a shit filter
It’s a pity it doesn’t apply it to shitty vids like this one
The thing is that it doesn’t know shit about science, just as you don’t, so it is unable to discriminate diahorrhea from honey, just as you can’t
I extend my sympathies to both of you and other chemtards everywhere
It must make shopping difficult
How do they deliver Welsbach materials to 80,000 feet? Mmmmm……

@beachcomber2008 Its funny you consider this to be a shitty vid, but you look through the comments and you’ve been here for a long time. I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology. I just came to F with you shills for a while and talk shit. Your not here for facts anyway. You are here on your shift spewing disinfo. I don’t go shopping. Thats for the women.

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

@stephenbowman311 “I know plenty about science. Mostly because of my BA in Biology”
What’s a B.A. in Biology? Since when was Biology an ART?
I got my degree in the sixties before DUMBING DOWN took place
I have been, and my wife presently is, a physics teacher, and I know for a fact that Advanced level today is what Ordinary level physics was for me
So don’t bullshit me, bro’
Tell me, how do YOU think they get the Welsbach materials up to 80,000 feet?
Divine intervention?

Well, I am terribly sorry, but you have not posted anything at all scientific!
Like explaining where all the barium and aluminum comes from and why?
Where does the 100 to 200 millions tons of aluminum come from considering the total world yearly production is only 33 million tones?
In other words, the uneducated authors of this video just do not know enough to make out a viable case!
Why should any sensible person take this cause at all seriously?

The video corrects it to 10-20 megatons with an annotation and you know it. David Keith, when asked 10 megatons will gave no human health impacts, does not offer a different number.
I have already posted twice, if you go to Worldal.com you will see that world production of alumina (aluminum oxide) is 67 megatons per year, yet you insist on lies and being a scumbag that it is 33 megatons per year.

Your knowledge of chemistry is pitifully small. Aluminum metal and alumina are two entirely different compounds. Aluminum has a formula weight 27 while alumina, aluminum trioxide, has a formula weight of 102. Thus 102 grams of alumina contains 54 grams of aluminum.
Thus the world output of 67 million tones of alumina would represent some 35 million tones of aluminum, EXACTLY what I said.
That is enough of this paranoidal Chemnut rubbish for tonight! Thanks for the laugh!

YOU are a total idiot. According to you 35 million tons of aluminum is turned onto 67 million tons of aluminum oxide and there is no aluminum left over to have aluminum for other purposes.

I like the way this has “gone viral”
With little effort thousands of chemtards line up to get drubbed
So energydrain thinks there are tungsten nozzles at the back of turbofan engines
Well, the NEXT time I go flying I shall take a camera and snap away at them
I WON’T ask the captain if he can fly at 80,000 feet because I know the answer (he cannot) and I wouldn’t want him to think I’m a moron – or a CHEMTARD

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

Edward Teller’s idea requires aircraft to LIFT the Welsbach materials to EIGHTY THOUSAND FEET, otherwise they won’t stay up for long
Unfortunately for Edward (and chemtards) only the U2 and the X15, and maybe the B1 can get up there
That’s certainly the reason why “chemtrails” don’t exist
Chemtards point at passenger plane contrails
and that’s why sensible people KNOW chemtards are just plain stupid
Contrails are an intelligence test which chemtards fail

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

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

HUGHES AIRCRAFT chemtrail patent 5,003,186 calls for spraying at 32,800 feet and says 10-100 micron sized particles will stay aloft for up to one year. Geoengineer David Keith wants to use NANO sized particles. A nano is 1000 times smaller than a micron and estimates particles will stay aloft for 2.5 to 4 years.

mikemb123: “condensation does not require aerosols”
When they are NOT present to allow condensation, the saturated vapor becomes SUPERSATURATED
Why are the dunces in the classroom shouting from the teacher’s desk?

Excellent trailer…subbed!

I guess the Chemnuts satisfy their paranoia just just posting some nonsense they took from some other dud Chemtrail nonsense video.
OK so be it !

Written by JazzRoc

November 5, 2008 at 1:00 am

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

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

Genuine Bull

leave a comment »



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



GenuineBull: Persistent lies of chemically-infused butt spray dispersals from typically uninformed brains which are now seen in YouTube all over the world. Unlike normal conversations formed by normal people, GB’s words spread to form a thick blanket of bullshit, held together by straws until they reach the ground, contaminating crops, water supplies and humans with a pungent stink of lies and dessicated innuendoes which contain active human pathogens. The cure: contrailscience.com


Chemtrails Parts I and II ? Miles Muzio Chief Meteorologist KBAK-TV, CBS 29 News, Bakersfield California

Genuine professionals are people called by some as “disinformationalists” (sic).

They are ALWAYS people who KNOW what they are talking about. Chemtrailers automatically HATE these people and call them “useful idiots”.

Miles Muzio here is a regular guy who is obviously good at his job, but not too practised in rebutting or debunking conspiracy fools. (I can tell because he occasionally misuses some relevant terminology himself, which one has learned NOT to do when fighting such a war of ideas. In particular he seems unaware of the existence of supersaturation as a special condition of the stratosphere.)

He says: “This is an ongoing controversy with some people who insist a malevolent conspiracy is subliminally gassing Americans. I have found no credible evidence of this. Condensation trails are common and form as a function of temperature. Condensation nuclei are produced by hydrocarbon exhaust and quickly form ice fog in the high atmosphere. The colder it is at flight level the more persistent the ice fog is.

There are really three types of fog (which are manifest as clouds aloft): 1) regular water droplet fog at temperatures above freezing, 2) water droplet fog at temperatures below freezing (which can result in icing conditions for aircraft), and 3) ice crystal fog (ice fog). Ice fog generally forms at temperatures below -22F. In arctic towns during the dead of winter it is not unusual to have ice fog form behind cars on the road. Ice fog dissipates very slowly because it must sublime from solid to vapor which requires a molecular heat transfer of about 620 calories per gram. At extremely low temperatures in the 30,000 to 40,000 foot range (between -60 and -100 degrees F), this change of state can take some time.

When I was a military meteorologist in Alaska back in the 1970s, one of the routine forecasts I put out was a contrails prediction. It was something that dated back to World War II. Our bombers needed to know at what altitude they must fly in order to NOT produce contrails. Of course, there was radar back then and the Japanese probably could spot an incoming B-29, but perhaps not. If contrails were visible 100 miles away then everyone would know. Nomograms were developed for the prediction. It was fairly straight forward. A critical temperature and pressure was required for contrail formation, usually something like -45F. Humidity came into the equation for relatively warm temperatures, but once it got below about -70F humidity didn’t matter – ice clouds would form regardless. When you see jets in which the contrail forms for only a short distance behind the aircraft and then it quickly disappears – that means the jet is flying at an altitude close to the critical contrail temperature.

I can also tell you that the manner in which contrails disperse, or don’t disperse, reveals important information about atmospheric stability and diffluence. The same is true about lenticular clouds that form in Tehachapi. These mountain wave clouds don’t automatically form when it’s windy. There are several other considerations, such as stability, humidity and the wind angle relation to the mountain range.

In the same way contrails will expand in areas of diffluent flow (winds pulling apart over a horizontal area). Much of this also applies to steam or exhaust that is released from a common smoke stack in breezy conditions. If the smoke goes up or if it goes down, if it expands or if it stays uniform – all tell a story about the character of the atmosphere. So when contrails form an X in the sky, it means there are two persistent contrails behind aircraft with tracks at 90-degrees to each other – nothing more. Go to contrailscience.com for further details.”




This was an American with a single-digit percentage of bullshit telling Americans what was wrong with their thinking (not that he didn’t have a world-wide appeal!). I tremendously respected and admired this man, and still keep him in mind when I write – he helps me keep my OWN bullshit in check.

What he says about DISEASE (and many other issues) should be MANDATORY MATERIAL in education.

He was the very embodiment of  MATURITY…



Aviation kerosine contains no metal, and burns to form steam and carbon dioxide. Chaff is INERT. Civil planes aren’t fitted with spray equipment. The world’s 1500 active (24/7) volcanoes outdo Man’s efforts twentyfold. Living plants have converted THAT into FRESH AIR for 3 billion years. Human skin and lung diseases are caused by pollens and auto fumes and photoreactive smog combined. Worry about deforestation and the death of ocean phytoplankton. GET REAL! PEACEFULLY!


“He will just waste your time and energy” – You ARE wasting everyone’s time.

“I learned the hard way” – You have LEARNED not a thing

“posts on other chemtrail videos” – who LIE as YOU do..

“comments from other people about him on his YouTube profile” – There was ONE SMART GUY there…

“all over the web debunking chemtrails” – I would STOP if there were any PROOF to the contrary.

“google “jazzroc”” – and some extreme “chemtrailer” crap crops up amongst scientific and musical references. Embarrassing.

“logical explanation for his behavior is he is paid” – NO. For want of a scientific understanding you guys are talking complete rubbish, and I thought to point you in a scientific direction. While you talk utter crap you’ll get nowhere. (Don’t you just LOATHE people who talk past you?)

“jazzroc (aka “Epoxynous”, “doublemeat”)” – They are OTHER PEOPLE I’m pleased to have been in touch with.

“”soda pop” crap” – Which is COMPLETELY TRUE – but call it CRAP, and maybe it’ll go away, eh?

“never-ending arguments” – NEVER HAPPEN BETWEEN SENSIBLE PEOPLE.

“He attacks anyone” – I attack ANY BAD IDEA.

“chemtrails may not be simple contrails” – may not exist, for the complete ABSENCE of PROOF.

“bombard you with “scientific evidence”” – as found in TEXT BOOKS ON SCIENCE

“he refers to his own website as proof” – It has a potted life history, photographs, my composed jazz and my synthesized classics (some of it interesting. “Fire and Ice” and “Variations on a Theme by Thomas Tallis” I recommend), pictures of my daughter’s wedding, blogs on volcanoes/contrails, “intelligent” design, canvassers, religion.


“responds with a barrage of insults and bizarre accusations (such as “you are either uneducated or evil”)” – (some barrage) but only after enduring STREAMS OF ABUSE from people who are resolutely opposed to either REASON or LOOKING THINGS UP. Only YOU would think my accustion bizarre!

It IS EVIL to do HARM, and propagating LIES is HARMFUL.

“Classic misdirection” – (Yours) is being followed by MY REDIRECTION. Your answers to my posts NEVER QUESTION THE SCIENCE, NEVER argue the SCIENCE, NEVER even acknowledge the SCIENCE.

(You call Science “DISINFORMATION”!)

Let me tell you something.


If you have an enemy who is using WORKING SCIENCE to depopulate YOU, he is MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED if YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Science is abysmally POOR.


And I don’t mean read up THE LIES YOU TELL EACH OTHER.


LEARN about the atmosphere. TRY to get a PROPER SENSE OF SCALE about the SIZE OF THE EARTH.

Read JANE’S AIRCRAFT so that you can UNDERSTAND more about aircraft design and stop making such fools of yourselves.



(A Roll of Honor)

For some time now (writing in May of 2009) I have been feeling less alone, and more heartened by others speaking up as I do against chemtard foolishness, but often more eloquently, or more wittily than I’m able to do, throwing in a lightness of touch which I both envy and admire, or cutting to the centre of a misperception with a rapier’s slash.


And so I introduce a heroine of mine, STARS15K, featuring both in YouTube and Contrailscience, who describes herself thus: “I’m just a middle-aged, middle-income, middle-American, dog-loving, wool spinning, fly-tying, sock knitting, married to the only man i ever dated, Grandma of two, cloud-freak. I’m so proud.”

That is real smart.

I’m going to add to this list, of course, because I have come across suitable candidates previously, but I dedicate it to STARS15K because, well, she probably can always head up such a list!

And what she writes here is really beautiful:

Real Science, has facts and is the same everywhere. CT theory doesn’t fit these criteria. Laws of gravity, thermodynamics, aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, meteorology can’t be repealed by any government or entity. They have to remain the same. When science shows the same results over and over again, it means that is a fact. When you have just facts, you know the truth. When you understand the truth, the sky is the sky again, clouds look like bunnies or Homer Simpson, colored sunsets are beautiful, and planes can leave signs of their passing overhead without fear and worry.



I would like to ask you why those who are in the meteorology/aviation field need to go through years of schooling when all one has to do is “look up” in order to understand what is happening as an airplane flies through varying weather conditions. If one can just simply rely on their eyes to explain complex weather movements and air masses, why go to school at all? Can’t you just imagine for a moment that these are complex concepts that require actual training to understand? Both meteorology and aviation are rare subjects to study and there are not many people in a given area who have learned about such subjects. Isn’t it possible that those you have learned from are uneducated in these subjects also?
Can I understand the complicated jet engine just by looking at it or do I need to study a bit to understand that it COMPRESSES the air it takes in and then mixes that high pressure air with fuel and ignites it to create thrust? To believe you understand the atmosphere and how all the elements work together, without studying from a source other than youtube (and other “websites”), is absurd. I hope you learn the truth someday, for your sake and the sake of your children. No one should live in fear of the lines in the sky when here there are billions of sources of pollution right down here on the ground to worry about. The funny, and ironic, FACT is that the trails hold LESS danger to you and your family than some of the water down here that is labeled fit for human consumption. You focus on the absurd while ignoring true dangers. If you fertilize your lawn, you are exposing your children to MUCH higher concentrations of dangerous substances than you can find in MILES of persistent contrails.

Please stop telling lies about people you know nothing about here, or on youtube. It makes you look foolish and paranoid. I really do hope you find the truth. I would hate to live in fear as you people obviously do.



(In his YouTube channel comments)

Yeah sure.

The government

keeps info about the real world

hidden from the population

in storage devices called “books”

kept in secret vaults known as “libraries”.



(Such a hero of mine. His site: CONTRAILSCIENCE.COM)

How is your belief as valid as mine? I think “The cloud photos in this 100 year old book are natural”.

You think “The cloud photos in this 100 year old book indicate the use of Tesla’s scalar energy used to modify the weather, a practice that has gone on for the last 100 years and continues today”.

To back up my belief (really a theory, but let’s call it a belief, no need for semantic arguments), I point out that the science of meteorology, as practised in every country in the world by hundreds of thousands of scientists, and as reported in tens of thousands of scientific articles and research papers, and verified by millions of experiments, and as followed by millions of amateur scientists and meteorologists, and modeled by thousands of weather forecasting systems, and taught in schools and universities, is entirely consistent with the photos in the book. In addition, the exact same clouds were observed hundreds (and even thousands) of years BEFORE the book was published.

To back up your belief, what? Tesla made vague mention of “scalar energy”, a technology that nobody has ever demonstrated by experiment in any way. Technology supposedly invented 100 years ago that no country in the entire world has ever used – despite its promise of “free” energy. Somehow this is being used to modify the weather of the entire planet – and you can offer no evidence other than “it seems like something they would cover up if they were doing it”.

Not all beliefs are equally valid. If I believed that clouds were the condensed breath of invisible dragons, then you would quite likely disagree. If you want your alternative beliefs to be taken seriously, you need to at least approach the degree of evidence that supports the mainstream beliefs.

59 Alto Waves (Alto-Stratus Undatus)


The reason we have not been able to find any legitimate proof that chemtrails exist is because they simply do not exist. The term is an internet creation to make condensation trails aka contrails sound more sinister.

When you actually look at the facts, as Uncinus proposes, you can see the argument in support of these chemtrails quickly reduces to nothing more than a bundle of pseudo-science, assumption, misguided correlations and unqualified uneducated personal testimony.

I have yet to find for myself one argument for the existence of these ‘chemtrails’ that does not skirt around the real results from real studies from real accredited sources. Instead, I have just found these arguments to resort to personal attacks and contradictory statements.

For example, how can you argue that the government is lying to us to cover this up and at the same time use government information taken out of context as the proof chemtrails exist? Logically, if this is the huge conspiracy, involving thousands of people, falsified studies and an extreme government cover up, wouldn’t the simplest thing these conspirators would do would be to remove those links to themselves?

Of course, this is speculation on my part and should be taken as such. I am not a professional of any kind in this matter and I don’t believe anyone should be convinced on my word alone just as I will never be convinced by your word alone.

What we do have, however, is science and legitimate information. Anyone can access these studies and weigh both sides of this argument and make an educated decision. For me the answer is simple; chemtrails do not exist and so this conspiracy does not exist.

Contrails do exist. Everyday, the number of airplanes in our skies increase as do the number of contrails left behind. Instead of trying to justify our paranoia with fictional conspiracies, we should be looking at what is actually going on in the world we create for ourselves.

Our air is polluted, our water is polluted, our earth is polluted, we don’t need to create something like chemtrails to prove this. Instead of creating government conspiracy in our minds we should acknowledge the real perpetrators, ourselves.

We drive the cars, we fly in the planes, and we ignore the effect each one of us has on the environment around us. No one wants to see the blood on our own hands, an enemy image is easier for us to justify than taking the blame for our own contribution to an increasingly polluted planet.

We desperately need to stop pointing fingers and start taking responsibility for our own actions.
We need to ask ourselves the hard question; What actions or in-actions am I taking that contribute to the problem and what am I doing to create a solution?

The answer is yours alone and yours to reconcile with yourself.

“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” -Voltaire


Ahh, the catch cry of the liar and charlatan, got no proof, caught redhanded knee deep in bullshit, then start calling people a shill to try and divert.

Show some proof, retard. show the planes on the ground, show me the tankers transporting this stuff, show me the plants manufacturing this chemical.

You can’t because it’s all bullshit.

All you have is the same dumb-arse videos.  Go video rainbows in the sprinklers and drop some acid.

You can’t be any more brain damaged than you are already.




leave a comment »



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


“they don’t have to use the engines to spread it” – Well, there’s only the fuel dump vents on the wing trailing edges. Where else do you mean?


There would have to be special tanks and bowsers, airport personnel in protective clothing, some operators or their families poisoned or infected, splashes anywhere on runway aprons would be brilliant WHITE.
“I look through my binoculars and can see” – CONTRAILS.
“look Clifford is not deceiving” – WHEN HE SLEEPS…
“metallic salt introduced as a condensation nuclei” – 3.4 MILLION TONS would be required to single/shot the Earth (apparently there’s a report which claims 20 million tons). You’d have to keep doing it as well…
“pets licking/planes adding” – No connection. Do you live near a salt mine, or the sea?
“Trails should not spread” – GO AWAY AND READ UP before you repeat yourself. Try href=”http://contrailscience.com”>http://contrailscience.com
If you wish to discover TRUE SCIENCE, just use “advanced search” and make sure you exclude “CHEMTRAIL”, “CHEM”, and “AEROSOL”, as there are thousands of chemtrailers out there, and they do not understand science at all, and are clogging up the web with misinformation and disinformation.


Hi Slimeball Disinformation Specialist…
Seeing as you are conducting a campaign of LIES I thought I’d hit you with TRUTH.
An easy thing to do because you don’t have to remember what you said last time….
My basic life story is on http://www.myspace.com/jazzroc
I have a channel here, as you can see.
I am a 65 yr old man, heterosexual and faithful, happily married for forty years, with a beautiful and intelligent wife, two beautiful and intelligent professionally-qualified daughters, and an energetic and intelligent 8 year old grandson (and another’s on its way!). I have never lied or cheated throughout my life. I am an inventor, composer, and artist. I owe no-one anything (apart from my wife) and am successful and happy.
What have you done, apart from LIE? (Rhetorical, but he didn’t understand that…)


November 2007
i just took a look at your wordpress blog. don’t get me wrong. i’m not fanatical about chemtrails, just curious. i haven’t reached a final conclusion yet. i’m interested in all kinds of information regarding that topic. that means i’m interested in plain scientific fact, weird sci-fi psycho theories and everything in between.
one false theory spread by the chemtrail fanatics is: ‘every contrail that doesn’t disappear within a few minutes is a chemtrail’. in saturated troposphere a contrail can trigger the generation of a cirrus cloud. i remember seeing some vapor trails that don’t dissipate since my early childhood. i also saw fat contrails in ‘rocky 2’ starring sylvester stallone.
another misleading theory is that there are no chemtrails at all.
As i’m sure that you have seen this video posted by your special friend nicscics, german military admits spraying substances that appeared on a weather radar as a ghost cloud. the meteorologist thinks that it’s chaff.
whatever it is, some planes are flying around spraying crap without asking the population if they want it. another well documented case is espanola canada. the difference is that unlike germany the officials denied the whole thing over there. these are just two examples that shouldn’t be ignored.
what still makes me sceptical is the amount of unverified crap about chemtrails that is being spread on the internet. it’s almost like a special interest of esoteric/UFO weirdos that don’t care about evidence. for instance the spray on/off phenomenon. i understand that the plane can alternate between saturated and unsaturated layers of the troposphere which causes the illusion of spray on/off. i also know about hypersaturation causing the illusion of the whole plane spraying. and i know about the wake vortex.
and if someone sees a plane spraying something, it’s only fuel dumping. and that is only done in case of emergency. there must either be a lot of emergency situations up there or they are doing that too often. when i mentioned low flying planes causing a contrail (or chemtrail) that turns into a lasting cloud you asked me to VERIFY it. i can not do it. even if i would film it with 20x zoom compare the size of the plane to the size of planes flying in cruising altitude filmed with 20x zoom … u could argue it’s fake. i don’t have the possibility of taking a stereo picture. so i’m afraid i cannot verify it to convince you. the problem is that i can tell the difference between a plane in cruising altitude and a plane flying less than 5000m high. when i saw that the first time i was stunned. i had already dumped the chemtrail theory then. but to see that happening very often made me change my mind. i also happen to see this phenomenon pretty often.
when i first saw it i thought he just filmed a reflection in the window. now i know it’s a parhelion/ sun dog. look up sun dog on youtube. i did it and rarely found a sun dog video without con-(chem?)trails, even if the lucky filmers weren’t aware of it. the ones i saw looked like in the video i mentioned above. that also is not an evidence for the existence of chemtrails.
two days ago i saw clouds illuminated by the sun with pink and bright green stains on them after heavy air traffic. i couldn’t believe my eyes … ok, so you tell me those stains were caused by ice crystals. btw i could claim anything, i could be a liar.
another strange thing is a dry cough some people have. it is not like a cold, it feels like edema in the bronchia. after days of crazy air traffic it feels like someone peels your throat with a knife. a friend of mine who thinks i’m a kook told me lately that he nearly puked out his lung when he went to work by bicycle one morning. he told me that he thinks some times that something ‘is wrong with the air’. he said that it made him think about the crazy conspiracy theory i told him about. we had the same symptoms on the same days during a time we hadn’t met for weeks. the funny thing is that i could describe his exact symptoms after he told me about it…

Yours is about the best letter I’ve had so far. Perhaps a dozen have written to me, (and I have a couple of friends now as a consequence).
But yours ain’t bad.
About my “special friend” nicscics…
Everything he has published has been discredited and debunked. It’s all lies. He has published so many lies that he deserves special treatment, and he’s going to get it from me in the fullness of time. The “report” was a complaint about “chaff” disrupting weather radar which was deliberately and cynically mis-translated into a “chemtrail” issue. Not everything on the web is true, and in the case of “chemtrails” nothing is EVER true.


5,000m high “chemtrails”? As I said, try to verify it. (It might be technically possible for that to occur on a cold day, close to the poles!)
With a standard telephoto/camera combination it IS possible to calculate the range from the image size. You just need a “dangleometer” (plumb-bob/protractor) to give you the camera angle, and Bob’s your uncle. “Contrailscience.com” (a “debunker” site!) gives you the why and the wherefore.
The contents of “chemtrails” can only be proved by catching the stuff at 35,000ft and taking it quickly back to a lab for analysis. As I have said before, you have to use TWO synchronized cameras, (and TWO independent monitoring witnesses) and make sure that NEITHER the SAMPLE nor the EQUIPMENT leaves the VIDEO FRAME until analysis is COMPLETE and the FIGURES DISPLAYED.
CHAFF is a complete red herring. It won’t make you any more ill than your aluminium saucepan (rhubarb! whoops!) but you know what I mean.
So are ISOLATED MINOR INCIDENTS. THEY are NOT part of some GLOBAL “conspiracy”!
Plane emergencies are sometimes caused by passengers….
Sun-dogs are an ICE refraction/interference phenomenon. They have been noted for thousands of years. They DO happen WITHOUT any aircraft “connection”. They are a natural phenomenon.

They CANNOT happen with metal compounds, or dusts, which break down the crystal-forming. I NOW live in the Canaries; we quite often get beautiful high-altitude pearlescent clouds, but never when we have a KALIMA, which is a dust-laden wind from the Sahara. The KALIMA turns our complete world SEPIA MONOCHROME – we get “Photoshopped”! But no halos or sundogs while that happens.


I LEFT Britain (North London – Home Counties) because since about 1995 I found it increasingly difficult to breathe. The two things I couldn’t live with were POLLEN and PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG.
You should research how dangerous these two things are in combination, and consider their prevalence, and then their RELEVANCE to “chemtrail” debate. I agree with you, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR AIR.
Since I moved in 2002 I have been perfectly fit and well… yet I live close to a busy airport (they climb past my window here 300M to my left and 300M up!), and seven miles up over my head I CAN see persistent contrails – sometimes…
And I live where a desert meets the sea. There’s NO TRACE either of pollen or photochemical smog… and there’s NOTHING WRONG WITH MY AIR EITHER…
i also see where planes normally fly and have to say that the suspected planes don’t have air corridors, they appear everywhere. you look in one direction and see planes fly back and forth leaving a con-(chem?)trail grid. and the next days there is no plane at all in the same direction.
i cannot quite imagine who would do that, how they do that nearly everywhere and why they would do it. i am usually quiet about chemtrails, it only makes ppl think i’m crazy. but yes, i do think something strange is going on. i also admit that there is a lack of hard evidence for the existence of chemtrails. even though it is verified that it DID happen doesn’t necessarily mean it happens everywhere.
so i don’t think everybody has to share my opinion on this. as far as you are concerned: you only seem to accept facts that support your theory (chemtrails=bs). many chemtrail whackos also only accept facts that support their theory. it it strange that you invest so much time to argue with ppl who think chemtrails do exist. if someone has beliefs i do not share, i think it’s not my business. i also think it’s arrogant to think your theories resemble objective reality.

You may think my behavior arrogant, but that is because you mistakenly believe me to believe in a “theory”. I don’t. I understand the scientific basis for your belief, while you do not. You need to consider the “observer effect”. You only see what you’re looking at WHEN you’re looking at it. You only see planes WHEN they are laying contrails on a blue sky day WHEN the stratosphere is (invisibly) saturated. THAT is WHEN you remember them… The “Grid” of trails is a “print-out” consequence of CROSSING SHUTTLE ROUTES. It will appear at a different part of the sky (on wet blue-sky days!) because the stratosphere SPEED and DIRECTION vary ALL THE TIME. The plain facts are that you DON’T see the planes on a very dry blue sky day AT ALL (blue light scattering “removes” the plane, and the trail is tiny/non-existent). And, of course, you don’t see the planes at all on overcast days.

The general truth is that the SAME PLANES ARE FLYING THE SAME ROUTES ALL THE TIME. It’s the airline business.

Another general truth is that you haven’t yet thought properly and constructively about your perception. How you “trust” your vision (how can it be wrong?) but let it down with your conclusion (you were crucially unaware of OTHER FACTS). Does the Sun go round the Earth? What do your EYES tell you?
The logic of TELLING people this is that while people confront a COMPLETELY NOEXISTENT PROBLEM the REAL PROBLEMS are UNADDRESSED. Pollen/photochemical smog CONTINUES to KILL PEOPLE, and the PTB’s REAL way of shafting YOU remains undetected…  In the terms of having a REAL, PRACTICAL, AND FUNCTIONING SOCIAL CONSCIENCE, people who adhere to the “chemtrail” theory are WORSE THAN USELESS. I’m quite happy to tell such people so…


 Remember “don’t get me wrong. i’m not fanatical about chemtrails, just curious. i haven’t reached a final conclusion yet”?
Well our hero SCHNARCH keeps an open internet diary, from which I quote:
Jan 16 2008 After seeing a sundog aka parhelion after heavy chemtrail activity over leipzig/germany (it looked like in this vid), i wanted to know what that is all about. is it a natural phenomenon that happens once in a while or is it caused by chemtrails? many ppl posted their captions of sundogs and halos, few noticed the chemtrails in their vids. the only videos without a chemtrail haze were taken near the south pole. here are a few examples of sundog and 22 degree halo vids clearly showing chemtrails, yet the filmers of these vids ignore them. He also noticed the connection between sundogs and chemtrails, he calls it ‘magic rainbow’. Are chembows the same phenomenon as sundogs and halos? what causes these strange rainbows? ice crystals (natural) or chemtrails?”



“Today I noticed little activity over my hometown, until the blue sky showed, but it wasn’t there to stay. Many planes appeared and spread their haze. I don’t need to look up into the sky to see what’s happening. There’s a stinky smell outside and i feel it in my throat. I noticed these irritations before I knew about chemtrails. the way most ppl think about this phenomenon makes me think i’m nuts or paranoid sometimes. But i’m afraid i’m not. I think it’s real. some planes are flying so low I can’t imagine it’s cold enough for contrails to form at all. After seeing three sun dogs in one week, many u-turns of planes, planes leaving chemtrails despite flying at a low altitude (<3000m/ 10000ft). the whole thing still gets me thinking.
Jan 17 2008 It is hard to find reliable information about chemtrails in Germany. Of course many ppl take photos and videos. but there is little confirmed information about chemical or biological fall-out analysis. Most websites about chemtrails in Germany are full of esoteric/spiritual stuff and ufo-stuff. few ppl take this issue seriously, most will ridicule the whole thing. it is unimaginable to most that the government is spraying us like bugs. If you want to share a good laugh with friends, tell them about chemtrails. to have some hard evidence for chemtrails would be nice. Carnicom or Rense seem to be pretty good, but the ppl over here in Germany won’t relate to that. The US isn’t Germany (they think). The part of the population who are aware of chemtrails are a lost minority. If only a few people know about this, it’s useless.
Jan 18 2008 ‘no fucking marking on that muthafucker’ … lol, unmarked planes all over the planet. Does anybody know the low-flying sausages with the fuselage that appears to be very thick compared to the wings? They produce either clouds or nothing. I’d love to shoot down one of them with a stinger just to see what’s in it. The ‘sausage’ plane i was referring to reminds me of an airbus A300-600ST, tho i’m not sure. it’s a cargo plane. Wikipedia says only five of them were built.”



“Jan 20 2008 Maybe i’m wrong, but yesterday i saw a plane that looked like this on my way home from work. it was flying pretty low (app. 10000ft), all of a sudden it left a chemtrail that turned into a lasting cloud and flew on without any contrail at all. i saw planes like that fly along chemtrails that were sprayed before without leaving a contrail at all. Is anyone familiar with this type of aircraft? Many of the chemtrails are sprayed by the notorious unmarked tanker planes. “



“Jan 20 2008 Interestingly chemtrails appear very often in the afternoon and in the evening. this increases the humidity in the troposphere and keeps the ground level from cooling down. yesterday i read a statement by a meteorologist on a german page, who suggested that planes should fly 6000ft below cruising altitude to avoid the forming of contrails that increase the humidity of the troposphere/ stratosphere. that means that chemtrails seem to cause local warming where they occur.”



“Jan 24 2008 I will never leave the house without my camera again. Yesterday i saw clouds lit by the sun, they had red and green stains … the sun wasn’t emitting much light in the red spectrum at that time. btw yesterday a friend of mine told me that he was going to work by bicycle yesterday in the morning. He said that he almost puked his lungs out for no reason … ‘something’ was wrong with the air … made me think about your paranoid conspiracy theory’ – lol. What is going on? WHO wants to weaken or kill us? We are really getting hammered with chemtrails at the moment. Maybe 80% of the weather is engineered right now.
Feb 10 2008 Check this out. GOt EM! CHEMTRAILS ON GERMAN TV. I know this one. The debunkers always say ‘it’s only chaff, chaff is a red herring, blabla’. I don’t know why the military should be using chaff nowadays, you can’t fool modern radar with it.”



“Other debunkers say that the phantom clouds on the weather radar attracted attention because they were NOT visible as opposed to the chemtrails which are visible. dunno. Since I noticed that small metallic particles are everywhere (windows, windshields, even in the dust on my furniture) I need no more proof. I also saw planes spraying at ridiculously low altitude (15000ft/5000m).
Feb 22 2008 I just posted a video about chemtrails over Leipzig. in the videos you can see sun dogs, a 22 degree halo, upper tangent arc and a circumzenithal arc – caused by chemtrails. At the end of the video there is a spray plane flying low in the evening sun – with 30x zoom. It does have wings, webfairy.
Feb 28 2008 It would makes sense if the sundogs were related to chemtrails.  Especially if the dense chemtrails contained heavy metals that the sun was reflecting off of.
Mar 7 2008 Persistant contrails do also occur naturally but not that many, not that often. Sometimes they spray the whole day and sometimes they only spray assault-like for 30 minutes or so. Strange. I wonder which planes they are using. Sometimes i see 747s. I really think we live in a strange age. i am waiting for major changes, but maybe it is stilla couple of decades away from now.
Mar 10 2008 I posted them and some shill came right out of the woodwork. The links are dead. At least they smell funny.”

Smell funny? 🙂


There was a brief moment when I pm’ed Socrates (of ‘All Aircraft are Not Involved’) and he pm’ed me back with what seemed to me a gracious reply, and we were all set for an interesting dialogue from opposite ends of the table, so-to-speak. But it was not to be:
This could be a breakthrough proving disinformation thus proving chemtrails. For why would such efforts be taken to alter the contents of books to make it seem that commercial aircraft can create chemtrails and always have and thus chemtrails are contrails???
The focus returns to the Epoxynous character, now known for spamming youtube and having a disinformation website named Contrail Science. This is no obvious scammer like “KevinMartin” who offers enigmas in the form of convolution. This guy works with subtlety.
I took care of this guy last year. For another one of these types of videos, it turned out that every example he found was from military aircraft.
Now he has made a video alleging to have found chemtrailed skies from 1972. I used a proxy to get into Carnicom’s where I found out about this. The hat tip goes to Vericarl, who by chance has been accused by Megasprayer of being my sock puppet. There was only one other thread that seemed interesting. Day Glo, the voice of reason, deleted her posts, so I don’t know what it was about. But I think it was similar to her previous types of posts pointing out crazy ideas that make chemtrails look like an internet hoax.
I believe a few of us have made a difference. I believe that despite the fact that the major chemtrail boards have been rigged, a few of us have gotten the word out that it is not outrageous to believe in chemtrails. Maybe Day Glo saw my post slamming Kathaksung before it was deleted and I was banned. Perhaps Day Glo is for real and is starting to realize that Cliff Carnicom is part of the problem.
Epoxynous/Contrail Science is a Patrick Minnis mouthpiece.

( For details of Patrick Minnis read my blog “Penrod – Debunking Chemtrail Debunking Debunking” – https://jazzroc.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/26-penrod/ )
They are admitting that we are seeing what Minnis refers to as contrail outbreaks. These guys are going way out of their way to try to make chemtrails look kooky. They then have Deborah, Chem11, Arcadia Ego, and BigBunny spreading the disinfo that chemtrails are contrails. This has been an elaborate script covering many years, around nine to be exact.
There is even the same kind of nonsense going on at Chemtrail Central with someone named Free World Order, but I digress.
I am not sure why two books would have the same isbn number. Perhaps that isn’t a big deal. I don’t know. It could have been a typo or it might mean something.
But unless the Italian chemmies are plants, some form of strawmen, they have located the book Epoxynous used for his video. The book has obviously been altered where the photos used by Epoxynous are located. The only thing I can think of is that the Italian chemmies are fakes, and it will be proven that they scripted this whole thing, that they are the disinfo strawmen to boost Epoxynous’ credibility.
However, the only thing I see from their youtube page that doesn’t add up is that the guy “TankerEnemy” wrote that he is censored on his own pages. Yet right in the comments, there he is. Controlled opposition is a problem we must keep an eye out for. But nonetheless, please check this out. It sure looks like Epoxynous and many others have been busted for being spooks.
We found these kind of anomalies not long after a symposium of C.I.C.A.P. (italian debunkers). During the conference, Simone Angioni, an italian chemist, (as well as component C.I.C.A.P.), showed this book with the same strange details. Obvsiouly he showed it trying to demonstrate that hours-persistent-contrails ever existed. We know it’s a lie then we purchased the same volume and found what we let anybody see in this video. Some pages were torn and replaced with other different ones. Somebody manipulated a number of original informations of this book, “Clouds of the World”. Ask yourself: WHY?

anthony.r.duncan (that’s me, folks!)
 socrates: This could be a breakthrough proving disinformation thus proving chemtrails. For why would such efforts be taken to alter the contents of books to make it seem that commercial aircraft can create chemtrails and always have and thus chemtrails are contrails?
I wouldn’t be so hot to trot if I were you. For you are taking the words of a proven hoaxer as truth.
Quote: The focus returns to the Epoxynous character, now known for spamming youtube and having a disinformation website named Contrail Science. This is no obvious scammer like “KevinMartin” who offers enigmas in the form of convolution. This guy works with subtlety.
Yes, he subtly asks for PROOF.
Quote: I took care of this guy last year. For another one of these types of videos, it turned out that every example he found was from military aircraft.
The early persistent trails WERE from military aircraft. They were the only planes carrying people photographing aircraft. When civil aviation began to expand (from a size fifty times smaller than the present) the people inside weren’t taking pictures of the trails that these aircraft were making.
Quote: Now he has made a video alleging to have found chemtrailed skies from 1972.
Of a book (showing persistent contrails). I’ve seen this. Look, Socrates, I’ve seen (in the late forties!) newspaper and magazine pictures of persistent trails myself. This horse doesn’t run.
Quote: I believe a few of us have made a difference. I believe that despite the fact that the major chemtrail boards have been rigged, a few of us have gotten the word out that it is not outrageous to believe in chemtrails.
I don’t know if the major chemtrail boards are rigged. I’ve been ejected from YouTube, David Icke, and Outlaw. If anything, the rigging’s the other way.
Quote: Epoxynous/Contrail Science is a Patrick Minnis mouthpiece. They are admitting that we are seeing what Minnis refers to as contrail outbreaks. These guys are going way out of their way to try to make chemtrails look kooky.
If aviation’s increased by fifty times since the fifties, the aircraft engines are putting fifty times more water into the air. If trail times reflect the humidity of the air they are dumped in (which they must!), then trail length and sizes must also increase. There’s a million tons of water added to the air each day. This is a tiny proportion of the amount that is already up there, but these trails are the most dense where the atmosphere is at its coldest, which is at the tropopause, approximately 26,000 feet up in the central US. Contrail ‘outbreaks’ must increase as air travel increases. It is atmospheric science. There is no “maybe” here.
Quote: They then have Deborah, Chem11, Arcadia Ego, and BigBunny spreading the disinfo that chemtrails are contrails. This has been an elaborate script covering many years, around nine to be exact.
If all scientists say the same thing, it doesn’t have to be “to a script”, does it? It is just that they share the same understanding. If you were to say “the Sun goes round the Earth”, then a lot of people would disagree with you, but not to a script!
Quote: But unless the Italian chemmies are plants, some form of strawmen, they have located the book Epoxynous used for his video. The book has obviously been altered where the photos used by Epoxynous are located. The only thing I can think of is that the Italian chemmies are fakes, and it will be proven that they scripted this whole thing, that they are the disinfo strawmen to boost Epoxynous’ credibility.
Those “chemmies” are crooks, and doing what they always do – LIE. They are responsible for photoshopping a Boeing 777LR CG test prototype interior with a “hazmat inside” sign, and rostrumming this photo (freely available from airliners.net) into the “Inside a Chemtrail Sprayer” video. My challenging this YouTube video got me thrown off YouTube, so i) the world’s not rigged against you, and ii) they are lying bastards who’ll do anything to further their malicious agenda. These guys are working beyond the Hanlon’s Razor mentioned in my signature – they know exactly what they are doing. And so do I.
Quote: However, the only thing I see from their youtube page that doesn’t add up is that the guy “TankerEnemy” wrote that he is censored on his own pages. Yet right in the comments, there he is. Controlled opposition is a problem we must keep an eye out for. But nonetheless, please check this out. It sure looks like Epoxynous and many others have been busted for being spooks.
TankerEnemy is simply lying, and you know that when you lie, the problem is that you have to remember the list of the lies you make, and trot them out to order. If you keep on doing that, you end up falling off your self-made cliff.
TankerEnemy: We found these kind of anomalies not long after a symposium of C.I.C.A.P. (italian debunkers). During the conference, Simone Angioni, an italian chemist, (as well as component C.I.C.A.P.), showed this book with the same strange details. Obvsiouly he showed it trying to demonstrate that hours-persistent-contrails ever existed. We know it’s a lie then we purchased the same volume and found what we let anybody see in this video. Some pages were torn and replaced with other different ones. Somebody manipulated a number of original informations of this book, “Clouds of the World”. Ask yourself: WHY?
I’ve already answered his question.
I’ve had some concerns with the big forum he is affiliated with. They seem to have stuff on orgone and ufos, for a few examples. But I don’t know Italian, so it’s not something I have access to figuring out. That all the early evidence of aircraft induced white-outs are from military aircraft implies that such evidence is useless. Plus, those white-outs don’t look like those that showed up around the year 2000 or a bit earlier.
We’ve also already heard all the explanations from the closed-minded debunker side. Increased air traffic. More pollution particles in the air. New turbo engines. It’s gotten very stale.
Your horse seems to be one that keeps running in the stratosphere despite the consistent claims of witnesses that the white-outs are being created much lower than that.
I’m not saying for sure that the book in question was tampered with, but it sure looks like it may have happened.
It’s good that you were banned from youtube. No one likes to read spam.
You are a broken record. I was in the trenches and figured out a lot about fake chemmies named Deborah, Chem11, BigBunny, Arcadia Ego, Wayne Hall, Lou Aubuchont and many more. But oh no, according to you, it appears that I am just smearing them because they disagree with me. And real scientists agree with them! So it doesn’t even matter, according to you, if a sophisticated fake chemmie/fake debunker script has been uncovered.
In a controlled opposition, discrepancies are planted for the scripted foes to debunk. The result has been nothing but noise. Real people have been shamed out of participating. There’s no need for real people in such discussions. Lou Aubuchont is a nutjob? Have Jay Reynolds point that out. Carol Rosin is in all likelihood a cointelpro plant in the peace in space movement? Have ContrailScience point it out. God forbid the few real chemmies who refused to give up have been the ones to clean up the whole stinking disinfo ship.
This forum wasn’t established so people like yourself could show up and change the tempo. Your past spamming attempts and bullying efforts are taken into consideration when reading these present efforts.
As for David Icke and the Outlaw Forum, those are two of the worst websites on the whole internet. Why you would want to post there is beyond my imagination. I can see how Uri stayed on a fair bit to set the record straight about the neo-nazi ideology being spammed, but for you to say you are such an intellect, yet post at those kinds of places, is hard to make sense of.
Just because someone gets caught in lies, does not mean everything they post is lies.
The preponderance of evidence shows that a “chemtrails are kooky” script has been put in place. There is something referred to as concern trolling. Folks will make it appear that they are one of the good guys. They will post things that make sense in order to gain the reader’s confidence. But what goes on with such folks is a confidence game.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t look like things are working out here. Nothing personal, but I’m starting to remember how annoying you can be.
Take my advice and go to DebateBothSides. I kind of don’t want you here.
: those white-outs don’t look like those that showed up around the year 2000 or a bit earlier.
They look exactly the same to me.
Quote: Increased air traffic – stale.
Truth seems stale to you?
Quote: consistent claims of witnesses that the white-outs are being created much lower than that.
But not one proof, with all those videocams…
Quote: It’s good that you were banned from youtube. No one likes to read spam.
Policemen are nasty people that attack burglars. That seem reasonable to you?
Quote: figured out a lot about fake chemmies – according to you, it appears that I am just smearing them
Really? Does it? Did I say so?
Quote: because they disagree with me.
How could they possibly do that?
Quote: So it doesn’t even matter, according to you, if a sophisticated fake chemmie/fake debunker script has been uncovered.
A script using scientific truth? NO – it doesn’t. I quote: “Just because someone gets caught in lies, does not mean everything they post is lies.”
Quote: In a controlled opposition <snip> whole stinking disinfo ship.
I can appreciate your concern about that. It’s the mess we have to swim in. I don’t give a monkey’s fart for such stupid shenanigans – my only concern is science and logic. It seems to me that arguments using these two themes can continue unobstructed through the above-mentioned crap.
Quote: This forum wasn’t established so people like yourself could show up and change the tempo.
Gosh. I know what that is code for.
Quote: Your past spamming attempts and bullying efforts are taken into consideration when reading these present efforts.
You seem keen to define what I’m doing here as some pre-arranged agenda. If a LIAR sets up business in YouTube, is that OK? If someone calls out the lie, is that SPAM?
Quote: As for David Icke and the Outlaw Forum, those are two of the worst websites on the whole internet. Why you would want to post there is beyond my imagination. I can see how Uri stayed on a fair bit to set the record straight about the neo-nazi ideology being spammed, but for you to say you are such an intellect, yet post at those kinds of places, is hard to make sense of.
Three days at Icke?  Setting the record straight about CTs and Evolution was wrong when I did it in Outlaw – yet Uri was OK in the same activity re NeoNazis? Whoa! Did I call myself an intellectual?
Quote: Just because someone gets caught in lies, does not mean everything they post is lies. The preponderance of evidence shows that a “chemtrails are kooky” script has been put in place. There is something referred to as concern trolling. Folks will make it appear that they are one of the good guys. They will post things that make sense in order to gain the reader’s confidence. But what goes on with such folks is a confidence game.
I think you’re succombing to paranoia here. If you feel in advance you are going to lose an argument with me, and it makes you wish to repel me, you should ask yourself why. If I am about to win an argument by reason alone, then as a reasonable man you should anticipate that possibility with pleasure. Otherwise what else is there? Unreason and fear?
Quote: I’m sorry, but it doesn’t look like things are working out here. Nothing personal, but I’m starting to remember how annoying you can be. Take my advice and go to DebateBothSides. I kind of don’t want you here.
Well, I assume that means you don’t want to consider reason, science and logic. There hasn’t been anything like that from you so far. It’s strange, but try as I might, I just don’t see you as malicious.
Hanlon’s Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.


And THEN I was gone! Of course, a post followed my last, and it was this:

Re: Jazzroc is Disinfo by socrates on Sat Feb 28, 2009 wrote:
I’m surprised you haven’t looked more into this rather than the dead-end chemtrails versus contrails debates. It’s like with global warming. The deniers trot out their small list of scientists and political operatives in an attempt to turn the undebatable into an enigma. I think it’s fairly accepted that Frankensteinian geoengineering ideas are no good. But there has been a push to cover up the Dr. Evil part of it, from Paul Crutzen to guys like Wigley and Benford.


anthony.r.duncan wrote:
A year and a half ago I knew nothing at all about “chemtrails”. These names I don’t know.

socrates wrote:
His claim of being an anarcho-socialist
(SYNDICALIST) or whatever rings hollow. He also claims to be a buddhist atheist. Uri called him out good on that one. If one doesn’t get caught up trying to read his headache slice and dice hatchet jobs on folk’s posts, you can see that he is working scams. Useful idiot or paid disinfo? Those are the only two choices I see.

Jazzroc is the debunker version of Halva {“Wayne Hall”}. Stalinists, anti-social, dogmatic, utterly sporadic. A normal debunker would be cool. Closed-minded debunkers out of the cookie cutting university will not do. He chops and sautees everyone’s posts out of context (untrue). As someone else said, he is a time waster. Sorry about that Uri. Feel free to pm me if anyone else you know is a suspected troll. Though now I probably sound just like all this astroturfing Kos Kop/troll pack paranoia. This was/is an interesting thread. It’s as if he picked the most normal looking one to newbies to disrupt and derail. Or he has some severe anti-social skills.

I think he’s a spook. How could he say he never heard of Paul Crutzen? Hey Uri, then people like us get called troublemakers for just being down-to-earth and telling it like it is. The final straw was seeing how he was discussing Paul Crutzen with one of the only normal posters there (untrue). But earlier in this thread, he claims to have never heard of Paul Crutzen. He really is fairly dumb as a debunker. His talk of the stratosphere was ridiculous, as if chemtrails are being witnessed from aircraft in their cruising elevations. (They are!)

He could very well be paid disinfo, in my humble opinion.

He wasn’t the possessor of a “humble opinion”. He thought he knew enough science, when he thought that aircraft cruised in the troposphere, and couldn’t accurately state or recollect things either…

Who is Paul Crutzen? I shall have to go and check…


Curriculum Vitae of Prof. Dr. Paul J. Crutzen
Born: December, 3, 1933 in Amsterdam, Holland.
Family status: Married, two children.
Academic Studies:
Civil Engineering, 1951-1954, Amsterdam, Holland.
Academic Studies and Research Activities 1959-1973 at the University of Stockholm, Sweden.
M.Sc. (Filosofie Kandidat), 1963.
Ph.D. (Filosofie Licentiat), Meteorology, 1968,
Title: “Determination of parameters appearing in the ‘dry’ and the ‘wet’ photochemical theories for ozone in the stratosphere”, Examiner: Prof. Dr. Bert Bolin, Stockholm, Sweden.
D.Sc. (Filosofie Doctor), 1973, Stockholm,Sweden,
Title: “On the photochemistry of ozone in the stratosphere and troposphere and pollution of the stratosphere by high-flying aircraft”, Promoters: Prof. Dr. John Houghton, FRS, Oxford, and Dr. R.P. Wayne, Oxford.  (Ph.D. and D.Sc. degrees were given with the highest possible distinctions).
1954 – 1958: Bridge Construction Bureau of the City of Amsterdam, Holland.
1956 – 1958: Military Service, The Netherlands.
1958 – 1959: House Construction Bureau (HKB), Gaevle, Sweden. 1959 – 1974: Various computer consulting teaching and research positions at the department of Meteorology of the University of Stockholm, Sweden, Latest positions: Research Associate Professor.
1969 – 1971: Post-doctoral fellow of the European Space Research Organization at the Clarendon Laboratory of the University of Oxford, England.
1974 – 1977: Research Scientist in the Upper Atmosphere Project, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder,Colorado, USA. Consultant at the Aeronomy Laboratory, Environmental Research Laboratories, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisitration (NOAA), Boulder, Colorado, USA.
1977 – 1980: Senior Scientist and Director of the Air Quality Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Boulder, Colorado, USA.
1976 – 1981: Adjunct professor at the Atmospheric Sciences Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
1980 – 2000: Member of the Max-Planck-Society for the Advancement of Science and Director of the Atmospheric Chemistry Division, Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, Mainz,  Germany.
1983 – 1985: Executive Director, Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany.
1987 – 1991: Professor (part-time) at the Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA.
Since 1992: Professor (part-time), Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, USA.
1997 – 2000: Professor (part-time), Utrecht University, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, The Netherlands.
Since November 2000: Emeritus.

Scientific interests of Prof. Dr. Paul J. Crutzen:
Global modelling of atmospheric chemical processes (2-D, 3-D) for troposphere, stratosphere and lower mesosphere.
Interactions of atmospheric chemistry with climate.
Studies of the potential role of halogen photochemistry with ozone in the marine boundary layer.
Tropospheric chemistry, including the role of biomass burning in the tropics and subtropics.

Gosh! Another no-good washout who doesn’t match up to socrates‘ standards, in spite of his Nobel Prize. Watch out, folks…


NOW I know about Paul Crutzen! 

So what’s with this guy SOCRATES?

Well, for sure he never passed Science at any level. In his world  atmospheric physicists and Nobel Prize-winners are simply other devious pervs like himself, with subtle and secret agendas.

The institutions they work for are merely tools of the powers-that-be, and the not-too-bright serfs that work under them, agents, enemies.

With his x-ray vision, SOCRATES is the seer who sees through other peoples’ feeble fronts, and lets you know the truth.

Un – BAH – leavable! (What’s this bad taste in my mouth?)(spits)


“Chemtrails” ARE SODA POP. Put them through a carbon filter for sure, and each mile of “chemtrail” will get you a crate of soda pop.
The stratosphere is stable and layered like an onion with layers of differing humidities. A “saturated” layer will NOT reabsorb the trail, which will slowly fall and form stratus or cirrus cloud. That is what you see…
Want some soda pop? I’m nuts for soda pop! Are you? 


Some of these in this film might be contrails.
ALL of them.

There were also normal passenger planes at the same height which left no trails at all.
Planes flying at the same height are never less than TEN MILES apart. Otherwise they are 2000 feet higher or lower. That could be in a layer of a different humidity.

I had my reasons to suspect that they were chemtrails.
You left REASON, and BELIEVED them to be “chemtrails”.



Vapor trails (soda pop!) are made of fine crystals of ICE (it’s very cold up there!). IF THERE WERE other “particles” in them, their rate of descent (inches/hour!) coupled with the prevailing wind (always there!) would place their LANDING point OVER your HORIZON. How on earth is THAT a TARGETED WEAPON?

If it’s such a GENERAL attack, can’t you spot the perpetrators? They’ll be the ones wearing SPACESUITS! 

SR1419 pwns RudeDog

This took place in Contrailscience’s lively comments section on January 24th, 2009. I wish I’d written this. A lively and interesting debate precedes this too:

RUDEDOG: “Your constant attempts to avoid the issues and your failures to adress the questions as they are presented to you once again reveals your true intentions to minipulate and decieve people. If these are not your true intentions, then why are you so determined to descredit every person and try to disprove every claim that is ever reported by people who are genuinely concerned about what they know are not normal contrails.”

SR1419: “This is somewhat of an ad hominem attack and somewhat surprising as I have done nothing but directly address the issue – specifically addressing your questions. That you do not understand the answer is not my fault… at least not entirely.  Moreover, accusing me of deception and manipulation is as outlandish as it is funny as I have not deceived anyone nor manipulated anyone… I put forth opinions based on facts.

Again, it gets back to ignorance… or perhaps lack of knowledge is a better way to phrase it – when you say “what they know are not normal contrails.” …I believe “they” DO NOT know what normal contrails are!

If they believe that any contrail that does not dissipate after a few minutes is not a “normal” contrail – then they DO NOT know. If they believe that because it is 120 degrees on the ground then contrails cannot persist – then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. If they do not know that a contrail can spread out into sheets of cirrus clouds and even induce additional cirrus cloud formation – then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. If they do not know that propeller-driven planes can leave contrails – then they DO NOT know what a normal contrail is. This is not deception on my part, not manipulation on my part… this is lack of knowledge on their part.

…It is because of this lack of knowledge about all the variables that go into any given contrail… from the highly complex atmospheric conditions such as relative humidity, updraft velocity, and crystal concentrations necessary for contrails to form and persist, from the condensation nuclei needed, from the concept of ice supersaturation, to the types of ice crystals involved, to the effect the type of plane that is leaving the trail, to the type of engine the plane is using, to the particular mix of fuel any given plane has, to the speed of the plane… that I am highly skeptical about claims of “chemtrails”.

…Seeing a persistent contrail… filming it and posting it on YouTube claiming it is a “chemtrail” being sprayed is an exercise in speculation-based ignorance. Not a combination that leads to credibility.

Without knowing that there can be pockets of supersaturation leading to gaps in trails or that multiple planes leaving persistent contrails on perpendicular flight paths can resemble “grid” formations… or that any given moment there are over 5000 planes in the sky above the US, or that it is virtually impossible to determine the altitude of plane simply by looking up much less determine its logo from 7 miles away – or that any trail you see above you will not fall on you but instead drift for hundreds of miles with the upper winds… all this ignorance just adds fuel to the speculative fire.

Given the fact that “normal” contrails often behave EXACTLY like “chemtrails” supposedly do, it is impossible to definitively know that you are looking at one just by seeing it. Without sampling the trail in situ one cannot know for sure… and yet the vast majority of claims are based solely on visual “evidence”.

…And so, being that persistence is the only “evidence” offered…. and the fact that normal contrails can and do persist… and that most “chemtrail” believers are ignorant of a great deal of the information required to make an educated claim about what they think they see… it is easy to doubt their claims.

Do not worry about my motivation. Worry about facts. I am not out to “prove everyone is wrong”. I simply point out facts that are pertinent and show gaps in knowledge that – when filled – might lead to different conclusions and understanding. Insinuating that I am somehow complicit in some evil act simply because I do not agree with you is not a healthy argument.”

“SR1419, the response you have made to RD above is so excellent that I have copied it into my blog, as a fine example of clarity, accuracy, and attention to detail. I hope you don’t mind.” 


“SR1419, If I understand you correctly, these are the facts as you see them regarding contrail formation:

*Contrails primarily consist of water vapor or ice crystals formed from water.
*In order for contrail to become persistent, the aircraft must be cruising at 40,000 feet or above.
*The ambient air temperature at that altitude must -40 degrees c or lower.
*The air must be ’super saturated’ to create the contrail.
*Regardless if the conditions at ground level are 120 degrees and dry or 10 degrees with high relative humidity, it has no affect on the conditions at 40,000 feet.
*Contrails are also formed behind propeller driven airplanes as well.

In regards to the last one, I cant find any data that shows propeller planes traveling at 40,000 feet or higher. I assume it would be dangerous since it might interfere with the jet aircraft. Or perhaps they were not designed to operate at that altitude. In any case, I have never seen one leave a contrail and I do not believe that they are a contributing factor to the plague in our skies.

There are literally thousands of pictures and videos that have been posted on the internet from legitimately concerned people that are posting them because they believe them to be something other than normal contrails. They believe this because they remember watching contrails being formed since they were children and the recent ones (in the last 10 years or so) do not behave or look like the contrails that they have come to know. You contribute this to increased air traffic and you claim that all of these people just weren’t paying attention prior to this or they just don’t remember contrails as clear as they think they do. That is merely an assumption on your part that is lacking any kind of science so that assertion is completely invalid. It is simply your own opinion. I personally remember very clearly watching contrails as a child and was very interested in them at an early age and have always been an avid sky watcher as have many many others that resent the fact that you do not believe this to be true.

There are many places on the internet to find these photos and videos. You tube is not the only place although it has many available to view. There are thousands of pictures and videos that have been submitted as ‘chemtrails’ which vary in geographic location around the globe, spanning all 12 months of the year when filmed and done so under all types of weather conditions and submitted by people for no other reason than looking for the truth. Out of all of these photos and videos, you claim that every one of them are nothing more than normal contrails that persist and spread out into cirrus clouds. This in turn means that you are claiming that all of these thousands of pictures and videos all have in common the above mentioned criteria necessary for the formation of persisting, spreading contrails.

You are claiming that every one of these photos and videos were taken at 40,000 feet (or pertinent to the latitude) and the temperature was -40 degrees or less and the air was super saturated at that moment in time. PROVE IT!

Certainly you must have proof of this in order to make such an affirmative bold statement. To call all of these people liars and to present your contrail explanation as the true facts and to portray the claims of the actual witnesses who were physically present during the incident as conspiracy theories or cases of mistaken identity.

The fact is, you have no proof of this. As a matter of fact, I am sure that I will be able to prove that some of them were in fact NOT filmed or photographed under the conditions necessary for the formation of a persistent ever expanding contrail cirrus cloud mutation. I will begin by seeking out the ones that have documented the date, time and location of the incident. Through some careful research, I will find out what the conditions were at that time and location and if the conditions could have supported the formation of lingering persistent thick ever expanding contrails, especially on a large scale as we see in so many of the photos and videos.

In the mean time, continue on with your campaign to deceive and dis-inform the unsuspecting population as you do. It is only a matter of time before that spiel has so many holes in it that the bottom will fall out.”


“Rudedog, you seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding here. Nobody said contrails only form above 40,000 feet. All that was said was that if it was 120F at ground level then it can still be -40F at 40,000 feet.

Contrails can actually form at sea level if it is cold enough. There is a critical temperature that is required for contrails to form. This varies based on air pressure, which varies based on altitude. This is sometimes called the MINTRA level. At sea level this is about -11F, and about -40F at 34,000 See MINTRA here:


MINTRA – To aid the forecasting of condensation trails emitted (or not) from high-flying aircraft, a line marking the critical temperatures (altitude dependent), above which trails are not possible, is marked on a tephigram . The values are approximately -24degC at 1000 hPa (i.e. roughly sea-level), -39degC at 250 hPa (34000ft / 10.4 km) and about -45degC at 130 hPa (50000feet/15km). Using the MINTRA line (as it has come to be called – based on experiments by JK Bannon during World War II with the piston-engined Spitfire), a forecaster will mark two further lines on a tephigram: MINTRA minus 11degC (A) and MINTRA minus 14degC (B). If the ambient temperature (from the tephigram air temperature plot) lies between (A) and (B), then short, non-persistent trails are possible. If colder than (B), then long, persistent trails should be expected. However, some note should be paid to the relative humidity – high values will tip the balance to trailing (or longer/persistent trails.), even with air temperatures warmer than (A); ultra-low rh% will reduce the risk of condensation trails – the design of engines will have an effect as well. In broad terms, warm Tropical Maritime airmasses with a high but cold tropopause will result in a good deal of trailing, whilst cold, polar air-masses with a low, relatively warm tropopause will seldom give rise to significant aircraft trails.

Super-saturation is only required for the contrail to spread out over several hours into a layer of cirrus cloud. No doubt the various different videos were filmed in various different conditions.

And contrails ARE also formed behind propeller driven airplanes, if they fly in a cold enough region. The first contrails were observed behind prop planes. Generally now though there’s not much point for a prop plane to fly high enough, so it’s unlikely that any contrails you see in the sky now are from prop planes (unless the weather is very cold).”

“RD – Uncinus is correct… if it is cold enough contrails can form at ground level… much like exhaust from a car on a cold winter day… even persistent contrails can form at ground level.

“Supersaturation” refers to the air being supersaturated with respect to ice… look up “ice supersaturation” for more information. Since ice supersaturation areas can be quite large, persistent contrails often occur in clusters where many planes leave trails.

There are literally thousands of pictures and videos that have been posted on the internet from legitimately concerned people that are posting them because they believe them to be something other than normal contrails. They believe this because they remember watching contrails being formed since they were children and the recent ones (in the last 10 years or so) do not behave or look like the contrails that they have come to know.

I am sure “they” are legitimately concerned… that does not mean they can’t be wrong or can’t be ill-informed. Moreover, I never once called them liars. Do not put words in my mouth. I said they were ignorant of the information needed to truly know what they were looking at.

The FACT of the matter is persistent contrails DID EXIST when I, you and they were younger. The fact that you- as an “avid” skywatcher- do not remember them doesn’t mean it isn’t so. It was so. Uncinus’ many photos on this site should help clarify that. As this paper from 1970 will attest – persistent contrails that spread out, covering the sky in haze were very much a reality 30, 40, 50 years ago – perhaps not as common but very much a reality. I’m sorry if you do not remember them:

http://tinyurl.com/bypwmt (click on the PDF to read the paper)

As the author says:  “The writer himself has seen instances in which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an overcast covering the whole sky.”

So, clearly…it was happening even if you do not remember.

Also – since it has been shown that persistent contrails are a result of normal aircraft use and have been a reality as long as aircraft have flown… then it is up YOU to prove that what you see in the sky is otherwise. The burden of proof is not on me… it is on those who claim that persistent contrails are something other than a normal result of plane flight.

That is where that pesky “evidence” comes into play. If all those legitimately concerned citizens are posting video of contrails that persist simply because they do remember them persisting when they were younger and therefore they must be part of a nefarious “spraying campaign” because they read it on the internet… well, then they are sorely mistaken and ignorant of the facts.

Where have I deceived or “dis-informed” anyone??? Alas, it is the “unsuspecting public” that has been deceived and misinformed by “chemtrail” theorists – claiming that any contrail that doesn’t dissipate is a “chemtrail”… and that contrails didn’t persist when they were younger. Those are utterly false claims.

Why do you keep trying to ascribe a motive to me? or why must I be out to deceive and “disinform”. Why can I not simply disagree with you?”

SR1419, You say:”The fact that you – as an “avid” skywatcher – do not remember them doesn’t mean it isn’t so.”

If there was something to remember, I would remember it as clearly as I remember the other details of my lifelong experiences. So would everyone else that deliberately observed contrails in detail because they were fascinated by them.

You keep on insisting that every one of us have had some kind of blackout regarding contrail behavior when we were young. Tens of thousands of us have conveniently forgotten that particular part of our lifelong observances of jet contrails. One hell of a coincidence wouldn’t you say?

You attempt to debunk all chemtrail claims by referring to photos that uncinus has posted as so called evidence. The photos that you refer to are not convincing anyone that they have blocked that part of their memory out. They certainly are not ‘proof’ that what we are seeing today existed then either simply because you can not distinguish the difference. The fact of the matter is, they look like contrails by design. At least in the beginning stages anyway. If they did not resemble contrails do you think we would even be having this discussion? How is it that you can refer to a photo of something that you claim is a persistent spreading contrail from 30 or 40 years ago and then use that as your proof that there is no chemtrail spraying going on today? One has nothing to do with the other! Just because you say so doesn’t mean it is so.

Hypothetically speaking, if a series of planes were to release millions of gallons a clear liquid chemical that resembled drops of water does that mean that what we are seeing is ordinary rain? Of course not. If I were to use your logic then it must be ordinary rain because I can refer you to photos and documentation that says it has been raining just like that for my entire life. Since you can not tell the two apart by looking at photos or video, it means that to claim it is anything other than normal rainfall is a conspiracy theory.

Are you beginning to see how ridiculous your non-science is? Or are you just that ignorant of the fact that you or uncinus have not provided one shred of evidence that proves that any of the documentation submitted as chemtrails are nothing more than normal contrails. Just because you refer to a picture of a contrail does not make all things contrails. If they were just normal contrails this disinformation website would be non-existent.

I am afraid that the burden of proof is on YOU. People are providing photos and videos of the visual part of their chemtrail encounters and you are telling them that they are wrong. So where is your proof that they are all wrong? Shouldn’t you be able to back it up if you are going to contradict someone?

I don’t remember persistent contrails when I was a child. In fact I really only remember them from around 2006, I can’t say I recall ever seeing them before that time. Does that then mean that there were no persistent contrails before 2006?

rudedog, what year did you first notice them?

Wow… not sure what to say to you RD… your twisted logic and refusal to acknowledge fact… and therefore reality… makes it hard to truly dialog.

Do you really believe that persistent contrails did not exist prior to you noticing them?

Did you read the paper I posted from 1970 where the author specifically describes contrails that persist, spread out and cover the sky in a haze? How do you reconcile that? Do you just ignore it? Was he lying? Is it planted disinfo??

What about this description also from 1970:

“The spreading of jet contrails into extensive cirrus sheets is a familiar sight. Often, when persistent contrails exist from 25,000 to 40,000 ft, several long contrails increase in number and gradually merge into an almost solid interlaced sheet.
Contrail development and spreading begins in the morning hours with the start of heavy jet traffic and may extend from horizon to horizon as the air traffic peaks. Fig. 1 is a typical example of midmorning contrails that occured on 17 December 1969 northwest of Boulder. By mid-afternoon, sky conditions had developed into those shown in Fig. 2 an almost solid contrail sheet reported to average 500 m in depth.”

or this comment from 1981:

“Sometimes [contrails] are ephemeral and dissipate as quickly as they form; other times they persist and grow wide enough to cover a substantial portion of the sky with a sheet of cirrostratus“”

or the time lapse photos posted here from 1970 – showing exactly the persisting and spreading YOU CLAIM did not happen back then:


“How is it that you can refer to a photo of something that you claim is a persistent spreading contrail from 30 or 40 years ago and then use that as your proof that there is no chemtrail spraying going on today?”

I use it as proof – along with the peer-reviewed scientific data from that time – that persistent contrails DID EXIST prior to you noticing them. It is not proof that “chemtrails” do not exist but it is PROOF that persistent, spreading contrails did exist prior to you noticing them….

…which leads to the basis of your claim. You allege that because you didn’t notice persistent contrails until recently that they did not exist back then… and that is proof that they are not persistent contrails but “chemtrails”.

…but THEY DID EXIST prior to you noticing them… and thus NOTHING is different now accept perhaps the frequency. The behavior of the trail in the sky now is exactly as they were described and photographed 40yrs ago… but you want to say that they are somehow different and thus is “evidence”. In fact, they are not different, they are identical and thus claims of “evidence” are dubious at best.

Your only “evidence” is videos of persistent contrails… but since they have always had the ability to persist, it isn’t really evidence at all but instead utter speculation based on ignorance. Your analogy is false… an appropriate analogy would be if you said that the liquid coming out of the clouds is not rain but really powdered aluminum… and I asked you how you knew this and you said because you did not remember liquid falling from clouds before.

See how ridiculous your claim seems?

Because persistent, spreading contrails have been observed, studied and acknowledged for over 50 years the burden of proof is on YOU to show that they are really something other than the accepted scientific fact. If you cannot acknowledge the fact that persistent contrails that spread out covering the sky in haze DID EXIST prior to you noticing them then we are at an impasse and your refusal to accept reality is a deal-breaker as far as dialog is concerned.

Good luck with that.

You guys can talk all day about how a contrail can persist and spread into a cirrus cloud and it doesn’t even matter if it is true or false.
Once again, it does not prove that it is what you are seeing on another persons video. You talk about screwed up logic. Where is the logic in that? There isn’t any.

You offer a description of a contrail as you believe it to be, therefore all other things in pictures and videos that look similar to your description of a contrail can not be anything else but a contrail? Yeah, you are mister logical and we are all to whacked out to hold a conversation with. Hokey dokey mister logical. You are right about one thing. An intellectual conversation is not possible with you if that is your definition of logic. By the way, where does one go to study for his masters degree in contrail science? Oh, why am I asking you guys? I forgot, you are only here moderating this website because you like to look at clouds as a hobby or something. You just reminded me of being back in school, except in school the teachers actually had earned some sort of a degree to show that they had mastered the field that they are teaching and are competent to pass that knowledge on legitimately and with unquestionable integrity.
If you can refrain from giving lessons on contrail 101 and actual provide some actual proof that all of the chemtrail pics and videos are only contrails them maybe you might actually gain some integrity too. So far all you have is that they look similar to contrails, which is to be expected. Remember, just because you say they are does not make them so. Another redundant lesson on the history of contrails does not provide the proof that is necessary either. Please! Haven’t you beat that horse to death?

Like I said, if you are going to tell someone that they are wrong, then be able to prove it with something other than your personal opinion. It’s getting old.

No, what’s getting old is your continued refusal to be scientific, yet make assumptions and pronouncements on what is essentially a science topic.
It is YOU that has to back up the claim that contrails are other than water, not WE that have to prove that your baseless claim is false.
We have all the proof that we need: scientific paper upon paper quantifying the contents of contrails. What’s more, so have you. You just aren’t reading it, or maybe you aren’t capable of comprehending it.
Just consider the AMOUNT of trail material recorded for a typical trail: 16Kg per meter – from the paper “Contrails to Cirrus—Morphology, Microphysics, and Radiative Properties”
“The average ice water per meter along the length of the contrail is 16 Kg per meter.”
That means a 5000 kilometer flight (THROUGH SATURATED AIR) would put down 80,000 tons of trail material…
Whoa! Wait a minute! Isn’t a jumbo’s fuel load about 250 tons?
So where does the rest come from? Answer = OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE


“Think of it logically” – Take your own medicine

“How could steam last for hours up in the freezing cold?” – HERE IS YOUR PROBLEM. Exhaust steam at 2000 deg C COOLS to -40 deg C in TWENTY-THOUSANDTHS of a second. Having cooled to -40 deg C (it can be COLDER than that!) the steam is now ICE, in tiny flat crystals, looking like white smoke. The plane is travelling at 800 FEET per second so you see the trail appear SIXTEEN FEET BEHIND the engines. THAT ICE WON’T GO AWAY unless it can EVAPORATE into it. If the HUMIDITY of the air is 100% then the ice CANNOT EVER evaporate into the air.

“Ever seen steam last for hours on a cold day? No? Duh.” – I think you need to repeat “No. Duh” because your reasoning has just been DESTROYED!

“They ensure planes don’t cross paths” – FAR FROM IT. Do you know anything about airportS and flight systems? – Thousands of planes cross paths ALL THE TIME. That is WHY there is AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL.

“It’s not hard to figure out” – But a bit harder than YOU thought

“None of this has anything to do with chemtrails!!!” – TRUE.

THIS is REAL. “Chemtrails” aren’t. 


Chemtrails: Strong Competitor for “Dumbest Conspiracy Theory Ever”
By Ray Stern in NewsThursday, Dec. 18 2008 @ 12:54PM

(This is such a huge post, chock full of misperceptions, misunderstandings and outright lies, that it’s going to be a while before it becomes completely rebutted. Probably a month or two…

But it will be. I have an absolute confidence, borne of two years experience now of NEVER finding anything that couldn’t be rebutted in chemtrail “truth”.)


Most conspiracy theories are so ridiculous, it’s hard to choose which are the least plausible or which faces the higher mountain of opposing evidence. Some seem within the realm of the possible, such as the ones that surround the assassination of JFK, the Pearl Harbor attack or the murder of Princess Di. Others, like the absurd theories about the 9/11 attacks, rampant alien abductions, faked moon landings, Jewish world domination and Biblical creationism can be dismissed by reasonable people within minutes of hearing their proponents’ arguments.
The so-called “chemtrails” theory, espoused by Valley guitarist Carole Pellatt, lands solidly in the latter category. Simply put, the idea that secret agents are using jumbo jets to spray the whole world with toxins for some nefarious purpose is opposed by common sense, contrary evidence, lack of supporting evidence and sheer implausibility. The theory has at least a few dozen supporters who know how to use a computer. Our recent blog post about Pellatt and chemtrails has received 127 comments as of this morning. Most of the commenters are strong believers in the chemtrails conspiracy and took us to task for the minimal research we did before declaring the theory “debunked.”
We feel our level of research was far more than sufficient, given the subject matter. But we decided to spend another hour or so reviewing the post’s comments, reading some of the Internet reports — both pro and con — on chemtrails and e-mailing one of the ardent supporters of the theory for comment. We had an interesting conversation with Dave Mason of southern California, the person we e-mailed who uses the handle “freedomfighter4theplanet” for his blog comments. And we came to understand something about these chemtrail believers.Their real enemy isn’t the toxins they believe are being sprayed by waves of sinister jumbo jets.
What they are really scared of is skepticism. Mason, when confronted with a healthy dose of questions, seems to writhe on the phone like a vampire being dragged into sunlight. Our first question for Mason was why the government would be spraying people with poison. In a move typical of believers in disproven, illogical ideas, Mason tries desperately to change the subject. What he wants to talk about are his unending questions: Why won’t the government take his claims seriously? Why would a Raytheon-owned airplane working for the military fly in circles for hours without landing? Why can’t he inspect that airplane when it lands? Why would he be arrested if he threw chemicals out of his car window, yet no one seems to care that government jets are showering particles of heavy metals on people?


When New Times attempted to show Mason some of his questions might have perfectly mundane answers — don’t some planes fly in circles to monitor weather? — Mason got upset. “It’s military — classified! Got it?” he pouts. When asked why he thinks the Raytheon airplane is suspicious, beyond the fact that it’s flying in circles, he hesitates to give an answer, perhaps wary of how corny it may sound. New Times presses, and Mason says the plane — which, admittedly, does bear the spooky name of “VOODOO1” — is suspicious “because we’re not allowed to look at this plane to see what it is doing.”
Finally, he admits he wants to see the plane because he thinks something “sinister” could be going on. “I think they are putting barium, aluminum and titanium into the atmosphere,” he says. “I think (VOODOO1) is one of the planes.” His theory for why “they” are putting the metals in the sky: To turn clouds into communications devices. Worldwide. “I think it’s the United Nations, not just the United States,” Mason says.

New Times points out there’s a big problem with this theory: Valley air quality monitors don’t show high concentrations of barium, aluminum and titanium particles in our air. Mason immediately changes the subject. Now he wants to talk about a government program to monitor clouds for the aerosols he believes are being sprayed. He points New Times to a government Web site for something with the ominous-sounding name of “Indirect and Semi-Direct Aerosol Campaign.” He urges us to look at the canister on the wing of an airplane in a picture on the Web site. But there’s nothing remotely scary about the canister, New Times tells him. The site says this equipment collects particles in the air to determine their effect on climate change. That’s a good thing, isn’t it? At that point, Mason grew hysterical and hung up on New Times. He proceeded to write a new comment on the blog post about Pellatt (his fifth? sixth?) claiming we’re a “lost cause.”
Pellatt wrote four comments on the post. In one, she claims we must be either “insane” or “in the paid service of the industrial complex.” In responding to one skeptical reader’s comment that one only need read a physics book to prove “chemtrails” is wrong, Pellatt’s comments show just how far deep she’s in: William, please give me the name of the book that proves there is no aerosol spray program…
Of course, like me, I know you checked into who the author, authors, or organization was that authored and published the book, and then checked them out to make sure they have no ties to the Government, National Science Institute, EPA, NASA, National Weather Service etc. Because we know that NASA – just go to their web pages – is the lead organization in the National Weather Service’s “Weather Modification Program”. That’s public knowledge. It’s only a conspiracy theory in the mind of ignoramuses.


Nowhere in any of the 127 comments do the supporters of the chemtrails conspiracy theory offer any evidence of their theory, nor do they even fully outline what that theory is. Failing to explain details is a trick common to many proponents of wacky theories, and it’s used to avoid scrutiny. Creationists do this all the time, because saying you believe in the vague notion of “intelligent design” sounds a lot less nuts than saying you believe baby dinosaurs rode with Noah on the Ark. Some commenters presented what they see as evidence for the theory. For instance, “Doug” lists “facts” that include an alleged Wall Street Journal article about Russian “weather modification” experiments and the astonishing news that “almost all wildfires have been well documented as burning hotter and with more intensity than at any other time in recorded history.” No evidence is offered for the wildfire claim, which makes sense because the statement collapses under the weight of its own silliness.
What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense. As the picture at the top of this blog post shows, jet contrails have become ubiquitous with the huge increase of air traffic in recent decades of air traffic. The contrails cause more cirrus clouds in the sky, which trap heat and lead to more warming on the ground. There’s another real problem lurking in jet exhaust: Carbon emissions, which the world’s top scientists say are leading to global warming. Plus, piles of white lines cluttering up what would otherwise be a mostly blue sky could be considered a type of visual pollution — ugly, but not as disturbing as the rumbling noise pollution the engines also put out. But to look at the peaceful contrails floating in the sky most days and perceive them as some kind of death-rain attack by our own government — that’s just sad. — Ray Stern

Zret: The same old system: to defame the researchers, instead of trying to explain. Chemtrails are real and poisonous! Shame on you for this garbage.

Russell: It really is astonishing and sickening that large numbers of people will believe stuff like this despite the complete lack of evidence. In this day and age, the existence of people so gullible as to fall for outlandish drivel like “chemtrails” brings a tear to my eye. I blame the American “education” system for failing to perform its stated job in science education.

I. M. Looney: I had my carpets cleaned by ChemTrail and they came out great . . . oh wait, that was ChemDry. Maybe there WAS something in that cleaning solution!

Alan: Ray, At first I thought you were just an asshole. Thanks for proving it! “What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense.”
Explain my first sighting which took place in NYC on a very warm, dry summer day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaRVA1HKLiM  I find it hard to believe that only a handful of jet aircraft out of hundreds would leave such persistent contrails. Where’s your science now? You should have left well enough alone but you have challenged and insulted people who actually give a damn about our planet. Your dismissive attitude is self-serving and demeaning. I’m sure that you will be hearing from many more credible people on this subject!

Anon: Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? The simplest explanation is usually the best? After watching the fascinating youtube video, I have reached the conclusion that contrails are left behind by bored pilots playing tic-tac-toe.

Joya: Ray, You obviously have not witnessed, as I have, jets leaving normal contrails, which evaporate quickly, and planes spraying chemtrails, which last for hours, flying directly above me, at the same time. You have not witnessed, as I have, 3-4 Chemtrail planes for hours, flying, spraying then turning around and spraying some more and doing this all day long, in a sporadic and criss-cross patterns.
You have obviously not witnessed, as I have, heavy chemtrail spraying in an area without heavy commercial air traffic. You obviously have not experienced, as I have, the smell of these chemicals on heavy spray days, as I have and the pink rainbow like haze that they leave. Why also are there days now and then when there are no chemtrails, pure blue sky, yet there are contrails from regular commercial jets? You might want to do some eyewitnessing before writing your articles.


Why Not Test Yourself?: Ray, Do the hepa filter testing you have been advised to undertake by many people who wrote in response to the other article. It is not hard to do. Put the unit outside. Cut the filter after use underneath a lined sky into three pieces. Send each to a separate lab. What is so hard about that? I know you deem such totally unnecessary, because you are absolutely confident you have your answers already. But wouldn’t it be reeeeally something if the results you receive aren’t in reasonable harmony with air quality stats supplied by the, “official,” sources? There is no shortage of wild-eyed people on board the chemtrail train. Some people will latch on to something for dear life, and make it into a life itself, entertaining the most outlandish tangents. You’ve undoubtedly run across a number. But then there are the clear-eyed, exceedingly practical, and pragmatic. Who work for the so-called military industrial complex. Who know for a fact that aluminum and barium are injected in the atmosphere, by jet aircraft and on an on-going basis, in the interest of vastly improved satellite communications. If you do the testing, you will come across results that must be explained. There will be a direct disconnect between the data you will hold in your hands and that received by the standard sources you and nearly everyone else have come to rely upon for the safeguard of health. Please don’t dismiss what I’ve told you. If you assume that such particle dispersal may be taking place and that it’s O.K. because the government knows what it is doing, you need to know the amounts/percentages that end up in blood streams go far beyond the maximum toxic limits allowable. Alzheimer’s (aluminum directly linked) has risen, is striking younger people on a wider basis, and you will see yet wider swaths of populace segments regarding age spread occurring. Now it is possible that in the near future, with enough independent testing and enough of a ruckus raised, that such maximum allowable toxic limits may be changed upward to accommodate this new reality. But that would not alter the health effects.

Old Scientist : Skepticism is healthy. An open mind is as well, providing it is not leaking like a sieve. To find the balance is the key. Apply the scientific method. Don’t take any official experts’ word on this subject. Don’t take conspiracy theorists’ words on this subject. Physical evidence of particles is easily enough apprehended on an individual basis as long as you have a little $ to apply to the task. The patents for utilizing same are currently readily available from the U.S. Patent Office. Putting it all together is the tricky part. My own assessment is that the thirst for expanded knowledge and control have yielded yet more compromise in the the long-term health of the public as a whole and a perceptible downgrade in the immediate environmental quality of life for all. Just as the soldiers at the Smokey test in the Nevada desert weren’t told the truth, and denial by officialdom continued until the very last person died of leukemia, so it will be about the projects over the heads of Americans, and results that are already appearing today.

sebringcoupe: “It really is astonishing and sickening that large numbers of people will believe stuff like this despite the complete lack of evidence. In this day and age, the existence of people so gullible as to fall for outlandish drivel like “chemtrails” brings a tear to my eye. I blame the American “education” system for failing to perform its stated job in science education.”
It is really astonishing and sickening that you keep attacking us with the same old rhetoric and no solid facts. Stop it with the reverse psychology, it is YOU who is not providing the facts. Show us some INDEPENDENT sources that this in fact contrails (national institutes DO NOT count). And I like that word “outlandish” sounds like it is directly ripped from mainstream sources due to your lack of originality when it comes to childish insults.
To the propagandistic… erm I mean journalist: You are never going to debunk this if you keep coming off as a self absorbed prick, you must make a killing lying to the public. Once again you show you cannot stand actual thinking people so you resort to more rhetoric. You even stepped it up a few levels calling everyone who did their homework and ACTUALLY researched it (unlike yourself) dumb. What kind of journalism is this? You still have YET to provide facts but merely Bill O’Reilly style insults to your readers. Fortunately not ALL buy into this abusive propaganda. OH I know what’s next, you are going to completely ignore the facts again and continue to insult people. You are oh so too predictable. This is one topic you should have left alone if you cannot handle the pressure from it. @ I-M LOONEY: After that comment it sounds like you guzzled down that bottle of carpet cleaner. Better lay off that stuff it might cause you to leave comments that make absolutely no sense… oh wait.

 joya : Ray, you must be on the US Gov Dept. of Propaganda payroll and if you aren’t…. well then…you’re giving it away for free. and to russell: I have a degree from one of the Top 6 Science Universities in the world. If I have an orange and and someone tells me it’s an apple, I don’t need to prove it’s an orange, I just know!

Deb Tamb : Why would harmful aerosols and any toxins be released over/around my homeplace? I DON’T KNOW! That would be way too kooky! So, you “chemtrail skeptics” please consider the concerns of those who can not stop looking up at our beloved sky. I am certainly interested/curious about any aspects of this blatant weather manipulation but do not label me a conspiracy theorist!! Even if I’d never noticed a “chemtrail”,the resulting sky is absolutely undeniable. From my backyard and neighborhood I’m seeing the sky from around this location: at less than 20 miles from Camp David.  At less than 70 miles from D.C.  At less than 7 miles from Lambs Knoll.  At less than 18 miles from Fort Dietrick.  At less than 30 miles from Site R.

John Bonnema : Ray Stern, you remind me so much of the child who would clasp his hands over their eyes and then scream out “you-can’t-see-me!” Na, na, na, naaaa! You’re an ignorant man Ray. You’re only hurting yourself and your loved ones by failing to recognize the blatant poisoning in our skies. Go to 4:15 of this video and if you can tell us this is normal, then we’ll know how much of a feckless dolt you really are. youtube.com/watchv=11J_VopuDXc&feature=related

Clay Milfeld: I want some of what you’re smoking.

Carole Pellatt : Hello Ray, so you couldn’t take the heat of the responses after the last pathetically unscientific article you printed about me. You had to defer people’s attention away from those responses by creating another one. Still haven’t gone to my website have you? No, you’re a forum junkie. Still haven’t read any report on weather modification have you? Still haven’t read “Owning The Weather 2020”, have you? Still haven’t read any weather modification treaties, have you? Still haven’t read even one military budget-obviously. Still haven’t read any patents, have you? Still haven’t done a HEPA filter test, have we? Still haven’t checked the lab reports from air and water samples around the state, have we? Sad, sad, sad. You have nothing to say, nothing to offer anyone that is intelligent on the subject of aerosol experiments, and judging by some of the idiotic comments I see, every other “looney” who uses the term “chemtrails” associated with “conspiracy theory”, knows absolutely nothing about science.

I call it weather modification or electromagnetic experimentation. Chemtrails is your word Ray, not mine. GIVE ME YOUR PROOF RAY. You haven’t done one lick of research. I’ve been pretty cool up until now, but your articles are written like that of a school student who has never studied but is trying to fake a grade. Afraid of real science, are we? You keep saying we offer no proof of aerosol spraying-not chemtrails Ray, what is a chemtrail? I have no idea-only conspiracy theorists like yourself call them chemtrails to distract the public from the overwhelming physical evidence of aerosol spray programs-by the military, NASA,NWS, and the government’s own admissions and documentation.

You have become like a mosquito buzzing in someone’s ear. You have nothing intelligible to say, but your purpose is to try to irritate. That’s not a very nice energy to put out into the world. I don’t understand your hostility, your aggressive language, condescending attitude, and unwillingness to hold a true dialogue with someone purely for the purpose of an exchange of ideas.

Why does it upset you so that people are truly concerned about the poor quality of the air we are forced to breath in this city. And that most of it comes from airplanes? Why does that not even bother you?-That worries me-human to human. Why do you act like you care about nothing genuinely-other than your arguments? These things distress me.

Would you like to know how many people are currently without health insurance in this country? I can tell you. Would you like to know how many more people can’t feed their families because of the mess this economy has been allowed to slip into-partly by a sleeping press? Would you like me to tell you what it’s like for a woman in Bosnia to have to go to the Hague to testify about being a victim of mass torture and rape during the genocide? Would you like me to tell you about RAWA-the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan who bravely hide video cameras under their burkas and film human right abuses, and smuggle the film out of their country so the world may see and understand what’s really going on there? Would you like to know what it’s really like for workers in the industrial parks in China-I’ve been there, I can tell you. Do you know the circumstances that all had to be in place in order for the Rwanda genocide to blaze across that country,ripping it open into a frenzy of violence? And do you wonder what the international community was doing while it was going on? Would you like to know how much ground water in Phoenix has been polluted by corporations? Would you like to know what the number one cause of infant mortality in this country is? (It’s new). Would you like to know how many superfund sites there are in this city, state, or country? Do you want to know who learns faster, unilingual or bilingual children? Do you want to have a discussion about the laws of Eminent Domain? Or are these subjects boring or stupid for you to report on.

I mean what are you spending time doing Ray? If it were research, I would have some place to start to call what you have to say an intelligent argument. And I wouldn’t begrudge you our discussion because it would be centered on a subject matter, not on a person. So once again, you quote “comments” as your basis of argument. A verification that you all you want to do is argue Ray. If you wanted to know if there was an aerosol spray program, you would go to official documentation, not people’s “blog” comments. This is how you do your research? And your editors are fine with this?

Well Ray, it’s time to leave me out of this discussion. Direct your inner frustration and aggression elsewhere. If you ever want to truly have a discussion about any of the subjects I’ve mentioned I’m always open for that, but take your dog and pony show elsewhere because you can’t even get the smallest fact right. I am NOT A SCOTTSDALE GUITARIST. I’ve never lived there. Merry Christmas. truly, Carole

Chad : Ray, you have somewhat restored my faith in the progress of humanity. Alan and Joya, however, make me frightened for the future.

As an aside I just want to let people know that, as a scientist, I get a real kick out of peoples’ homemade “experiments.” Putting a HEPA filter outside and then cutting it and sending it to a lab? Really? If you don’t understand the glaringly obvious faults with that experimental method then I feel that there may be too large a gap between you and I that it would be impossible to cross. What a shame.

Ray Stern Carole: The “Scottsdale” part is fixed — I was thinking of your music camp in Scottsdale. I’ll fix any other errors in the article, if you make a good case for why it’s an error.

John Bonnema Thank you Carole for your beautiful website. If I could just say that arguing with ignorance is futile. And to Chad, yet another feckless inane dolt, I’ve already placed HEPA filters outdoors for several hours while they were spraying and then had them tested. Guess what CHAD? They came back positive for high than normal levels of both barium and aluminum oxide and a polymer substance the lab could not identify. Go put you head back in the sand with Ray and the rest of your ilk CHAD! Go now! And you’re a scientist are you? That’s a joke, right? Breathe deep CHAD and enjoy the poisons, they’re free.

AnonymousWhat a disappointment to read such an angry and fearful article. I have personally read many well-written articles and research on the aerosol program. It’s hard to believe that in the year 2008, after years of weather modification, that someone could be so filled with anger at what people see and know. The people writing to you are concerned about fall-out period. Farmers are concerned about ionospheric modification for good and sane reason. Their required soil tests for acid-alkaline balancing have shown terrifically high levels of aluminum and barium. They watch the particulate fallout after the aerosol tankers grid the skies above their land. High levels of aluminum in the Adirondack’s waterways are a concern of scientists. Acid rain studies have been very costly, and sulfur dioxide drift has been a chronic problem. Now aluminum toxicity. The world wide aerosol program or “sun dimming” is not made public because the mass reaction would not be positive. Scientists and military are under contract for 20 or more years after retirement. The threat of a $10,000 fine, a prison sentence, and loss of pension is enough to keep anyone quiet. Forgive me for my personal criticism, I am not personally involved with you, but you need to get in touch with your unfocused anger. It’s not the citizens, their concerns and knowledge that you’re angry about.

AlanRay, why haven’t you posted my last comment? It was a response to Chad’s disrespectful comment made about Joya and myself. Are you into censorship as well? Can’t take the heat? Alan

Rosario Marcianò The smoking gun! Controlled aerosol over the cities. Chemtrails! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfRtITzZbBM&fmt=18 

DaveThis guy is a hack. Even admits to doing minimal research and obviously had his mind made up. If you can look up at the sky while Chemtrails are being sprayed, say that it is normal, then you are in denial or just plain dumb. Also, there are mainstream reports about very high levels, illegal levels of Barium from the Chemtrails. Suck on this Ray…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okB-489l6MI “Local news station confirms barium in chemtrails”. BOGUS.

Another great source for info: http://www.bariumblues.com/index.htm Warning, Ray may find the information hard to understand. BOGUS.

Doubting ThomasI met a guy this summer who was absolutely convinced of the conspiracy behind Chemtrails. As proof, he told me to look it up on Youtube. I told him that I would only trust proof provided by People magazine and left it at that. So in a nutshell, I have to say I agree with what Chad said and I would add that everyone take the time to look up the following terms: Confirmation Bias – Scientific Method – Full Disclosure – Peer Review – Baloney Detection Kit – and most importantly – True Believer Syndrome

AuroraThank you Carol for standing up for your truth and thank you all of you that take this seriously. There is so many sleep walking people in the world and I’m wondering if there is a conspiracy going on to numb people.  Someone said that what’s happening above our heads is one of the greatest crimes against humanity. A lot of people are in for a rude awakening when the truth comes out…. Please read the following article: “Germany becomes the First Country to admit Clandestine Chemtrails Operations” (debunked as a vicious mis-translation) For all those activists who have been investigating and reporting on clandestine government operations around the world to manipulate our weather patterns, this news from Germany is groundbreaking. The TV news report states that “the military planes of the German Federal Army are manipulating our climate; this is what the weather researchers are presuming and their suspicions are confirmed… “We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals.” “This is their main purpose, but I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements — although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful.” “In the United States of America there are protest after protest for many years now, against these military operations and now people are mobilising in Germany as well. Per example JOHANNES REMMEL of the Greens. “It’s obvious that enormous regions are being polluted with clandestine actions, but all of this has to be made public. The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population.” This is a very significant development in the battle to find out why our governments are spraying chemicals into our atmosphere, however it is only the tip of the iceberg. As far as researchers have been able to conclude, chemical spraying by our governments have been in full operation since mid-to-late 1990’s (possibly earlier). The following video presentation is a great introduction to chemtrails and some of its possible implications: Aerosol Crimes (1:39:23). Right now we can only speculate as to what type of chemicals are used in these operations, however one thing is certain, if we saw a car driving down the road, spewing out a plume of smoke the way these planes are doing we would be very concerned. Considering that half the species in the world could be wiped out due to global warming, the least we could do is to demand that our governments explain what it is that they are spraying us with, specially if military heads are claiming “that the substances used are not harmful”. As we know, when the militaries of the world say we have nothing to be concerned about then we have everything to be concerned about. Keep in mind that chemtrails have been categorized as an “exotic weapons systems” by the 107th CONGRESS of the United States in House Bill H. R. 2977. Further information on chemtrails at educate-yourself.org http://www.chycho.com/?q=chemtrails BOGUS

M. Richard Chad, as a “Scientist” maybe you could explain Ionospheric Modification to your friends. You must be familiar with the Weather Modification Bill from 2001 that originally coined the term chemtrails. What type of Atmospheric Science do you study? You could be involved in a comprehension study for your age group. Sometimes the youngest children have a need to argue any subject, just to be “right”. It’s relative to passive/aggressive behavioral disorder. Something in common with Ray? Hope your not an Environmental Epidemiologist who studies cluster groups of fallout victims.

New Orleans Wake Up Club Good Folks, time to move on. Yet a second article; this definitely a distraction. Don’t waste your time and energy. The old saw to stay away from argumentative, close-minded people applies. Like so many things, waking people up is a numbers game. An experienced salesman knows that every, “no,” leads that much closer to a, “yes.” And Moves On. Know when to fold a hand and walk. Attempt to focus your efforts, stay away from diversion, and make your shots count for as much as is possible. You are fishing for those who are slated To Know. Not everybody, by a long shot, is. Drop your seeds, do a bit of watering. If signs of progress appear, pay a bit more attention. But keep it fluid and moving in any case.

sKind of like the proponents of the theory that the physiology of a cell is determined by the cell’s genetic material. Or the theory that the universe was created out of nothing by a “big bang”. You will object, but when I tried to ask some scientists about it, they “immediately became evasive and tried to change the topic”.

In response to this quote from the article: “Failing to explain details is a trick common to many proponents of wacky theories, and it’s used to avoid scrutiny.”

Geoengineering : It also appears that we ‘Chemtrail’ investigators have been chasing our tails, being intentionally discredited, maligned, and fed disinformation to keep the actual truth just below the levels of media perception. The real story has been taking place in broad daylight, safely concealed under the scientific umbrella of ‘Geoengineering and intentional climate change.’ Chemtrails are just one of the ‘mitigations’ proposed to Geoengineering our planet. Once we began sifting through the numerous studies, experiments and papers written on intentional climate change, we found a wealth of supporting evidence of well funded global atmospheric modification programs. One such paper is Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project http://www.metatronics.net/lit/geo2.html#two (Jay Michaelson, published in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998) The author makes a very convincing case for the pressing need of undertaking geoengineering projects. He argues that regulation, environmental laws and other stumbling blocks limit our ability to directly address the dangers that threaten us directly and immediately. He writes: “The projected insufficiency of Kyoto’s emission reduction regime, and the problems of absence, cost, and incentives discussed in part II, cry out for an alternative to our present state of climate change policy myopia.” “Geoengineering–intentional, human-directed manipulation of the Earth’s climatic systems–may be such an alternative. This part proposes that, unlike a regulatory “Marshall Plan” of costly emissions reductions, technology subsidies, and other mitigation measures, a non-regulatory “Manhattan Project” geared toward developing feasible geoengineering remedies for climate change can meaningfully close the gaps in global warming and avert many of its most dire consequences.” “In some ways, this phase has already begun, as geoengineering has moved from the pages of science fiction to respectable scientific and policy journals. [FN127] One of the most encouraging proposals today focuses on the creation of vast carbon sinks by artificially stimulating phytoplankton growth with iron “fertilizer” in parts of the Earth’s oceans. [FN128] Another proposal suggests creating miniature, *106 artificial “Mount Pinatubos” by allowing airplanes to release dust particles into the upper atmosphere, simulating the greenhouse- arresting eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. [FN129]” pp. 105-106, Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project.” In Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Bases conclusion, the N.A.S. found that the most effective global warming mitigation turned out to be BOGUS the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing commercial, military and private aircraft. This preferred mitigation method is designed to create a global atmospheric shield which would increase the planet’s albedo (reflectivity) using aerosol compounds of aluminum and barium oxides, and to introduce ozone generating chemicals into the atmosphere. This method was BOGUS the most cost effective, and yielded the largest benefits. It could also be conducted covertly to avoid the burdens of environmental protection and regulatory entanglements.

It is evident to anyone who cares to look up, that this mitigation is now being conducted worldwide and on a daily basis. It is certain that our leaders have already embarked on an immense geoengineering project; one in which they expect millions of human fatalities, and consider these to be acceptable losses. This landmark study; the widespread experimentation BOGUS and published papers of atmospheric theorists and scientists, combined with the visual evidence that atmospheric mitigations are being conducted in our skies, clearly shows that Chemtrail spraying has became a preferred solution to global warming mitigation. The evidence is all around us. For example; this past week Boeing Aircraft received an enormous initial order from the Pentagon for 100 Boeing 767 tanker planes, to begin replacing the Air Force’s aging fleet of KC-135s, the most commonly seen chemtrail spray plane BOGUS. The final order will exceed 500 planes. There has been no mention of the usage of these aircraft. Geoengineering is being carried on Earth on a staggering scale, without the impediment of environmental laws or regulatory constraints. This grand experiment is being conducted in full view, while being concealed in plain sight.

I finally found “the” smoking gun. You can ridicule me as much as you want. But I forgot about this one website and found it. This is a site with 1000’s of collected declassified docs. He has made it his niche. He started it when he was 15 and is now 26. On just about any subject. Especially what we like to cuss and discuss here. www.theblackvault.com… . This “smoking gun” is actually a book. It is called: “Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaption, and the Science Bases”. Where the conclusion by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research is the most effective global warming method of mitigation (corrective) is the spraying of reflective aerosol compounds into the atmosphere utilizing, commercial, military, and private aircraft. These were the “Policy Implications”. They spray it into the stratosphere- www.en.wikipedia.org… For those who need an explanation of exactly where that is. Here is the link to that article- “The Chemtrail Smoking Gun-Proof of Global Geoengineering Projects. www.lightwatcher.com… Here is another one.- Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project. www.metatronics.net… Or, you can just go to blackvault.com and check it out. Bunch of links. Actually, their first one, was shooting 1900 1b. bullets into the atmosphere, they even have all the costs and everything in this big book. Including, weather balloons with a load of the aluminum, barium powder. There are links to the book, and you can buy it (a little spendy) or, it has links to pages you can read for your scientific research into what has been presented in it. It is considered a “sunscreen” as the inventor of the H bomb, suggested back in the 50″s. There are also other links to investigate for yourself. www.data4science.net…. www.chemtrails911.comwww.anomalies-unlimited.com… One of the guys that was also giving some info, supposedly killed himself. We know what those implications are. Anyway, there ya be. And if the links don’t work, they work through the black vault site, cause I had to dig.
And I have found out too, that the guy was a hoax that called it “Project Cloverleaf”. Who knows, they just don’t want us to know what they are doing to us and they will intentionally say people are a hoax when they aren’t.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaPqCMIuEk4 blacklinehttp://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page836.html  World Needs Climate Emergency Backup Plan, Says Expert

Lockergnome : In submitted testimony to the British Parliament, climate scientist Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution said that while steep cuts in carbon emissions are essential to stabilizing global climate, there also needs to be a backup plan. Geoengineering solutions such as injecting dust into the atmosphere are risky, but may become necessary if emissions cuts are insufficient to stave off catastrophic warming. He urged that research into the pros and cons of geoengineering be made a high priority.“We need a climate engineering research and development plan, in addition to strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” testified Caldeira, a faculty member of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California, at an inquiry on geoengineering convened by the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee of the House of Commons on November 10. “Prudence demands that we consider what we might do in the face of unacceptable climate damage, which could occur despite our best efforts to rein in greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. Climate engineering (or geoengineering) refers to controversial proposals to deliberately modify the Earth’s environment on a large scale, primarily to counteract greenhouse warming. One scheme would cool the planet by injecting dust into the upper atmosphere to scatter incoming sunlight. Other possibilities include enhancing cloud cover over the oceans. Critics question the effectiveness of these schemes and worry that tampering with the Earth’s systems would create as many problems as they solve. But others warn that currently accelerating carbon emissions may push the planet’s climate system to a tipping point, making drastic measures necessary to prevent an environmental calamity. “Science is needed to address critical questions, among them: How effective would various climate engineering proposals be at achieving their climate goals? What unintended outcomes might result? How might these unintended outcomes affect both human and natural systems?” said Caldeira. “Engineering is needed both to build deployable systems and to keep the science focused on what’s technically feasible.” Caldeira advocates a university-based research effort involving scientists and engineers representing a range of disciplines. “A climate engineering research plan should be built around important questions rather than preconceived answers,” he advised the committee. “It should anticipate and embrace innovation and recognize that a portfolio of divergent but defensible paths is most likely to reveal a successful path forward; we should be wary of assuming that we’ve already thought of the most promising approaches or the most important unintended consequences.” “Only fools find joy in the prospect of climate engineering. It’s also foolish to think that risk of significant climate damage can be denied or wished away,” he said. “Perhaps we can depend on the transcendent human capacity for self-sacrifice when faced with unprecedented, shared, long-term risk, and therefore can depend on future reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But just in case, we’d better have a plan.”

Geoengineering : http://www.chemtrails911.com/archive_photos/00_Satellite%20Imagery/00_Satellite%20Imagery.htm

CathyAnother disinfo article to mislead folks away from the truth: chemtrails are real and anyone with half a brain who is willing to look up can see them. http://sonomachemtrails.blogspot.com/

DougCongratulations Ray, you succeeded in proving my initial assessment of you as being 100% correct. Once again, you have chosen to use your grade school reporting skills to attack the people who wrote in, rather than address the issues or the facts presented. You are truly a hack and a whack job as a so called reporter (sic) – your credibility level is zero! Your previous blog space was filled with over 120 responses mostly by those who have spent more than a few minutes truly researching the facts. Yet you picked and chose only those items you thought you could refute! What a shame that New Times has relegated itself to the level of a cheap rag magazine. Since you obviously are unaware of what a “conspiracy” is, let me educate you assuming your IQ level is above a single digit – conspiracy Noun pl -cies
1. a secret plan to carry out an illegal or harmful act
2. the act of making such plans
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Since what is being done with “chemtrails” is “in your face” and openly being done for all to see, and thus NOT secret; then the term conspiracy does not apply now does it? Neither does the term theory since there are way too many documented facts. Yet you chose one person to contact of all those who replied to your article (or more succinctly personal attack) to question, then jump up and down when the person could not provide you the answers you demanded. Cheap theatrical hack reporting. Here’s a name to contact – how about Clifford Carnicom (http://www.carnicom.com/) – I am sure he can provide you with more than ample answers to your diatribe! How about the Congressmen and women as well as Senators who introduced Bills in Congress to make weather mitigation legal or chemtrailing illegal? Guess you didn’t have the testicular fortitude to go there did you?

You make the claim (and I will quote you on this verbatim): “Nowhere in any of the 127 comments do the supporters of the chemtrails conspiracy theory offer any evidence of their theory, nor do they even fully outline what that theory is. Failing to explain details is a trick common to many proponents of wacky theories, and it’s used to avoid scrutiny.”

Guess either you cannot read or are incapable or incompetent in reading what was written. Yet you fully described YOUR tactics perfectly! How much evidence do you need to validate what is being seen? How about the documentation showing “off the scale” readings of aluminum, barium, manganese and iron – which I am sure the authors of that blog would be more than willng to send you if you even had thought about asking for it? How about all the other sites detailing the Congressional bills and government programs (HAARP – DARPA) in place affecting weather and what they use to do it – or how about the manufacturers of materials used for weather control. I guess one has to be objective instead of stupid to look beyond their own preconceived notions that you and your management espouse. Pity!

Here’s another of your comments: “Some commenters presented what they see as evidence for the theory. For instance, “Doug” lists “facts” that include an alleged Wall Street Journal article about Russian “weather modification” experiments and the astonishing news that “almost all wildfires have been well documented as burning hotter and with more intensity than at any other time in recorded history.”
“No evidence is offered for the wildfire claim, which makes sense because the statement collapses under the weight of its own silliness. “

Below are several easily available articles clearly stating the condition and facts that wildfires ARE burning hotter and with more intensity – took me all of .14 seconds to find those Ray in a Google search!

“What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense. As the picture at the top of this blog post shows, jet contrails have become ubiquitous with the huge increase of air traffic in recent decades of air traffic. The contrails cause more cirrus clouds in the sky, which trap heat and lead to more warming on the ground.”

True about the trails causing cirrus clouds which trap heat – I’ll give you that one – but then again it is well known – especially if you understand how they are formed. Considering that air traffic is pretty much constant on a daily basis, and there are FAA regulations clearly stating the rules of flight, one would have to be a complete moron not to notice the clear violations of both airspace and patterns flown – but of course you have to go outside and observe – that is called investigating Ray – try it some time!

Since you obviously lack the ability to research the truth; here are several articles listed below which were found in less than 20 seconds time – including the Wall Street article you claim is alleged! Sloppy job there Ray!








Did you look further into the articles located above about hotter fires you state do not exist: Seeing a pattern here Ray? Below is excerpted from a fire site clearly defining what happens when you introduce aluminum into a fire – see the correlation Ray? Or is that beyond your mental capabilities? Notice the inference to extreme weather below Ray! Is any of this making sense to you yet? Combustion is the chemical reaction that feeds on a fire more heat and allows it to continue. When the fire involves burning metals like lithium, magnesium, aluminum etc.(known as a class-D fire in the American fire classification system), it becomes even more important to consider the energy release. The metals react faster with water than with oxygen and thereby more energy is released. Putting water on such a fire result in the fire getting hotter or even exploding because the metals react with water in an exothermic reaction. Therefore, inert agents (eg dry sand) must be used to break the chain reaction of metallic combustion. The fire square is a model created by fire ecologist Richard W. Halsey. It shows how catastrophic wild fires, like the 2003 Cedar Fire, are formed. It includes the three original elements from the Fire Triangle, but adds an extra side, showing Extreme Weather as another important element. Extreme weather is however affecting the fuel side of the triangle giving more easily pyrolysed materials, and also the heat side of the triangle. This means that the original triangle accounts also for the extreme weather situation. Now one last thing, lets look at your comments (now how did you state it – oh yeah) – “What’s really lame here is that there is real science behind contrails, which are formed when jet exhaust condenses in cold air, but these seemingly smart people would rather focus on unprovable nonsense.” Vapor trails – contrails – heat vapors – created when heat is introduced into a humid cold condition. Simple physics really – like when you breathe out on a very cold day – one sees a vapor trail for a few seconds before it disappears. Much like the contrails in the sky which dissipate behind a jet within a couple of minutes when the same hot gases are quickly cooled and integrated into the cold air mass. Ever look up from under your desk Ray and see the jets in the air that leave a true contrail? Ever notice jets leaving trails that expand and spread – or how about those that are left in “puffs” – oh let me guess – they must turn the engines on and off in flight to get that effect right! Ray, you are suffering from a terminal case of cranial anal suffucatus! You truly are a hack – you do not deserve to write – let alone be published! New Times has scraped the proverbial bottom of the barrel in hiring a hack like you – but unlike you, the facts have been presented before you were labeled who and what you are – too bad you didn’t make the same attempt at credible reporting.

I guess your choice to block my repeated attempts to respond to your comments clearly shows you are willing to avoid rebuttals to your lies! Says a whole lot about who and what you are truly all about!

mcSay Ray, maybe it’s time for you to open your eyes and look up. Since you’re in the profession of reporting what you see, it may be that you are slacking in your responsibility of reporting the truth to the public. Your eyes don’t lie. Not everybody is dumbed down. You can fool most of the people most of the time, but not all the people all the time. To sum it up, it’s time to do your homework and rightfully earn your salary.

GeoengineeringGeoengineering is defined as the deliberate modification of Earth’s environment on a large scale, “to suit human needs and promote habitability”. Wikipedia
Potential geoengineering options from the IPCC: Reforest 28.7 Mha of economically or environmentally marginal crop and pasture lands and nonfederal forest lands to sequester 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. Place 50,000 100-km2 mirrors in the earth’s orbit to reflect incoming sunlight. Use guns or balloons to maintain a dust cloud in the stratosphere to increase the sunlight reflection. Place billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons in the stratosphere to provide a reflective screen. Use aircraft to maintain a cloud of dust in the low stratosphere to reflect sunlight. Decrease efficiency of burning in engines of aircraft flying in the low stratosphere to maintain a thin cloud of soot to intercept sunlight. Burn sulfur in ships or power plants to form sulfate aerosol in order to stimulate additional low marine clouds to reflect sunlight. Place iron in the oceans to stimulate generation of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton. Use lasers to break up CFCs in the atmosphere.

jr lies

TAX PAYING CITIZENWhen The Army Owns The Weather – Chemtrails & HAARP Author: Bob Fitrakis. Humans have long sought to control the weather. Early people learned how to make fire and modify their micro-environments; rain dances and other rituals to alleviate droughts are part of our folklore. So news that the government is engaged in secret experiments to control the weather should come as no surprise — especially after a long history of “cloud seeding,” “atom splitting” and cloning revelations. In fact, a vast majority of people would be shocked to learn that this orphan of the cold war is still in practice. As the U.S. and former Soviet Union spent trillions of dollars on their militaries, their commitment to mutually assured destruction led to extensive experimentation with the use of weather as a weapon. In 1977, the Saturday Review cited a CIA report hinting that the U.S. government already had the power to massively manipulate the weather for war purposes. As the Soviet Union disintegrated, a 1993 Isvestia article suggested the U.S. might want to partner with the Russians in peddling their top-secret technology to the world. Oleg Klugin, a high-ranking KGB officer, bragged of his involvement in geophysical weapons research to a London newspaper. The grid patterns of jet chemtrails now spotted throughout the Western world are likely the application of these technologies to new military and civilian uses. The military is not attempting to hide its long-term goals. “Weather is a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025” is a white paper that can be found on a Pentagon-sponsored website. The paper’s abstract reads: “In 2025, U.S. aerospace forces can ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies towards fighting applications. Such a capability offers the war fighters tools to shape the battle space in ways never before possible In the U.S., weather modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications.” Wired magazine wrote about the paper and extensively quoted physicist Bernard Eastlund in its January 2000 article “Activate Cloud Shield! Zap a Twister!” The article detailed the military’s plan for “made-to-order thunderstorms” and “lightning strikes on demand.” Eastlund managed programs for Controlled Thermal Nuclear Research for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission from 1966 to 1974; he was a key researcher in the 1980s’ Strategic Space Initiative (aka Star Wars). Since 1996, Eastlund served as CEO and president of Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation. The company boasts on its website that it specializes in “weather modification” and “tornado modification” among other high-tech services. Eastlund considers the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) in Alaska a smaller version of what he envisions for weather modification. In response to Michael Theroux of Borderland Sciences — who asked Eastlund whether the HAARP station could affect the weather — Eastlund replied: “Significant experiments could be performed The HAARP antenna as is it now configured modulates the auroral electrojet to induce ELF waves and thus could have an effect on the zonal winds.” At the Space 2000 Conference and Exposition on Engineering, Construction, Operations and Business in Space, sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Eastlund outlined his plan for zapping tornados with an electromagnetic radiation beam from the proposed Thunderstorm Solar Powered Satellite he’s developing with the help of the European Space Agency and Jenkins Enterprises. U.S. patent number 6315213, filed on November 13, is described as a method of modifying weather and should concern the public. A scientist from Wright Patterson Air Force Base acknowledges that planes are spraying barium salt, polymer fibers, aluminum oxide and other chemicals in the atmosphere to both modify the weather and for military communications purposes. The patent abstract specifically states: “The polymer is dispersed into the cloud and the wind of the storm agitates the mixture causing the polymer to absorb the rain. This reaction forms a gelatinous substance which precipitates to the surface below. Thus, diminishing the cloud’s ability to rain.” Answering the age-old question, Who’ll stop the rain?: Apparently our government and a few of their closest friends in the military industrial-complex. The emergence of Edward Teller promoting this startling technology is more than scary. (Teller was the father of the H-Bomb and grand promoter of Readi Kilowatt, our perky little radiation friend from the ’50s; one of his bright ideas from the ’50s was to create harbors by nuking our own coastline.) The April 24 New York Times reported that Teller “has promoted the idea of manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere to counteract global warming.” The computer simulations on the use of aluminum oxide to counter global warming come from the Lawrence Livermore Weapons Laboratory, where Teller serves as director emeritus. There should be little doubt that this would be a priority for the government — or for for-profit military contractors. While 2001 was the second-hottest year on record (1998 holds the record as the hottest year), the nine hottest years on record have occurred since 1990. But why would the government conduct anti-global warming experiments in secret? Investigative reporter William Thomas holds that there’s a link between the recent increase in asthma, allergies and upper respiratory ailments and the chemtrail spraying. Sound crazy? Remember, it sounded absurd when reports first came out that the government had conducted radioactivity experiments on U.S. citizens and released radiation from nuclear plants to test the effect on civilian populations. It sounded bizarre when news first filtered out that the government was engaged in the MK-Ultra mind-control experiments using LSD. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency admit they were responsible for many of the UFO sightings in the 1950s in order the explain away experimental military technology. From public documents to mainstream news accounts, the record is filled with reports of weather-modifying technology left over from the Cold War. Now we have a right to know what, if anything, the government plans to do with it. Source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12342

HAARPQuantum Weapons (Part III) Ionospheric Heaters. If you reverse a radio telescope, and use antenna to send out signals instead of receiving, then you could theoretically boil the atmosphere with a focussed and steerable electromagnetic beam. Researchers call this model an “ionospheric heater”.
An Ionospheric Heater could lift targeted areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate anything. The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth’s upper atmosphere that sits about 40 miles above the Earth’s surface. Currently, there is one known test creation for this super- powerful radiowave- beaming technology, but it is being used for academic reasons (click to enlarge). The High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, has the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. In the words of the military, HAARP aims to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” HAARP is a larger version of ionospheric heaters operating safely throughout the world in places such as Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Tromso, Norway, and the former Soviet Union. Funding for this Alaska based project justifies the research by saying HAARP system could: replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology, be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system, provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military’s own communications systems working, provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of super computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements, be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area, and be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other detection technologies obsolete. This particular Ionospheric Heater can be found at Alaska University’s webpage:

Weather manipulations are another aspect of the scalar terrorism which is facing us, and this has in fact been on-going for the past several decades. Weather engineering – steering the jet streams, thus “steering” or “guiding” weather entities. By warming the air in one region, the warm air expands so that it is thinner. Thus the interferometry makes a low pressure area in that region. By gradually moving the “warming region” (by moving the interference zone’s location), the low pressure area is “steered” and its path is determined. By cooling the air in a region, a high pressure area is created, and it is steered in the same fashion. By making multiple highs and lows and adroitly positioning and steering them, the jet streams and other prevailing winds can be entrained, “captured” and steered. This alone allows substantial augmentation and steering of weather effects. Triggering volcanos – by focussing the interference zone inside a volcano to its magma, and steadily depositing additional EM energy in the piezoelectric matter, a buildup of pressure in the volcano is induced. Eventually the volcano will erupt from the increased pressure. If the increase in pressure is applied slowly, the slow increase in pressure will be held longer by the static friction, so that a higher pressure is reached before the volcano erupts. This engenders a large and violent eruption, with consequently greater ejection and distant dispersion of ash, lava, and other debris.

Blasting away with explosions – all sorts of “patterns” of EM energy — glowing spheres, hemispheres, etc. — can be produced and these can be used against various targets, either for electrical and electronic destruction or for electromagnetic explosions of these balls of energy once they contact the intended target

Triggering earthquakes – by depositing the extra interferometry energy in a fault zone location, the increased piezoelectric activity will also result in increased stress in the rocks, thereby inducing an earthquake when the rocks finally slip. By adjusting the rate at which the excess energy is added, the size of the resulting earthquake can also be changed.

Direct Killing – by inducing repeatedly pulsed negative energy in an area containing living animals or humans, the animals or humans can be directly killed. Strong pulsing will result in rather instant death, where the bodies drop limply, with not even a nerve cell firing thereafter. Everything living cells, microbes, viruses, whatever in the struck bodies is killed instantly, and the bodies do not decay, even over a month or more. The Soviets tested such weaponry in this mode against two Afghan villages in their own war in Afghanistan, and it is probable that the Yakuza is now able to produce portable weapons with this capability.

Killing underground or underwater – since the longitudinal EM waves used in the interferometry of a scalar interferometer easily penetrate Faraday shields, the ocean, the earth, etc., such weapons are very useful in attacking deep underground targets and facilities and destroying them or wreaking damage.

Triggering nuclear powerplant meltdown – the use of a more portable scalar interferometer to destroy the electronic controls of a normal or nuclear power plant from a distance is obvious. With nuclear power plants this poses the risk of a melt down. Electrical controls for pipe valves, etc. are also vulnerable; the storage of spent nuclear fuel rods is largely underwater in pools on normal power plant sites. If the water is drained from those pools, the rods will heat up and again a melt down condition or very hazardous venting of radioactivity can ensue

Wiping out electronics & power grids – large electronic complexes such as switching and control systems, centralized control systems for power grids and substations, etc. are deadly vulnerable to scalar interferometry attack, by either long range or short range interferometers.

Targeting infrastructure
Chemical plants, refineries, fuel storage sites, tank farms, etc. are also deadly vulnerable to scalar interferometry, including portable attack.

Sinking tankers – liquid natural gas ships, oil tankers, etc. are also highly vulnerable to scalar interferometry attack.

Carole PellattA FINAL MESSAGE ABOUT ENERGY. Hello everyone, it’s been quite an intense week. A week of tug-of-war, push and pull, and battles of words. This message is about energy. How we direct our energy. And how we conserve it. Most of you who know of my work-music, photos, or research, know of my dedication to the discipline of constant reading, learning, and practicing. A large part of what I do is pass information along. I try to connect people with concepts.
I have sent my photo essays to literally hundreds of members of the press, city, state and federal officials. This is something we must continually be doing. Someone once asked me, “What’s the point of doing all this when nothing is really going change?”. That’s a legitimate question. The answer is, “I do it because I have to.” Victory is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing and speaking up against injustices.
This week Ray Stern decided to pick up one of my essays and write a post about it for everyone to see. Point number one is that he decided to say something about a subject which is very heated. Many of us didn’t like what he had to say and wished he would have thought otherwise. I kind of wish he would have been a little kinder in expressing his point of view, and used less antagonistic words, but we all have our own style. However, I think that would have made this more of a discussion or a dialogue than an argument-which goes nowhere. Nonetheless, I can’t name another reporter that picked up this story this week, and put it in the forefront.
Simply put, you can’t definitively prove aerosol spray programs exist in the “comments section” of a blog. Nor can you do it in one or two or three conversations. It takes years of research to understand the immense nature of geo-engineering, military technology, the facets of government that function independently from our public understanding, and then start to assemble minute pieces of the puzzle.
You have to be dedicated to the fact that something is wrong in order to spend vast amounts of time reading and studying 600 page reports with titles such as, “National Defense Authorization Act”, the Congressional Research Service paper on “High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse and High Power Microwave Devices”, “Title II Research Budget”, “Army Test Resources Master Plan”, “Microwave Symposium”, “Department of Defense/Management Issues Related to Chaff”, Naval War College reports; “Space Forces Support For the Joint Forces, Desert Storm, Who’s in Charge?”, “Progress In Space Acquisition”, “Program Acquisition Costs”,etc.
Most people don’t want to read obscure medical papers such as “Elevated Silver, Barium, and Strontium, in Antlers, Vegetation, and Soils Sourced From CWD Cluster Areas: Do Piezoelectric Crystals Represent the Transmissible Pathogenic Agent in TSE’s?” by Mark Purdey.
Then there’s scientific reports like, “Gravitobiology” by Lt. Col. T.E. Beardon, “H.A.A.R.P. Applications And Research” , “Science Board Task Force On Directed Energy Weapons”, “DARPA Statement”, “Viability of Directed Energy”, etc. There’s an endless list of geo-engineering reports; “Department Of Defense Weather Programs”, “Benign Weather Modification” from the Airforce School, “Decision Making In A Precipitation Management Program”, “Summer Runoff Increases by Weather Modification”, “Weather Modification-A Fire Control Tool”, “The Use Of Highly Charged Hygroscopic Drops For Fog Dispersal”, “The Airborne Seeding of Six Tornados”, “Airborne Jet Seeder Solution Burner”, “How Weather Engineering Will Ease The Energy Crises”, “Cloud Seeding From Space By High Altitude Rockets”, “How Silver Iodide Supresses Hail”, “Black Clouds and Silver Iodide: Public Safety and Weather Modification Law”, “The Weather Modification Research Program of NOAA”, “National Cloud Seeding Operation 1976-1977”, “(1980) NOAA’S New Trust In Weather Modification” and, “History of Planned Weather Modification Activities And Research At The Illinois State University 1947-1978”
This list represents a fraction of the reading involved in order to truly understand what is going on with the earth and how many seemingly unrelated phenomenon are connected. Call me old fashioned, I read books. I also have discussions with scientists of many disciplines from many countries. I may agree or disagree with them, but I engage them in long conversations in order to understand how they came to their conclusions. I also watch 3-5 University lectures a week from Universities all over the country on a variety of topics. There is information everywhere beyond mainstream. This is also why it takes years to put the big picture together. There is no quick fix.
One thing I don’t generally don’t do is get information from the internet. The internet was breached as a source of verifiable information a long time ago. Cutting and pasting, counterfeiting, recycling, rumors and accusations, mire the availability of indisputable facts. Scientific libraries have been pillaged, information and statistics have been altered and newbies who go to the internet for “research” have no idea what they are getting themselves into.
All this to refocus on our energy.
What happened this week was a good thing. We have seen that if you persist in expressing what you believe to be true, though 2000 people may ignore you, someone will eventually pay attention. And I have to say that during the long road of my research and activism, the universe has sent many carriers of information into my life. Some have carried my message further because they were in agreement, and other have disagreed.
I think we are living in a world of high stress and frustration and the internet offers a dubious medium for us to direct our daily frustrations at each other under the cover of anonymity. We do and say things to each other that we would never do if we were eye to eye. It’s like flipping someone off in your car.
To everyone who feels there’s something wrong in the sky-or anywhere else-let’s continue to make contact with the media. Let’s continue to write, to speak, to march, to photograph, to paint, to teach.
Ray Stern believes what he believes and it’s not up to me to twist his arm and “make” him see what I see. An apt expression is “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” ( I am in no way implying you are a horse, Ray). How much energy do we want to divert from research, activism, creativity and just plain living to stop and make a horse drink?
Thanks again Ray for making this subject a public forum and for taking the hits for disagreeing. Thank you everyone for your support. truly, carole

Dave MasonThis is Dave Mason from Southern California, and I was not going to respond to the BLOG…& the reason for not responding to Ray “The Debunker” Stern was that I succeeded in getting my message out. I WON RAY. and Carole, Thank you for the inspiration! I was painted one way – BUT, I know the truth of that conversation. Your Venom spewed, but I knew what I was dealing with. Thanks for telling my story and waking people up. The feedback has been so positive that WE are getting answers. And This is just the beginning… People, I hope our military is not spraying US — and that means you reading this. I truly hope that secret agents using jumbo jets to spray the whole world with toxins for some nefarious purpose is ludicrous…But the day I stop asking questions is the day I die. Got It. – And I will continue to fight for the planet. And WE will win! God Bless US all.

onedeepquite the biased, arrogant (and laughably incorrect)article. Big words for someone that is dead wrong, and CLEARLY has done zero research. Sounds like you’re out to just mock people instead of knowing the truth. I feel bad for people in such close minded, self absorbed bubbles. At any rate, I think the open minded intellectuals have owned you enough in here, so Ill leave it be…

DouglasMr. Stern, I recently read your feckless attempt at real journalism with your alleged Chemtrail rebuttal. I was one of the ones that commented, with documentation references, in the first round of blogs regarding your initial article. I’m really somewhat surprised at your rebuttal article, especially since there was so much good, credible, verifiable documentation to the contrary in the blogs based on your original article – even though you blindly claim there was not. In spite of your claims that there were no good documentation, you apparently also chose not to research any of them, shameful for someone that calls themselves a journalist. Moreover, I think you added to your incompetence and willful ignorance by adding that those of us that believe in the facts clearly supporting Creationism are just as guilty as those believing in the indisputable facts supporting chemtrails. To me, that’s a pretty shameful excuse for journalism. I thought that journalists were supposed to shed light on the truth, not be shills for those that would hide it or misrepresent it or in many cases, outright lie about it. Such is the case at hand. Because you failed to research the easily obtainable supporting documentation in the first article, I will provide verbatim excerpts of the October 2, 1992 Wall Street Journal article regarding the Elate Technologies’ weather modification project. I’d be glad to send you a copy of the article if you’d like. The article, authored by Adi Ignatius, was titled “Rain, Rain, Go Away, Go Soak Someone Less Willing to Pay; Moscow Firm Offers ‘Weather Made to Order’; Our Man Requests Three Days,” pages A1 and A11.  A small Russian company, Elate Technologies, Inc., using the “electrostatics” of an antenna array consisting of “dozens of aerials, each 25 feet tall, that discharged electrical energy upward to react with the ions of the air,” cleared a 200-mile radius during a drizzly day. The company promises “weather made to order” in the field of “weather extortion” and claims it can “fine-tune weather patterns over a 200-mile range. The company’s commercial director asked the author, “Do you remember that strong wind in Moscow two days ago? We created that.” This company was using HAARP technology that is referenced in another credibly documented article, authored by researcher Mark Farmer, in the September 1995 Popular Science, titled “Mystery in Alaska, The Secret Agenda of a Military Project in Alaska.” In this easily obtainable document,the author states that this technology can be used “heating regions of the lower and upper ionosphere” and for “manipulating local weather.” Pardon my digression away from the issue at hand – chemtrails – but I just wanted to educate you, since you chose not to inform yourself, on some easily obtainable documentation on the very-real fact of weather modification. I live a couple hours north of Phoenix but go there often. Often enough to view the readily recognizable chemtrails that are being intentionally sprayed in the skies and those that are harmless, quickly dissipating contrails. The same ones that I watched over the past several days, and am watching as I write this, from here up north. You folks that refuse to see them or the difference and then refuse to do even a modicum of research are willingly ignorant and that’s a real travesty. Sheeple. Mr. Stern, there’s really no excuse for your shoddy uninformed journalism. In my view, you are one of Communist Lenin’s “useful idiots.” Why don’t you get in touch with Mr. Ignatius or Mr. Farmer and discuss the finer points of educated, informed journalism. And those of us that know the truth will continue to spread it, taking up the slack for those of you that claim to be journalists, and for whatever reason refuse to see it or write about it. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

NikolaiWell, it’s pretty clear this lieporter Ray Stern is not going to open his eyes or tell us what is going on with the obvious chemtrails. But i have good news! At least your Government is now confessing they are spraying chemicals to prevent climate change! Remember, we have global warming going on. At least that is what they want us to believe: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/12/29/aerosols-climate-change.html?campaign=w01-101-ae-0003

Wake up america, Change is Coming, in your weather type namely. Please keep breathing… 😦

Ray SternNowhere in the discovery.com article you linked to states that “they are spraying chemicals” as you claim. That is an exaggeration on your part. The article is about scientists wondering whether sulphur should be sprayed in the air to counteract the greenhouse effect.

NikolaiAh yes, how ignorant of me. This article is not in the closest possible way related to this blog… An YES, you are totally right: The fact that scientists or the writer of the article on Discovery News are stating that putting chemicals in the air has never been tested before or any of the things they talk about, means that it HAS never happened before, because they tell us so right? Dream on man.

Neil ThompsonMy Camera and my Eyes don’t lie. I know that it takes 30,000 feet and crisp air to create a ‘Contrail’ that last any longer than 1 minute. 2 if you have IDEAL conditions. These are lower in altitude, below the jet stream and PERSISTENT. Call me delusional, call me a ranting maniac, but that will not change the facts.

NBCCheck out this news story from NBC. It says chemtrails are real and environmental groups have the proof. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz_oNMJXBc – 64k

infowars.comIt’s really funny that when anyone tries to debunk conspiracy theories they don’t use scientific facts. They resort to making fun of anyone that has these views ie.”i think the jet planes are playing tic tac toe” to these people i say go read some books and get informed, then make up your mind. go to infowars.com.  p.s. Hey, Ray Stern, Alex Jones would eat you for lunch

Donna B.Anytime I read “wake up people” and “scientific facts” and “prove it’s NOT happening” all about one subject, I know I’m hearing bunk. Thanks for the laughs and keep on believing!

HonestObserver“There’s another real problem lurking in jet exhaust: Carbon emissions, which the world’s top scientists say are leading to global warming.” I have a sneaking suspicion that one whacko theory has died, and another has taken it’s place. Yeee-ep… You see, that’s not how you kill dracula because that’s how FRANKENSTEIN is killed. Ergo, that vampire is not a vampire, it’s a zombie! “Oh you silly conspiracy theorists… it’s NOT heavy metals that they’re releasing… it’s CARBON! And you should be very worried about it, because those tiny, tiny trails are causing global climate disruption and killing the planet! Got it?!” For the record, I don’t subscribe to either the chemtrail or global warming crap. I’m a SANE person in this asylum of modern times!

Ray SternI never said the trails are “causing global climate disruption and killing the planet,” though scientists do say that the buildup of greenhouse gases is leading to global warming. Stick to the facts. We have to have a baseline of some sort, and that baseline is science. Without that, you’re just guessing. It’s intellectually unfair to compare something that is measurable in jet exhaust by the ton (carbon emissions) to something that isn’t measurable at all (the supposed chemicals in the chemtrails “theory.”)

Anonymous“I never said the trails are “causing global climate disruption and killing the planet,” though scientists do say that the buildup of greenhouse gases is leading to global warming.” Well, yes, they do, but that doesn’t make it a valid counter-argument against the conspiracy of chemtrails. Nor even particularly relevant, especially given that the uh… consensus… seems to have quite a bit of resistence these days. One might even say it’s falling apart at its hastily stitched together seams. That aside, though, there are other and imo better points you could have used that would have stuck with the argument at hand. You were doing great until that global warming point! So don’t get me wrong. I thought your article was illustrative and informative. And I apologize for my exaggerating your words over the irony I perceived. But that’s all it was… bad humor. Anyway, the irony is/was… “It’s intellectually unfair to compare something that is measurable in jet exhaust by the ton (carbon emissions) to something that isn’t measurable at all (the supposed chemicals in the chemtrails “theory.”)” Yes, my point exactly! lol  You used an unmeasured thing (human impacts on global warming) to disprove another unmeasured thing (poisonous chemtrails in jet planes ) as part of your argument against them. But the claims of those scientists are no more valid than the claims of the conspiracy camp, ie, both are just speculation even though some on each side believe them to be true. Rock can not beat rock in rock-paper-scissors 😉

BryanHi all, I have 2 main comments. First of all, often I find that truth lies somewhere in the middle. I suspect that this applies to ‘contrails’ as well. Trust is important, especially in this day and age where the worlds volatility and blatant corruptions seem to be continually expanding. We have got to get back to a higher level of trust in order for us to evolve and aim for a higher good. Corruption must be reduced and we are at a critical point already.

1. In investigating jetfuels I have recently learned that surfactants in JP-8 and other JP fuels includes ‘alumina’ which is aluminum oxide. This same type of surfactant also appears in a jetfuel additive sold by a company named International Fuel Technology Inc. Their surfactant which improves jetfuel and is touted as being clean/safe is actually a subsidiary of Alcoa-America’s largest Aluminum producer. IFT never calls their surfactant alumina, they have renamed it, in looking into their patent though it is mentioned that the surfactants are alumina precursors. This is not exactly a good example of the company being forthcoming, nor is it widely discussed (I haven’t seen it anyway) that JP-8 surfactants include aluminum oxide. It is said that aluminum is combusted fully but I am extremely skeptical that this is the case. If you watch the discovery program on ‘chemtrails’ it stuck out to me that the USAF declined giving over a sample of their fuel for testing. I think that likely aluminum would be found at a concentration higher than they would like for anyone to know about.
Supporting links;
The above link mentions alumina as a
constuent of JP-8 in a breakdown of surfactant ingredients.

2. Freedomfighter4theplanet mentioned the Voodoo1 aircraft that flew large looping circles around Southern Ca. on Nov. 20th 2008. I actually took pictures that day of the circular contrail as I haven’t seen too many round shaped contrails. He mentions that the experimental aircraft which is a heavily modified B727 is owned by Raytheon. I would like to point out that Raytheon is also closely connected to HAARP. This plane is officially for Avionics research which also relates to HAARP capabilities of long range communications. I am going to be researching as much as I can about how active the HAARP transmission was during this interesting flight test and am also going to be looking at the jetstream and other weather data for a few days after this flightpath and its pronounced contrail. On the 20th of November I witnessed and imaged many persisting contrails throughout the entire day. It was one of those days where the sky got continually more overcast due to contrails. I think both of my comments are worthy of further investigations and would urge those with time, interest and energy to also pursue them further.
One note, if you decide to post over at contrail science, please be decent to the moderator, he has his viewpoint and does not deserve any garbage language or flaming comments. He makes many exceptionally good points regardless of how your views may diverge.

HonestObserverBryan, I think your two points are good ones and investigating them further will shed more light on this matter. And I think it will probably result in a middle of the road explaination. One thing I would like to point though is that no one has provided any evidence that, even if there is total truth to the conspiracy, that there aren’t any/many (?) adversely-affected people to make the “theory” work. At least as far as I have been able to look into it, but I don’t have good reason to think that there are any/many. A sick/body count is needed and one has yet to turn up. While you’re probably correct that fuel/additives do in fact contain the alumminum (and/or other elements), we have to remember that they’re being dispersed from up high and over a wide area. So concentrations of them in fuel/additive alone aren’t going to prove anything. Anyway, you also made the point of having reason to be suspicious in today’s world. I whole-heartedly agree! The corruption however is entirely rooted in the global financial sector. It’s a world-wide phenomenon, actually, and not limited to the US (despite how much the media seems to speak mainly about the US). There are PLENTY of good reasons for people to distrust their government and be suspect of the… now how do those conspiracy theorists put it? The military/idustrial complex?… That has been adversly affected by the corruption in the monetary and financial system over the last century in general, more in the last 38 years and the last decade especially.
All of this is worth noting because the one man who ended the last of the gold standard 38 years was the same man to create the EPA: Richard Nixon. History has proven time and again that when a nation or nations drop a sound/er monetary policy, that chaos results and increases with time. I can’t prove it, but it makes sense to see that Nixon created the EPA in anticipation of an increasingly failing industrial society. With a government instutition is place, the government would be able to reap a fortune in environmental fines, laws, taxes, and expand the law to increasingly extort compliance out of the productive sector, even as the productive sector faces increasing failure. Lawyers would make a fortune, too. Nobody can argue that they haven’t, either!
It’s funny how the conspiracy theorists say that everything is kept under raps, hush-hush operations and all that, when the broader political spectrum is persecuting modern society and has been for some time now. It’s one of the most politcally correct things to do. Just look at the EU and England these days… they are so ban and tax happy on chemicals these days! And in the process, all manner of silly claims are put into the spotlight as relevent risk, while the real, significant risks building up in a bankrupting industrial society are ignored.
So I do not think the theorists are COMPLETELY out of their minds. They have their reasons to think what they do. But at the same time, there is a tragedy taking place… governments are able to get away with their crimes as people divert their attention elsewhere, into ever-increasing versions of half-truths and heresay evidence of them. Structural and financial decay and truly needed protective measures go more lax, and perhaps non-existent as the trivial becomes the serious and the serious the trivial.
Which is just downright scary. Every human society that had to endure a regressive dip did so in the wake of unsound monetary and fiscal policy. Today, there are more people than ever in the world, all dependent on the keeping risky ventures within the bounds of safety that knowledge and practice offers. Bad policy is erroding that away, and diverting resources to an attack/regulation on more benign set of “serious threats”.
So I ask all here to consider the broader spectrum, to quit screwing around with the leaves and branches and get to the root of the matter. While the time-bomb of unsound monetary and fiscal policy has already detonated (it has… nothing anyone can do about that now) the damage can be minimized, but only if we use our ability to be rational to as great effect as possible. Just remember, folks… a dark age was made out of such a collapse as we face today.

MadScience4Money$$$ :  This is Google’s cache of http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/soilradar.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Nov 12, 2008 19:18:34 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more Full version Chemtrails – spraying in our sky  “Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” Maple Leaf.  Spray Tankers Tracked by Radar, Lab Tests Raise Concerns By William Thomas Jan. 28, 2003 Last fall, a long-time landscaper working under contract for the City of Edmonton began noticing that carefully tended flowers and trees were showing signs of severe nutrient deficiencies. City specifications call for electrical conductivity (EC) readings no higher than “1” in local soils.  When soil samples showed damaging EC readings 4.6 to 7-times higher than this maximum permissible level, Dave Dickie suspected that elevated levels of electricity-conducting metals in the soils could be leading to the plants’ “chlorosis” condition.  A life-long plane spotter, Dickie also wondered if there could be a connection to events unfolding on ATC radar scopes during his regular visits to the Edmonton municipal airport’s Air Traffic Control center. Last Father’s Day, Dickie and an excited group of 12 year-olds watched two KC-135s, tagged “Petro 011” and “Petro 012”, flying at 34,000 and 36,000 feet south and north of Edmonton. According to the controllers watching the scopes, both U.S. Air Force KC-135 air-refueling tankers had flown south out of Alaska.  But the big Boeings were not refueling other aircraft.  Instead, as Dickie, the kids and the controllers watched, the four-engine jets began making patterns over Edmonton – “circuits” the controllers called it. The Stratotankers were working alone in “commanded airspace” from which all other aircraft were excluded. And they were leaving chemtrails.  TELLTALE SIGNATURES “The signature is significant” commented one radar operator, referring to trails clearly visible on his scope extending for miles behind the KC-135s.  In contrast, a commercial JAL flight on the same display left no visible trail. Going outside, Dickie and several controllers scanned clear blue skies over the northern Canadian city.  Visibility was outstanding.  They easily located a KC-135 leaving a lingering, broad white plume.  They could also clearly see the JAL airliner at a similar flight level. It left no contrail at all. On other occasions, Dickie has watched KC-135s on Edmonton radar leaving lingering trails as low as 18,000 feet. “We see these guys up here a lot,” radar techs told Dickie, explaining that the USAF tanker flights originate in Alaska and continue on into the States – after gridding the Edmonton area with emanations clearly visible on radar. “You should have seen it when they had the big summit up in Calgary,” the Canadian controllers exclaimed.  “It was exciting to watch them.”  The G7 maneuvers suggested that barium might have been sprayed to enhance radio and radar surveillance over what protesters condemned as a “globalization” conference aimed at worldwide corporate domination. That was speculation. But back in Edmonton, there was no doubt that particulates were being sprayed by the tankers.  Pointing to “birdie feet” on their scopes, the radar technicians showed Dickie particles appearing “as concentrations of dots” in the radar-tracked plumes. Zooming in and out on each plane with the click of cursor, Dickie said that he and the controllers “could see different contrails.”  Some were short, and quickly vanished from the scopes.  Other trails were thick, long and lingering – not acting like contrails at all. Especially exciting for Dickie and the kids was watching head-on passes between KC-135s and commercial airliners. Flying directly at each other with a closing rate of nearly 1,000 mph, the huge jets appeared about to collide. But the unconcerned controllers explained to Dickie that the aircraft must adhere to a minimum 1,000 foot vertical separation rule – recently reduced from twice that safety margin. No one explained what might happen, if the “top” plane suffered a sudden decompression and was forced to dive to lower altitude. BARIUM AND ALUMINUM CONFIRMED Assuming that unusual metal content in the soil could be causing the high electrical conductivity readings, Dickie collected samples of a fresh snowfall for the city, and took them to Edmonton’s NorWest Labs for analysis.
 This reporter has obtained copies of lab tests conducted on snow samples collected by the city of Edmonton, Alberta between Nov. 8 – 12, 2002.  The tests show unaccountably elevated levels of aluminum and barium.  Norwest Labs lab report #336566, dated Nov. 14 2002 found: aluminum levels: 0.148 milligrams/litre, barium levels:    0.006 milligrams/litre. Acting like the electrolyte in a car battery, barium chemtrails developed at Ohio’s Wright Patterson Air Force Base are routinely sprayed into the atmosphere to “duct” or bend military radio and radar waves over-the-horizon, instead of continuing straight beyond the Earth’s curvature into space.  “Wright Pat” is also closely connected to HAARP Experiments employing tightly focused, extremely high-energy radio frequency beams to alter the weather, disrupt communications and “X-ray” bunkers deep underground thousands of miles away the transmitter array in Gakon, Alaska. Aluminum stunts plant growth by sucking nutrients from the soil. Dave Dickie told me, “Our most recent snowfall was tested for aluminum and barium and we were not surprised with the results. You’ve said it all along and this just substantiates some of your claims.” But the soil expert cautioned that because the chemistry of unrefined aluminum oxide often found in the environment depends on soil acidity and the presence of other minerals, it is difficult to estimate “natural” background concentrations. Even so, NorWest Lab techs told Dickie that the elevated levels of aluminum and barium they were finding are not usually found in Alberta precipitation. Concerned city officials ordered more tests made on precipitation falling within a 40 mile radius of Edmonton.  A second series of lab tests has now confirmed high levels of barium and aluminum in snow Dickie thinks fell through chemtrails.  So far, he says, there is no other explanation for the high-levels of each chemical compound in city soils. Dickie says it’s so simple to test for aluminum and barium, labs typically charge $10 to $15 for this analysis.  He is adding quartz to the list of possible fallout components after tiny quartz particles dominated lab tests of rain falling through heavy chemtrails over Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999.  Levels of aluminum analyzed in the Ontario samples were up to seven-times higher than provincial permissible safety limits.  U.S. CONTROLLERS CONCERNED OVER CHEMTRAILS. South of the border, U.S. Air Traffic Controllers were also concerned over tanker-spread emissions.  Just after Christmas 2001, the Air Traffic Control manager for the northeastern seaboard became increasingly concerned that his young son’s illness – and episodes of Sudden Onset Acute Asthma suffered by his formerly allergy-free wife – could be linked with the increased aerial activity he was seeing on his scopes. On March 12, 2001, this source – who came to be called “Deep Sky” by this reporter and ABC-affiliated radio reporter S.T. Brendt – told Brendt that he and other controllers were being told to re-route commercial air traffic beneath formations of air force tankers.  Insisting that flight safety was not affected, he admitted during a follow-up interview at WMWV radio station that the KC-135s were spraying something that reflected radar pulses as a “haze” that degraded ATC radars. Brendt contacted the FAA official after counting more than 30 big jets within 45 minutes spreading persistent plumes over rural Maine.  Also alerted by Brendt, assistant WMWV news director Richard Dean and his staff counted 370 chemical trails criss-crossing his nearby location.  But Deep Sky told Brendt that of the nine commercial jets on his radars at the time, only one or two would have been visible from her location. Speaking on condition of strict anonymity, the ATC manager later expressed concern over the classified operations conducted by much larger military formations of KC-135 tankers between 37,000 and 40,000 feet. Many video-documented plume patterns grid skies away from charted airline routes on days when high altitude temperatures and humidity do not permit normal contrail formation.  Studies by Ralph Steadham of FAA – identified traffic over Houston found that while commercial condensation trails comprising momentarily flash-frozen water vapor typically disappear within 22 seconds or less, much broader, sunlight-reflecting jet trails left by military jets flying at the same time in the same airspace often lingered for four to eight hours. CANADIANS LODGE CHEMTRAILS COMPLAINTS. The previous December, 2000 Canadian aviation authority Terry Stewart investigating a Victoria caller’s complaint of intensive “chemtrail” activity over the British Columbia capitol left a taped message saying, “It’s a military exercise, U.S. and Canadian air force exercise that’s going on.  They wouldn’t give me any specifics on it…very odd.” Despite denials from a Canadian commander at Comox Air Base that the American tanker flights were taking place, Stewart later admitted to the Vancouver Courier that his information came directly from the Comox base.  He was later stopped and interrogated by U.S. authorities while crossing the border on a routine visit. Before ever hearing of “chemtrails”, Canadians were the first to formerly complain to their federal government over what they identified as chemical spraying.  In November 1999, an Opposition Defence Critic presented a petition to Parliament signed by 550 residents of Espanola, Ontario.  The largely native community demanded an explanation and an end to aerial spraying by photo-identified USAF tankers, which they claimed was sickening children and adults over a 55 square mile area. Laboratory tests of rainwater falling through the sky plumes being paid in X’s and grid patterns over Espanola found levels of aluminum seven-times higher than federal health safety limits.  The U.S. Air Force denied flying over Espanola.  The Canadian Forces, which do not operate large squadrons of aerial tankers, eventually responded, saying, “It’s not us.” DEEP SKIES II
But in late December 2001, just three months after the traumatic events of Sept. 11 left air force tankers gridding skies emptied of commercial aircraft, an increasingly worried “Deep Sky” began calling his colleagues at FAA flight centers across the United States to ask them if they were seeing what he was seeing on his own radar scopes. They were. Controllers at Chicago’s O’Hare (still the busiest airport in America), all three New York City area airports, LA’s LAX, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Cleveland, San Diego, Dulles, Washington DC and the nation’s biggest airport in Atlanta all reported tracking unusual formations of particle-emitting Air Force tankers on their scopes.  So were controllers at smaller municipal airports. Every controller contacted by Deep Sky said they were being told to divert commercial traffic below formations of tankers flying strange patterns they were told were “routine”. But instead of enhancing radar coverage, initial explanations from their superiors warned controllers that unspecified “experiments with radar” could degrade their own displays.  The controllers confirmed to Deep Sky that they had never seen so much “clutter” or artificial “cloudiness” obscuring their radars. By then, a growing number of informally networked Air Traffic Controllers were aware of the “chemtrails” controversy.  Some cited the short-lived House Resolution 2977 sponsored by Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, which sought to ban space warfare and other exotic weapons, including “chemtrails”. But concerned controllers across America told S.T. Brendt that whatever was going on, flight safety was a consideration.  Even more worrisome was the fallout they were seeing on their scopes.  They knew from their professional studies in meteorology, that “this stuff falls to the ground.”  And they wondered about what they termed, potential health hazards. As federal employees, the FAA radar operators were afraid to come forward with their concerns.  But at least one controller working in America’s heartland visited a local hospital after heavy tanker activity – to find the emergency room jammed with acute respiratory cases. “They want to know what the heck is in there,” Brendt reported.  “One of them said – al or barium – that’s not something you want to be breathing.” [Al is the chemical abbreviation for aluminum.] Corroborating Deep Sky’s allegations, controllers across the USA confirmed that the word “climate” is still being mentioned by their superiors in explaining the ongoing aerial experiments.  At the time of Brendt’s follow-up interviews, at least six Air Traffic Controllers were told that the air force tankers were engaged in “climate experiments”. In 1998, H-Bomb inventor Edward Teller urged the spraying of 10 million tons of sunlight-reflecting aluminum oxide in the atmosphere to deflect a small percentage of incoming sunlight and avert catastrophic global warming.  A patent issued to the Hughes aerospace giant calls for mixing 10 micron particulates of aluminum oxide and other sunlight-scattering into jet fuel for dispersal at cruising altitudes. After studies in the U.S. and U.K. showed that random concentrations of air pollution can cause lethal lung and heart problems, the United States EPA now classifies 10 micron air pollutants as an “Extreme Health Hazard”. (A human hair is 100 microns in diameter.) As reports continue to come in of renewed heavy chemtrail activity across the USA and Canada’s western provinces, lab testing continues in Edmonton, where an ongoing investigation seeks to correlate chemtrail “spray days” with fresh snow and soil samples. This article is used here with permission.  William Thomas is the author of “Chemtrails Confirmed”.  This account of his four-year investigation into chemtrails was last updated in Jan. 2003.  Contact William Thomas:
willthomas@telus.net or Will Thomas. You are invited to contact us at the “Holmestead”.

QRMWhat’s really lame is that the reporter who wrote this article does not appear to have actually observed the phenomenon. A canister that “collects particles in the air to determine their effect on climate change”? Yeah, right. How many aircraft have one of those? On a day when weather only supports pencil-thin, evaporative contrails, if any at all, the sky gets filled with long-lasting parallel and crosshatch patterns of puff emitted from the wings of large aircraft that carry no logo. It makes your jaw drop open to see it. Giant Xs in the sky are in no way ordinary aircraft activity. And it can make you sneeze and hack almost without end, to the point you really start thinking about 1) remaining vertical and 2) whether you’ll need the emergency room.

RogerI realise I am wasting my time, because True Believers always find a way to ignore any counter-arguments, but I just feel compelled to respond to some of the obviously only half-informed comments that some posters have made (mm, that tar baby sure looks sticky….)

1. Yes experiments have been done to to increase ion concentrations in the atmosphere in order to extend the range of radio communications or radar signals in an emergency. However, for several very simple reasons, these experiments are certainly totally unrelated to the chemtrails hypothesis. Firstly, such experiments are conducted in the ionosphere, which is an extremely high altitude region of the atmosphere, a near vacuum “on the edge of space”, because at higher atmospheric pressures the ions would recombine too quickly. The air is so thin at these extreme altitudes that aircraft cannot fly there; experiments are conducted by sounding rockets, not by airplanes. It is so high, that you would not be able to see an aircraft even with binoculars anyway. Secondly, because of the extremely low atmospheric density at these altitudes, the amount of material required to create an “ion cloud” is tiny: generally only a couple of pounds. It is also pointless to create an ion cloud if you have an aircraft in the area: the aircraft is itself a far better radio relay than an ion cloud. Finally, I re-emphasise that all this *only* works in near vacuum conditions; at the altitudes at which aircraft fly, these compounds are less visible on radar than ordinary water droplets (which do, in fact, show up pretty well on an appropriately tuned radar.)

2. There is no evidence that aluminium compounds cause any diseases except possibly at very high concentrations. In fact, it is believed to be one of the least toxic of all elements. True, back in the 1990s there was a preliminary study which suggested a link to Alzheimer’s disease — and was immediately widely reported in the press, despite being unconfirmed — but all followup studies have found no such link. The fact is, the idea is so implausible it probably should never have been published. The reason that it is implausible is that aluminium is the third most common element on Earth, after silicon and oxygen, and is absolutely ubiquitous: you cannot avoid coming into frequent contact with large amounts of aluminium compounds. So if aluminium really does cause disease, it will be very upsetting to both Darwinists and to Creationists. The Darwinists will be upset because it will show that either humanity does not come from Earth, or else evolution does not work. The Creationists will be upset because it will prove that if Man is a result of intelligent design, then it is a malicious intelligence which designed for pain; the world created by an evil demiurge. But we don’t need to worry about converting to Gnosticism, because aluminium does NOT cause disease, except possibly at extremely high concentrations that are not found in nature.

3. Aluminium compounds and quartz are common ingredients of dust. Barium compounds are not as common, but are not rare, either. Finding them “falling out” from the atmosphere indicates nothing but that some neighbour has had a bit of wind lately.

4. Whether or not an aircraft generates visible condensation trails does not depend on the weather on the ground, it depends on the weather tens of thousands of feet up in the sky (notably, low temperature, high relative humidity and low wind turbulence.) It also depends on the tuning and particular fuel type of the aircraft. The KC-135 is a very elderly plane and the ones that have not been rebuilt have much less efficient engines than modern aircraft. Among other features, the elderly J-57 engine has a water injection system, which improves thrust efficiency — and also increases the formation of condensation trails.

5. It is practically impossible to tell by unaided ground observation if two airplanes are at the same altitude.

6. There are many perfectly innocent reasons why an aircraft might fly around in circles for a while — as a student pilot myself, I can attest to that! However, it is completely illogical that a plane would fly around in circles if it was trying to spread some chemical around.

7. Voodoo1 is the test plane for new Raytheon radars. This is not secret (even if the exact design of the radars is!), and publicly available photos of it clearly show its special chin mount for the radar antenna, and no spraying gear.

8. Alumina (aluminium oxide) is an abrasive and it is the last thing you would want in your fuel system as it would quickly destroy the fuel pumps. By an “aluminium based surfactant” they probably mean an organic acid salt (soap) of aluminium. These are indeed widely used as lubricants and greases, including in common automotive products. If an aluminium grease was used in jet fuel, the high temperature combustion would certainly convert it to aluminium oxide in the exhaust. However — so what? Aluminium oxide has very low toxicity and is widely found in nature already.

9. “…levels of aluminum seven-times higher than federal health safety limits …” is nonsense; there is no Federal health safety limit for aluminium in drinking water (because it is non-toxic.) There is a non-binding “secondary standard” guideline for aluminium levels, but it is based only on aesthetic considerations (i.e., taste.)

10. I could go on and on but you guys never pause for breath and I have work to do …

Er, thanks, Roger, for saving me some time. What a load of pseudoscience, garbage, and astroturf THAT was! 🙂


(conversation with the Bard)


Not true when you do the FUEL ACCOUNTING. 300,000,000 tons. Civil bit 250,000,000 tons. Out of the remaining 50,000,000 you have to take out ALL ARMED FORCES REGULAR OPERATIONS AND THE IRAQ WAR. What’s left is INSUFFICIENT FOR A WORLD-WIDE CAMPAIGN.

Doing the US alone won’t do ANYTHING: the US is <2% of the area of the Earth.

That <2% would require 170,000 tons of Barium Oxide for A SINGLE SHOT. That would require 4250 flights. The Aluminium/Barium is BRILLIANT WHITE and splashes of it would be EVERYWHERE – but nothing is seen. SILVER can be ruled out – the US flogged off its stockpile to pay a small proportion of its vast debt.

Of course there will be photographs of nozzles and sprayers. The US used spraying in several war campaigns. Perhaps there’s only the ONE array of each type. Doesn’t PROVE a THING. THERE IS NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.

Hazardous materials would put workers’ families at risk, and there has been NO SIGN of that.

Nobody has sampled a “chemtrail”, or gotten inside a base to a store, raced around taking pictures of airstrips, planes. Nothing.

I grew up inside airbases, and later tested jet engines. Bases AREN’T SECURE (in peacetime), and jet engines DON’T WORK if they are forced to emit anything other than SODA POP from their exhausts.

Not only that, but what about all this hypocrisy and deceit? What about the COMPLETE level of ignorance? One site (it has blocked me) stoutly maintains that the PLANE THAT BRINGS MY MOTHER HERE (Monarch Airbus A-330 passenger plane service from Manchester) is a CHEMTRAIL SPRAYER!

Look again at my final point. The US economy is going to COLLAPSE within FIVE YEARS, by which time it will have NO REMAINING WAY OF PROVING ITS ABILITY TO REPAY ITS DEBTS. NO-ONE is going to cough up – especially NOT CHINA OR RUSSIA. And not Britain either.

When that shit hits the fan all HELL will break loose. This INFORMATIONAL GARBAGE will exacerbate that moment.